ATF Raided my home....

[David.Jones223]

So on Thursday, the ATF raided my house, CLAIMING they had reason to believe I had a stock pile of weapons in my home. Quite the contrary, I don't own or possess a single one. In Texas, even though I am a convicted felon, it is legal for me to own a firearm that must stay in my home, so long as it has been 5+ years since the last day of my probation. None the less, the ATF didn't find a single weapon, because I have none. Anyways, I was reading an article that stated the service of a searCh warrant gives the ATF the ability to search my home, however, under the 4Th Amendment, it does not give them the ability to handcuff me, or not allow me to leave after myself and my vehicle have been searched. Both of which, they did. Handcuff me and make me stay in a single chair. They found no weapons but took my computer to check for photos of me with weapons, which the lead agent actually already had on his phone. A picture of me, holding what "looks to be" an AR15. Now, the picture was taken in Alaska, a state that I am legally allowed to possess any type of firearm. I do know federal law supersedes state law, but since I was a normal quiet guy, I never gave the ATF much consideration. Anyways, I feel like if they wanted to arrest me for felon in possession, they could have done it just with the picture they already had. My question is this, was there Infact a 4th amendment violation? Does the fact that they took property NOT listed on the property sheet at "Items confiscated " mean they can't use it against me? I hired an attorney that afternoon, and answered ZERO QUESTIONS they asked me.

[Working Poor]

David.Jones

I don't know the answer to your question but I want to give you a bump so your thread gets more attention from someone who can answer your question and ask you the right questions to get an answer.

[heavenlyboy34]

:eek: Can't help on this, but I hope it turns out for the best!

[jllundqu]

So on Thursday, the ATF raided my house, CLAIMING they had reason to believe I had a stock pile of weapons in my home. Quite the contrary, I don't own or possess a single one. In Texas, even though I am a convicted felon, it is legal for me to own a firearm that must stay in my home, so long as it has been 5+ years since the last day of my probation. None the less, the ATF didn't find a single weapon, because I have none. Anyways, I was reading an article that stated the service of a searCh warrant gives the ATF the ability to search my home, however, under the 4Th Amendment, it does not give them the ability to handcuff me, or not allow me to leave after myself and my vehicle have been searched. Both of which, they did. Handcuff me and make me stay in a single chair. They found no weapons but took my computer to check for photos of me with weapons, which the lead agent actually already had on his phone. A picture of me, holding what "looks to be" an AR15. Now, the picture was taken in Alaska, a state that I am legally allowed to possess any type of firearm. I do know federal law supersedes state law, but since I was a normal quiet guy, I never gave the ATF much consideration. Anyways, I feel like if they wanted to arrest me for felon in possession, they could have done it just with the picture they already had. My question is this, was there Infact a 4th amendment violation? Does the fact that they took property NOT listed on the property sheet at "Items confiscated " mean they can't use it against me? I hired an attorney that afternoon, and answered ZERO QUESTIONS they asked me.

I deal with this a lot in my profession. Simple answer is yes, they violated the 4th amendment. If it was only a search warrant, and they "siezed" you i.e. placed you in cuffs and would not let you leave, then a 4th amendment violation occured. A picture of you holding a weapon may have been what they convinced a judge to get a SEARCH warrant, but certainly not enough for an arrest. No attorney I know would even consider it. They would have to prove the weapon was real, where you were and exactly what year it was, etc etc.... Then they would have to prove, by serial number, make, manufacturer, etc, that the weapon you allegedly held had travelled in interstate commerce (some part of the weapon had at one time crossed state/international borders).....too circumstantial.

The search warrant will list items to be siezed, as required by law. You're saying they took things from your residence that they didn't give you a receipt for or that weren't listed on the search warrant? I'm confused.

Anyway, a good lawyer who deals with 922g cases should have no problem with this one. Sorry that happened to you, but yeah you need to be careful. I know agencies will get all puffed up if they see on social media that a felon is pictured with a weapon... gets em all saucy!!!

PM me if you want more info.... again I deal with this quite a bit.

[jllundqu]

And never admit to shit! Say the pics of you aren't legit, the weapon is an airsoft gun or a replica.... don't admit to holding a real weapon if you're really a prohibited possessor. Or do like you did, and stay quiet.... you were not under arrest and not read your rights, correct?

[David.Jones223]

Working.Poor thanks. Hopefully someone can give me some advice here. I've been doing a ton of my own homework As well.

[David.jones223]

jllundqu

Yes, they took items from me that were not included on the property receipt. Not sure how I go about PMing you but I would love to get in contact with you.

[Anti Federalist]

A picture of me, holding what "looks to be" an AR15.

How did they get a picture of that?

[jllundqu]

jllundqu

Yes, they took items from me that were not included on the property receipt. Not sure how I go about PMing you but I would love to get in contact with you.

Click on my profile and send me a message. You might have to register on the forum to send messages, not sure.

[jllundqu]

jllundqu

Yes, they took items from me that were not included on the property receipt. Not sure how I go about PMing you but I would love to get in contact with you.

Curious what items they took? Did you have ammo or parts of a weapon they took from you? What could they have taken that could potentially be incriminating?

