PDA

View Full Version : Arrested for not possessing drivers license and rifle in back seat


fasttimes
05-06-2009, 2:48 PM
(I hope I'm posting in the correct forum- mods, please move if incorrect)

Over the weekend, I was pulled over for speeding somewhere in the County of Los Angeles; it may or may not be an incorporated city. OK, no problem, I got caught in a speeding trap, I'll fight it later. I'm relaxed, but I know they will probably say something about the rifle.

When the offices approached, they started to talk to me, then noticed my .22 rifle in the back seat, and stopped mid-sentence. There attitude changed immediately. They made a statement about the rifle; I forget exactly what they said. I replied it was unloaded and I was carrying it legally.

They asked if I was going to be a problem, and asked for my license. I didn't have my license on me because I had lost it easier that day shooting out in the desert (don't ask me how, I still can't figure it out) and I said so. They asked me a couple more times for an ID of some type, and each time I said I lost it and gave them my name and address (and later even gave my SSN when asked). They clearly thought I was lying, and/or wanted an excuse to search me and the car.

They ordered me to exit the car, frisked me, and put me in the back of their patrol car. Where again, I was asked for ID and I replied the same as above. I also reminded them I hadn't consented to any searches of any kind.

By this time, there were 5 cars and 10 cops on the scene. They were searching the interior of the car, and a bit later, they opened the trunk and searched that. One of the later arriving cops poked his head through the window and threatened me in an enraged manner, "if you don't change your attitude I'll have to deal with me" banging on the squad car window several times. I thought he was going to break it.

I know once they started searching the trunk I must be under arrest and not just being detained, so I refused any further questions (not that I said much before either.) Sure enough, about two minutes later, they put the cuffs on me (nice and tight, of course). Checking to see if the gun was loaded or not was one of the very last things they bothered to do, before they slapped on the cuffs.

I was taken to the station and booked; finger printed twice, and mug shots taken. I was released approximately 9 hours later. They had towed my car "for storage" and I was given release papers for the car, waving all department fees (but I still had to pay $190 for the tow yard fees). The arresting officer even drove me home himself, along with my gun and ammo! Don't know what to make of that.

On the ticket, I was sited for CVC 22350 (Basic Speed Law) and CVC 12951(a) (Possession of License); Both infractions.

I received papers (CHP form 180) today from the department in question stating my car had been towed and where I could pick it up (I already got it back the next day). It stated as reason for storage: CVC 22651(h) which states: (1) When an officer arrests a person driving or in control of a vehicle for an alleged offense and the officer is, by this code or other law, required or permitted to take, and does take, the person into custody.

So, that's where I stand. So, it comes down to did the officer have cause for arrest? I still don't know under what statute I was arrested. When I went to the station for further information, all they said was that I was not arrested! If that's the case, then why was the car stored, as that is the stated reason.

I have 7 more days to request an informal hearing regarding the towing and storage of my car. If I win, I will be reimbursed the costs. If not, it's a $190 lesson to always keep and expired license or ID in the glove compartment at all times.

Could someone please let me know what the CPC or CVC that authorizes arrest in this situation. Also, could someone also let me know the Cal Supreme Court (?) case that struck down the ID card requirements, establishing simply stating Name and Address (and/or DOB?) as adequate identification when demanded by police.

After that, I'll look into further relief that I might be able to avail myself of. How was your Saturday? :rolleyes:

Further info in my second post here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2438920&postcount=100).

stormy_clothing
05-06-2009, 2:54 PM
it kind of sucks that they can screw you for license or registration since they clearly have that information available. If you deny them the right to search your car they can arrest you and tow the car until a warrant is aquired.

Look all I know is this I've been in court and seen judges allow illegal search and seizures among many other things.

go to court plead no contest chances are the no DL will get dropped or a 10 dollar fee and request traffic school.

Or get a lawyer and sue for the impound fees, you'll get nowhere.

aplinker
05-06-2009, 2:55 PM
Wait, what were you arrested for?

soundwave
05-06-2009, 2:55 PM
Did the rifle have a lock on it?

ChuckBooty
05-06-2009, 2:55 PM
Sorry this happened man. Sounds like your civil rights were violated here but I'm not sure who you would contact here.

Lesson learned though....ALWAYS cover your rifle with a blanket when carrying them like that.

Hopi
05-06-2009, 2:56 PM
Wait, what were you arrested for?

