Moderator: Site Moderator
boda getta wrote:" around August 2013, if memory serves me correctly... So if you purchased anything since August 2010, you could be on the list.."
I hope you meant if I purchased since August 2013 I could be on the list.
BG
HDNB wrote:well worded. makes sense.
if i understand this correctly, i can buy replacement parts for my essential oil still, like a 3"section with a site glass in it, some tri clamps, some plate and maybe a new 2" 180 and there is no requirement to report these parts purchases to TTB, and further i have your assurances that my parts purchases will be confidential, un reported and meet all the current privacy laws?
boda getta wrote:......
This raises a question: Will the TBB notify your local law enforcement (city, county or state) if your name is on their list??
BG
milehidistilling wrote:The TTB told us that they are simply keeping records and that it is not illegal to own a still in most states but it is illegal to make your own liquor without a permit by federal and in most states by state law. They also told us that they have 65 agents across the US and do not have the manpower to follow up on each person who owns a still to be sure they are not making alcohol without a permit. They would need probable cause and search warrant to go into depth which is not feasible. In Colorado there is a minimal fine if you are found home distilling. You can legally buy weed here in Colorado but you can't distill ??? Each state is different please check your state laws. This is noted on our website and you can look on http://www.ttb.gov for more information
milehidistilling wrote:HDNB wrote:well worded. makes sense.
if i understand this correctly, i can buy replacement parts for my essential oil still, like a 3"section with a site glass in it, some tri clamps, some plate and maybe a new 2" 180 and there is no requirement to report these parts purchases to TTB, and further i have your assurances that my parts purchases will be confidential, un reported and meet all the current privacy laws?
Call the shop and ask Jason the manager I believe they are asking for complete stills towers also boilers but parts and supplies are not reported.
303-987-3955
goose eye wrote:Kinda scary you coming on an sayin this an that an you
ain't got a clue what you gotta report.
So I'm tole
Doogie wrote:**Disclaimer, I am a Canuck, and I am not a lawyer**
But I disagree with this statement if "records" are complete in their info. In this case, it is EXTREMELY simple to get a warrant.
1) They have probable cause to believe that the occupant of the residence has a still - the builder GAVE them that information
2) They will probably go knock on yer door, ask nicely, to which you either:
a) Fess up and lose your still, maybe get a ticket
b) Scream about your rights, deny everything, plead the rights of the Constitution and tell them to f'off.
i) to which they leave you alone
ii) or they lock down your property, get a warrant, think you have a gun and break down your nice door to toss in flash bangs (ok, maybe not those).
They have everything they need to get a warrant. For your customers, remember YOUR COMPANY provides legitimate trackable information on WHO bought WHAT and WHEN and to WHAT LOCATION. YOUR COMPANY provides enough reasonable cause to secure a warrant. Stop bullshitting people like other people who think they are immune to the probable cause required for a warrant. If you want to learn a bit about this new concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_war ... ted_States
Bullstuff that they only have 65 agents - like that matters - they grab the local cops, tell them what to do, and go running around justifying their existance and budgets.
Nice how you state that "in Colorado there is a minor fine for home distilling" - care to point out what the offense of home distilling will bring you in the other states??? It is irresponsible to state the minor issues in certain areas to hide the major penalties one can get if you are in other areas.
Just another reason if you want to do this, build it yourself. If you are looking to go commercial, then I would easily order MileHi stuff ...
Soggy Bottom Boy wrote:There isn't a judge out there that will sign off on a warrant simply because the TTB knows that you own a still and you refused entry to them when they didn't have a warrant in the first place, they have no right to enter your abode, ...that is, as long as they didn't see something like a running still and also smell alcohol vapor when you foolishly opened the door and let them peek inside while you were telling them to get lost. The only exception would be if you live in a State where it is illegal to own a still in the first place.
The judge would have to see other tangible proof that you had indeed produced illegal alcohol or have committed some other illegal activity before issuing a warrant, at least here in the US, don't know how it is for you Canuckians up there.
Wiki RE: Warrants wrote:United States
Request for a search warrant dated December 11, 1905
Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, most searches by the police require a search warrant based on probable cause, although there are exceptions. Any police entry of an individual's home always requires a warrant (for either search or arrest), absent exigent circumstances, or the free and voluntary consent of a person with reasonably apparent use of or control over the property.
Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants.
