City police confiscates man's 41 gun collection three years ago and man has to sue

[fabsroman]

Lawsuit questions taking of property three years ago

Anthony Mora wants his stuff back--including the 41 guns taken by Gaithersburg police.

He's already asked the police who seized the guns that apparently were a threat to his safety.

The official police reply: Sign here, please.

But Mora won't sign--at least not the "Application for the Return of Firearms" that Gaithersburg police want him to fill out; Mora feels the questions it asks are an invasion of privacy aimed at embarrassing gun owners.

Compromises haven't worked. Neither side will budge.

So Mora filed a lawsuit in an attempt to end the stalemate by forcing police to return his guns.

"It's a classic case of government overreach," said Howard J. Fezell, Mora's attorney and a former National Rifle Association board member.

The suit, filed in federal court in Greenbelt July 22, seeks compensatory and punitive damages--with no dollar amounts specified--against the police who took and still have the guns, as well as an injunction ordering Gaithersburg to return Mora's property.

The suit also seeks a declaratory judgment that Gaithersburg has no authority to demand that Mora sign their "Application for the Return of Firearms," which Fezell claims violates Mora's constitutional rights as well as state laws pre-empting local jurisdictions from regulating the transfer of firearms.

A declaratory judgment concerns an interpretation of a law--in Mora's case, Fezell would ask the court to agree that state law precluded Gaithersburg from taking Mora's guns and doesn't permit the city from keeping them any longer.

A city attorney said Tuesday that Gaithersburg could not comment on the suit, as it hadn't yet been served a copy.

Fezell said Tuesday that the city would be served "very shortly."

The impetus for the suit occurred July 23, 2002, when police from Gaithersburg, the county and the county sheriff's department surrounded Mora near his Gaithersburg apartment, at 439 West Side Drive, after an acquaintance apparently told police Mora might be suicidal, Fezell said.

Mora, then a county firefighter, was readying for a weekend vacation when confronted by three officers "who had drawn their service weapons and yelled at the defendant to get on the ground," according to the complaint.

Police handcuffed Mora, who is still a firefighter and has since moved to Fairfield, Pa., and searched his apartment, where they found the 41 guns along with ammunition, gun-related books, a spotting scope and binoculars, among other items.

Mora has never been arrested or charged with any crimes.

Even more indefensible, Fezell said, is that police did all this without a search warrant or Mora's consent to search his property.

"They searched the gun safe, they searched the closets--everything," Fezell said. "They never had authority to search anything. They never had authority to seize anything."

The defendants, including Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette, also have no right to ask Mora to fill out the firearms return form, Fezell said, explaining that it asks probing, personal questions that violate state law and discriminate against gun owners.

"They have this form that is totally off the wall in terms of what they're asking," Fezell said.

A copy of the police form provided by Fezell asks whether the person requesting the return of firearms is an alcoholic or drug addict and has ever attended 12-step meetings to deal with such problems.

Fezell said they haven't been able to "pin down exact" details of what happened the day police confiscated Mora's stuff. He said 911 tapes are kept by county police for 120 days and then discarded, and that Gaithersburg never got a copy of the tape.

But such details aren't as important to Fezell as the fact that state and federal laws appear to permit Mora to have guns, while Gaithersburg does not.

And that if the issue were about some other protected freedom, Gaithersburg wouldn't be asserting such authority. "If you're a gun owner," Fezell said, "it's a different story."

[DaMadman]

well clearly the guy must be a danger, why else would he have 41 guns and all that ammo :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

[jon lynn]

WHY, did the police go to him in the first place, it never specifies as to why they arrived.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by jon lynn
WHY, did the police go to him in the first place, it never specifies as to why they arrived.
From the origional post: Originally posted by fabsroman
The impetus for the suit occurred July 23, 2002, when police from Gaithersburg, the county and the county sheriff's department surrounded Mora near his Gaithersburg apartment, at 439 West Side Drive, after an acquaintance apparently told police Mora might be suicidal, Fezell said.

Suicide/Threat call

[denton]

If Mora hasn't broken any laws, was unarmed at the time the police intervened, and offered no resistance, and the police were not there to enforce any law, then it seems to me that the police committed armed robbery, assault with deadly weapons, burglary, grand theft, and thoroughly violated RICO under color of law. Why are they not doing time for multiple felonies?

