Diversified Machine Raided by ATF 20201217

[rcbusmc24]

Diversified Machine was raided this evening by the ATF. They supposedly confiscated all the computers, cells and the entire inventory on hand. This company makes parts for DIY form 1 suppressors for those not familiar with the business.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Breaking-Diversified-Machining-form-1-suppressor-supplies-raided-by-BATFE/5-2403456/

Hopefully more information will pop up soon, apologies in advance for the ARFcom link, best I could find on short notice...

[littlejerry]

Man, ATF on a roll lately.

Elections have consequences I suppose.

[HCM]

No surprise. This has been happening at other “form 1 suppressor kit” makers since 2019.

Given the statutory definition of what constitutes a “silencer” under 18 USC 921 (24) the whole idea of having even an “80%”. Suppressor parts kit without having a form 1 first is super gray / shakey.


(24)  The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

As you can see the definition of a silencer in terms of “any combination of parts” is much broader than with firearms.

[littlejerry]

No surprise. This has been happening at other “form 1 suppressor kit” makers since 2019.

Given the statutory definition of what constitutes a “silencer” under 18 USC 921 (24) the whole idea of having even an “80%”. Suppressor parts kit without having a form 1 first is super gray / shakey.



As you can see the definition of a silencer in terms of “any combination of parts” is much broader than with firearms.

Meaning my stock of oil filters and maglites are suppressors.

I get that's how it's written, but suppressors are tubes with holes in them. They are easily made with the most basic fabrication skills and common off the shelf materials. That's like saying I can't have any lumber in my house unless I have a permit to build a deck.

[TGS]

Meaning my stock of oil filters and maglites are suppressors.

No.

Read the statute again, with less hyperbole.

The ATF are obviously not going after shade-tree mechanics or people who collect maglites, nor would the law support that.

[HeavyDuty]

No.

Read the statute again, with less hyperbole.

The ATF are obviously not going after shade-tree mechanics or people who collect maglites, nor would the law support that.

Yeah - the intent part is pretty clear in what you quoted. It doesn’t mean you won’t get jammed up in a spurious prosecution, but I personally doubt that would happen unless you’re already an asshole under the microscope.

[HCM]

No.

Read the statute again, with less hyperbole.

The ATF are obviously not going after shade-tree mechanics or people who collect maglites, nor would the law support that.

This ^^^

[TGS]

Yeah - the intent part is pretty clear in what you quoted. It doesn’t mean you won’t get jammed up in a spurious prosecution, but I personally doubt that would happen unless you’re already an asshole under the microscope.

We have an agent like that. Dude likes to push the envelope on NFA legalities just to make a point, has been visited by the ATF repeatedly and detained by locals several times. The dude basically asks for it; it's like a past-time for him. He's also got some form of FFL (or used to, at least) and was real big on Form 1'ing suppressors.....so I'm curious if he's going to get caught up in all this.

Last time I was with him, he was still on hold from being administratively promoted and still at an entry-grade like someone in the academy.....so it'd probably be the final nail in the coffin if he ends up getting caught up in this stuff.

[TGS]

This ^^^

In case that wasn't enough, let's all hold hands in a pentagram formation, make a sacrifice of joshs in the center and we can summon DMF13 to further explain it.

*laughs in demonic troll voice*

[LittleLebowski]

Man, ATF on a roll lately.

Elections have consequences I suppose.

Yup, they’re off leash.

[awp_101]

In case that wasn't enough, let's all hold hands in a pentagram formation, make a sacrifice of joshs in the center and we can summon DMF13 to further explain it.

*laughs in demonic troll voice*

That’s right folks, it’s masterful bon mots such as that which have put him where he is today...😁

[Casual Friday]

A person with a great deal of knowledge and experience in the matter told me the best way to do a form 1 suppressor is to pick your tube and file the paperwork. Once it's approved, buy your cups and build your suppressor.

[JRV]

Man, ATF on a roll lately.

Elections have consequences I suppose.

Seems more like coincidence.

The P80 BBS kit was a newer product to the market, and it sounds like the BATFE had been gathering info on those kits (criminal uses and recoveries, build times and tools needed) since well prior to the election.

