How to Request a Public Defender

[free9man]

1. There was an investigation. It began as the BB gun. It then became an investigation into the muzzleloader.

2. If they were not aware you had it, or had bigger fish to fry, yes they may possibly wait months to get around to you.

3. Again, provide the backing case law or statute. I have never heard of such a restriction. The allowance for police deception is usually very broad and I don't see anything wrong with anything done here. There were no apparent lies told. Perhaps deception if the officer used the BB gun as a pretext for making contact but even then, not what a court is likely to consider illegal deception.

[PayrolGuy]

1).
3). In regards to deception it is only done legally after arrests/detainments are made or during interrigations which didn’t occur in this case, two weeks after obtaining the gun they return with an arrest warrant but didn’t arrest me. The officer with the detective had his body cam on, however the detective who arrived the first time had no red light on his body cam usually indicating its inactive so it’ll be pretty easy given the timeline to fit my version of events.

Do you have a legal cite to support that statement?

[Hemispheres]

There’s no investigation period. Investigatons are made when a crime has been committed. Spray painting a B.B. gun is not illegal on the federal or state level. The only regulations are applied to manufacturers of toy and airsoft guns that don’t operate in a manner similar to firearms. You can paint over the orange tip as long as you aren’t committing a crime with it. Bottom line is if there was an investigation I would’ve been hit with two charges. The violent crimes unit wouldn’t become involved unless I shot somebody which I’m not being charged with either.

In regards to deceptive practices, it’s no law but a thin red line courts expect police not to cross in order to have a higher chance of making it to trial and winning.

It’s the bottom line, much as police cannot lie to get dna from your person, they cannot lie to coerce you into a consent to search.

[PayrolGuy]

In regards to deceptive practices, it’s no law but a thin red line courts expect police not to cross in order to have a higher chance of making it to trial and winning.

It’s the bottom line, much as police cannot lie to get dna from your person,

Then you should have no problem citing such court decisions.

[free9man]

There’s no investigation period.

Yes, there is. It was an investigation into your possession of the muzzleloader.

The violent crimes unit wouldn’t become involved unless I shot somebody which I’m not being charged with either.

Um, there is no rule that says they can't investigate things that aren't violent crimes.

In regards to deceptive practices, it’s no law but a thin red line courts expect police not to cross in order to have a higher chance of making it to trial and winning.

So you admit you cannot back up your claims. Got it. Could a court side with you on this? Yes. Will they? I would say the odds are 95-5 and not in your favor.

It’s the bottom line, much as police cannot lie to get dna from your person, they cannot lie to coerce you into a consent to search.

They can deceive you to get your DNA. The old "ya want something to drink/eat" trick.

They DID NOT lie to you. Even if they did, they didn't coerce you into consenting to a search.

[Hemispheres]

Um no they weren’t. If they knew I’m in possession of one its as simple as get a warrant.

Google deceptive police practices and you’ll see the only legal ones are during investigations EXCLUDING COERCION.

The example online was two ATF agents knocking on a mans door who was suspected of firearms trafficking. They said they received a report that there may be explosives in his apartment. They mentioned it’s standard procedure to just show up and ensure all is ok, then get his permission to search. Dispite having evidence of his activities it was thrown out due to the manner they gained entry and permission. Then there’s subjective consent and the form I signed. If it’s the form I now suspect I signed after reading about yet another similar case then it’s going to get tossed out or I’ll be found NG due to lack/suppression of evidence.

[PayrolGuy]

Since you seem incapable of doing so I followed your command and found this which counters your statement.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged, "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." (Sorrells v. U.S.) "Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available." (U.S. v. Russell)

[Hemispheres]

ACLU search and siezure handbook page 21 third paragraph.

https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs...ld%20Guide.pdf

4th amendment guide:

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...enn_law_review

Bottom line is I didn’t know it was illegal, officer used deceptive means and cited the wrong law section (Read the subsection regarding rifles instead of antique weapons; his rationale being solely focused on definition instead of restrictions regarding possession) and may have lied to me regarding the form I signed. That last part will be figured out once the PD gets the subsequent paperwork.

[free9man]

ACLU search and siezure handbook page 21 third paragraph.

https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs...ld%20Guide.pdf

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. First, it's about Oregon. Second, the third paragraph (depending on how you count it) talks about exigency.

[Hemispheres]

It’s based the us constitution, some excerpts are from Oregon law likely due to being written by the Oregon ACLU.