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by denton
If Mora hasn't broken any laws, was unarmed at the time the police intervened, and offered no resistance, and the police were not there to enforce any law
Is that a question, or a statement of happenings?

Seems a reasonable course of action if a person made a credible threat of suicide by firearm ( I have no info to that effect, but it would be SOP to secure the person for an evaluation and secure the instrument(s) of suicide threat while there, be it pills, knife, or firearm).

[Niteowl]

Well I guess the mere fact that he was readying himself for a weekend of camping he must have been suicidal...duhhhhh! Had the cops done what they are supposed to do,IE; investigate,they may have figured it out that he was a firefighter(hey they might have even asked his captain??)I'm sorry but the LEO's are not always right...He should sue the pants off of them.

[denton]

Is that a question, or a statement of happenings?

I think the department and the officers are in deep legal do-do.

They cuffed him, and took him to the hospital for evaluation. Police officers need a court order, arrest warrant, or very sound legal basis before doing that, or it's unlawful imprisonment. JMO, but I think they need something a lot more substantial than "he might be suicidal" to cuff and incarcerate him.

Once he was in custody, he could not harm himself, and there was no need for further immediate action by the department. I can just hear the plaintiff's attorney:

So, officer Jones, where did you get your degree in phsychiatry?

I don't have one.

You're not licensed to diagnose mental illness in this state?

No.

Then exactly how did you determine that the plaintiff was suicidal?

We received a tip that he might be.

And how did you evaluate that tip, once you got to Mr. Mora's home?

We're not qualified to do that. We just took him into custody, and siezed his belongings.

You took him to the hospital?

Yes.

Did any of the doctors at the hospital diagnose him as suicidal?

No.

To your knowledge, he was treated and released?

Yes.

With no diagnosis?

That is correct.

So by what legal right did you enter his home, remove his belongings, and continue to hold them?

If what we are being told is accurate, and pretty much the whole story, the judge will drop kick the department through the goal posts of of over-reach, and the mortgage on Mr. Mora's house will be paid off. Of course, all the facts remain to been seen.

[fabsroman]

On this one, I think the police department, not necessarily the individual LEO's at the scene, are in the wrong. I would hate for this sort of action by police departments to become the norm. I would really hate for one of my clients to get pissed off at me in the future, and to get at me call the police department, log a tip that I am suicidal and that I have a plethora of guns, and next thing I know my collectors items are being tossed around as if they were my hunting guns, not that my hunting guns bet tossed around anyway.

On top of that, I could not imagine having to wait three years to get them back.

What I cannot believe is that the police department could not reach a compromise on this one.

Again, more of my hard earned tax dollars down the tube with lost Court time. Good thing I don't live 5 miles down the road in Gaithersburg or else it would be my tax dollars funding the city attorney.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by denton
They cuffed him, and took him to the hospital for evaluation. Police officers need a court order, arrest warrant, or very sound legal basis before doing that
Ah, the crux of the matter. Who determines: legal basis

[denton]

Ah, the crux of the matter. Who determines: legal basis

You are right, of course. The legislature does, and the governor signs off on it, and it becomes law. Outside that, the police and courts have no authority to act.

We haven't been told what legal basis the police department thought they had. That remains to be seen, and is an important issue. Without a court order, or a warrant, my understanding is that generally they have to witness a crime being committed, or witness some clear and present danger to life, limb, or property in order to handcuff someone and haul them off. As far as we know at this point, none of those were present.

What they did was a major disruption of the man's life. You have to have an extremely clear and solid reason for making the level of intervention.

One problem, as fabs pointed out, is that the government has practically unlimited revenue, which they take from you and me. So the poor guy is paying his own attorney, and paying for part of Gaithersburg's legal bills, too. Still, I think the police department is in deep kim-chi.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by denton
You are right, of course. The legislature does, and the governor signs off on it, and it becomes law. Outside that, the police and courts have no authority to act.

We haven't been told what legal basis the police department thought they had. That remains to be seen (but doesn't stop some from passing judgement), and is an important issue. Without a court order, or a warrant, my understanding is that generally they have to witness a crime being committed, or witness some clear and present danger to life, limb, or property in order to handcuff someone and haul them off. As far as we know at this point, none of those were present. (you must also add that we don't know that it wasn't present, or appear biased)

What they did was a major disruption of the man's life. You have to have an extremely clear and solid reason for making the level of intervention. (yes, and so far the whole story is not out there. If it was, this thread may not exist)

Still, I think the police department is in deep kim-chi. (and that is perfectly fine. It's your opinon, and far different than stating "They are in deep do-do" "They did wrong". Qualifiying it makes all the difference. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's the last word)

TBO

[denton]

If you are going to quote me, please quote accurately. My original statement was:

I think the department and the officers are in deep legal do-do.