SB Tactical was an “any day now” situation. The 2018 BATFE letter notified SB Tactical that almost all of their products were being marketed and marked as “ATF Compliant” with no review or determination by the NFA branch/FATD that those products were compliant. I’ve heard statements from SB Tactical refuting that letter but I have seen no documentation released.

The scuttlebutt regarding DM was that the baffle parts were coming pre-center-punched or dimpled for drilling, which is a no-go for having anything firearms-related deemed “unmanufactured.” I’ve seen nothing that confirms that rumor. Might have been an issue with the kit being to close to “complete.”

Regardless of our feelings in the laws in question, it’s kind of a stretch for us to assume that a bureaucratic agency with different field offices and regional teams, as part of a larger bureaucratic department and in coordination with different state agencies and local task forces, would (or even could) plan these separate actions in short order as a response to an election.

[mtnbkr]

The ATF are obviously not going after shade-tree mechanics
They might not do it as a matter of policy, but some shade-tree mechanics do get visits because they ordered filters. One guy who has a diesel truck YT channel posted the footage of him being visited by agents and having to explain why he had the filters in question.


https://youtu.be/270sLN5WL2I?t=191

Chris

[WobblyPossum]

The scuttlebutt regarding DM was that the baffle parts were coming pre-center-punched or dimpled for drilling, which is a no-go for having anything firearms-related deemed “unmanufactured.” I’ve seen nothing that confirms that rumor. Might have been an issue with the kit being to close to “complete.”


If that’s the case, then those weren’t legally Form 1 kits needing completion to begin with. The guidance we received from the ATF regarding all those wish.com and Amazon.com “fuel filter” and “solvent trap” kits was that if the baffles, or whatever term the seller used for them, were marked where they needed to be drilled out, then the thing was legally a suppressor already.

[TGS]

They might not do it as a matter of policy, but some shade-tree mechanics do get visits because they ordered filters. One guy who has a diesel truck YT channel posted the footage of him being visited by agents and having to explain why he had the filters in question.

https://youtu.be/270sLN5WL2I?t=191

Chris

I'm not sure what you mean with "by matter of policy".

The dude bought a bunch of fuel filters from overseas, along with supersoaker firearm sights...I'm assuming from China, and I would bet a dollar that the vendor also had a bunch of ready-to assemble solvent traps and fuel filters suppressor kits in their inventory as well and HSI was tracking the imports by said vendor.

There's nothing wrong about HSI questioning him over what obviously hit their radar and created reasonable suspicion, saying, "Ah, coincidence, have a nice day" and walking away. At no point was he arrested, his property seized, or otherwise suffered an incursion of constitutional rights.

It's a far cry and nowhere in the same universe as the ATF "going after" (i.e. seizing your property, arresting you, etc) because you own maglites and actual filters. Specifically, HSI didn't visit that diesel bro because he had a shit-ton of fuel filters....they visited him because they had reasonable suspicion that he had bought a shit-ton of contraband.

[mtnbkr]

I'm not sure what you mean with "by matter of policy".
Mainly trying to say it's not an organizational decision to target folks for this sort of thing.


The dude bought a bunch of fuel filters from overseas, along with supersoaker firearm sights...I'm assuming from China, and I would bet a dollar that the vendor also had a bunch of ready-to assemble solvent traps and fuel filters suppressor kits in their inventory as well and HSI was tracking the imports by said vendor.

There's nothing wrong about HSI questioning him over what obviously hit their radar and created reasonable suspicion, saying, "Ah, coincidence, have a nice day" and walking away. At no point was he arrested, his property seized, or otherwise suffered an incursion of constitutional rights.

It's a far cry and nowhere in the same universe as the ATF "going after" (i.e. seizing your property, arresting you, etc) because you own maglites and actual filters. Specifically, HSI didn't visit that diesel bro because he had a shit-ton of fuel filters....they visited him because they had reasonable suspicion that he had bought a shit-ton of contraband.
It did work out ok, but HSI opening the conversation by accusing him of ordering suppressors seems more adversarial than necessary and more than merely following up on a guy ordering a bunch of stuff from questionable vendors.

But hey, they didn't shoot his dog and arrest him, so it's a win, right? :cool:

Chris

[TGS]

It did work out ok, but HSI opening the conversation by accusing him of ordering suppressors seems more adversarial than necessary and more than merely following up on a guy ordering a bunch of stuff from questionable vendors.

