NYC cops sent NAVY Seal to Psych ward for guns & saying "I'm a Seal"

[revelarts]

NYC Police Throw Navy SEAL Into Psych Ward for Claiming…He’s a SEAL
A Virginia man claimed (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/arrested_guy_the_real_seal_zltbTtNkgqINfp4pstK98O) to be a Navy SEAL to talk his way out of a gun possession arrest on Thursday, and the New York Police Department committed him to a psych ward thinking his claims of elite military status were the rantings of a lunatic.

Turns out the guy was in fact an elite Navy SEAL.
But as the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/arrested_guy_the_real_seal_zltbTtNkgqINfp4pstK98O? CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=) put it, telling the NYPD “I’m in an elite military unit, you can’t arrest me,” doesn‘t help much when the city’s draconian gun laws are at issue.
Twenty-nine-year-old Shaun Day was on a leave from his duty as a Navy SEAL duty when cops nailed him for running a red light in Manhattan, New York on Thursday.
NYPD officers searched Day’s pickup truck and found a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and three magazines full of ammo.
During the arrest, police claim Day was babbling incoherently and repeatedly claimed that he was an elite Navy SEAL with “top- secret clearance,” but was unable to provide any documentation for police.
After getting shipped off to the psych ward, sources told The Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/arrested_guy_the_real_seal_zltbTtNkgqINfp4pstK98O) the Navy sent staffers to talk to Day in Bellevue Hospital, where he was undergoing a psychiatric evaluation. According to Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/2012/01/22/nypd_commits_navy_seal_for_claiming.php):

“He was released [Friday] in their care, and they were going to treat him for post-traumatic stress. All charges against Day have been deferred, and it’s unclear how he was able to prove his status.”
So far, the charges against Day of weapons possession and a traffic violation have been deferred.
Over the past few months, other out-of-towners (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-nyc-tourist-arrested-on-gun-charges-despite-having-permit/), however, including a former marine (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/marines-rallying-around-former-pfc-arrested-for-trying-to-check-gun-at-empire-state-building/), have been arrested for illegal gun possession in New York and face years in prison despite pleas for leniency (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/states-fights-tn-vows-payback-on-new-yorkers-after-911-memorial-gun-arrest/).




http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nyc-police-throw-navy-seal-into-psych-ward-for-claiming-hes-a-seal/


the NYC gun laws are whats crazy. But the Psych ward for saying your a Seal?

[CSM]

How ironic. Some guy gets to run around pretending to be a Medal of Honor winner and the libs protect him like he's some kind of icon. A real Navy SEAL shows up and they throw him in the psych ward.

[Jess]

Interesting that he "couldn't provide documentation of his top-secret clearance".

Really? Do cops there believe that anyone with top-secret clearance carries around some sort of card or files with that stamped on it? Just ... WOW. Somebody's watched too many movies.

The caveat is that anybody found to be conducting themselves in an illegal fashion CAN be arrested. If he did say they couldn't arrest him because of his profession, that's not gonna work really well. The psych ward is a bit much though. Surely he could have given them or they could have checked to find a superior officer to validate him. I dunno.

[CSM]

Interesting that he "couldn't provide documentation of his top-secret clearance".

Really? Do cops there believe that anyone with top-secret clearance carries around some sort of card or files with that stamped on it? Just ... WOW. Somebody's watched too many movies.

The caveat is that anybody found to be conducting themselves in an illegal fashion CAN be arrested. If he did say they couldn't arrest him because of his profession, that's not gonna work really well. The psych ward is a bit much though. Surely he could have given them or they could have checked to find a superior officer to validate him. I dunno.


There is something suspicious about this story. All military personnel carry an ID card. NO military personnel carries proof of a top secret clearance. Being a SEAL does not imply you cannot be arrested for criminal activity, but it does not mean you belong in a psych ward either (despite what some posters think).

[cadet]

Honestly, cut the guys some slack, so he forgot he had guns in his car. Wasn't there a time when you could go to school with your shotgun in your truck cause you were gonna go out hunting?

It's not like he tried to hide them or anything, the police almost make it sound like he was waving the gun and screaming.

Now, i'm sorry, but the guy's job entails protecting and fighting. I'd rather have him carry around a gun then the cops. (personally think the vast majority of cops are corrupt, all looking for glory and whatnot, more of a hindrance to society then a help)

[Gunny]

Interesting that he "couldn't provide documentation of his top-secret clearance".

Really? Do cops there believe that anyone with top-secret clearance carries around some sort of card or files with that stamped on it? Just ... WOW. Somebody's watched too many movies.

The caveat is that anybody found to be conducting themselves in an illegal fashion CAN be arrested. If he did say they couldn't arrest him because of his profession, that's not gonna work really well. The psych ward is a bit much though. Surely he could have given them or they could have checked to find a superior officer to validate him. I dunno.

I can assure you there is no "proof" for a security clearance.

The first problem here is regardless who he was and or what he did in the military, he is subject to stupid civilian laws when no acting on behalf of the military with documentation to support him, and/or training on a military operation.

Second problem is, NYC is Hell on Earth, NYPD cops are as stupid and corrupt as it gets, and the gun laws are as stupid as the lefties that wrote them.

I'm curious to know by what right they searched his vehicle for running a red light.

[CSM]

Honestly, cut the guys some slack, so he forgot he had guns in his car. Wasn't there a time when you could go to school with your shotgun in your truck cause you were gonna go out hunting?