Rather than:

.far different than stating "They are in deep do-do"

Kindly take the time to read and understand before you criticize.

I have stated many times that we do not yet have all the facts. What I have said is that if the facts are as presented, then the department has some serious amends to make. I do not think you will find anything in any of my posts that conflicts with that simple statement.

Are you saying that if the facts are as presented, the department acted correctly?

If not, then we are probably in violent agreement.

[fabsroman]

I think we are going to have to start laying out fact patterns here. Kind of like when I write an opinion for a client of mine, I always say "According to the facts you have supplied me, which are the following: yadda, yadda, yadda, it is my legal opinion that you are SOL.

You guys are worried about the legislature and the governor signing law, how about the founding fathers that signed something called the Constitution. Last I checked, it protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, which this most likely was.

What I want to know TBO is whether or not the took away his driver's license and his knives.

As I said in a different post, more LEO's have been killed over the past decade in auto accidents than by firearms. That would lead me to believe that somebody could commit suicide by driving down the highway at 100+ and then entering oncoming traffic.

I think it is a bunch of BS that they confiscated this guys gun collection for 3 years. If the intent was to make sure that he did not commit suicide with the guns, I think they accomplished that. A three year cooling off period is a little much.


TBO,

You can try to defend this one on the we don't have all the facts yet, but lets assume the facts are exactly as laid out above. The LEO's responded on a tip. If you want, I'll try to get a copy of the Complaint and post it for everybody to read.

If I still had my federal Pacer ID, I could have pulled the Complaint up from the comfort of my office, but I don't do enough federal stuff nowadays to warrant having the system.

[TheeBadOne]

Fabs, if the suicide threat involved Guns as the Means, then they are taken. Makes no sense to take a car, DL, etc. However, he is brought in to talk with a Doc to offer professional opinon and help.

[Cal Sibley]

This should have no bearing on the incident, but when Glendenning won election as Marylands governor he only carried 3 of the states 21 counties, Montgomery, Pr. Georges and Baltimore Co., plus Baltimore City, but as I recall from living there at the time that was enough to secure the victory. These areas comprise most of Marylands urban population and are overwhelmingly Democratic. Gaithersburg is in Montgomery Co. and very representative of that county. It's a rarity to hear of the type of behavior mentioned in this topic occurring elsewhere in the state than the areas mentioned. It's part of the Democratic bulwark, and definitely not popular with the less urbanized parts of the state. Maryland will always act in the interests of the people in these areas and sacrifice the remainder. It's good strategy for maintaining power, and that's what it's all about. I like to think of Maryland as the California of the east. This is the state that gave you Gov. Spiro Agnew, Gov. Marvin Mandell, and a host of other crooks, mainly State Legislators. It's also the part of the state with the vast majority of crime. Sorry to rant, but I never felt comfortable in this little state. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[fabsroman]

Cal,

You are completely right, but you left off a pretty important point. Montgomery County is one of the richest counties in the country, and property values in this county are close to those in California. Also, Howard County and Anne Aundel County are also becoming highly populated now because there is almost no place left to build in Montgomery County. Prince George's County still has a ton of farm land.


TBO,

I understand that guns are taken when somebody says they are suicidal. My point was that if somebody is suicidal, they have plenty of other means to accomplish their death. So, why are guns taken, but nothing else? I think I might know the answer, but I want to see what your response is.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
TBO,

I understand that guns are taken when somebody says they are suicidal. My point was that if somebody is suicidal, they have plenty of other means to accomplish their death. So, why are guns taken, but nothing else? I think I might know the answer, but I want to see what your response is.
I have already answered you.

When dealing with a suicide threat several things are accessed.

1- Threat

2- Method

3- Access


ie: Someone ways they want to die. When asked how they intend to, they say "I don't know, I just don't want to live anymore".

In that scenario, they have said they don't want to live, or even that they intend to kill themselves, but are missing a articulable/realistic method.

Same as if they said "I won't eat for a month", or "I"ll walk barefoot to the gas station (wintertime) and freeze to death".
Again, no real plan, and no immediacy.