[David.jones223]

They took my phone and my computer to try and find pictures of me with guns. I registered already but am waiting on admin approval. They also took a bunch of my personal receipt and records but stuffed them in my backpack when they carried it out, the backpack is not on the receipt, but "personal paperwork" is.

[David.jones223]

The found ZERO firearms, parts, ammunition, related items, or anything manufactured for firearms. That's why I believe they took my receipts for taxes and my personal computer to see if they can prove the purchase of ammunition, or get pictures of me with firearms on my computer.

[tod evans]

I haven't read anything incriminating in your posts other than maybe a post about Alaska....

Keeping your mouth SHUT in person and online is very good advice.

If your "lawyer" can't show you at least one case he successfully argued in FEDERAL court you'd be well advised to seek new counsel. Just having a shingle doesn't make him an advocate...

Which laws apply to your felony conviction depend on which state you were convicted in but if you bear a federal conviction the prohibited arms clause is nation wide...

Learn all you can on these interwebs, give NO information while you have potential charges looming and for Gods sake please be absolutely certain your counsel is competent...

[Matt Collins]

PM me and I'll give you the direction of an attorney

[heavenlyboy34]

They took my phone and my computer to try and find pictures of me with guns. I registered already but am waiting on admin approval. They also took a bunch of my personal receipt and records but stuffed them in my backpack when they carried it out, the backpack is not on the receipt, but "personal paperwork" is.
With no warrant? :eek: If no, the advice above about not talking to anyone about it except your attorney is even more uber important. Unwarranted evidence gathered might be dismissed as evidence during a trial. (not a legal expert, JMHO)

[Unregistered Dave.Jones]

Click on my profile and send me a message. You might have to register on the forum to send messages, not sure.

Waiting for my registration to be completed. I'll message you and Matt Collins as soon as that happens. Maybe I should just comment my email??

[pcosmar]

How did they get a picture of that?

NSA.
do you really have to ask?

[kcchiefs6465]

I deal with this a lot in my profession. Simple answer is yes, they violated the 4th amendment. If it was only a search warrant, and they "siezed" you i.e. placed you in cuffs and would not let you leave, then a 4th amendment violation occured. A picture of you holding a weapon may have been what they convinced a judge to get a SEARCH warrant, but certainly not enough for an arrest. No attorney I know would even consider it. They would have to prove the weapon was real, where you were and exactly what year it was, etc etc.... Then they would have to prove, by serial number, make, manufacturer, etc, that the weapon you allegedly held had travelled in interstate commerce (some part of the weapon had at one time crossed state/international borders).....too circumstantial.

The search warrant will list items to be siezed, as required by law. You're saying they took things from your residence that they didn't give you a receipt for or that weren't listed on the search warrant? I'm confused.

Anyway, a good lawyer who deals with 922g cases should have no problem with this one. Sorry that happened to you, but yeah you need to be careful. I know agencies will get all puffed up if they see on social media that a felon is pictured with a weapon... gets em all saucy!!!

PM me if you want more info.... again I deal with this quite a bit.
The temporary detainment is done under the auspices of officer safety. They can, and do, with the full backing of the SCOTUS, detain you, and anyone else at the residence a search warrant is granted for. Now it can border into the "unreasonable" but generally speaking, absent being held against your will, with no evidence being produced against you (or better yet, though still not often a 'slam dunk' civil lawsuit, be the wrong residence these hopped up assholes raid), for multiple hours (like, 8 or more), they are not going to rule that your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The computer, assuming it is related to internet postings, say to Facebook, was probably listed. The items not listed, will they be allowed? Yes, they will be. Under the "totality of the circumstances" there was cause to believe it was an "inevitable discovery."

Now you can pay a shit ton of money, or contact the ACLU or the Rutherford Institute, to name but two, (and regardless the case should be documented) but to say that they did one thing is one thing, to actually have one of their courts rule in your favor with regards to a lawsuit or these bandits breaking into people's homes? Very seldom.

The charges won't stick. In fact they'll drop them once he quits writing letters about the ridiculousness of the search.

ETA: But upon reading the rest of the thread, apparently he wasn't charged. The obvious thing would be as you said, 'airsoft.' Absent seeing serial numbers in the picture, it's safe to assume their case would be shit. They do have practically or even virtually unlimited funds though. Unless they find something else on the computer, I'd tell them to eat a bag of dicks. In fact I'd probably represent myself depending the exact circumstances.

Not that my 'legal' advice should be listened to. States vary considerably.

[pcosmar]

I haven't read anything incriminating in your posts other than maybe a post about Alaska....

Keeping your mouth SHUT in person and online is very good advice.

If your "lawyer" can't show you at least one case he successfully argued in FEDERAL court you'd be well advised to seek new counsel. Just having a shingle doesn't make him an advocate...

Which laws apply to your felony conviction depend on which state you were convicted in but if you bear a federal conviction the prohibited arms clause is nation wide...

Learn all you can on these interwebs, give NO information while you have potential charges looming and for Gods sake please be absolutely certain your counsel is competent...

Nope..
Federal law overruns State law.