Huge +1.

cineski
05-06-2009, 2:59 PM
Doesn't matter. It was unloaded and laying in the open.

Did the rifle have a lock on it?

eaglemike
05-06-2009, 2:59 PM
Did the rifle have a lock on it?
If it's not concealed it doesn't need a lock..... must be unloaded of course.

bodger
05-06-2009, 2:59 PM
Sorry this happened man. Sounds like your civil rights were violated here but I'm not sure who you would contact here.

Lesson learned though....ALWAYS cover your rifle with a blanket when carrying them like that.

Huge +1.
Ditto on that.
I drive a pickup truck so I have a plywood box with a lock on it that I can also chain to the tool racks (prevents a snatch and dash if I stop for gas).

I do not trust what can happen to a gun owner in this state.
Even if I had valid CCW issued in another jurisdiction, I'd be scared s**tless to carry in Los Angeles.

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2009, 2:59 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

If there was no ammo with the rifle it was useless anyway, you could have had it in the trunk and he would have had no PC for the search.

The mere posession of a gun gives the police the right to check if it is loaded. There is no court decision that limits that search to the gun itself and many areas interpret it to mean they can search the whole area. The trunk is a different story. Had they found anything illegal in the trunk, it probably would have been inadmissible and they knew that. If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

soundwave
05-06-2009, 3:01 PM
Doesn't matter. It was unloaded and laying in the open.

If it's not concealed it doesn't need a lock..... must be unloaded of course.

I see. Can't think of any reason for the 3rd degree the OP got then.

MonsterMan
05-06-2009, 3:04 PM
I believe you can conceal the rifle and it still doesn't need a lock.

JDay
05-06-2009, 3:04 PM
Memorize your DL #. I have mine memorized just for instances such as this. Glad to hear that they drove you and your firearm home, wouldn't expect that in LA.

JDay
05-06-2009, 3:05 PM
If it's not concealed it doesn't need a lock..... must be unloaded of course.

You can have it concealed if you want, only handguns have to be in the open if not locked up.

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2009, 3:06 PM
Memorize your DL #. I have mine memorized just for instances such as this. Glad to hear that they drove you and your firearm home, wouldn't expect that in LA.

That's important to do. It is likely they were unable to find his name in the computer. This is probably why they needed his social.

I would bet the original arrest was 12500a....pending ID.

Kid Stanislaus
05-06-2009, 3:09 PM
I do not trust what can happen to a gun owner in this state. Even if I had valid CCW issued in another jurisdiction, I'd be scared s**tless to carry in Los Angeles.

I've got family that were legally CCW and got held in jail over the weekend by the LA Sherrifs Dept.

garandguy10
05-06-2009, 3:11 PM
It's not a wise idea to drive around, speeding, with no drivers license or any other I.D. and a rifle visible and within reach. Now that you have found out why it is a bad idea, are you going to do it again? Maybe you should have put the rifle in the trunk when you discovered that your license was missing.

I am not saying that the cops are good guys, but jeez dude, try not to make yourself into a example.

Kid Stanislaus
05-06-2009, 3:12 PM
Memorize your DL #. I have mine memorized just for instances such as this. Glad to hear that they drove you and your firearm home, wouldn't expect that in LA.


I can't imagine any person driving a vehicle anyplace on this planet that does NOT have his/her drivers license committed to memory!! DUH!!

abalone hunter
05-06-2009, 3:14 PM
s s numbers were only to be used for social security I try to refuse to give it when I can.

Kid Stanislaus
05-06-2009, 3:14 PM
It's not a wise idea to drive around, speeding, with no drivers license or any other I.D. and a rifle visible and within reach. Now that you have found out why it is a bad idea, are you going to do it again? Maybe you should have put the rifle in the trunk when you discovered that your license was missing.

I am not saying that the cops are good guys, but jeez dude, try not to make yourself into a example.


My sentiments exactly. WISE UP!!

demnogis
05-06-2009, 3:17 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

If there was no ammo with the rifle it was useless anyway, you could have had it in the trunk and he would have had no PC for the search.

The mere posession of a gun gives the police the right to check if it is loaded. There is no court decision that limits that search to the gun itself and many areas interpret it to mean they can search the whole area. The trunk is a different story. Had they found anything illegal in the trunk, it probably would have been inadmissible and they knew that. If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

Agreed, he did get off lucky.

But in respect to one thing said, PC 12031 (e) states that:
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

You did not refuse the inspection of your firearm, you did however not consent to the search. But as E Pluribus Unum says they arrested you and on the terms of your arrest they had PC to search your vehicle. IANAL so I can't give a definite answer to that. You are lucky to have not gotten the misdemeanor charge.

glockman19
05-06-2009, 3:17 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

If there was no ammo with the rifle it was useless anyway, you could have had it in the trunk and he would have had no PC for the search.

The mere posession of a gun gives the police the right to check if it is loaded. There is no court decision that limits that search to the gun itself and many areas interpret it to mean they can search the whole area. The trunk is a different story. Had they found anything illegal in the trunk, it probably would have been inadmissible and they knew that. If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

I'm not surprised at your remark. Typical Us/Them attitude. NOT cool IMHO.

IMHO, the officer's actions were unnecessary, while still legal. He carried out the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law...all because he had a rifle, unloaded being legally transported.

IMHO, a good cop would have checked the rifle to see it was unloaded then run his name, plates, registration, found no warants and cited you for driving without a license. Tenchincally you had one it just wasn't on you. I've done that a number of times, especially when I was younger and went surfing a lot.

cineski,
NOW...memorize your license number and just rattle it off if you don't have it next time.

CessnaDriver
05-06-2009, 3:20 PM
I can't imagine any person driving a vehicle anyplace on this planet that does NOT have his/her drivers license committed to memory!! DUH!!


I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

torsf
05-06-2009, 3:21 PM
I thought the Supreme Court just ruled on searching the vehicle when you are in the back of a patrol car...?

CAL.BAR
05-06-2009, 3:23 PM
I see. Can't think of any reason for the 3rd degree the OP got then.

Other than the fact that that he had a rifle in plain sight and (presumably)within reach of the driver with no license and no way to identify himself? COME ON!

Are gun cases that expensive? Are they too much trouble? Maybe put the gun in the trunk next time? THIS ISN"T AZ or MT. We KNOW the cops are looking for guns and we KNOW how they react when they find them.

Just b/c we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. 3rd degree is b/c this looks bad for gun owners. Makes us look like reckless retards. If OP were to have to stop for any reason the rifle is in plain sight and an easy grab for a criminal.

We all KNOW how we SHOULD transport our firearems right? (in a locked container or in the trunk)

demnogis
05-06-2009, 3:23 PM
Another thing I forgot to mention... The PD should NEVER ask you for your social security number!!!

They can verify your identity with Name, DOB and address.

wildhawker
05-06-2009, 3:26 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

I know we just met, but count me as someone you know who has theirs memorized.

CAL.BAR
05-06-2009, 3:27 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

DUDE - COME ON - if you can't muster the brain cells to memorize CDL and SSN over your entire lifetime! I'm stunned when people don't have the memorized.

Turbinator
05-06-2009, 3:28 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

You don't know me, but I have mine memorized.

I've filled out enough 4473's in my time :)

Turby

l_Z_l
05-06-2009, 3:30 PM
u got pulled over in LA county...no ID w/ a gun in the back seat...and they gave u a ride home?!?...i'd consider that lucky...

but wait we can get arrest for pending ID??? did u find out what they arrest u for?

SkyStorm82
05-06-2009, 3:31 PM
IMHO, a good cop would have checked the rifle to see it was unloaded then run his name, plates, registration, found no warants and cited you for driving without a license. Tenchincally you had one it just wasn't on you. I've done that a number of times, especially when I was younger and went surfing a lot.

So what happens when said person gives the name/info of a cousin...brother...? Then said person goes home and throws away the ticket. That ticket is going to turn into a warrant. Now who's the warrant going to be for? Not the guy who got stopped and gave bad info.

demnogis
05-06-2009, 3:39 PM
djandj, I find your comment appalling. The LE did go much further in enforcement than they should have. Their reaction is due to the negative spin attached to firearms that is spewed about in this state.

The method of carry/possession of the OP was legal. Unloaded and openly visible. Your emotional argument that he shouldn't do so because this isn't Arizona or Montana is baseless. Why should he not have his firearm in his vehicle in a method that complies with the law? Why do you think that just because "this is CA" that we should enjoy less liberty than the states you mentioned? How do you react to seeing a vehicle with a rifle rack in the back window? Are you frightened, because you can see that they have a firearm? Do you "feel" safer if it's in a locked case, or even just out of sight? Maybe the OP enjoys the added security of having the rifle present in another way that complies with the law?

Your other argument that "If OP were to have to stop for any reason the rifle is in plain sight and an easy grab for a criminal" is also baseless. It is no more risk than what police take when they park their cruisers, doors open (as I see them most times) and their rifles or shotguns in the position of where the center console should be. A firearm left unattended in a vehicle has the same risk of theft whether or not it is inside a locked container in this instance. unless the OP has a covered, locking bed on his truck it is unavoidable for any person to see the rifle, unless covered by a cloth (which would be a 12025 violation since it is concealed and not in an approved 12026.1 locking case).

But to boil down your remarks... You feel the OP got what he deserved, because he had a gun in his truck?

Other than the fact that that he had a rifle in plain sight and (presumably)within reach of the driver with no license and no way to identify himself? COME ON!

Are gun cases that expensive? Are they too much trouble? Maybe put the gun in the trunk next time? THIS ISN"T AZ or MT. We KNOW the cops are looking for guns and we KNOW how they react when they find them.

Just b/c we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. 3rd degree is b/c this looks bad for gun owners. Makes us look like reckless retards. If OP were to have to stop for any reason the rifle is in plain sight and an easy grab for a criminal.

We all KNOW how we SHOULD transport our firearems right? (in a locked container or in the trunk)

DREADNOUGHT78
05-06-2009, 3:42 PM
It seems that you werent arrested but only detained they can hold you for up to 24 hours without charging you.Refusing them the right to search your vehicle only provokes them.In the end the Police always win it's just the way it is.I try and be polite since 99% percent of the time they pull me over is because I did something wrong. Clearly being confrontational when I am already in the wrong only warrants bad things.Sometimes being remorsefull and giving in will let them feel the empowerment they are after and they usually will let you roll on.Next time put the gun in thr trunk remember the Ol' saying "outta sight outta mind". Sometimes as Kalifornians we try and exercise our rights as we comprehend them.And in the end we don't win the war and our pocket books pay the price.

Geo
05-06-2009, 3:47 PM
Pathetic... everyone I know has their CDL memorized. Loan applications, professional licenses, background checks, bank accounts, etc... if you can remember 7 digit number after writing it 100 times stop smoking weed.

Vtec44
05-06-2009, 3:48 PM
Ah crap, I have no idea what's my DL # is and I don't even smoke weed. :(

CSACANNONEER
05-06-2009, 4:10 PM
The arresting officer even drove me home himself, along with my gun and ammo! Don't know what to make of that.

Something is fishy here. I'll have to assume that you were arrested by LASO. I kn ow LAPD would have kept your evil, high powered, sniper rifle. Anyway, consider yourself very lucky to get your firearm back so quickly! Also, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not positive about this but, I think that having two CDLs, even if one is expired, is a crime of some sort. Before you keep an expired CDL to use as ID, check the laws carefully.

WokMaster1
05-06-2009, 4:11 PM
Learn WHAT? That all LEO's are jackbooted thugs and have the authority to treat you accordingly? C'mon, even in LA, 5 cars and 10 LEO's for a VC code violation w/no ID and an unloaded .22 rifle?




Maybe the arresting squad car had all the donuts & coffee so,.........:p

sgtbuck
05-06-2009, 4:14 PM
Ah crap, I have no idea what's my DL # is and I don't even smoke weed. :(

:eek:

Hopi
05-06-2009, 4:18 PM
It's perfectly legal to drive around with dead hookers in your trunk....until you get pulled over.

tyrist
05-06-2009, 4:20 PM
You were arrested for the speeding infraction and under authority of 40302 VC. If you break any law; even an infraction you have to identify yourself...merely having a drivers license number memorized is not enough. You need a government issued photo ID. So you were placed under arrest for speeding and booked because you could not positively identify yourself...your car was towed since you were arrested and an inventory search done of the vehicle prior to being towed. If any of you experienced any different when you didn't have your DL then you got the benefit of the doubt as far as Officer discretion.

tyrist
05-06-2009, 4:24 PM
I thought the Supreme Court just ruled on searching the vehicle when you are in the back of a patrol car...?

That is a search done incident to arrest. This was an inventory search prior to tow which is completely different.

Solidmch
05-06-2009, 4:29 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

amazing because everyone in my office now knows theres. Has to be 15 people here. having it memorized still wont get you out of the back seat.

