Arrested in Courthouse

[nemo]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Loudon County court house has lockers for public use, I discovered them asI was leaving.

The one in Leesburg? They do? Where?

 

[Slowhand]

imported post

nemo wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Loudon County court house has lockers for public use, I discovered them asI was leaving.

The one in Leesburg? They do? Where?

The question is, would they allow you to lock up a weapon? I wouldn't want to be the first to try.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Loudon County court house has lockers for public use.

The one in Leesburg? They do? Where?

would they allow you to lock up a weapon?

if i remember correctly
when you enter the building make a left , then another (short) left they are in the left corner against the wall
when you exit the building they are directly in front of the Metal Detector on the other side of the Double doors against the wall inthe leftcorner
They are coin operated.

the officer told me, prohibited items could be secured there he didn't go in to details

:idea:you could call and ask (they might give you a straight answer :?and they can't arrest you for a posing a question).
I'llask if I have to make a return tripbutI don't plan on that happening

 

[xd.40]

imported post

When I worked at a law firm in Fairfax across from the courthouse, I used to empty everything from my pockets. Everything, including my belt, wallet and cell phone went into my desk drawer. I would only be in the building for 2 minutes filing paper work, but I wasn't going to take the chance of calling the office to have one of the attorneys come and help me out

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

Mark Sharpe is very good and knows the system well in Fairfax.
http://www.lawyers.com/Virginia/Fairfax/Mark-E.-Sharp-4696254-a.html

Also, VCDL has advice:
http://www.hkshooter.net/lawyers/

 

[Repeater]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Anyone with experience in criminal law in Virginia may know this, but...is a "purposely" or "knowingly" mens rea implied for crimes in Virginia?

"In the final analysis, the issue whether mens rea or scienter is a necessary element in the indictment and proof of a particular crime becomes a question of legislative intent to be construed by the court. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 251-52 (1922)....Thus, to insert a mens rea element into the offense, and to require proof thereof, would defeat the statutory purpose, which is to criminalize the introduction of firearms into a school environment. So we will not add, by implication, language to the statute that the legislature expressly has chosen not to include. Consequently, we hold that the trial court correctly decided, in refusing the instruction in question, that this statute is one of strict criminal liability, and that the Commonwealth was required to prove only that the defendant had possessed, on school property, a firearm of the type described in the statute." Esteban v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 605, 607, 587. S.E.2d 523, 525 (2003)

This case was handled by Richard Gardiner.

Michelle Malkin wrote about Deena.

This overzealous gun-control policy has also robbed Mrs. Esteban of her privacy and personal dignity. She cannot travel out of state without permission. Her DNA is registered in a state database. And the police released her home address, phone number and mug shot to the media. Mrs. Esteban's husband, Philip, now works two jobs to support the family and help cover their legal bills. He believes this was "clearly a political prosecution ... It's bizarre beyond comprehension that you can be convicted of merely possessing something that's constitutionally protected."

 

[Slowhand]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Virginiaplanter wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Anyone with experience in criminal law in Virginia may know this, but...is a "purposely" or "knowingly" mens rea implied for crimes in Virginia?

"In the final analysis, the issue whether mens rea or scienter is a necessary element in the indictment and proof of a particular crime becomes a question of legislative intent to be construed by the court. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 251-52 (1922)....Thus, to insert a mens rea element into the offense, and to require proof thereof, would defeat the statutory purpose, which is to criminalize the introduction of firearms into a school environment. So we will not add, by implication, language to the statute that the legislature expressly has chosen not to include. Consequently, we hold that the trial court correctly decided, in refusing the instruction in question, that this statute is one of strict criminal liability, and that the Commonwealth was required to prove only that the defendant had possessed, on school property, a firearm of the type described in the statute." Esteban v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 605, 607, 587. S.E.2d 523, 525 (2003)

This case was handled by Richard Gardiner.

Michelle Malkin wrote about Deena.

This overzealous gun-control policy has also robbed Mrs. Esteban of her privacy and personal dignity. She cannot travel out of state without permission. Her DNA is registered in a state database. And the police released her home address, phone number and mug shot to the media. Mrs. Esteban's husband, Philip, now works two jobs to support the family and help cover their legal bills. He believes this was "clearly a political prosecution ... It's bizarre beyond comprehension that you can be convicted of merely possessing something that's constitutionally protected."

I love reading Michelle Malkin. Mike Adams is another good pro-gun columnist.

Dyslexic Student Expelled Over Toy Gnu.

http://www.dailyredundancy.com/archives/1055.html

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

This is what I don't understand about LEO's (and prosecutors) nowadays. They let absolutely NOTHING slide. It's absurd. The law wasn't designed to punish people who forget they have a magazine in their jacket pocket.

I've carried a knife into a courthouse foyer because I came in right after hunting (damn early-morning traffic court). Granted, this courthouse had you empty your pockets and walk through a metal detector before going into the courtroom and area with the clerks. All the guard did was ask me to go put it back in my car. And it was a rural area courthouse over near my parent's place, so I'm sure hunting knife incidents happened frequently.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

This is what I don't understand about LEO's (and prosecutors) nowadays. They let absolutely NOTHING slide. It's absurd. The law wasn't designed to punish people who forget they have a magazine in their jacket pocket.

I've carried a knife into a courthouse foyer because I came in right after hunting (damn early-morning traffic court). Granted, this courthouse had you empty your pockets and walk through a metal detector before going into the courtroom and area with the clerks. All the guard did was ask me to go put it back in my car. And it was a rural area courthouse over near my parent's place, so I'm sure hunting knife incidents happened frequently.

Where do we draw the line?

If you did something and it was accidental... should you get away with it? Since you did violate the law but did not really mean to....should you not be charged?

Officer... This is a new car. I had no idea I was going70 in a 55. Since I did not mean to do it.. you should not write me a ticket.

Officer... I did not mean to shoot the child in the head. I truly believed the gun was empty when I pulled the trigger. You should not charge me for his death.

It would be so easy to get out of any charge if I just play dumb and say "I never meant to do it." Maybe some other guy was able to get a gun in and you were taking in the bullets for him. Piece by piece.... so you could kill someone in the courthouse.

When notices are posted all over the place that say no weapons, ammo, knives, ect... you cannot say you did not know. Granted... I think it was an honest mistake. But he did violate the law.

The law makers did not write in a clause that states that this section shall not apply to those that make an honest mistake. You cannot expect to get a free pass.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

You can hope though, right?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

You can hope though, right?

Have I let people go? Ya... I understand people make mistakes and had no intent.

Even in traffic accidents.... If it was totally unintentional... I will probably let you go. I charge those that did something dumb to cause it to happen.

But I have been around a while. Younger officers will write everyone. That is just how it goes.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

You can hope though, right?

Have I let people go? Ya... I understand people make mistakes and had no intent.

Even in traffic accidents.... If it was totally unintentional... I will probably let you go. I charge those that did something dumb to cause it to happen.

But I have been around a while. Younger officers will write everyone. That is just how it goes.

Same thing I did while an MP - sometimes you can tell it was a mistake, and you can just let them know what they did, and some people will get it - like in this case, others however, will not. That's when they get the ticket or arrested...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

Same thing I did while an MP - sometimes you can tell it was a mistake, and you can just let them know what they did, and some people will get it - like in this case, others however, will not. That's when they get the ticket or arrested...

Yup.... Once you have done the job a while.. you can read people and situations better.

When you first start.. everyone gets charged. As time go by and you gain more experience... only then do you learn discretion and let people go.

So in this case... I suspect a younger officer responded and did exactly what he was required to do.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

Letter of the law vs. Spirit of the law...

 

[peter nap]

imported post

OK....I get to swap sides again. For those that say the officer should have cut him some slack and sent him back to the car (and I happen to agree).... then I have to ask you WHY you feel the officer should ignore a standing zero tolerance policy for the same people that stand on the letter of the law and REFUSE to show ID.

Cooperation works both ways.

The cop is legally right in arresting someone who mistakenly takes a little ammo in the courthouse.

Citizen is legally right in refusing to show ID.

A little middle ground on both sides would make a lot easier world to live in.:banghead:

 

[xd.40]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

OK....I get to swap sides again. For those that say the officer should have cut him some slack and sent him back to the car (and I happen to agree).... then I have to ask you WHY you feel the officer should ignore a standing zero tolerance policy for the same people that stand on the letter of the law and REFUSE to show ID.

Cooperation works both ways.

The cop is legally right in arresting someone who mistakenly takes a little ammo in the courthouse.

Citizen is legally right in refusing to show ID.

A little middle ground on both sides would make a lot easier world to live in.:banghead:

My parents always told me "Life isn't fair" :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

Letter of the law vs. Spirit of the law...

I agree... but you cannot expect young cops new to the job to be able to comprehend the spirit on their own so fast.They have no training or guidance to follow on what the true spirit is so the safe way out is to charge people and let the court decide.

In reality.. the Judges will hear the case and decide.

 

[ilikeglocks]

imported post

My guess is that with a decent lawyer the OP will be fine. I think due to the fact that the OP had no intent, and I assume has not gotten into trouble like this in the past that they would be lenient. The one time I had a miniscule encounter with law enforcement (non-gun related), the judge showed extreme leniency in not prosecuting the case even though I was clearly in the wrong. This is one of the few cases that I can understand both the OC'er and the officer, even though the officer may have gone a little overboard (even though the OP was technically breaking the letter of the law.)

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

OK....I get to swap sides again. For those that say the officer should have cut him some slack and sent him back to the car (and I happen to agree).... then I have to ask you WHY you feel the officer should ignore a standing zero tolerance policy for the same people that stand on the letter of the law and REFUSE to show ID.

Cooperation works both ways.

The cop is legally right in arresting someone who mistakenly takes a little ammo in the courthouse.

Citizen is legally right in refusing to show ID.

A little middle ground on both sides would make a lot easier world to live in.:banghead:

It comes down to this....

The people want to have their cake and eat it too.

We have rules that we must follow.

If a cop mistakenly breaks a rule (Did not know OC was allowed)... FIRE him!! If a citizen breaks a rule (Ammo inthe court house).. let him go since it was an honest mistake.

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

This is what I don't understand about LEO's (and prosecutors) nowadays. They let absolutely NOTHING slide. It's absurd. The law wasn't designed to punish people who forget they have a magazine in their jacket pocket.

I've carried a knife into a courthouse foyer because I came in right after hunting (damn early-morning traffic court). Granted, this courthouse had you empty your pockets and walk through a metal detector before going into the courtroom and area with the clerks. All the guard did was ask me to go put it back in my car. And it was a rural area courthouse over near my parent's place, so I'm sure hunting knife incidents happened frequently.

Where do we draw the line?

If you did something and it was accidental... should you get away with it?  Since you did violate the law but did not really mean to.... should you not be charged?

Officer... This is a new car. I had no idea I was going 70 in a 55. Since I did not mean to do it.. you should not write me a ticket.

Officer... I did not mean to shoot the child in the head. I truly believed the gun was empty when I pulled the trigger. You should not charge me for his death.

It would be so easy to get out of any charge if I just play dumb and say "I never meant to do it." Maybe some other guy was able to get a gun in and you were taking in the bullets for him. Piece by piece.... so you could kill someone in the courthouse.

When notices are posted all over the place that say no weapons, ammo, knives, ect...  you cannot say you did not know. Granted... I think it was an honest mistake. But he did violate the law.

The law makers did not write in a clause that states that this section shall not apply to those that make an honest mistake. You cannot expect to get a free pass.

You do a quick analysis of the effect of the crime being commited on the present populace in A) the immediate location, B) the nearby local surroundings, and C) the entire nation.

If the effect of the crime being committed has no negative bearing on the lives of anyone in A, B, or C, you let it slide.

Example 1: Someone is speeding 85 in a 65 at 3am on I-495 with no one else on the road. His crime definitely isn't going to have negative bearing for sections B and C. You then look at the effect of the crime for the location immediately near the suspected criminal. It could result in a wreck if there were lots of cars on the road. But there aren't. The faster the person is going the more likely you as an officer will deem he falls into section A and you'll pull him over and write a ticket.

Now apply this line of thinking to the OP's situation and you'll see that he could potentially fall in section A, if he was acting suspicious. But he wasn't and his presence was legitimate.