20 year old stopped with backpack with 2 oz of weed and a gun

[Garys]

Neither a 69xx nor 59xx magazine is going to fit into a Shield. Both are double stack and the only Shield I've held iis definitely a single stack. That curved pinky base plate came with the 69xx magazines. You can swap them, but they don't look quite right without doing some cutting on the baseplates.

I just compared a 5906 mag to a 9mm shield mag. Length, pretty damn close, let’s call it the same. Width (front to back), let’s call it the same....I’m no busting out the calipers here, but within spec. Thickness, not even close. 5906 mag has different angle going from double to single, of course, and the 5906 mags I have look pretty damn close to the obviously not a shield mag in the pic. I’ll defer to your S&w expertise on it being a 69 series mag. Still, likely pretty tough to get that into a shield!!!

That mag looks like two of my mec-gar, definitely not pre-ban 5906 mags. The older ones I have are shiny stainless....

 

[Garys]

My only hope is that one of the criminal defense lawyers knows the case I'm talking about and chimes in. As I recall, it was in Brockton and early in the 2000s.

(Not trying to make a nonexistence proof here, but)
personally I've never noticed some NESer trot out some other case
that has subtle nuance about "do you have a license?" vs. "show me your license!".

Among many other things,
it would be slightly newsworthy if some case after Haskell used Haskell.
And it would be especially interesting
if you're thinking of some predecessor case that Haskell builds on top of,
or better yet some successor case that builds atop Haskell.

 

[Darksideblues42]

I read "backpack full of weed", then saw the amount was 2 ounces.

What was that... a backpack for a hamster?

The initial report didn't list the 2 ounces. Sorry.

 

[AHM]

My only hope ...

Spoiler: Ruff situation you got yourself in

... is that one of the criminal defense lawyers knows the case I'm talking about and chimes in. As I recall, it was in Brockton and early in the 2000s.

Well, one question you could ask yourself is,
"What difference, at this point, does it make?".

Not trying to go Full Hildebeest on you; rather...
If you're just wracking your brains over a lost gossamer thread of history,
I feel your pain. In late October, I finally found a (crappy) copy of
Sealab 2021: Tin Fins that includes the Grizzlebee's commercial
with the universal directions to every chain restaurant in America.
And this afternoon, I couldn't find where I stashed it. Until just now.

But if such a separate Brockton 911 case occurred in the way that you recall,
does it yield case law that differs in any way from Haskell?
"Any difference that makes no difference is no difference".

 

[KBCraig]

One of these days a cop will claim RAS of armed and dangerous,
and "frisk" a suspect still in the car, just so they can search things within reach,
"so everybody can go home safe".

That's actually an old technique. Happened to a friend of mine in college.

Broad daylight, and he pulled the wrong way into a one-way parking lot and parked in the very first space. He was already out of his car and walking towards his dorm when a campus cop lit him up and jumped out, pulled his gun, and started screaming, "GET BACK IN THE CAR!"

 

[AHM]

That's actually an old technique. Happened to a friend of mine in college.

Yeesh. This is the time on NES where I roll my eyes at your friend's misfortune.

 

[Marty McFly]

Glad the title was changed. Someone doesn't realize 2 ounces is a full zip lock lol.

 

[bigben111435]

So you want to drive around selling 8ths, with an illegal firearm, pretending you are the hardest dealer in Taunton Maybe don't toke in the car.
Retard

 

[Talon3]

The minus sign in front of the 1200 indicates it's under 1200 misdemeanor not a felony. If it was over 1200 they would have put a plus sign as in +1200
The misdemeanor felony line was raised from 250. To 1200 to reflect inflation or so they say.

 

[weekendracer]

That's not remotely what Terry v. Ohio says, but current police training says that anytime an officer has a hunch, they can search everything.

In this case, the fool gave permission to search. That negates any 4A arguments he might otherwise have.

Back to Terry: Terry says that if an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and is both currently armed and dangerous, the officer may detain the person and pat down outer clothing to feel for a weapon. No reaching into pockets. No feeling for drugs. No searching anywhere else.

That's what Terry says. In practice, police search whatever they want and get a pass on 4A violations.

Is reading so damn hard? The cop asked for consent, and was given consent. It's all right there.

 

[KBCraig]

Is reading so damn hard? The cop asked for consent, and was given consent. It's all right there.

Apparently it is, since you quoted me without reading what I wrote: "In this case, the fool gave permission to search. That negates any 4A arguments he might otherwise have."

 

[weekendracer]

Apparently it is, since you quoted me without reading what I wrote: "In this case, the fool gave permission to search. That negates any 4A arguments he might otherwise have."

That's what Terry says. In practice, police search whatever they want and get a pass on 4A violations.

I was responding to your last sentence, which whatever you said in the rest of your post, was your last sentence. And no, evidence gets tossed if police don't follow proper procedure and the defense lawyer actually graduated from some type of law school.

 

[AHM]

Is reading so damn hard? The cop asked for consent, and was given consent. It's all right there.

You have to read what @KBCraig wrote in the context of
the stupid purse fight we were having over the edge cases of searches and seizures
(because I didn't relate initial postings to the fact patterns of the case of the instant).