To obtain a search warrant, an officer must first prove that probable cause exists before a magistrate or judge, based upon direct information (i.e. obtained by the officer's personal observation) or hearsay information. Hearsay information can even be obtained by oral testimony given over a telephone, or through an anonymous or confidential informant, so long as probable cause exists based on the totality of the circumstances. Both property and persons can be seized under a search warrant. The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction. The rationale is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect's outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion—a Terry "stop and frisk".
In the United States, the issue of federal warrants is determined under Title 18 of the United States Code. The law has been restated and extended under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Federal search warrants may be prepared on Form AO 93, Search and Seizure Warrant.[2] Each state also enacts its own laws governing the issuance of search warrants.
A customs or immigration officer of the United States is not required to have any warrant, reasonable suspicion, or consent to search persons, vehicles, baggage, or cargo that have border nexus; regardless of citizenship or origin. This is clearly stated in 19 U.S.C. 1467, 19 C.F.R. 162.6.
Wiki RE: Probable cause wrote:Definition in the United States
A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
WIKI: To obtain a search warrant, an officer must first prove that probable cause exists before a magistrate or judge, based upon direct information (i.e. obtained by the officer's personal observation) or hearsay information. Hearsay information can even be obtained by oral testimony given over a telephone, or through an anonymous or confidential informant, so long as probable cause exists based on the totality of the circumstances. Both property and persons can be seized under a search warrant. The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction.
goose eye wrote:Soggy you sayin what a judge will an wont sign will
get you incarserated.
That's about like mile hi saying what ttb will an wont do.
Alright soggy, someone tells the law you makein likker.
You reckon they gonna investigate now they find you
bought a outfit. Preponderance of evidence
Loose lips sink ships.
Pride will get you caught.
So I'm tole
goose eye wrote:Soggy you sayin what a judge will an wont sign will
get you incarserated.
That's about like mile hi saying what ttb will an wont do.
goose eye wrote:Alright soggy, someone tells the law you makein likker.
You reckon they gonna investigate now they find you
bought a outfit. Preponderance of evidence
Loose lips sink ships.
Pride will get you caught.
So I'm tole
Soggy Bottom Boy wrote: unless somebody that knows you run a still to produce hooch gets pissed off at you and rats you out, there ain't gonna be an anonymous tipster to give any hearsay information to justify getting a warrant. If they fabricated "an informant", to obtain a warrant, arrested you and took you to court, if they could not prove to the sitting judge that it was a legitimate claim by the informant, the whole thing would get thrown out of court for illegal search and seizure. ....assuming you didn't have a complete dolt for a lawyer.
Remember that "Don't tell, don't sell" advice you see all over this site? It's emphasized over and over for a good reason.
Soggy Bottom Boy wrote:INow, seeing that you live in Canada, where it is illegal to own a still in the first place, but there seems to be no active "vendetta" going on in regards to enforcing laws about distillation by the hobbyist, ....well, that's a whole different can of worms. Just don't piss off the local RCMP, Mayor, Judge, etc., and most likely the status quo will remain in effect.
Oh, BTW, I'm not a lawyer either, ....but I do play one on TV. (not really)
Doogie wrote:@Soggy - yes, you are probably correct if your state allows possession of a still (as I stated earlier) - dunno - does Federal law trump State law or does it go the reverse direction? Dunno - I know the Feds dont want you owning pot, but in Colorado it is openly perfectly legal now - so I assume Fed is not greater than State.
CanadianBacon wrote:You cannot have your house searched for buying legal equipment that COULD be used for distilling, that's like buying a kitchen knife at Wallmart and having your house randomly searched for a possible murder weapon when you didn't do anything.Not sure out the USA but here in Canada they have probable cause.
Not opening the door and pretending your not home is the way to do it when you have an unexpected badge at your door and your breaking the law. Make sure if officers do come to you house for whatever reason and you can't hide you use a side door to go out of, lock it, call them over, then talk to them. Don't allow them to push there way through the house by answering the front door where there standing, I have seen police enter a residence this way by putting a foot in the door. My friend got arrested for assault on a police officer when they barged through an open door she opened to talk to them and he pushed one back and told them to stay out, I was less then a foot away when it all happened so I seen it first hand, She was found innocent but faced lots of legal costs.
On the morning of June 27, detectives raided the couple’s home claiming that the property smelled of the ingredients used to make methamphetamine.
Detectives shot Eugene Mallory six times, killing him.
No evidence of a meth operation was ever found.
CanadianBacon wrote:You cannot have your house searched for buying legal equipment that COULD be used for distilling, that's like buying a kitchen knife at Wallmart and having your house randomly searched for a possible murder weapon when you didn't do anything.Not sure out the USA but here in Canada they have probable cause.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest