• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Local incident news article question

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
LINK

Short version: Guy violates stalking order (is that different than a restraining order?) by going to ex-girlfriends house, yelling at her, and driving through her yard, gets arrested back at his home (second-degree criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, stalking order violation, violation of a release agreement and two counts of harassment).

I don't have any problem with the arrest, but what got my attention is the lead off to the article is:
"Clatsop County Sheriff’s deputies removed 17 weapons from the home of a man who violated a stalking order Friday night."

Why lead with this when the firearms (apparently) were not used or a part of the incident that got the guy arrested?

Also, why weren't they seized at the time the "stalking order" was given as part of the court order?

But what really confuses me is towards the end of the article:
"Another woman, who lives with Killion, requested his 17 weapons be removed from the home for safe keeping,"

Not court ordered, not for evidence, not as part of the bail agreement, but removed due to the request a person living with the guy.
How can a room-mate / live-in GF / or even a wife just give a guy's personal property over to law enforcement? (ok, maybe the wife if community property).
If asked, I'm sure law enforcement would say it's a safety issue, but if the guy is behind bars... what safety issue? Taking them as part of the bail agreement when he's released I can see, then he's voluntarily giving them over.

Can she legally give the firearms to the LEOs? And can the LEOs legally take them into "safe keeping" when they are not part of the crime or a court order (bail or RO agreement)?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
LINK

Short version: Guy violates stalking order (is that different than a restraining order?) by going to ex-girlfriends house, yelling at her, and driving through her yard, gets arrested back at his home (second-degree criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, stalking order violation, violation of a release agreement and two counts of harassment).

I don't have any problem with the arrest, but what got my attention is the lead off to the article is:

Why lead with this when the firearms (apparently) were not used or a part of the incident that got the guy arrested?

Also, why weren't they seized at the time the "stalking order" was given as part of the court order?

But what really confuses me is towards the end of the article:

Not court ordered, not for evidence, not as part of the bail agreement, but removed due to the request a person living with the guy.
How can a room-mate / live-in GF / or even a wife just give a guy's personal property over to law enforcement? (ok, maybe the wife if community property).
If asked, I'm sure law enforcement would say it's a safety issue, but if the guy is behind bars... what safety issue? Taking them as part of the bail agreement when he's released I can see, then he's voluntarily giving them over.

Can she legally give the firearms to the LEOs? And can the LEOs legally take them into "safe keeping" when they are not part of the crime or a court order (bail or RO agreement)?

Thoughts?

You gotta read the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). Generally speaking, many DV related orders (not sure if this "stalking order") prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a firearm while the order is in effect. THe problem with articles like this is the they don't get into the details and the details are everything. It might have been pursuant to the order (they may not have known of those firearms at the time the order was served). It might not be. In my state, restraining orders are only pursuant to divorce/seperation proceedings. Protection Orders are generally DV related. No contact orders are issued upon arrest for DV crime. EX parte anti-harassment orders cover most non DV situations.

There is no way , based upon this article to know under which justification the guns were seized. Based on the crimes the guy was arrested for, the cops could take the guns for safekeeping and then he would have to apply to get them back. Especially when it comes to DV related offenses like this and where an order is in effect, guns can often be taken. But again, the devil is in the details. Depending on the guy exhibiting mental issues and the crime he committed, orders in effect - there are a # of ways they can be taken for "safekeeping". The cops can do it proactively, and the judge can - based on new evidence in the crime just arrested for - modify the order to justify their being kept further or released back to him
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
You gotta read the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). Generally speaking, many DV related orders (not sure if this "stalking order") prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a firearm while the order is in effect. THe problem with articles like this is the they don't get into the details and the details are everything. It might have been pursuant to the order (they may not have known of those firearms at the time the order was served). It might not be. In my state, restraining orders are only pursuant to divorce/seperation proceedings. Protection Orders are generally DV related. No contact orders are issued upon arrest for DV crime. EX parte anti-harassment orders cover most non DV situations.

There is no way , based upon this article to know under which justification the guns were seized. Based on the crimes the guy was arrested for, the cops could take the guns for safekeeping and then he would have to apply to get them back. Especially when it comes to DV related offenses like this and where an order is in effect, guns can often be taken. But again, the devil is in the details. Depending on the guy exhibiting mental issues and the crime he committed, orders in effect - there are a # of ways they can be taken for "safekeeping". The cops can do it proactively, and the judge can - based on new evidence in the crime just arrested for - modify the order to justify their being kept further or released back to him

I don't see how the crime the arrested him for has any relevance to them seizing the weapons. He either had a court order prohibiting from having them (as part of the stalking order) or they would need a search warrant to seize any weapons in the home. Haven't researched it specifically, haven't heard of the story before, but constitutional guidelines are fairly generic. You have to have a court order (stalking or search) in order to seize weapons from the home.
 
Top