$500 reward for reporting “illegal guns” in new york

S

steve4102

New member
The city of Peekskill NY is offering a $500 reward for information regarding "illegal" firearms. If the tip results in confiscation of "illegal" firearms, the caller gets $500.

http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/500-reward-for-reporting-illegal-guns-in-new-york/

My question, is an Anonymous tip of this sort enough Probable Cause for LE to acquire a search warrant?

I did the Google and came up with the recent SC ruling on traffic stops and anonymous tips. Same or different?
 
Regardless of how misguided the intent of this is, its implementation will have all sorts of side effects costly to both the city's budget and the citizens' rights and safety.

Reading the comments to the story, we can see which side of the debate is first to start the name-calling.
 
LOL, the picture is hilarious. OK, I'll admit you might find an AR-15 or a Glock 17 in New York that would be considered illegal now. But an M249? Two MP5 variants? I don't know where I would find of those in places that they ARE legal.

My intuition tells me they are airsoft guns, though. I think I have seen all of those models before.
 
My question, is an Anonymous tip of this sort enough Probable Cause for LE to acquire a search warrant?
Click to expand...
It depends. If there is simply a report that John Doe has an illegal gun, it wouldn't be enough. If there is a report that John Doe has a Colt AR-15 with an Aimpoint Pro with 30 round mags and keeps it in the trunk of his pink Cadillac with license number XYZ-123, then there is likely probable cause. The Supreme Court has said an anonymous tip alone is not enough but if there is enough detail and some of it can be corroborated by police (pink caddy, license plate) then that can be probable cause. It is very fact oriented.
 
Heck I'm just wondering what happens if John Q Public calls in his neighbor over and over. If all it takes is knowing the car make, color, and plate number, and my neighbor's being a dink about his tree and the leaves it's dropping on my lawn..
 
^^^
That's kinda why I asked the question.

Can these simple "Call for Money" anonymous phone calls be sufficient for a Search Warrant?

It wouldn't take much to coax the needed info from the caller.

I'm sorry sir we need more information, what kind of car, color, Lic plate, when does he go to the range, black rifle you say, what color black, etc.etc.etc.
 
Fraught with potential unintended consequences

Totalitarian regimes never seem to have a problem kicking in doors and whisking people off never to be seen again. But in America? on anonymous tips? This is a scary ordinance. i hope it doesn't withstand the inevitable legal challenges and doubt it will.

So when the PD serves one of these warrants, they'll naturally be on edge - seeking illegal guns and all, I would be - it's very easy to envision someone getting shot. A homeowner and law abiding gun owner jumps up as the door crashes open, or reaches for his waistband as the first LEO enters, gun drawn. Cops and citizens alike will be endangered if they actually try to enforce this.

Maybe the thing scarier than the actual ordinance is that so many seem to think it is a good idea. What was is Franklin said about trading liberty for safety?
 
The Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar–Spinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), in favor of a rule that evaluates the reliability of the information under the "totality of the circumstances." However, Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington have retained the Aguilar–Spinelli test, based on their own state constitutions.

The two "prongs" of the test are that, when law enforcement seeks a search warrant and a magistrate signs a warrant:

1)The magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is reliable and credible.

2)The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information.[1]

This information provided to a magistrate will allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the probable cause that a crime has been or will be committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguilar–Spinelli_test#cite_note-spinelli-1


Help me to understand this, please.

First, the "caller seeking $500" would not be anonymous if seeking money, so the caller would be known to LE. I think the term would be Confidential Informant, yes?

Being a Known to LE it would be very easy to determine if the informant is credible or not. A brother-in-Law, co-worker, neighbor, relative or even friend. Would this be sufficient to support the Conclusion that the informant is "Credible and Reliable"?

The second part of the "two Prong" test is underlying circumstances relied on by the informant. What are some example of this?
Would any of these qualify.
He told be he as "Assault rifles"
I have seen his gun collection.
I saw him put several gun cases in the trunk of his car.
His wife told me.
He brags about it at work.
I saw him at the rally burning registration forms.

Thanks.
 
Here is the root cause of the problem. Assigning blame to an inanimate object. One of the commenters to the story said this:

Tim Orr · Top Commenter · Incident Manager at Hewlett-Packard

I disagree. Not all guns are legal. The person that just got out of prison should not have a gun. A gun that was stolen from you is illegal.
Click to expand...

So, the gun is illegal? Not the person that stole it? Blaming guns for the actions of people take personal responsibility out of the equation. It is not the criminals fault, it is the gun's fault. Right...........:rolleyes:
 
"The children, on the other hand, were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations."
-1984

Also; MP5's and a freakin' Minimi? Are these people seriously using stock footage of the SWAT's armory as a prop for 'illegal' guns? God, the irony :rolleyes:. In that case, we'll never be at a loss for 'guns on the street' --they'll just keep running old pictures of seizures for ever to trump up whatever civil rights violations they feel are necessary.

TCB
 
So, the gun is illegal? Not the person that stole it?
Click to expand...

While a lot of people do blame the gun, not the gun user. in the example given, yes, the gun is illegal. They don't say the guy who has the gun stole, just that the gun he has is "illegal".
 
Totalitarian regimes typically turn the citizens/subjects against each other for personal gain. No surprise here. We are not living in the country we grew up in.
 
Things are bad in New York, but it's a gross exaggeration to refer to it as a totalitarian regime. I've seen those. This isn't one.

Let's dial the rhetoric back a hair.
 
I see a major opportunity here for swatting based on a few coordinated tips when's few want revenge or official entertainment. It's not going to turn out pretty.
 
Things are bad in New York, but it's a gross exaggeration to refer to it as a totalitarian regime. I've seen those. This isn't one.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole has it purpose. I am alarmed at the characteristics of totalitarianism that we are conditioned to accept...so much so that some do not recognize what is plain to see.
 
Characteristics like a government, and a body of laws? The Due Process may suck, but it's still there. There are no mass graves, no incarceration without an eventual trial.

Hyperbole may serve its purpose, but that purpose is rarely good. Now instead of the 30 some odd states that still maintain a militia, hyperbole has us referring to every group of nuts in the woods or a compound as a militia, cheapening and sullying the people who do serve in such an organization. 3 guns, and a year's worth of ammo picked up at the Fourth of July sale is now an arsenal. Hyperbole also gives us snide questions about whether some kook who goes off the deep end was just standing his ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top