It's not like he tried to hide them or anything, the police almost make it sound like he was waving the gun and screaming.

Now, i'm sorry, but the guy's job entails protecting and fighting. I'd rather have him carry around a gun then the cops. (personally think the vast majority of cops are corrupt, all looking for glory and whatnot, more of a hindrance to society then a help)

Without knowing the details, I hesitate to point the finger at anyone. Like a lot of "news" stories, there is more to this one than we are getting from the media.

[Gunny]

There is something suspicious about this story. All military personnel carry an ID card. NO military personnel carries proof of a top secret clearance. Being a SEAL does not imply you cannot be arrested for criminal activity, but it does not mean you belong in a psych ward either (despite what some posters think).

My first thought as well was the ID card. That would at least prove he is military personnel.

[CSM]

My first thought as well was the ID card. That would at least prove he is military personnel.

Yep. All the other stuff is just fluff for the story. If his ID says US Air FOrce, there is a good chance he is NOT a Navy SEAL. Hard to tell what the cops were thinking.

[Gunny]

Without knowing the details, I hesitate to point the finger at anyone. Like a lot of "news" stories, there is more to this one than we are getting from the media.

I will point my finger at the law itself first; which, stupid and does not represent the present. The way interstate travel is these days, ALL states (to include the leftwingnut bastion city states) should directly address travellers and/or visitors.

My next question the actions of the police. They do NOT have the right nor authority to search a vehicle just because they want to. Unless something happened that's not being said, running a red light is a routine traffic ticket.

[CSM]

I will point my finger at the law itself first; which, stupid and does not represent the present. The way interstate travel is these days, ALL states (to include the leftwingnut bastion city states) should directly address travellers and/or visitors.

My next question the actions of the police. They do NOT have the right nor authority to search a vehicle just because they want to. Unless something happened that's not being said, running a red light is a routine traffic ticket.

I do not disagree. The gun laws in general (as you well know) is a whole 'nother issue. In this specific case, I think the whole "psych eval" thing is the question. Again, without knowing more details, it's hard to judge.

[jimnyc]

“I’m in an elite military unit, you can’t arrest me,”

cops nailed him for running a red light in Manhattan, New York on Thursday.

NYPD officers searched Day’s pickup truck and found a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and three magazines full of ammo.

During the arrest, police claim Day was babbling incoherently and repeatedly claimed that he was an elite Navy SEAL with “top- secret clearance,” but was unable to provide any documentation for police.

So a man gets pulled over for running a red light. Tries to talk his way out of a ticket by claiming to be elite military, but has no ID on him. A search find weapons and plenty of ammo. The man was also babbling incoherently. What SHOULD the police have done? Maybe a one way ticket to the psych ward was overkill, but none of us were there to see just how incoherent this man was, and whether it was because of drugs or a mental issue.

[CSM]

So a man gets pulled over for running a red light. Tries to talk his way out of a ticket by claiming to be elite military, but has no ID on him. A search find weapons and plenty of ammo. The man was also babbling incoherently. What SHOULD the police have done? Maybe a one way ticket to the psych ward was overkill, but none of us were there to see just how incoherent this man was, and whether it was because of drugs or a mental issue.

Again, the story is unclear. It reads like the guy was unable to provide proof of security clearance but as per your bolding, could have meant no military ID. Sometimes, I think the media does this crap on purpose just to create outrage and controversy (hmmm ... just like some posters on this board) but then I tell myself "Why, the media would NEVER do that!"


Some of this post is sarcasm, folks, and NOT validation of your particular posting style.

[Gunny]

So a man gets pulled over for running a red light. Tries to talk his way out of a ticket by claiming to be elite military, but has no ID on him. A search find weapons and plenty of ammo. The man was also babbling incoherently. What SHOULD the police have done? Maybe a one way ticket to the psych ward was overkill, but none of us were there to see just how incoherent this man was, and whether it was because of drugs or a mental issue.

I'm thinking they should have given him a ticket and gone about their merry little ways.

Incoherence usually leads to a sobriety test. STILL doesn't give the police the right to search the vehicle.

[jimnyc]

I'm thinking they should have given him a ticket and gone about their merry little ways.

Incoherence usually leads to a sobriety test. STILL doesn't give the police the right to search the vehicle.

I'm thinking that breaking the law by running the light, not producing ID and being incoherent was enough to perform a search. If they believed he was under the influence of drugs/alcohol, couldn't produce ID, and were going to impound, then they have the right to search at that point. But as CSM alluded to, we likely aren't hearing all the pertinent details.

[Gunny]

I'm thinking that breaking the law by running the light, not producing ID and being incoherent was enough to perform a search. If they believed he was under the influence of drugs/alcohol, couldn't produce ID, and were going to impound, then they have the right to search at that point. But as CSM alluded to, we likely aren't hearing all the pertinent details.

What ID couldn't he produce? Correct me if I'm wrong, but proof of being a Navy SEAL is NOT not being able to produce ID.

They do not have the right to search a vehicle without a search warrant; impounded or not. They have to have probable cause otherwise. Running a red light and/or not having ID is NOT probable cause.

[jimnyc]

What ID couldn't he produce? Correct me if I'm wrong, but proof of being a Navy SEAL is NOT not being able to produce ID.

They do not have the right to search a vehicle without a search warrant; impounded or not. They have to have probable cause otherwise. Running a red light and/or not having ID is NOT probable cause.

I read the article to mean that he couldn't provide any identification at all. As to the search - it's most certainly legal to search each and every car being impounded, search warrant or not. Once it's being impounded, it's almost a necessity that it be searched first.

[Gunny]

I read the article to mean that he couldn't provide any identification at all. As to the search - it's most certainly legal to search each and every car being impounded, search warrant or not. Once it's being impounded, it's almost a necessity that it be searched first.

You would be incorrect on your latter statement. They STILL require a search warrant. Granted, if it's impounded, it's a given they'll get one, but it is NOT an intrinsic right.

[jimnyc]

You would be incorrect on your latter statement. They STILL require a search warrant. Granted, if it's impounded, it's a given they'll get one, but it is NOT an intrinsic right.

Look up "inventory search" for when cars are being impounded. It's common practice for police to perform a cursory search of a vehicle for belongings and contraband while impounding a vehicle. It cannot be an "investigative" search, but rather an inventory - and if a gun is found, you're in deep shit.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/Articles/2011/04/Impound-Inventory.aspx
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/

I can gather a few thousand more links if necessary. :)

[Gunny]

Look up "inventory search" for when cars are being impounded. It's common practice for police to perform a cursory search of a vehicle for belongings and contraband while impounding a vehicle. It cannot be an "investigative" search, but rather an inventory - and if a gun is found, you're in deep shit.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/Articles/2011/04/Impound-Inventory.aspx
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/

I can gather a few thousand more links if necessary. :)

By what right did they even impound the vehicle? Even if they arrested him for no ID ... which is not grounds for arrest ... it's a ticket for driving without a license ... , they STILL have no right to impound the vehicle.

If what you say is true, then you live in a stupid state with unconstitutional laws. I have never ONCE -- and I've lived in a LOT of states -- heard it was legal to search without consent, or a search warrant. Nowhere I've ever lived, nor in none of the COPS-type shows I've watched. I don't see where running a red light or not having ID meets the provisions of overriding the 4th Amendment.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html



(http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html)

[jimnyc]

By what right did they even impound the vehicle? Even if they arrested him for no ID ... which is not grounds for arrest ... it's a ticket for driving without a license ... , they STILL have no right to impound the vehicle.

If what you say is tru, then you live in a stupid state with unconstitutional laws. I have never ONCE -- and I've lived in a LOT of states -- heard it was legal to search without consent, or a search warrant. Nowhere I've ever lived, nor in none of the COPS-type shows I've watched.

Nope, the Supreme Court has already decided on this, as to inventory searches, and found them to be reasonable. It's legal in every state, not just NY, and a warrant is very rarely, if ever, needed to "inventory" a car being impounded. In fact, the courts have found that they almost have a responsibility to do so.


By the time of Opperman, a distinction had emerged in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence between searches of the home and searches of automobiles. Because automobiles were inherently mobile, typically kept outside the home, and subject to regulation and licensing by state and local governments, the law recognized a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile relative to the expectation of privacy a person has in his home.

The Court had also recognized that in addition to their law enforcement duties, the police engage in a community caretaking function. "To permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances to preserve evidence, disabled or damaged vehicles will often be removed from the highways or streets at the behest of police engaged solely in caretaking and traffic-control activities. Police will also frequently remove and impound automobiles which violate parking ordinances and which thereby jeopardize both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic." The police typically follow established standardized procedures when impounding vehicles for these reasons. These procedures protect the owner's property from vandalism, protect the police from disputes about damage to the property, and protect individual officers from unknown danger associated with vehicle storage.

By the time of the Opperman decision, a number of state and federal courts had already sustained these practices against challenges that they engendered "unreasonable" searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment. In other words, by the time of the Opperman decision, numerous lower courts had already reached a consensus that "when the police take custody of any sort of container [such as] an automobile... it is reasonable to search the container to itemize the property to be held by the police. [This reflects] the underlying principle that the fourth amendment proscribes only unreasonable searches."[1] Inventory searches of automobiles must necessarily extend to the trunk and the glove compartment, since these are places where people keep important documents and valuables.

Accordingly, the Court had little trouble concluding that these inventory searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It would be incongruous to allow the police the authority to hold the car itself but deny them the authority to search inside it. Furthermore, the Court had already sanctioned an inventory search of an impounded car suspected to contain the service revolver of a fugitive Chicago police officer.[2] The search in this case was conducted according to standard police procedure, and there was no suggestion that the search was a pretext for an investigation. Thus, the search here was reasonable as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Opperman

[jimnyc]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html

This link has nothing to do with the discussion. Totally different scenarios, as outlined in the SC case I posted. I assure you, even in every state you have lived in the police have the right to inventory a vehicle being impounded.

[Gunny]

This link has nothing to do with the discussion. Totally different scenarios, as outlined in the SC case I posted. I assure you, even in every state you have lived in the police have the right to inventory a vehicle being impounded.

Yes it does. The 4th Amendment to Constitution protects against illegal search and seizure.

I assure you that you are wrong. Without probable cause or consent of the owner, the police do not have the right to search ANYTHING.

[jimnyc]

Yes it does. The 4th Amendment to Constitution protects against illegal search and seizure.

I assure you that you are wrong. Without probable cause or consent of the owner, the police do not have the right to search ANYTHING.

Did you even read the SC decision? Hell, it even involved a gun being found in the vehicle.


Accordingly, the Court had little trouble concluding that these inventory searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It would be incongruous to allow the police the authority to hold the car itself but deny them the authority to search inside it. Furthermore, the Court had already sanctioned an inventory search of an impounded car suspected to contain the service revolver of a fugitive Chicago police officer.[2] The search in this case was conducted according to standard police procedure, and there was no suggestion that the search was a pretext for an investigation. Thus, the search here was reasonable as well.

Police indeed have the right to inventory any vehicle being impounded. Unless of course you have legal proof to prove the Supreme Court wrong?

[Gunny]

Did you even read the SC decision? Hell, it even involved a gun being found in the vehicle.



Police indeed have the right to inventory any vehicle being impounded. Unless of course you have legal proof to prove the Supreme Court wrong?

I guess TX, AL, and FL have a bit more regard for the Constitution than a SC ruling that directly conflicts with the Constitution. The SC is full of shit in their ruling, and I know for a fact in TX and FL you have to give consent to the officer to search your vehicle. Last I checked, it was the same in AL and CA.

Sure I have legal proof. The US COnstitution. The Supreme Court decision directly conflicts with the 4th Amendment.

[Abbey Marie]

As to the original story, I suspect the SEAL's macho "You can't arrest me, I'm a SEAL!" talk, got the cops feeling a tad bristly, resulting in their going overboard. When you are stopped, the more humbly you behave, the better for you in the long run, imo.

Anyway, thank goodness this didn't happen at the airport, or we'd have another 83 pages of reading how the "TSA sucks". ;)

[jimnyc]

I guess TX, AL, and FL have a bit more regard for the Constitution than a SC ruling that directly conflicts with the Constitution. The SC is full of shit in their ruling, and I know for a fact in TX and FL you have to give consent to the officer to search your vehicle. Last I checked, it was the same in AL and CA.

Sure I have legal proof. The US COnstitution. The Supreme Court decision directly conflicts with the 4th Amendment.

If you know for a fact that TX, AL and FL must get consent, and then SC ruling doesn't apply there, can you post law that goes against the SC from those states? I don't feel like looking up individual states, but I will if I have to, and I'll guarantee you that inventory searches prior to impounding is legal in every state you mentioned.

[Gunny]

If you know for a fact that TX, AL and FL must get consent, and then SC ruling doesn't apply there, can you post law that goes against the SC from those states? I don't feel like looking up individual states, but I will if I have to, and I'll guarantee you that inventory searches prior to impounding is legal in every state you mentioned.

I don't either. Watch some TV, or live in those places.

I'll gurantee you this ... read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It's pretty clear. I take Supreme Court rulings that directly contradict the Constitution with a grain of salt. I'm thinking this more of a "where you live" thing. What expectation do I have of law enforcement going by the Constitution in a city that has gun laws that violate the Constitution?

I've been pulled over with a gun on my front seat in TX. The cop just asked me what kind it was, could I prove I owned it (I always carry the receipts in my wallet because we don't have all that bullshit registration shit in TX), and was it loaded.

I got my ticket for speeding and that was the end of that.

The difference here being, I have no problem with my vehicle being search other than it violates my rights; regardless, the Supreme Court's decision that is obviously in contradiction to the 4th.

IMO, it's a bullshit bust on several levels.

[jimnyc]

I don't either. Watch some TV, or live in those places.

I'll gurantee you this ... read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It's pretty clear. I take Supreme Court rulings that directly contradict the Constitution with a grain of salt. I'm thinking this more of a "where you live" thing. What expectation do I have of law enforcement going by the Constitution in a city that has gun laws that violate the Constitution?

I've been pulled over with a gun on my front seat in TX. The cop just asked me what kind it was, could I prove I owned it (I always carry the receipts in my wallet because we don't have all that bullshit registration shit in TX), and was it loaded.

I got my tiket for speeding and that was the ende of that.

And you weren't arrested or having your car impounded. As soon as it reaches the point of being impounded, they have the right AND obligation to perform an inventory of the vehicles contents, except in locked areas such as glove box or safes. You may disagree with this, and you may think it goes against the 4th, but the SC has stated otherwise, but inventory searches after arrests/impound are conducted in every state. They refer to this as the automobile exception. While you may disagree across the board, that doesn't make it any less legal in reality. And while certain areas of the country may not do so in all cases, once again doesn't change the legality. There are thousands of cases on this very subject where it's been deemed 100% legal by lower courts, I just figured I would post the SC case. A defendants only hope in such cases is to have the arrest tossed out and then the impound and inventory search will go out with it. But short of contradicting law, I'm going by what all the court cases have stated on the matter, and they state that there is no warrant necessary to perform a vehicle inventory search pursuant to arrest/impound.

[Abbey Marie]

Just another example of the courts doing whatever the heck they want to the protections in the Constitution. And not much that can be done about it, either.

[fj1200]

Interesting that he "couldn't provide documentation of his top-secret clearance".

Maybe his only "proof" would have been a body count so he was right to withhold it. :salute:


Honestly, cut the guys some slack, so he forgot he had guns in his car.

I would hope a Navy Seal doesn't "forget" about his guns and ammo in the car.


I'm curious to know by what right they searched his vehicle for running a red light.

I think you have very little expectation of privacy in your car on public roads. Their threshold for probable cause is likely pretty low.


I will point my finger at the law itself first; which, stupid and does not represent the present. The way interstate travel is these days, ALL states (to include the leftwingnut bastion city states) should directly address travellers and/or visitors.

I don't think the law can fairly address visitors, anyone passing through should know the laws especially if they're carrying guns.

[logroller]

Every story I've read is A) they stopped him for running a red light and B) they found a gun when they searched his vehicle and C) he claimed he was a Navy SEAL while he was being arrested. Did I miss the part about a probable cause to search, or arrest him and "inventory" his vehicle-- or are pertinent grounds for search and arrest overlooked in such matters

Whatev...case 'deferred; I guess that's legal speak for when big brother tells little brother "we'll take it from here" ...think they'll be a follow up to this story? Magic 8-ball says, doubtful

[DragonStryk72]

So a man gets pulled over for running a red light. Tries to talk his way out of a ticket by claiming to be elite military, but has no ID on him. A search find weapons and plenty of ammo. The man was also babbling incoherently. What SHOULD the police have done? Maybe a one way ticket to the psych ward was overkill, but none of us were there to see just how incoherent this man was, and whether it was because of drugs or a mental issue.

Yeah, this one's messy all around. The laws are a lot more strick in NYC with regards to guns than they are in VA. As well, since many of the cops in Va are former Marines/Navy themselves, you have a greater ability to talk to them if you're military or former military.

Psych Ward was overkill, they should have first tried seeing if his story panned out first, by calling the number for his command and such, but the SEAL wasn't helping himself either in this.

[jimnyc]

Every story I've read is A) they stopped him for running a red light and B) they found a gun when they searched his vehicle and C) he claimed he was a Navy SEAL while he was being arrested. Did I miss the part about a probable cause to search, or arrest him and "inventory" his vehicle-- or are pertinent grounds for search and arrest overlooked in such matters

Whatev...case 'deferred; I guess that's legal speak for when big brother tells little brother "we'll take it from here" ...think they'll be a follow up to this story? Magic 8-ball says, doubtful

I'm betting his being incoherent had a lot to do with it. If he was babling and couldn't properly answer their questions, he would be arrested for possible DUI - and the inventory search is next. Anyone babbling incoherently who can't answer basic questions would easily fit into the criteria to be arrested for being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

[logroller]

I'm betting his being incoherent had a lot to do with it. If he was babling and couldn't properly answer their questions, he would be arrested for possible DUI - and the inventory search is next. Anyone babbling incoherently who can't answer basic questions would easily fit into the criteria to be arrested for being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Hell I don't know. He should of had his military ID for starters; babbling AFTER he was arrested was the report I've read-- so what was the cause for arrest? Nothing said anything about drugs or alcohol... probably because he wasn't. So details are little lax; so we shouldn't jump to assumption-- where's rsr to condemn the lib media when I need it. Plus guy's in a truck, so "locking up" your pistol is a bit difficult-- the glove box, that's it, and then where do keep your registration and what not-- but like I said, this one's off to the dust bin so they concentrate on tourists who have licenses from other states and, being responsible gun owners (the kind you'd want in well-regulated militia), try to check there guns.

NYC gun laws are fucked-- and this from a Californian, so I know a thing or two about liberal BS, and NYC raises the bar to whole new level--( I hope gabby doesn't read about ny guns laws--eek). They even restrict the guns you can have in your house...pretty sure there was USSC case on that-- See mcDonald v Chicago. Oh, you can get a permit, but then you have to obey some detailed plan to transport it anywhere like the target range. Or you can get a target permit, but then it can't be loaded in your house or some shit-- in your own home. There's no denying it, its clearly a 2nd amendment issue. Might as well add a Wikipedia blurb under infringement "see also: New York City gun laws".

[jimnyc]

Hell I don't know. He should of had his military ID for starters; babbling AFTER he was arrested was the report I've read-- so what was the cause for arrest? Nothing said anything about drugs or alcohol... probably because he wasn't. So details are little lax; so we shouldn't jump to assumption-- where's rsr to condemn the lib media when I need it. Plus guy's in a truck, so "locking up" your pistol is a bit difficult-- the glove box, that's it, and then where do keep your registration and what not-- but like I said, this one's off to the dust bin so they concentrate on tourists who have licenses from other states and, being responsible gun owners (the kind you'd want in well-regulated militia), try to check there guns.

NYC gun laws are fucked-- and this from a Californian, so I know a thing or two about liberal BS, and NYC raises the bar to whole new level--( I hope gabby doesn't read about ny guns laws--eek). They even restrict the guns you can have in your house...pretty sure there was USSC case on that-- See mcDonald v Chicago. Oh, you can get a permit, but then you have to obey some detailed plan to transport it anywhere like the target range. Or you can get a target permit, but then it can't be loaded in your house or some shit-- in your own home. There's no denying it, its clearly a 2nd amendment issue. Might as well add a Wikipedia blurb under infringement "see also: New York City gun laws".

If he was babbling incoherently during his arrest, wouldn't it make sense that he was doing the same just moments before when he was pulled over? What could possibly have had him answering questions perfectly clear one minute, and then babbling incoherently the next? I would imagine his answers to the officers were a bit "off" throughout, hence the arrest. Whether alcohol, drugs or neither - if you're behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and the police find you babbling incoherently, they're probably going to arrest you and keep you from driving any further and endangering lives of others. If he wasn't in fact under the influence, that would be all the more reason to have the psych ward give him a short evaluation. Sounds like they did that, deferred the charges (read: later to be dropped), and set him free. And if they're going to treat him for PTSD, it's quite possible that an evaluation was the right choice. Either way, it would appear they had probable cause for an arrest, and then the inventory search goes along with it.

But like you said, very little details, a copy of the police report would be nice. But I'll bet dollars to donuts he was arrested based on his own replies to the officers. If you can't articulate appropriate answers, you'll likely be arrested. And if they did think he was military, and sent him for an evaluation instead of the lock-up, then deferred his charges - it sounds like they did the right thing by him.

[Gunny]

And you weren't arrested or having your car impounded. As soon as it reaches the point of being impounded, they have the right AND obligation to perform an inventory of the vehicles contents, except in locked areas such as glove box or safes. You may disagree with this, and you may think it goes against the 4th, but the SC has stated otherwise, but inventory searches after arrests/impound are conducted in every state. They refer to this as the automobile exception. While you may disagree across the board, that doesn't make it any less legal in reality. And while certain areas of the country may not do so in all cases, once again doesn't change the legality. There are thousands of cases on this very subject where it's been deemed 100% legal by lower courts, I just figured I would post the SC case. A defendants only hope in such cases is to have the arrest tossed out and then the impound and inventory search will go out with it. But short of contradicting law, I'm going by what all the court cases have stated on the matter, and they state that there is no warrant necessary to perform a vehicle inventory search pursuant to arrest/impound.

Reset.

One, since we don't know whether or not there was some excuse made for probable cause, or a consent to search, or the weapon was simply in plain view, the argument is moot.

Two, we aren't arguing the same animals here. My argument is based solely on the situation of being pulled over for running red light. At THAT point, the officer(s) cannot search your vehicle without your consent or probable cause. Anything seized at that point has to stand up to the test of meeting the 4th Amendment or it is inadmissable as evidence in court. I read the 4th Amendment and all the rulings associated with it, and not ONE disagrees with that opinion.

If the weapon was in plain view, then the 4th doesn't apply because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

IF a vehicle is impounded, it has been seized and there's no doubt it's going to be searched. That doesn't appear to be the case in the OP's article. He ran a red light. Got pulled over. His vehicle was searched at that point. AT THAT POINT, without consent, probable cause or in plain view, the search violates the 4th Amendment.

[jimnyc]

Gunny, as I've stated from my first post - IF he was under arrest, the police have the right to inventory search his vehicle upon impound, without a warrant. Never once did I say a vehicle search was legal prior to arrest. It's only upon an impound that they have the right to do so.

As for the article, it leaves a lot to be desired and leaves a lot of questions, which is why I didn't answer definitively about anything, only IF'S. But IF he was babbling incoherently when pulled over for a traffic citation, the officers would likely have a duty to remove him from the road for his own safety and the safety of others. If they believed he was doing so as a result of drugs or alcohol, that's probable cause for an arrest. Once the arrest is made, the search follows.

Without reading a police report, we're all just guessing based on a paragraph or 2, and likely the media sensationalizing things.

[Gunny]

Gunny, as I've stated from my first post - IF he was under arrest, the police have the right to inventory search his vehicle upon impound, without a warrant. Never once did I say a vehicle search was legal prior to arrest. It's only upon an impound that they have the right to do so.

As for the article, it leaves a lot to be desired and leaves a lot of questions, which is why I didn't answer definitively about anything, only IF'S. But IF he was babbling incoherently when pulled over for a traffic citation, the officers would likely have a duty to remove him from the road for his own safety and the safety of others. If they believed he was doing so as a result of drugs or alcohol, that's probable cause for an arrest. Once the arrest is made, the search follows.

Without reading a police report, we're all just guessing based on a paragraph or 2, and likely the media sensationalizing things.

And? As I stated from MY first post --- (you can re-red my last post :laugh:) I was arguing something different. I'm sure it's not the first time nor the last people missed something and argued apples and oranges with one another. Go look in any partial birth abortion, or religion thread.:laugh:

Either way, I'm cool. We were BOTH right. Works for me.

[jimnyc]

And? As I stated from MY first post --- (you can re-red my last post :laugh:) I was arguing something different. I'm sure it's not the first time nor the last people missed something and argued apples and oranges with one another. Go look in any partial birth abortion, or religion thread.:laugh:

Either way, I'm cool. We were BOTH right. Works for me.

Works for me too! :beer:

Hopefully the Seal will get through this, get help IF he needs it, and of course have all charges dropped if he was having a break down or sorts due to PTSD. The fact that they deferred all the charges leads me to believe that this is the direction they'll go. It doesn't sound to me like a situation where prosecution is warranted.

On a side note, and I could be wrong about this, if carrying all appropriate ID, are Seals allowed to carry their firearms and be "above" the gun laws in individual states? I was looking around last night and read similar, but it was more of a law enforcement type forum and not a legal site.

[Gunny]

Works for me too! :beer:

Hopefully the Seal will get through this, get help IF he needs it, and of course have all charges dropped if he was having a break down or sorts due to PTSD. The fact that they deferred all the charges leads me to believe that this is the direction they'll go. It doesn't sound to me like a situation where prosecution is warranted.

On a side note, and I could be wrong about this, if carrying all appropriate ID, are Seals allowed to carry their firearms and be "above" the gun laws in individual states? I was looking around last night and read similar, but it was more of a law enforcement type forum and not a legal site.

On this, I agree with CSM. Something fishy about him not having proper military ID. While on active duty, one is required to have his/her military ID on his/her person at ALL times.

And no, unless SPECIFICALLY authorized (LIKE NCIS or CID) which are criminal investigative units, military members are required to abide the laws of the state they are in when off a military reservation without SPECIFIC authority. In which case, he would have the neccesary paperwork/credentials with him.

The situation itself DOES pose a quandry for military personnel who own weapons. Always being transferred from one place to another and/or taking leave ... keeping up with gun laws in every podunk state between Point A and Point B is a bitch. For instance, some states have NO provisions for transporting firearms.

However, while we don't know the specifics, ANY gun owner who doesn't know you can't have a handgun in NYC or Washington DC, isn't a very informed gun owner since the fact those two cities usually rate the highest in hangun crimes makes them quite the joke among gun owners.

[Little-Acorn]

There's a lot of psychotic paranoia regarding guns, going on in places like New York City. But it's not on the part of the innocent people carrying them.

[Gunny]

There's a lot of psychotic paranoia regarding guns, going on in places like New York City. But it's not on the part of the innocent people carrying them.

There are no innocent people in NYC carrying them as far as I am aware. Only criminals have them.

[Intense]

There's a lot of psychotic paranoia regarding guns, going on in places like New York City. But it's not on the part of the innocent people carrying them.

The Law's are so severe here, with Mandatory Jail Time for Possession, it is not worth the risk. Obtaining License to Carry Permits, are only for the Elite. Even having Guns at your home, is a Bureaucratic Nightmare. Each has to be registered, and a Yearly fee paid. Defending yourself with anything that can be used as a weapon here, from a knife to a garbage can cover, to a rock, can put you away with intent to do harm with a deadly weapon. Possession of a pocket knife can get you arrested.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't either. Watch some TV, or live in those places.

I'll gurantee you this ... read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It's pretty clear. I take Supreme Court rulings that directly contradict the Constitution with a grain of salt. I'm thinking this more of a "where you live" thing. What expectation do I have of law enforcement going by the Constitution in a city that has gun laws that violate the Constitution?

I've been pulled over with a gun on my front seat in TX. The cop just asked me what kind it was, could I prove I owned it (I always carry the receipts in my wallet because we don't have all that bullshit registration shit in TX), and was it loaded.

I got my ticket for speeding and that was the end of that.

The difference here being, I have no problem with my vehicle being search other than it violates my rights; regardless, the Supreme Court's decision that is obviously in contradiction to the 4th.

IMO, it's a bullshit bust on several levels.

No, no, the 4th only protects against Unreasonable search and seizure. If the car is being impounded, searching it to annotate the inventory of items inside the car is reasonable, period. Otherwise, if items go missing while it's in impound, there's a serious problem. Anyone could claim anything was in the car, and so an inventory is necessary to be sure that the owner has all of their belongings back when the car is released.

If illegal items are found in the car at that point, then yes, there's a problem. This guy didn't apparently have a Concealed Carry Permit, so he was already in trouble for the loaded weapon in his car.

As to whether it was warranted to impound the car? Now that's a different story, as it's clear that the cops did overreact on this one.

[DragonStryk72]

On this, I agree with CSM. Something fishy about him not having proper military ID. While on active duty, one is required to have his/her military ID on his/her person at ALL times.

And no, unless SPECIFICALLY authorized (LIKE NCIS or CID) which are criminal investigative units, military members are required to abide the laws of the state they are in when off a military reservation without SPECIFIC authority. In which case, he would have the neccesary paperwork/credentials with him.

The situation itself DOES pose a quandry for military personnel who own weapons. Always being transferred from one place to another and/or taking leave ... keeping up with gun laws in every podunk state between Point A and Point B is a bitch. For instance, some states have NO provisions for transporting firearms.

However, while we don't know the specifics, ANY gun owner who doesn't know you can't have a handgun in NYC or Washington DC, isn't a very informed gun owner since the fact those two cities usually rate the highest in hangun crimes makes them quite the joke among gun owners.

Well, I carried my ID for slightly different reasons. I kept it right near my credit card, so that people would see the mil ID while I was paying for stuff. you wouldn't believe how many times I got free food and drinks, or got a quick 10% off

[LuvRPgrl]

NYC Police Throw Navy SEAL Into Psych Ward for Claiming…He’s a SEAL


A Virginia man claimed (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/arrested_guy_the_real_seal_zltbTtNkgqINfp4pstK98O) to be a Navy SEAL to talk his way out of a gun possession arrest on Thursday, and the New York Police Department committed him to a psych ward thinking his claims of elite military status were the rantings of a lunatic.

Turns out the guy was in fact an elite Navy SEAL.
But as the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/arrested_guy_the_real_seal_zltbTtNkgqINfp4pstK98O? CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=) put it, telling the NYPD “I’m in an elite military unit, you can’t arrest me,” doesn‘t help much when the city’s draconian gun laws are at issue.
Twenty-nine-year-old Shaun Day was on a leave from his duty as a Navy SEAL duty when cops nailed him for running a red light in Manhattan, New York on Thursday.
NYPD officers searched Day’s pickup truck and found a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and three magazines full of ammo.
During the arrest, police claim Day was babbling incoherently and repeatedly claimed that he was an elite Navy SEAL with “top- secret clearance,” but was unable to provide any documentation for police.
?

When considering the avg level intelligence of cops these days, anything above criminal level babbling is uncomprehensable by cops and they just call it incomprehensable instead of saying were too stupid to understand what he is saying,,,,orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

its their way of getting out of a situation where they fucked up

how have those gun control laws been working for them in DC? hint; gun shooting went to an all time high.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm thinking that breaking the law by running the light, not producing ID and being incoherent was enough to perform a search. If they believed he was under the influence of drugs/alcohol, couldn't produce ID, and were going to impound, then they have the right to search at that point. But as CSM alluded to, we likely aren't hearing all the pertinent details.

talk about hyperbole, 'running a red light", I doubt the guy went thru a light that had been read for more than a split second, just like most of us who "run" red lights.

NO ID? Sorry, its says no documents proving he is a seal

babbling and incoherent, that could mean anything, but to a cop, that probably means something like, he wasnt saying what we wanted to hear, or , he was making so much sense it was starting to make us look stupid, so we will just claim it was incoherent.....the llist goes on to infinity


I'm betting his being incoherent had a lot to do with it. If he was babling and couldn't properly answer their questions, he would be arrested for possible DUI - and the inventory search is next. Anyone babbling incoherently who can't answer basic questions would easily fit into the criteria to be arrested for being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

If he was incoherent, why no talk about a drunk test, booze on his breath, the chronological order is, ran red light, pulled over, searched car,,,,,up to that point, what was their probable cause for search, not to mention, if it was an INVENTORY search, where was the gun, under a seat, somewhere hidden, somewhere obvious?

If you are going to use inventory search, then you have to establish the impounding was already underway before the search was done.

[jimnyc]

talk about hyperbole, 'running a red light", I doubt the guy went thru a light that had been read for more than a split second, just like most of us who "run" red lights.

Whether a split second or 5 seconds, running a red light is against the law.


NO ID? Sorry, its says no documents proving he is a seal

The only thing it addresses is that he couldn't provide documentation. Doesn't matter though, as whether he had a DL or not shouldn't have made a difference.


babbling and incoherent, that could mean anything, but to a cop, that probably means something like, he wasnt saying what we wanted to hear, or , he was making so much sense it was starting to make us look stupid, so we will just claim it was incoherent.....the llist goes on to infinity

Now you're just making stuff up. I'll assume other officers, likely a sergeant and also medical personnel will speak of his condition.


If he was incoherent, why no talk about a drunk test, booze on his breath, the chronological order is, ran red light, pulled over, searched car,,,,,up to that point, what was their probable cause for search, not to mention, if it was an INVENTORY search, where was the gun, under a seat, somewhere hidden, somewhere obvious?

If you are going to use inventory search, then you have to establish the impounding was already underway before the search was done.

Incoherent doesn't immediately mean he was drunk. It could have been drugs. It could have been a medical condition. There's no police report for us to go over, or even the defendants story. And I'm not claiming either way as to the gun charge that was deferred, I'm simply stating that once they decided to arrest him, an inventory search is 100% legal. I have no idea if the gun was in plain view. the Seal told them about it, it was found under a seat... They have a lot of leeway in doing an inventory search, and short of him having it in a locked safe of sorts, they would find it in an inventory search.

[jimnyc]

For those that may think the NYC police trumped charges, or made up the story about the incoherent babbling.


Navy sent staffers to talk to Day in Bellevue Hospital, where he was undergoing a psychiatric evaluation. According to Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/2012/01/22/nypd_commits_navy_seal_for_claiming.php):
“He was released [Friday] in their care, and they were going to treat him for post-traumatic stress.

Navy personnel went to the psych hospital and even stated that he was going to be treated for PTSD. Why would the Navy go along with the story if it was wrong? It sounds like they, at the very least, agree that the initial evaluation shows the man needs help.

[LuvRPgrl]

For those that may think the NYC police trumped charges, or made up the story about the incoherent babbling.



Navy personnel went to the psych hospital and even stated that he was going to be treated for PTSD. Why would the Navy go along with the story if it was wrong? It sounds like they, at the very least, agree that the initial evaluation shows the man needs help.

I have no clue to how you get there, and besides, at this point, politics is so involved, the ONLY reason ANYBODY is doing anything is to prevent further public embarrasment for both agencies. so, from the point of this becoming news, I dont believe a thing ANY of them is saying, and I know for a fact they wont be honest and factual about the whole thing.

this has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with their public perception.

[jimnyc]

I have no clue to how you get there, and besides, at this point, politics is so involved, the ONLY reason ANYBODY is doing anything is to prevent further public embarrasment for both agencies. so, from the point of this becoming news, I dont believe a thing ANY of them is saying, and I know for a fact they wont be honest and factual about the whole thing.

this has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with their public perception.

You believe the Navy would go along with a hospital and the NYC police while making fun of one of their own? I don't think so. I don't think he's a criminal by any means at all, but I also don't think removing him from the road for an evaluation is such a bad thing if he were having an episode.

A Marine recently ran from his car after a small accident and was in the snow for 2 days as a result of his PTSD. It can have a huge effect on how someone drives or reacts. I don't know why its such a stretch to believe this Seal had a bout with PTSD that landed him in the psych ward for an evaluation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57374667/marine-vet-with-ptsd-found-after-2-days-in-snow/

[LuvRPgrl]

You believe the Navy would go along with a hospital and the NYC police while making fun of one of their own? I don't think so. I don't think he's a criminal by any means at all, but I also don't think removing him from the road for an evaluation is such a bad thing if he were having an episode.

A Marine recently ran from his car after a small accident and was in the snow for 2 days as a result of his PTSD. It can have a huge effect on how someone drives or reacts. I don't know why its such a stretch to believe this Seal had a bout with PTSD that landed him in the psych ward for an evaluation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57374667/marine-vet-with-ptsd-found-after-2-days-in-snow/


Im working from the first post. It is very possible that it was going to be a serious black eye for both, so they both agreed to tone it down and try to make it go away without any more embarrasment for either side.