Given that diesel bro commented about how the agent had driven "all the way out here" as if it were a long distance from the city, and that the agent had a huge binder, I'm guessing the agent was out in the boondocks for the day or even TDY overnight to hit up a bunch of addresses.

That's what we do, at least. We save our more routine casework in the hinterlands until we have a bunch built up, and then send an agent or two TDY to stay at a hotel in the area and bang out that stuff all at once. At my first field office, we'd do an "upstate sweep" every few months in northern NY state since it's not feasible to work that stuff on a daily basis from NYC.

So, I'll danger that diesel bro wasn't the only address that agent had hit up that day to successfully retrieve contraband suppressors. It's way easier to just be frank with people instead of jumping around the issue which makes them feel like they can get away with hiding the contraband from you or playing dumb. That's just annoying.

This is all speculation, obviously, but still speculation based on reality and context clues and I mention it simply as a way of demonstrating that interactions like this are completely reasonable, ethical, and being conducted within the confines of constitutional law.


But hey, they didn't shoot his dog and arrest him, so it's a win, right? :cool:

Chris

Sounds like a loss, actually. Like any good fed, any day I went out into the field and didn't come back with at least one dog collar to add to my collection was a bad day. Anyone in such a predicament was responsible for the first round at our underground FEMA bar.

[HCM]

They might not do it as a matter of policy, but some shade-tree mechanics do get visits because they ordered filters. One guy who has a diesel truck YT channel posted the footage of him being visited by agents and having to explain why he had the filters in question.

https://youtu.be/270sLN5WL2I?t=191

Chris

The additional factor in that case was he ordered them off a Chinese website, so in addition to the potential NFA issue there is a customs issue. HSI is part of ICE - The C is for Customs. When you bring things into or ship things out of the country that is a unambiguously federal customs matter per the Constitution.

He also just happened to have ordered the exact models that are a single pass of a drill press away from being a functional suppressor along with some firearms sights. That combination of facts does not rise to probable cause for a search or arrest warrant but is is definitely reasonable suspicion of potential Customs and/or NFA violations.


in·ves·ti·gate
/inˈvestəˌɡāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.

I'm just impressed HSI was actually out investigating something instead of hanging out at Starbucks... ;-)

Real investigations are a grind. As a mentor of mine once said, you never k now how many Volkswagen Beetles with canoes on top there are in Brooklyn until you start looking for one in particular. That HSI dude likely has a binder full of people who bought those fuel filters he has to contact and evaluate.

64838

Solvent trap suppressor kits and "airsoft" full auto Glock back plates from China have been recovered after use in multiple crimes. If you order shady stuff from a foreign website who then ship it to you via filing a false customs declaration you will eventually get a knock on your door.

[DDTSGM]

Sounds like a loss, actually. Like any good fed, any day I went out into the field and didn't come back with at least one dog collar to add to my collection was a bad day. Anyone in such a predicament was responsible for the first round at our underground FEMA bar.

Do you guys meet someplace and get into cattle cars to go to the bar?

[TGS]

Do you guys meet someplace and get into cattle cars to go to the bar?

Blacked out helicopters.

Duh.

:p

[TC215]

Man, ATF on a roll lately.

Elections have consequences I suppose.


Seems more like coincidence.

The P80 BBS kit was a newer product to the market, and it sounds like the BATFE had been gathering info on those kits (criminal uses and recoveries, build times and tools needed) since well prior to the election.

SB Tactical was an “any day now” situation. The 2018 BATFE letter notified SB Tactical that almost all of their products were being marketed and marked as “ATF Compliant” with no review or determination by the NFA branch/FATD that those products were compliant. I’ve heard statements from SB Tactical refuting that letter but I have seen no documentation released.

The scuttlebutt regarding DM was that the baffle parts were coming pre-center-punched or dimpled for drilling, which is a no-go for having anything firearms-related deemed “unmanufactured.” I’ve seen nothing that confirms that rumor. Might have been an issue with the kit being to close to “complete.”

Regardless of our feelings in the laws in question, it’s kind of a stretch for us to assume that a bureaucratic agency with different field offices and regional teams, as part of a larger bureaucratic department and in coordination with different state agencies and local task forces, would (or even could) plan these separate actions in short order as a response to an election.

The ATF has been looking into this stuff for YEARS. The election has little or nothing to do with it.

[Welder]

For somebody like myself whose only brush with the law is a few friends on the local PD and sheriff's depts, it's nice to hear from the horse's mouth(s) how these things work. What's the name of that principle that says the simplest answer is also usually the correct one?

On the flip side of that, yesterday while eating at the truck stop I (and the entire diner) was being regaled by a truck driver who swore that the VA was mailing suicide pills to Vietnam veterans, and the conspiracies got kookier from there. One thing about truck drivers, they stereotypically know everything. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

[Lester Polfus]

For somebody like myself whose only brush with the law is a few friends on the local PD and sheriff's depts, it's nice to hear from the horse's mouth(s) how these things work. What's the name of that principle that says the simplest answer is also usually the correct one?

On the flip side of that, yesterday while eating at the truck stop I (and the entire diner) was being regaled by a truck driver who swore that the VA was mailing suicide pills to Vietnam veterans, and the conspiracies got kookier from there. One thing about truck drivers, they stereotypically know everything. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

Can you give me as many descriptors on the truck driver and the location? Apparently our VA Hellfire missile equipped drones missed one.

[Welder]

Can you give me as many descriptors on the truck driver and the location? Apparently our VA Hellfire missile equipped drones missed one.

Truck driver white male 5'8" medium gut (small gut for a truck driver), long black hair, late 40's early 50's I'd guess. Loud voice that carries clearly for 40'. Nervous attitude that makes him stand up in the middle of the aisle and talk when trying to make his point, then sit back down and keep talking. Then stand up again when agitated.

Location Joe's Griddle and Grill Exit 243 Harrisonburg VA, first seat on the left as you walk in the door. Best to use one of those non-explosive surgical strikes because I'm sitting at the bar about 20' away eating a chocolate pie and minding my own business. :p

[HCM]

The ATF has been looking into this stuff for YEARS. The election has little or nothing to do with it.

This ^^^.

I recall ATF taking about 80% guns popping up in gang cases back in 2017.

[Lester Polfus]

Truck driver white male 5'8" medium gut (small gut for a truck driver), long black hair, late 40's early 50's I'd guess. Loud voice that carries clearly for 40'. Nervous attitude that makes him stand up in the middle of the aisle and talk when trying to make his point, then sit back down and keep talking. Then stand up again when agitated.

Location Joe's Griddle and Grill Exit 243 Harrisonburg VA, first seat on the left as you walk in the door. Best to use one of those non-explosive surgical strikes because I'm sitting at the bar about 20' away eating a chocolate pie and minding my own business. :p

Oh. That guy.

Skip the pie tomorrow, k?

[Lester Polfus]

Oh. That guy.

Skip the pie tomorrow, k?

And if not...

At least wear a raincoat.

[BehindBlueI's]

What's the name of that principle that says the simplest answer is also usually the correct one?


Occam's Razor.

And the thread seems to be veering into politics, tying it to elections, etc. That's fine if that's the conversation everyone wants to have but it'll need to be moved to politics.

[5pins]

A Washing state attorney trying to figure it all out. It's clear the ATF doesn't know what they are supposed to do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae0pZzwxFHg

[UNM1136]

I have also seen the feds pick up MANY more prohibited persons cases from local agencies over the last 5-6 years. Before that, if the prohibited person was arrested on local charges and weren't selling the gun(s) it stayed local.

Related side story: We just had one flushed by the local AUSA 'cause a co-worker, a 30 year cop didn't know NM case law. The felon in question was being sought for a Agg Assault-Deadly Weapon. Found by patrol cops, and ran. Search incident to the lawful arrest for misdemeanor fleeing located the discovered to be stolen Taurus 9mm in his back pack, not on his person. NM courts since before my academy have held that in such/similar circumstances the search was legal, but the seizure of that potential evidence needed a warrant. In that case the warrantless search of a car was deemed legal, after a drive by shooting, and since the cops were looking for a gun as evidence of the crime a warrant was needed to sieze it. SOP at my old agency was that while serving a search warrant if clear contraband was observed, even in plain view, that was not listed in the warrant the search stopped, and a second warrant was obtained. This leads to kinda broad warrants at times.