Someone says they want to die, and plan on using a gun. When asked if they have a gun they say no. When asked how they'd get one they say "I don't know (doesn't own guns, doesn't know anyone who does that would lend one)"- lesser threat due to no access/immediacy.

Now, someone who says "I want to die RIGHT now! I have XYX to do it with (and they do 'access'), now that raises the threat to an entire level.

Firearm suicide threats- the medical field tells us to take these very seriously if they have made that threat and have access to it. This is from experiance. If a person pops pills, guess what, they are going down for an eval and all their pills are taken away.

So, that being said, if a party has threatened to kill them-self with a firearm and they have access to it, and the threat is credible, they are going to have the firearm separated from them (safekeeping) as well as being brought in for an eval.

Fabs, what training/experience do you have in this area. What suicide studies are you referencing? I'd be happy to delve deeper into this, but for the purpose of this thread I think I've covered what you've asked.

TBO

[Hawkeye6]

So, TBO, what's the justification for Keystone Krew to still be holding this citizen's collection of firearms? Three years and he has to sue?

The operative assumptions that you should make are that he legally owms the firearms and is no longer suicidal (Not that I concede that to be a valid basis for the Kops actions in the first pace, though.)

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by Hawkeye6
So, TBO, what's the justification for Keystone Krew to still be holding this citizen's collection of firearms? (Don't have enough information to speculate)

The operative assumptions that you should make (are you the thought Police?) are that he legally owms the firearms and is no longer suicidal (basis of this?) (Not that I concede that to be a valid basis for the Kops ( http://boon.cc/forum/images/smiles/_icon_flamethrower2.gifhttp://www.onceuponalife.com/forums/images/smilies/cop.gif ) actions in the first pace, though.)

[fabsroman]

TBO,

You answered my question pretty well, but I guess there just isn't any evidence from what is in the article that this guy ever told the Police he was thinking about suicide and he was planning on doing it with a gun.

What I got from the article is that the police got a tip from somebody (i.e., no psych eval), they went to see this guy, and they took his guns while they were detaining him. Maybe I am reading it wrong

If somebody is suicidal, why don't they commit the person instead of letting him go.

My other peev is that a suicidal person has plenty of means to commit suicide.

1. 2 foot length of rope from a hardware store.

2. Taking the car as fast as it will go and just cranking the wheel in traffic.

3. Jumping from a high rise.

4. Jumping in front of a train.

5. Jumping in front of a bus.

6. Leaving the gas stove on and either lighting that last cigarette or dying of afixiation (sp.).

I could make the list a mile long, but I think you get my point. There are a million ways for a person to commit suicide. Based on the facts we do have, even assuming that there might have been a psych eval, this guy's guns have been confiscated for three years and he is still breathing. Why don't they just give them back.

Last but not least, the media in this county, Montgomery County, is so liberal it is pathetic. Just as Cal Sibley said above. So, if there were any justification for the police to keep these firearms, I am pretty sure they would have printed it. I was actually shocked to see this article in the paper, but the paper might just be trying to startle the locals because of the 41 gun collection.

At the end of the day, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes. I would be pissed if somebody called the police department, said I was suicidal, and the police would come over here and take all my guns for 3 years. I would be pissed as hell if they put a single scratch in any of them, but as we all know, the police department isn't liable for negligence, just gross negligence which is very tough to prove. So, I would have to eat the scratches and wouldn't get reimbursed for them by the police department.

It just burns me up that all somebody has to do is make an anonymous phone call and my guns could be gone for 3 years. Then again, I don't think I would wait three years to file a law suit.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
TBO,

You answered my question pretty well, but I guess there just isn't any evidence from what is in the article that this guy ever told the Police he was thinking about suicide and he was planning on doing it with a gun.
If you want to be fair, there isn't any evidence he didn't. It's just a newspaper article, there isn't much there, period. If you want more, and no somebody who lives nearby, have them drive in and get a copy of the report.

[fabsroman]

TBO,

Are you talking about the police report? I guess I could go and pick up a copy, but around here they don't just release those things to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. The only way I can get traffic accident reports is because I am the attorney representing my client, and believe me they ask.

Now, if you are talking about the Complaint, there won't be anything in it supporting the police department, and even if the police department files an Answer, the Answer is usually just a general denial to almost everything. Stuff doesn't start to come out until Discovery is performed and even then, Discovery is not filed with the Court so I cannot get a copy, unless it is filed as part of a Motion. About the only thing that becomes public is the trial record, any motions filed, and any testimony for hearings.