I found this out with my last felony conviction. Federal Government does not recognize a state restoration of Rights.

I was convicted of attempted possession. (for my wife's shotgun)

[kcchiefs6465]

Nope..
Federal law overruns State law.

I found this out with my last felony conviction. Federal Government does not recognize a state restoration of Rights.

I was convicted of attempted possession. (for my wife's shotgun)
But one of millions, I'm sure.

[David.Jones223]

Jllundqu I am trying to still figure out how to you lol

[David.Jones223]

David.allencoe223@yahoo.com is my email. Please only contact me if you have good advice or can help guide me. It's a new email I set up today.

Dave

[DamianTV]

Nope..
Federal law overruns State law.

I found this out with my last felony conviction. Federal Government does not recognize a state restoration of Rights.

I was convicted of attempted possession. (for my wife's shotgun)

Feds will always act like they are the Trump Card. Only time the Federal Govt should have power is between State Lines. Problem is that the Law is what Judges act like it is, and the Uninformed Jury thinks that it is. Most people that dont have swimming pools of money can not afford a Lawyer to teach the idiots that run the circuses we call Courts what the Law really says. Not to mention the millions upon millions of lines of legalese that are added each year to the complexity of the system, and are there only to benefit the system itself, not the safety, rights, or liberty of the individual.

[limequat]

My advice, contact the ACLU and the media.
The courts will only drain you of time and money.

[Hrothgar]

How did they get a picture of that?

NSA is monitoring all of us, outside of that? ATF has been trolling the web and Social Networks for a decade now trying to bust ex-cons, bikers and anyone else that makes their list.

[Weston White]

This raises an interesting point; as already noted by a few others within this thread. Individuals of limited resources who attempt to reach out to others for advice are in danger of having exacting details used against them for civil or criminal prosecution by governmental agencies—effectively chilling such attempts. Meanwhile, realizing that there truly is much good information that is readily and freely available through the assistance of other experience individuals whom are willing to proffer or impart their knowledge or wisdom.

Further pointing out the government has been using Internet scraping software to gather information, including datamining exchanges that are expected to be private, such as emails; the collimation of this stored information provides agents of the government with more than enough means to trace back through the digital history of investigated individuals, thusly providing them with true identities, associations, conspirators, computer IP or MAC addresses, exact latitude and longitudes, dates and times, handles or nicknames, documents and photos, visited URL’, and on and on.

To point to one such example, is the Irwin Schiff “tax protester” case, during which the deranged people at the Quatloos! Website (e.g., including a member operating here under the name Sonny Tufts), worked as informants for the prosecutor to pass private information they had acquired from the Schiff family throughout his criminal trial. Apparently, Quatloos members are paid to infiltrate, track and archive conversing throughout the Internet, at least on matters of taxation and financial scheming.

Now of course there is no expectation of privacy in public, which follows to publicly accessible domains (including private domain or Webpage access that become accessible once member registration has been completed), but does this really entail the authority for the government, under taxpayer funding to acquire, retain, and use incriminating data against individuals merely seeking assistance from others through the convenience of the Internet? I should think not.

(Also noting how local law enforcement has been setting up video police bureaus that are virtually spying on people in public who are out and about minding their own business, including positioning such cameras proportionally around poverty stricken neighborhoods and public housing—how would you feel about being in your front yard tossing the ball around with your child meanwhile having to notice the police camera posted on top of a streetlight down the street?)

[Weston White]

This is a copy and past of my response from the OP' other thread about his concern:

So a third-party (digital) photo, allegedly taken in Alaska at an undisclosed time, depicts an individual holding an (interstate commence) AR who is allegedly a felon residing in Texas; subsequently, resulting in a warrant seeking a firearms cache, arrest and release, and seizure of personal property. ...The premise for this seems a bit sketchy, an angry ex seeking revenge or friend looking to plea-bargain perhaps?

It is a maxim that mere suspicion, rumor, conjecture, or belief alone is not enough to warrant searches or seizures; and potentially worth noting is the statute of limitations on such federal crimes ranges between 5-7 years, generally—and while there may be legal exceptions made by states for felons, federal prosecution is still applicable regardless.

Also noting that federal felons with firearms or munitions excludes only: 18 USC § 921(a)(20):


The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—

(A)any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B)any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

And some helpful information, compliments of the ATF:


8. I have been convicted of a felony. How do I reinstate my rights to possess a firearm?

Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored are not considered convicted under section 922(g)(1), unless that person was expressly prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from possessing firearms. Persons convicted of a State offense should contact the State Attorney General’s Office in the State in which they reside and the State of the conviction for information concerning State and local firearms restrictions, and any alternatives that may be available, such as a gubernatorial pardon or civil rights restoration. If your conviction is for a Federal offense, you would regain the ability to lawfully receive, possess, or transport firearms if you receive a Presidential pardon. You can find additional information about such pardons by contacting the Office of the Pardon Attorney online at www.usdoj.gov/pardon/. The GCA includes a provision that gives ATF authority to grant relief from Federal firearms disabilities. 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). However, since 1992, ATF’s annual Congressional appropriation has prohibited ATF from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon such applications for relief.

http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf