Jump to content

New Chicago criminal case - Charged with Felony UUW, laser sight and "high-capacity" magazines


gunuser17
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://cwbchicago.com/2022/04/charges-filed-after-lightfoot-bodyguard-allegedly-spots-a-gun-in-mans-shoulder-bag-while-waiting-for-food-at-shake-shack.html

 

Judge Kelly McCarthy focused on the alleged weapons as she pondered Broadway’s bail conditions.

“I don’t find these are for personal protection at all,” McCarthy said of the allegations that he had armor-piercing bullets and laser sights.

She set bail at $15,000, meaning he must post a $1,500 deposit to get out of jail. McCarthy gave Broadway permission to return to Wisconsin over the state’s objections.

Prosecutors charged him with two counts of felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of possessing high-capacity magazines, and other misdemeanors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CWBChicago said:

...

Officially, prosecutor Loukas Kalliantasis said only that an on-duty Chicago police officer was in line at the restaurant when he noticed the outline of a handgun and an extended ammunition magazine in a satchel worn by 19-year-old Treveon Broadway.

...

Police searched the car and found the black satchel lying on the back seat as if someone had tossed inside it, Kalliantasis said. On the floorboard beneath the bag, cops found two loaded handguns, each loaded with armor-piercing bullets in extended magazines and equipped laser sights, according to Kalliantasis. And one gun was allegedly equipped with a switch, enabling it to generate automatic gunfire.

...

 

While the search turned up something otherwise worth charging (the switch), if that's how everything started, the search could be bad. Carrying a firearm is a legal activity. Engaging in a legal activity is not grounds for reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause for a search.

 

A similar argument can be made for the "extended" (no size given) magazine, arguably contraband within the city. If nothing else, it was enclosed in a case. Was its outline so clear that a reasonable person would have concluded that it could not have been anything else? If it was inserted in the firearm and if the outline of both was evident, then maybe a search of the bag was legitimate, but not so much a search of the car, which is where the switch, sights (also arguably contraband in the city), and supposedly "armor-piercing bullets" were found. (CPD has a tendency to call ballistic tips "armor-piercing," so maybe the ammo wasn't all that armor-piercing in reality.)

 

If not for the switch, this would have been a more interesting case. I halfway expect most of the evidence to get tossed. Meanwhile it's a good headline for Lightfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it amusing that idiots decry "laser sights" as not legitimate for self-defense.  The sole purpose of a laser sight is to ensure the intended target is hit.  So, they prefer the gangbangers' spray and pray method of not sighting and merely quickly pointing the weapon and shooting in the target's general direction?  They want innocent people to be hit by stray bullets???  It's plain idiotic.  Under that logic, night sights should be banned, as well.

 

I am not aware of any "armor piercing bullets" available for semiautomatic (likely 9mm) pistols, and if there are, they would be such a specialty load that this kid would never have gotten his hands on them.  It's probably Hornady Critical Duty, which is meant for law enforcement to penetrate barriers, not ballistic vests.  Rule of thumb:  if the local cops carry it, it is ok for a lawfully armed citizen to use it, as well.  Chicago.  What a craphole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, 2A4Cook said:

I always find it amusing that idiots decry "laser sights" as not legitimate for self-defense.  The sole purpose of a laser sight is to ensure the intended target is hit.  So, they prefer the gangbangers' spray and pray method of not sighting and merely quickly pointing the weapon and shooting in the target's general direction?  They want innocent people to be hit by stray bullets???  It's plain idiotic.  Under that logic, night sights should be banned, as well.

 

I am not aware of any "armor piercing bullets" available for semiautomatic (likely 9mm) pistols, and if there are, they would be such a specialty load that this kid would never have gotten his hands on them.  It's probably Hornady Critical Duty, which is meant for law enforcement to penetrate barriers, not ballistic vests.  Rule of thumb:  if the local cops carry it, it is ok for a lawfully armed citizen to use it, as well.  Chicago.  What a craphole.

My carry ammo is Hornady Critical Duty in 45 ACP, so they would have a field day with those big 230 grain rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Officially, prosecutor Loukas Kalliantasis said only that an on-duty Chicago police officer was in line at the restaurant when he noticed the outline of a handgun and an extended ammunition magazine in a satchel worn by 19-year-old Treveon Broadway. Kalliantasis did not mention Lightfoot or reveal that the cop works on her security detail.

The officer, who was in line directly behind Broadway, then saw Broadway walk outside to an idling vehicle and return to the restaurant, Kalliantasis said.

 

Police searched the car and found the black satchel lying on the back seat as if someone had tossed it inside, Kalliantasis said. On the floorboard beneath the bag, cops found two loaded handguns, each loaded with armor-piercing bullets in extended magazines and equipped laser sights, according to Kalliantasis. And one gun was allegedly equipped with a switch, enabling it to generate automatic gunfire.

 

 

 

I don't think this is the "laser sight and "high-capacity" magazines" case we have feared would pop up one day. Perhaps I am raising the bar, or just keeping it high. 

 

A guy in line at Shake Shack notices an officer behind him and takes the satchel containing his gun back to the car. The officer notices this... is that enough justification for a search? It looked like the guy had a gun and then it looked like he hid it which seems suspicious. 

 

The suspect was profiled by his behavior and it turns out there were two loaded guns plus huge mags, laser sights, evil ammo and a fun switch. Then they give him the option to post bond and return to Wisconsin.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 7:32 PM, Euler said:

 

While the search turned up something otherwise worth charging (the switch), if that's how everything started, the search could be bad. Carrying a firearm is a legal activity. Engaging in a legal activity is not grounds for reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause for a search.

 

A similar argument can be made for the "extended" (no size given) magazine, arguably contraband within the city. If nothing else, it was enclosed in a case. Was its outline so clear that a reasonable person would have concluded that it could not have been anything else? If it was inserted in the firearm and if the outline of both was evident, then maybe a search of the bag was legitimate, but not so much a search of the car, which is where the switch, sights (also arguably contraband in the city), and supposedly "armor-piercing bullets" were found. (CPD has a tendency to call ballistic tips "armor-piercing," so maybe the ammo wasn't all that armor-piercing in reality.)

 

If not for the switch, this would have been a more interesting case. I halfway expect most of the evidence to get tossed. Meanwhile it's a good headline for Lightfoot.

As a Wisconsin resident, even with a Wisconsin CCL, he could not legally carry a loaded concealed firearm on his person outside of his vehicle in Illinois. He could not legally leave a loaded functional firearm in his vehicle. No law prevents a PO from following a person on a public right of way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, 2A4Cook said:

I am not aware of any "armor piercing bullets" available for semiautomatic (likely 9mm) pistols, and if there are, they would be such a specialty load that this kid would never have gotten his hands on them.  It's probably Hornady Critical Duty, which is meant for law enforcement to penetrate barriers, not ballistic vests.

 

Chiboolets.jpg.421ffdb0505af6bf9971e74ed89ea036.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 4:11 PM, Quiet Observer said:

As a Wisconsin resident, even with a Wisconsin CCL, he could not legally carry a loaded concealed firearm on his person outside of his vehicle in Illinois. He could not legally leave a loaded functional firearm in his vehicle. No law prevents a PO from following a person on a public right of way. 

 

Was it obvious and known to everyone who saw him that he was not an Illinois resident? In particular, would any reasonable officer in a similar position conclude that the subject was a Wisconsin resident merely by observing him? That's the case you'd have to make. It is legal to carry a firearm in Illinois. It is legal to carry a firearm in every state. If carrying a firearm was itself probable cause for a police search, then the 2nd and 4th amendment protections are meaningless.

 

Here's how it could have gone and been a good search:

The officer thinks he sees an "extended" magazine, arguably misdemeanor contraband within Chicago. That looks suspicious. Suspicion gives him the ability to ask the subject his business and his identity. The officer learns the subject is a Wisconsin resident and saw him put a suspected firearm in the car. Now he has probable cause to search the car for the firearm, which is also now a felony. He picks up the satchel with the suspected firearm and sees the other two firearms, plainly visible.

 

But, based on the news report, that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News reports do not give all the details in a case. There is nothing is the story that states that the events you suggest for a good search did not happen. Initially, no one had to know he was a Wisconsin resident. The reasonable suspicion, based on the officer's experience, was enough to initiate the officer's action. The man's car could have had a Wisconsin plate and/or his residency could have been revealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 4/14/2022 at 10:12 PM, Quiet Observer said:

... The reasonable suspicion, based on the officer's experience, was enough to initiate the officer's action. ...

On 4/14/2022 at 10:54 PM, Quiet Observer said:

How is that different than:

 

"Here's how it could have gone and been a good search:

The officer thinks he sees an "extended" magazine, arguably misdemeanor contraband within Chicago. That looks suspicious. Suspicion gives him the ability to ask the subject his business and his identity."?

 

As reported, his actions were to search the car. Skipping steps matters. I could repeat here everything I said above, but you can just imagine I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 6:46 PM, Euler said:

 

Was it obvious and known to everyone who saw him that he was not an Illinois resident? In particular, would any reasonable officer in a similar position conclude that the subject was a Wisconsin resident merely by observing him? That's the case you'd have to make. It is legal to carry a firearm in Illinois. It is legal to carry a firearm in every state. If carrying a firearm was itself probable cause for a police search, then the 2nd and 4th amendment protections are meaningless.

 

Here's how it could have gone and been a good search:

The officer thinks he sees an "extended" magazine, arguably misdemeanor contraband within Chicago. That looks suspicious. Suspicion gives him the ability to ask the subject his business and his identity. The officer learns the subject is a Wisconsin resident and saw him put a suspected firearm in the car. Now he has probable cause to search the car for the firearm, which is also now a felony. He picks up the satchel with the suspected firearm and sees the other two firearms, plainly visible.

 

But, based on the news report, that didn't happen.

 

Cop just had to ask the kid "hey come over here real quick, once" .   Dead giveaway if they're from Wisconsin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a prosecutor charge someone with "possessing high capacity magazines?"  That's not a crime in Illinois!  It's a local ordinance violation in Chicago, which could send you to their kangaroo court hearing officers to be fined, but that is a CIVIL fine, not a criminal state prosecution.  And, that's only for long guns, as there is preemption for handguns and their magazines.  

Edited by 2A4Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...