” A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August — leading her to fear that a number of her sources inside the federal government have now been exposed.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, journalist Audrey Hudson revealed that the Department of Homeland Security and Maryland State Police were involved in a predawn raid of her Shady Side, Md. home on Aug. 6. Hudson is a former Washington Times reporter and current freelance reporter.
A search warrant obtained by TheDC indicates that the August raid allowed law enforcement to search for firearms inside her home.”
The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.”
A resisting arrest conviction is a felony ? Upon further investigation Youviewed has found what we believe to be the case involving Audrey Hudson’s husband . It dates from 1985 and the original charges included DEADLY WEAPON-CONCEAL which was dismissed(nolle prosequi) , ASSAULT(found not guilty) , RESISTING ARREST(guilty) for which he was sentenced to three years probation , and CDS:POSSESS-NOT MARIHUANA(not guilty) so wherein lies the prohibition of the ownership of firearms ?
TITLE 9 – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Subtitle 4 – Harboring, Escape, and Contraband
Section 9-408 – Resisting or interfering with arrest.
§ 9-408. Resisting or interfering with arrest.
(a) “Police officer” defined.- In this section, “police officer” means an individual who is authorized to make an arrest under Title 2 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
(b) Prohibited.- A person may not intentionally:
(1) resist a lawful arrest; or
(2) interfere with an individual who the person has reason to know is a police officer who is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or detention of another person.
(c) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.
(d) Unit of prosecution.- The unit of prosecution for a violation of this section is based on the arrest or detention regardless of the number of police officers involved in the arrest or detention.
The above would seem to suggest that “resisting arrest” in Maryland is a misdemeanor , albeit one with some stiff penalties , but it was always our understanding of the law that to lose one’s right to firearms possession one needed to be a convicted felon .
According to court documents Flanagan was convicted of “resisting arrest” CJIS code# 1 4801 . In combing through the Maryland Guidelines Offense Table which describes resisting as part of the Harboring , Escape & Contraband section we could find no CJIS code that matches the above . However , all of the Harboring & Escape offenses are listed as misdemeanors with the exception of three , none of which carries the CJIS code 1 4801. The closest match that we could find is :
(196) Harboring, Escape, and Contraband / Resisting or interfering with arrest / 1-0600 /CR, §9-408 / Misd. / 3Y Person / VI / $5,000
As you can see the CJIS # for “resisting arrest” according to the sentencing guidelines is 1-0600 and is classified as a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of three years in jail and a fine of $5000 . Unless we are missing something here we fail to see why Mr Flanagan lost his right to possess firearms . Of course we must add a caveat in that we cannot be sure that we have the correct Paul Flanagan and the right arrest .
“ But without Hudson’s knowledge, the agents also confiscated a batch of documents that contained information about sources inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, she said.”
And what of the 4th Amendment ? Which reads:
” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Regardless of the potentially dubious basis for the issuance of the search warrant , the seizure of Ms Hudson’s personal papers are a blatant violation of her 4th amendment rights seeing as the warrant was approved for the sole purpose of searching for “illegally” possessed firearms and nothing more .
” Outraged over the seizure, Hudson is now speaking out. She said no subpoena for the notes was presented during the raid and argues the confiscation was outside of the search warrant’s parameter.
“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson said this week. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”
She provided TheDC with a photo showing the stack of file folders in a bag marked “evidence/property.”
Statism , Thy Name Is The US Government