The AUSA trotted out federal case law from the late 70s or early 80s that observes a higher expectation of privacy to luggage, which a backpack of a homeless person was deemed to be. Correct solution was to inventory the backpack, find the gun, stop everything, close the backpack, and get a warrant to sieze the gun. Then proceed as normal. Street cops were throwing each other under the bus with "I didn't take the gun out of the backpack, maybe it was Ofc. Lipschitz." Had the gun been found on his person and not in his luggage during the search incident to arrest the search and the siezure would have both been kosher. There was no exigency or safety issue since the suspect was under arrest, handcuffed behind his back, and physically separated from the backpack. The CAD showed me responding to the foot pursuit, and arriving just after the arrest and search, so I was one of the ones tossed under the bus when no one could remember who found the gun when the prosecuter's investigator asked.

We were also one of the first states to lose the Carroll Doctrine.

I know we have feds here, including some with prosecutorial experience, and many who have served as case agents in federal cases. I don't know if this is just the local, liberal atmosphere and our local AUSA, or some thing that is common knowledge. We were shocked and thrilled when the feds picked up the case in the first place, and as the reports were being reviewed and the involved officers were interviewed, and the case was ultimately flushed. It is also a fairly nontypical situation, in my experience. Most mentally people pointing guns at a driver after jumping on the hood of a random car on a residential street don't keep their blaster in a backpack. Local DAs office also declined to prosecute after that, for the same reason. Only one of five experienced NM detectives (two property crimes, two homicide, and one sex crimes supervisor) retired from a fairly large local agency that I spoke to when I learned of this understood exactly what the problem was. It might also explain some of the dependecy on consent that we have here that I bitched about in the Baldwin thread.

If I am way off base here let me know, but this is the situation as I understand it, from the information presented to me, and by my supervisor, who was a retired detective sergeant for that good sized local agency who understood the issue immediately when asked. I have never been a detective other than in sporadic, ad hoc, occasional, short term investigative assignments. And I am pretty decent at getting search warrants as a patrol officer.

pat

[TGS]

I know we have feds here, including some with prosecutorial experience, and many who have served as case agents in federal cases. I don't know if this is just the local, liberal atmosphere and our local AUSA, or some thing that is common knowledge.
pat

WobblyPossum worked interdiction in your district and might have an idea to either confirm or clarify

[TC215]

I have also seen the feds pick up MANY more prohibited persons cases from local agencies over the last 5-6 years. Before that, if the prohibited person was arrested on local charges and weren't selling the gun(s) it stayed local.

Related side story: We just had one flushed by the local AUSA 'cause a co-worker, a 30 year cop didn't know NM case law. The felon in question was being sought for a Agg Assault-Deadly Weapon. Found by patrol cops, and ran. Search incident to the lawful arrest for misdemeanor fleeing located the discovered to be stolen Taurus 9mm in his back pack, not on his person. NM courts since before my academy have held that in such/similar circumstances the search was legal, but the seizure of that potential evidence needed a warrant. In that case the warrantless search of a car was deemed legal, after a drive by shooting, and since the cops were looking for a gun as evidence of the crime a warrant was needed to sieze it. SOP at my old agency was that while serving a search warrant if clear contraband was observed, even in plain view, that was not listed in the warrant the search stopped, and a second warrant was obtained. This leads to kinda broad warrants at times.

The AUSA trotted out federal case law from the late 70s or early 80s that observes a higher expectation of privacy to luggage, which a backpack of a homeless person was deemed to be. Correct solution was to inventory the backpack, find the gun, stop everything, close the backpack, and get a warrant to sieze the gun. Then proceed as normal. Street cops were throwing each other under the bus with "I didn't take the gun out of the backpack, maybe it was Ofc. Lipschitz." Had the gun been found on his person and not in his luggage during the search incident to arrest the search and the siezure would have both been kosher. There was no exigency or safety issue since the suspect was under arrest, handcuffed behind his back, and physically separated from the backpack. The CAD showed me responding to the foot pursuit, and arriving just after the arrest and search, so I was one of the ones tossed under the bus when no one could remember who found the gun when the prosecuter's investigator asked.

We were also one of the first states to lose the Carroll Doctrine.