[skeet]

Evidently this guy is still working as a firefighter and was never charged with a crime. This shouldn't have gone gown the way it was stated. If there were real answers to all this they wouldn't be telling him to answer the questions on the form. Evidently he has the right to have the firearms so it all comes down to giving them back without all the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo...or saying he is still a threat to himself or others. Even TBO knows if they considered him a threat to anyone he wouldn't be where he is now(after 3 yrs)... And they also wouldn't even consider giving the guns back to him. Something of the same nature happened locally(in the good part of Maryland) and the guns were given back within a week after the guy was evaluated. Turned out an ex wife called the suicide threat in(getting even??)
Hey TBO...have you ever seen anyone try to get even with someone else by doing something like this to someone they perceive as an enemy? If you are a cop(as I assume you are) I'm sure you have. Heck after working with the police for all those years I made an observation that they aren't any more honest or dishonest than the average person. I have also observed that the average cop seems to use less common sense than the average citizen. All the rules tend to squelch practical thinking...but that isn't the patrol cops fault. I wonder why you always seem to support the police...whether they seem to be right or wrong. I've seen cops do things they shouldn't do...and so have you...Give it a break and do some original posts for once in your life...on something other than a police or law issue.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

I know I live in the bad part of Maryland, but I am at least trying to save some money to buy some land in the good part of Maryland.

"Heck after working with the police for all those years I made an observation that they aren't any more honest or dishonest than the average person."

I like that statement and I agree with it completely. LEO's are human and they make mistakes. In this case here, I think the police department is making a policy mistake.

As far as people getting even, I know plenty of people that have called the IRS on their enemies. Not to mention the Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, OSHA, etc. It especially happens in the business industry when a small competitor starts to get too big.

I can definitely see it happening after a divorce or relationship break up.

Why can't we all just get along?

[skeet]

Well, Fabs,... I think the original problem occurred when the patrolmen used such force without using a bit of common sense. The guy was packing for a camping trip and they went to his door with drawn weapons?? What they should have done is checked him out first to see if he was a threat to any one. I am sure they knocked on the door and stated they were the police...Did he open the door or did they break in?? I also feel the police department in the jusisdiction is stridently anti firearm(I know the area well). The departments over there are in the pockets of the liberal anti anything people and you know that.

Not too long ago my granddaughter was playing with a cell phone which was no longer in service. They still work for 911 for some reason??.. She inadvertently dialed 911. Well the state police showed up at my door and asked if they could come in...I said sure...what's the problem?? He told me they had received a cell phone call from a child at the 911 center. I told him I would call my daughter on her cell phone and did so. He talked to her and she assured him it was a mistake. The guy actually started to search through my house when I told him to leave. He said you have to understand"this is a child". I told him.."you have to understand..this is my home and you have no warrant" and stated I wanted him to leave now. He reluctantly did so. It was apparent he didn't like being told to do something by an avearage citizen as they are taught to always be in charge of a situation. I not so reluctantly called his supervisor and stated my objections to having an armed intruder in my house. The supervisor(who I know) told me he would speak to his trooper..which he did as the trooper called to apologize. It would have been better if he had apologized in person...but better than nothing I guess. Sometimes the police are somewhat too insistent for their own good...which also adds to the distrust of the police by average citizens.

And yes TBO...people sometimes don't trust the police because the police do things that are wrong ..can you imagine the police doing something wrong??

[Classicvette63]

Now everyone knows why I got so hostile and wouldn't give up my rifle to that bunnycop a couple years ago. Once they have it, they never want to give it back. Had this problem when I wrecked the corvette. The cops secured the pistol and derringer I had in the glovebox. No problem. When I called to see when I could pick them up the cop said " I'm not sure when were you can get them back." Bullsh!t. I went right down and started to make a scene when a cop I know came out. He went right back and got them for me. What the police and the authorities can't sem to get through their thick skulls is that the guns are MINE, not theirs. If I'm committing a crime, sure take it away, If not, keep yor jerkskinners off. I don't take to kindly to thieves.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

I know exactly how LEO's are taught to always be in charge of a situation. One of my friends went to the academy several years ago and graduated about the time I got out of law school.

I arrived a little late to a "friendly" football game and ended up getting burned for a touchdown when the other guy pushed off of me in the end zone. Mind you, I don't take well to losing and I especially don't like getting burned for a touchdown when I am usually the fastest guy on the field.

Anyway, I complained about it (i.e., called the foul) and this guy started yelling at me that they had already agreed that it was okay before I got there and that was that, even though I didn't know about the rule, and the play would stand. So, I asked him if there were any other rules that I should know about, and he said that was it. I might have taken it a little better if he wasn't screaming at me. I knew this guy for 10 years and this was the first time he acted like this to me.

So, on the ensuing kickoff, which I am usually the deep man for, my brother caught the ball a little ahead of me. I ran past him at full speed and knocked the first guy I ran into on his butt. Needless to say, that guy wasn't too happy at that point and he got up swinging. He missed by a mile and I ended up tackling him to the ground because, even though I was mad, my beef wasn't with him. The new LEO came up to me and started screaming again. The only thing I said to him at this point was that he never said it was illegal to block the hell out of somebody, and that I only wished it was him that I ran into. At that point, the game was over.

Everybody on the field told the LEO that he shouldn't have done what he did because my brothers over head it. I also apologized to the guy I blocked the hell out of.

Funny thing is that both of these guys are now my clients and we get along pretty well. The "new" LEO has never acted like that again in my presence.

I also embarrased another "new" LEO at a Christmas Eve dinner because he was bashing on me about being a pig attorney. He started off about how a defense attorney had gotten a criminal off that he had to testify against. I listened and listened to him bash the hell out of attorneys and continue saying that he knew the guy was guilty. I asked him one question that shut him up. Did you actually see the guy commit the crime? If not, you cannot be sure of anything.

My dad and I had just been charged with discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a dwelling and we were both acquitted because out of the 6 guys hunting, 4 of which were charged, he and I were innocent, and I was pretty pissed off with the officer making us both miss a day of work/school. The State's Attorney wanted us to do 40 hours of community service and agree never to hunt on this farm again for a Nolle Prosequi (i.e., dropping the charges) for something we didn't do. I actually thought about it because it would have really looked bad on my bar application to have a guilty finding on that charge. I rolled the dice and plead guilty and the LEO couldn't prove his case, which I knew he would have a hard time doing, but I digress.

Anyway, my next question to him was whether he thought everybody charged with an offense was guilty. He stopped for a real long time to think and that is when I hit him with the above story and said the officer in that case thought my dad and I were guilty too. My dad and I are both thought of as extremely honest by him and his family so he really shut up then.

As far as allowing an officer into my house, that will never happen unless they are a friend or they have a search warrant.

While I realize the job that LEO's do is extremely tought and I thank them for it, I have also had my fair share of run ins with the Know It Alls and Liars and it leaves me a little gun shy. I can live with buying cheap products or services from a person like that, but what I cannot afford is being charged with something and then having to prove my innocence in Court. I have been to criminal Court enough for my clients recently to know that the State's Attorney is not always interested in innocence and guilt.

What is sad is that if I wasn't in law school at the time I was charged with discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a dwelling, both my dad and I would have been cooked or we would have had to pay a lot of money to an attorney to represent us. Even then, I can now think of some things that I could have done better during that trial, but alls well that ends well.

What really ticks me off is that this incident could have had some serious effects on my practicing law, not to mention I missed class that day and my dad missed work because an officer "thought" he was right. On top of that, the LEO probably got paid overtime for coming to Court. All because he did not want to listen to my dad when he was charging us.

[TheeBadOne]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/hijack.gif

&

http://boon.cc/forum/images/smiles/_icon_flamethrower2.gifhttp://www.onceuponalife.com/forums/images/smilies/cop.gif

[fabsroman]

TBO,

Where do you get those little icons? I need to find me some because they are hilarious.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
TBO,

Where do you get those little icons? I need to find me some because they are hilarious.
I use one of two ways:

1) for quick, I use GOOGLE, chose IMAGE search, click ADVANCED SEARCH, set to SMALL, GIF, and enter what I'm looking for (ie: Hijack)

2) there are specific sites out there that are for smilies. Just use a search engine to find them.

http://animatedgif.net/index.html

http://www.bestsmileys.com/pageindex.htm

http://www.mysmilies.com/

http://home.texoma.net/~nitefireguard/smileys.html

http://ubbsmile.free.fr/smileys/

http://www.clicksmilies.com/