Thursday, April 02, 2015

Good police work leads to gun bust in New York City

The "broken windows theory" of policing states, roughly, that if police focus on minor, low-level crimes like graffiti, vandalism other public order offenses, that focus helps deter and prevent more serious crimes.

It paid dividends last night when officers from an anti-crime unit stopped a red Chevy Impala for illegal window tint. When the driver could not produce the car's registration and/or insurance, he was asked to step out of the vehicle for more questioning. As he did so, an officer looking into the car saw a knife, opening up the car to a more detailed search. The result of that search?
A Pps-43 and ammunition and two stun guns.

Now the gun is probably one of the Pioneer Arms semi-autos and not a "machine gun" at all, but still... I'm typically happier when the bad guys are stopped from toting around weapons like this. And McManus was, accoring to this article, a pretty bad guy.
McManus has had a welter of previous arrests, including at least four for robbery, two previous arrests for weapon possession and a previous arrest for assault in NYC, police said.

Good job, NYPD. Cop-haters, feel free to commence crying about improper searches, the erosion of the 4th Amendment and the rise of the police state as soon as you finish reading this. I'll try to respond after I get done sending a congratulatory e-mail to the officers involved.

23 comments:

  1. While neither of us know all the details about this, from what you describe this isn't an "illegal search" THe stop was for cause, which led to the request for registration/insurance (In Indiana, they would have had to had cause, but I think not in NY) which, when the driver could not produce it, led to the search...plus the smell of MJ, which could have led to the search anyway.

    I fail to see this as anything but good police work. Had the driver produced the registration and insurance/ not smelled like weed, then things might have been different, but this looks like a good stop to me. Good police work is knowing the law and knowing the limits the law places on the police. Once they driver couldn't produce the registration and the officer smelled weed, then getting him out of the car for further questioning was Kosher. Seeing the knife then led to the car search (Plain Sight).

    I see a good job, legal and Constitutional searches based on observations at the scene.

    you'll have to try harder to find an example of bad cops than this one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad that one's off the street...

    ReplyDelete
  3. And since this is NYC the bad guy will be out in a couple months ready to terrorize citizens who aren't allowed access to firearms with a new illegal gun.

    ReplyDelete
  4. B - Do you truly see the initial justification for the stop as Constitutional? Window tint?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While waiting for B to respond, I have to say that I don't recall the founding fathers issuing any opinions on automobile window tint one way or the other.

      Delete
    2. Basic freedom issue. If it's not hurting anyone ot should not be a crime.

      Delete
    3. III Percent...But that's not how things work. We need to deal in reality, not subjective opinions on what should or should not be. That said, there are numerous safety concerns regarding window tint, both regarding operator ability to see clearly and police officers' ability to see in. To that end, local legislators--the representatives of the people--arguably have a right to proscribe rules for the benefit and safety of everyone. When there is a legitimate socital interest on the table, the greater good of society often does and should trump any one individual's comfort, IMHO.

      BTW, I accidentally knocked out your other comment while cleaning up duplicate posts. My apologies. Please feel free to repost it.

      Delete
    4. Reality is outside of small towns a large part of why a politician wins is due to the size of his campaign fund. Which has a lot to do with business support. Which has everything to do with what the politician will do for the business. We are no longer represented and have not been in a long time.

      Delete
  5. I have one of the PPS 43 and 9mm, it is fun to shoot. You can ping steel out to 100 yards with it with no problem

    ReplyDelete
  6. K: I do see the window tint as the reasonable start. If the officer felt the window tint was too dark,he had the right to investigate. Which led to the stop, which led to the rest.

    Same as if he'd have had a brake light out,

    Once he had stopped the car, the odor of pot and the failure to produce registration led to the driver being pulled from the car. Plain sight led to the knife, which led to the search of the car.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the tint is regulated by statue, it's a good stop.

      Delete
  7. K and III: Have you ever driven an illegally-tinted car at night? I have, and the tint makes it very hard to see pedestrians on the street, especially if they are wearing dark clothes. Tint laws were passed to protect pedestrians, and not to harass albino drivers or whatever.
    Not all laws directly protect life and property. The intent of most legislation is to provide a more orderly society. You and I may disagree on specifics, but I think we can agree on the intent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that was the original intent. Now I think it is control and profiteering

      Delete
    2. Also if you are walking in the road at night in dark clothes and get hit by a car that is called darwinism and I don't feel bad for you. If people are that dumb maybe the government needs to act like the army and make everyone where pt belts.

      Delete
    3. Isn't making everyone wear PT belts an unconstitutional infringement on people's freedom? (We can play this game for days.)
      I never said all laws are good, or fair. I said there's a reason for tint laws and this was a lawful stop. A lawful traffic stop, coupled with the driver's inability to produce documentation for the car he's driving, plus the smell of marijuana, equals probable cause to search the vehicle. (If you're driving a car you didn't steal, you can usually provide registration for it.)
      And, if the police have probable cause to search a vehicle, they don't need to get a warrant, since the vehicle will be gone before they can serve the warrant. That's been the law since 1929 (U.S. v. Carroll).

      Delete
    4. Also, if you were the one to hit and kill the dark-clothed pedestrian, would you just say, "Eff him, he was stupid and had it coming," or would you think about it for the rest of your life? And would "He was stupid and had it coming" help you much when his survivors sued you?
      As Murphy said earlier, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were.

      Delete
    5. Also I was being sarcastic about the pt belts. Since the gov ignores the constitution they won't mind though. I don't support any new laws I support getting rid of 95% of them. The game is rigged don't play by or at least don't support its rules or freedom loses every time

      Delete
  8. This happened to me last summer,prick followed me for a mile to my home I pulled into my drive and he flipped the rollers on me,asshole neighbors out and all Saturday morning what pissed me off the most was the fact that he told me I was the 3rd that morning great job I told him glad to see your keeping the village safe,paid the100$ ticket and brought the tint on the truck down a few %, bullshit law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it's bullshit. But what irks me is that in PA and the law is extremely vague about it. Police buy tint meters to enforce it. My gripe on that is where is it authorized by statue, who certifies the officers, who calibrates them, and so on.

      Delete
  9. Thanks, folks.

    ReplyDelete