I know we have feds here, including some with prosecutorial experience, and many who have served as case agents in federal cases. I don't know if this is just the local, liberal atmosphere and our local AUSA, or some thing that is common knowledge. We were shocked and thrilled when the feds picked up the case in the first place, and as the reports were being reviewed and the involved officers were interviewed, and the case was ultimately flushed. It is also a fairly nontypical situation, in my experience. Most mentally people pointing guns at a driver after jumping on the hood of a random car on a residential street don't keep their blaster in a backpack. Local DAs office also declined to prosecute after that, for the same reason. Only one of five experienced NM detectives (two property crimes, two homicide, and one sex crimes supervisor) retired from a fairly large local agency that I spoke to when I learned of this understood exactly what the problem was. It might also explain some of the dependecy on consent that we have here that I bitched about in the Baldwin thread.

If I am way off base here let me know, but this is the situation as I understand it, from the information presented to me, and by my supervisor, who was a retired detective sergeant for that good sized local agency who understood the issue immediately when asked. I have never been a detective other than in sporadic, ad hoc, occasional, short term investigative assignments. And I am pretty decent at getting search warrants as a patrol officer.

pat

NM is stupid. The first interdiction class I ever went to was taught by a guy from New Mexico State Police and a guy from ABQ PD. I remember them talking about needing to get a SW to search cars on traffic stops because the Carroll Doctrine was no good.

As far as your particular case— that doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve done a few federal felon in possession cases where guns were found in backpacks during a search incident to arrest. As long as the backpack was in the suspect’s immediate control or “wingspan” it should be good. I believe it was the SCOTUS ruling in Chimel v. California that covered this.

Obviously, different places do things differently, policing is regional, etc., etc.

[UNM1136]

NM is stupid. The first interdiction class I ever went to was taught by a guy from New Mexico State Police and a guy from ABQ PD. I remember them talking about needing to get a SW to search cars on traffic stops because the Carroll Doctrine was no good.

As far as your particular case— that doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve done a few federal felon in possession cases where guns were found in backpacks during a search incident to arrest. As long as the backpack was in the suspect’s immediate control or “wingspan” it should be good. I believe it was the SCOTUS ruling in Chimel v. California that covered this.

Obviously, different places do things differently, policing is regional, etc., etc.

Yes. And thanks.

I believe US v. Ross established the higher expectation of privacy for luggage. My google fu is failing me at the moment. We started losing the whole Carroll Doctrine in about 1997. There have been several clarificarions on the seperation between search and siezure. A baggie of meth in plain view in a locked, parked, unoccupied car requires a warrant to sieze, according to a recently referenced copy of NMDPS's warrantless search and siezure lesson plan from about seven years ago. These things get more restrictive rather than less so as time goes on.

pat

[TC215]

Yes. And thanks.

I believe US v. Ross established the higher expectation of privacy for luggage. My google fu is failing me at the moment. We started losing the whole Carroll Doctrine in about 1997. There have been several clarificarions on the seperation between search and siezure. A baggie of meth in plain view in a locked, parked, unoccupied car requires a warrant to sieze, according to a recently referenced copy of NMDPS's warrantless search and siezure lesson plan from about seven years ago. These things get more restrictive rather than less so as time goes on.

pat

Ross did the opposite, ruling that searching the “containers” (luggage/bags) was reasonable and constitutional under the Carroll Doctrine. It goes along with the standard that, under probable cause, you can search anywhere in a vehicle that the item you have PC to search for can be concealed, even if it’s in a locked or unlocked container. So, if you have PC to believe a stolen TV is in the car, it would be unreasonable to search the glovebox.

It’s important to note that Ross has to do with a PC search of a vehicle under Carroll, and Chimel governs searches incident to arrest. There’s a case that extends Chimel to vehicles (“wingspan” includes anywhere in the passenger compartment), but I can’t remember the name of the case off the top of my head. Of course, that changed some with Arizona v. Gant.

[UNM1136]

Ross did the opposite, ruling that searching the “containers” (luggage/bags) was reasonable and constitutional under the Carroll Doctrine. It goes along with the standard that, under probable cause, you can search anywhere in a vehicle that the item you have PC to search for can be concealed, even if it’s in a locked or unlocked container. So, if you have PC to believe a stolen TV is in the car, it would be unreasonable to search the glovebox.

