Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The dimwits at the Hillsborough Sheriff Department illegally arrest someone who was transporting firearms legally.

Then they post photos and brag about it on Facebook.

As a result many thousands of public comments slammed the Sheriff Dept on the post and the Department eventually took the post down yesterday.

They have since issued a quasi-retraction which you can see here: https://www.facebook.com/HCSOSheriff/posts/2689259351109678


And they are still getting skewered in the comments. It is quite entertaining!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,870 Posts
Inside his pickup truck, there was a hunting rifle and three handguns for which he did not have a permit for, according to the sheriff's office.

He was charged with open carry of the rifle and for having the three concealed weapons without a permit. The sheriff’s office said it has changed its mind and decided while the other charges were valid, the open carry charge was a mistake...
Not enough info in the article regarding the three concealed weapons. Were they on him or inside the truck securely encased?

:popcorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,122 Posts
Not enough info in the Article to know if they were wrong on the "concealed handgun" charges. Article doesn't say if any of the "concealed handguns" were on his person or not. If they were merely "securely encased" not on his person, then they were wrong to charge him. If he was traveling to/from hunting or one of the other provisions in f.s. 790.25(3), they were wrong to charge him. :popcorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
From what I read, the open carry charge has been dropped, but he's still on the hook for concealed carry without a CWFL, since he had three handguns in the vehicle that were not securely encased. Just based on the description of events leading up to the traffic stop, the guy sounds like a complete jackass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,493 Posts
The dimwits at the Hillsborough Sheriff Department illegally arrest someone who was transporting firearms legally.

Then they post photos and brag about it on Facebook.

As a result many thousands of public comments slammed the Sheriff Dept on the post and the Department eventually took the post down yesterday.

They have since issued a quasi-retraction which you can see here: https://www.facebook.com/HCSOSheriff/posts/2689259351109678


And they are still getting skewered in the comments. It is quite entertaining!

Mr. Frisco’s traffic stop was incorrect in a portion of their interpretation of Florida Open Carry Laws. Mr. Frisco was not in violation regarding the manner in which he was transporting his rifle, however, that does not negate that he was in violation of the law for having three loaded firearms concealed and not securely encased in the vehicle. Mr. Frisco also does not have a concealed weapon permit.


The deputy searched Frisco's vehicle and found three loaded handguns -- no cases and ready to use

So they've dropped one violation and the others remain. Seems the errant charge has been corrected but it doesn't negate the other charges.

Here is a media report:


https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/lo...7-e3f351cc9ab5


Media? It's not even worth opening the link, the media gets it right with such few actual facts, msm can't be relied on as a source of facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,493 Posts
The department violated the law by deleting the post. I hope they are called to account for that.
Huh? Got a cite on that? Not questioning your statement, just haven't ever seen any discussion or laws on this.
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,123 Posts
Huh? Got a cite on that? Not questioning your statement, just haven't ever seen any discussion or laws on this.
Thanks
I don't have an iron in this fire, the guy did break some laws, and at least one of the charges was dropped, so the following is pure speculation.

I believe, and I may be wrong, he was implying that by removing their post, they were covering up/destroying potential evidence of possible police wrongdoing, and a more correct response would be to edit the existing post with a new paragraph citing the correction, rather than deleting the original post and writing a new one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,493 Posts
I don't have an iron in this fire, the guy did break some laws, and at least one of the charges was dropped, so the following is pure speculation.

I believe, and I may be wrong, he was implying that by removing their post, they were covering up/destroying potential evidence of possible police wrongdoing, and a more correct response would be to edit the existing post with a new paragraph citing the correction, rather than deleting the original post and writing a new one.
Implied cover up by removing their OP and stating the error made in their follow up with further explanation of charges? Hmm, if they hadn't mentioned their initial mistake and dropping the one charge, perhaps, but their subsequent posting spelled it out with no apparent intention to hide anything, IMO.

I thought the poster was saying it was illegal to delete a FB post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Implied cover up by removing their OP and stating the error made in their follow up with further explanation of charges? Hmm, if they hadn't mentioned their initial mistake and dropping the one charge, perhaps, but their subsequent posting spelled it out with no apparent intention to hide anything, IMO.

I thought the poster was saying it was illegal to delete a FB post.
Under the Florida Public Records Law (government in the sunshine) they can edit their post, but they have to archive a copy of the unedited post and retain the archived copy for the period required by the records retention statute. If they didn’t retain the archived copy, they would be in violation of the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,887 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
They aren't breaking any laws by taking down a posting. This is right in the middle of the current referenced posting: (emphasis mine)
In Addition: We apologize to anyone who was concerned by the original Facebook post related to this incident being removed. It is never our intention to censor. The previously vague post was taken down and reposted shortly after with more detailed information in hopes of providing clarity. It is important to note that all of our posts are archived and can be obtained through a public records request: https://hillsboroughsheriff.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(it3jc42yu3dggxnhat12sz3m))/SupportHome.aspx?sSessionID=
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Under the Florida Public Records Law (government in the sunshine) they can edit their post, but they have to archive a copy of the unedited post and retain the archived copy for the period required by the records retention statute. If they didn’t retain the archived copy, they would be in violation of the law.
Exactly. But they must also archive all the comments. Make an open records request for all of the comments on that post, and if they don't provide, then they are in violation.

I suspect they did archive the comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
So, a question for those in the know. Say Mr. Douchebag told the cop he would not consent to a search of his vehicle (where he eventually found the reported illegally carried guns), would the officer then have to get a warrant? And if so, on what grounds? And if the officer searched it without said warrant, would the other charges regarding the other guns have to be thrown out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Exactly. But they must also archive all the comments. Make an open records request for all of the comments on that post, and if they don't provide, then they are in violation.

I suspect they did archive the comments.
Real easy here guys. Facebook has a division, called “Facebook Government & Politics” that does all of this archiving automatically. Hands off, no hassle, automatic. This is available to verified government agency accounts, politicians, and certain public sector NGO’s.

Twitter, instagram, etc have their own versions.

My time in uniform was spent as a Public Affairs Officer, so well versed in this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,435 Posts

Mr. Frisco’s traffic stop was incorrect in a portion of their interpretation of Florida Open Carry Laws. Mr. Frisco was not in violation regarding the manner in which he was transporting his rifle, however, that does not negate that he was in violation of the law for having three loaded firearms concealed and not securely encased in the vehicle. Mr. Frisco also does not have a concealed weapon permit.


The deputy searched Frisco's vehicle and found three loaded handguns -- no cases and ready to use

So they've dropped one violation and the others remain. Seems the errant charge has been corrected but it doesn't negate the other charges.

Here is a media report:


https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/lo...7-e3f351cc9ab5


Media? It's not even worth opening the link, the media gets it right with such few actual facts, msm can't be relied on as a source of facts.
They will be dropping all charges. They had zero right to search his car. It is an illegal search and seizure. The fruit of the poisonous tree will get him paid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,435 Posts
So, a question for those in the know. Say Mr. Douchebag told the cop he would not consent to a search of his vehicle (where he eventually found the reported illegally carried guns), would the officer then have to get a warrant? And if so, on what grounds? And if the officer searched it without said warrant, would the other charges regarding the other guns have to be thrown out?
The officer used a fake probable cause. The fact that a rifle or shotgun was visible is not probable cause of a crime. This police officer illegally turned a civil violation into a criminal violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,669 Posts
The officer used a fake probable cause. The fact that a rifle or shotgun was visible is not probable cause of a crime. This police officer illegally turned a civil violation into a criminal violation.
Good point
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
The officer used a fake probable cause. The fact that a rifle or shotgun was visible is not probable cause of a crime. This police officer illegally turned a civil violation into a criminal violation.
Then all charges should be dropped?
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top