WOW the Coast Gaurd ?

[JNieman]

That depends on the circumstances. I'm assuming you're talking mags and guns right? With the knowledge that the AWB ended and those items stopped being LE use only I'd say it is unreasonable. If is laser designators they use to mark **** jets are supposed to blow up, I'd say it is reasonable. A lot of it depends on the context.

How about Colt AR15s and EOTechs?

 

[Jack]

How about Colt AR15s and EOTechs?

Same as mags, not illegal to own. If they say "property of coast guard" and dude wasn't supposed to he taking home that stuff, I'd say checking to make sure isnt unreasonable. If it was never returned, I'd say it was a screw up, but they got it back. I think it was reasonable to assume the documents may have been stolen, they were taken, verified as not stolen, and returned.

I'm sure there are a lot of details we are missing, and with more information my opinion may change, but as it sits now, I don't see a reason for lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.

 

[JR1572]

This is poor logic but I figured I'd toss it in here anyways since the thread has fallen to the derp:

What if they confiscated items labeled "FOR LEO/MIL USE ONLY"

That depends on the circumstances. I'm assuming you're talking mags and guns right? With the knowledge that the AWB ended and those items stopped being LE use only I'd say it is unreasonable. If is laser designators they use to mark **** jets are supposed to blow up, I'd say it is reasonable. A lot of it depends on the context.

How about Colt AR15s and EOTechs?

Jnieman,

You're splitting hairs. Instead of getting all worked up about this, let's wait until there is a copy of the actual lawful order of search and seizure posted. Just because the reporter at the Washington Post says it isn't in there doesn't make it so. I'm sure the reporter isn't a lawyer and after all, newspapers need to be sold.

There may have been a sentence or two in the lawful order of search and seizure that includes these items, or any other illegal or illegally obtained items. Just because I conduct a lawful order of search and seizure looking for certain items, I doesn't mean that if I locate other items that are evidence of illegal activity I cannot seize the items.

Example: I conduct a lawful order if search and seizure at a house looking for crack, and I find some crack and some heroin, I don't have to leave the heroin...

JR1572

 

[JNieman]

Totally agree. I don't trust a single post at WashPo to be completely honest - especially when they're talking about cops violating (supposedly) the rights of a reporter. Hard to maintain professional distance about your profession.

Just saying that the simple appearance of "this is for cops only" or "for <agency> eyes only" type labels is not at all a reason to take the stuff. If they took the stuff, they were either being assholes and acting on unwritten orders / being dicks, or the stuff fell under the bounds of what they had a warrant for. That's the only two conclusions I see, and once the warrant sees the light of day it's all cleared up.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Keep in mind Uniform Code of Military Justice does not always reflect Civilan Law.