It’s important to note that Ross has to do with a PC search of a vehicle under Carroll, and Chimel governs searches incident to arrest. There’s a case that extends Chimel to vehicles (“wingspan” includes anywhere in the passenger compartment), but I can’t remember the name of the case off the top of my head. Of course, that changed some with Arizona v. Gant.

Gotcha. Thanks. If I weren't so close to being able to retire I would find a less retarded state to cop in.

pat

[WobblyPossum]

That’s a weird situation and I’m wondering if there were other reasons the AUSA didn’t want to take the case and used this reasoning as a pretext for declining it. I’ve seen the USAO here take cases in which evidence was recovered in violation of NM state case law as long as it didn’t violate federal case law such as with a Carroll Doctrine search of a vehicle, for example. Can you PM me which AUSA this was, if you know? I’m not going to reach out to them about it as I’m still in the “it does what it’s told” phase of my federal career, I’m mostly just curious. The supervising AUSA whose team generally handles the firearm cases is a solid guy from my interactions with him.

[UNM1136]

That’s a weird situation and I’m wondering if there were other reasons the AUSA didn’t want to take the case and used this reasoning as a pretext for declining it. I’ve seen the USAO here take cases in which evidence was recovered in violation of NM state case law as long as it didn’t violate federal case law such as with a Carroll Doctrine search of a vehicle, for example. Can you PM me which AUSA this was, if you know? I’m not going to reach out to them about it as I’m still in the “it does what it’s told” phase of my federal career, I’m mostly just curious. The supervising AUSA whose team generally handles the firearm cases is a solid guy from my interactions with him.

Don't have a name. I wasn't interviewed, but was blamed by the cops that were. They told me, after being interviewed. Your comment makes sense and would not surprise me in the slightest. Dude was an AF vet, prohibited person, and mentally ill. I would look for any reason to help him, too. But thank you, and PM sent...

pat

[DDTSGM]

Can you give me as many descriptors on the truck driver and the location? Apparently our VA Hellfire missile equipped drones missed one.


Truck driver white male 5'8" medium gut (small gut for a truck driver), long black hair, late 40's early 50's I'd guess. Loud voice that carries clearly for 40'. Nervous attitude that makes him stand up in the middle of the aisle and talk when trying to make his point, then sit back down and keep talking. Then stand up again when agitated.

Location Joe's Griddle and Grill Exit 243 Harrisonburg VA, first seat on the left as you walk in the door. Best to use one of those non-explosive surgical strikes because I'm sitting at the bar about 20' away eating a chocolate pie and minding my own business. :p

Just dropping by to see if you're still around.

[Lester Polfus]

Just dropping by to see if you're still around.

He’s fine.

Just. Fine.

I’m sure you will receive communication from his account Soon.

[Welder]

Just dropping by to see if you're still around.

I am, but I no longer have a taste for chocolate pie.

[awp_101]

I am, but I no longer have a taste for chocolate pie.

THEY always miss a side effect or two, don't they?

[OlongJohnson]

The dude bought a bunch of fuel filters from overseas, along with supersoaker firearm sights...I'm assuming from China, and I would bet a dollar that the vendor also had a bunch of ready-to assemble solvent traps and fuel filters suppressor kits in their inventory as well and HSI was tracking the imports by said vendor.

There's nothing wrong about HSI questioning him over what obviously hit their radar and created reasonable suspicion, saying, "Ah, coincidence, have a nice day" and walking away. At no point was he arrested, his property seized, or otherwise suffered an incursion of constitutional rights.

With my limited research into modern diesel trucks, the online advice was virtually unanimous that you use only certain high-end fuel filters. You're not going to get them by placing bulk orders from offshore vendors. So at the most basic level, buying cheap-azz filters in quantity doesn't fit well with someone who is just taking the best possible care of a truck.

[Lester Polfus]

I am, but I no longer have a taste for chocolate pie.

See.

Just.

Fine.

[ccmdfd]

Saw this on Washington Gun Law's youtube.


https://youtu.be/NFBNoe1DPGg


Print article

https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay-city/2022/05/michigan-man-pleads-to-federal-crime-of-selling-1-million-in-illegal-gun-silencers-online.html