If this event actually happened as described, it means that the Glendale police engaged in at least two illegal actions: warrantless, no PC searches of a private and non-publicly accessible parking lot; and a no PC search of a private vehicle parked on private property.
It also raises troubling questions about why the GPD is engaging in these generalized fishing expeditions on private property in the first place, as well as admittedly providing a private party with taxpayer paid security guard services.
Burbank man found with small cache of weapons, drugs in his car at Glendale storage facility
Police on Tuesday seized a rifle, five handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and other weapons from a Burbank man’s car, which was parked at a Glendale storage facility, police said.
Glendale’s special enforcement detail was spending extra time at the Public Storage parking lot, located at 5500 San Fernando Road, after receiving reports of car thefts and drug activity at the facility, said Glendale Police Sgt. Robert William.
Hold on. This storage place is locked-gate and with no public access. You need a patron keycode to get in. So what kind of “car thefts” could there possibly be, as well as “drug activity”?
Did any of the paid journalists at the newspaper bother asking? Or did they just accept this obviously phony pretext at face value?
It’s not legal for the police to patrol private parking lots that are not publicly accessible; and if they were given permission to be there from the owner, it has to be for a specific and limited purpose. Not a fishing expedition.
The man, 45-year-old Marthias Nano, was sitting in his car when officers approached him and noticed a rifle bag on the back seat.
There’s nothing illegal about that, especially on private property. He wasn’t driving or on the street (at least according to the article). So was he a patron with a keycode to get in and store them? Why was he there?
The man reportedly admitted to possessing a firearm, and during a subsequent search of his car, police recovered: six guns, three of which were loaded; three knives; a baton; brass knuckles; shaved keys; lock-picking tools; methamphetamine; and nine methamphetamine pipes.
What PC was given for the search? Did he consent? Was he a felon who is not allowed possession of firearms?
Apparently no one has thought to ask. Remember, according to the article it was on private property.
Nano was arrested on suspicion of multiple weapons violations, as well as possession of drugs and burglary tools.
Again, if the search was illegal then the drug evidence has to be suppressed by the courts. And what does “burglary tools” actually mean? Screwdrivers and pliers, or anything else you’d find in a car?
Yes, that’s what these local agencies try to get away with now, and it’s dishonest as hell.
And again, did anyone at the Leader/News Press ever bother asking the police just what the specifics were on any of it? Does no one there have a sense of curiosity about things? We’ve long ago given up on them having a sense of social justice.
Oh, for the days of David Silva, or Amber Willard, or that old 1990s Leader crowd. They used to ask questions of authority, and with pleasure.