RomanDad
05-06-2009, 4:37 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

:thumbsup:

k0ncept
05-06-2009, 4:45 PM
I will say the Cop's indeed went overboard, but nothing unexpected..

and driving around with a gun on the seat and no ID? AND you got a ride home! and just a speeding ticket! Lucky SOB if you ask me, the reason I say this is I know how the POPO are as well, your lucky one of them didnt load a round in there for you lol.

MP301
05-06-2009, 4:46 PM
Some of these posts are just silly. The reality is that he did nothing wrong and the Police went too far. Sure, having it the trunk would have been better, but not illegal.

What the police are going to use as a weak reason for taking him into custody is that they wanted to properly identify him. They can do this if there is no ID and they fail to find him in the system...but if his car was registered to him and he has insurance papers, etc etc.... this detainment was BS. The pictures and finger prints were most likely for identifying him... fingerprints in the system if he ever got fingerprinted and the photos to match up with DMV photo on file. He was probably not booked. It does not take 9 hours to do this, so they will have zero excuse for detaining this long.

The poster who said that the cops were over reacting to the gun is 100% correct. The anti gun menatility and the desire and willingness to screw someone with a gun is pretty common in SoCal.

The funniest part about this is that the cops new they were wrong or they would have never given him a ride home and waived their fees. Especially in the LA County area. They were hoping to ease the pain a bit so as to reduce the chances of getting a complaint or sued. Making a complaint on a police officer has to be investigated by internal affairs and even if not sustained, it goes in their jacket. They like to avoid this whenever possible, especially on weak crap like this.

If I were the OP, I would request the informal hearing, have my ducks in a row as far as knowing the rules and get my damn $190 back along with an apology. I would tell them that if you get your money and an apology, it is over. But if they want to fight this, you have a family friend who is a civil rights attorney and its game on. And if you have to go through this trouble, $190 wont cover the bill they are going to be paying by a long stretch.

And for the posters making the big deal about the OP rememebring his DL#, that is silly. As soon as he gave his name, address and DOB, they had his DL number. That would have made absolutely zero difference. And even though I remmeber mine, I know many who dont. It doesnt make you less of a person...give the guy a break!

Gnzrme
05-06-2009, 4:53 PM
5 b/w's/10 officers....Sounds like Santa Clarita...If you have ever been pulled over, its likely that at least 1 or 2 or even more units will drive by and stop and offer assistance....Also getting a ride home...definately Santa Clarita....Jeez...maybe I will change my carry habits....I do remember my DL # though....If you dont smoke alot of weed then maybe its time for aricept...(memory drug)

Rhys898
05-06-2009, 4:53 PM
Some people are just no good at remembering alpha-numeric strings. The only way my wife was able to remember the date we met was to make it our home phone voicemail password. I on the other hand know my social, CDL, checking account, and even a couple 25 digit Microsoft authenticity keys.

ETA Yay SCV :) around here if you are pulled over for more than 20-30 minutes and nothing else major is going on expect at least 1 additional car. I had a friend that flicked an ash out the window while making a right turn and a cop saw her and pulled her over. She still had the actual butt with cherry smoldering in the ashtray. By the time they let her go there were 3 b/w's and 5 officers including one female and a Sergeant.

Gnzrme
05-06-2009, 4:57 PM
Some people are just no good at remembering alpha-numeric strings. The only way my wife was able to remember the date we met was to make it our home phone voicemail password. I on the other hand know my social, CDL, checking account, and even a couple 25 digit microsoft authenticity keys.

ok thats overboard....my brother has several of those codes memorized....you must be in tech support....

bodger
05-06-2009, 5:01 PM
Ah crap, I have no idea what's my DL # is and I don't even smoke weed. :(

I have mine memorized, but only after I started getting high again. :eek:

Rifle Fetish
05-06-2009, 5:10 PM
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but a San Diego PD friend told me that once they need to tow your car for whatever reason, the have to do an "inventory" for your protection and theirs. The idea is they inventory your stuff so you cant say "hey I had $10,000 in the trunk when they towed it away".

So what might seem to be an inadmissable search could have been an "inventory"

tyrist
05-06-2009, 5:12 PM
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but a San Diego PD friend told me that once they need to tow your car for whatever reason, the have to do an "inventory" for your protection and theirs. The idea is they inventory your stuff so you cant say "hey I had $10,000 in the trunk when they towed it away".

So what might seem to be an inadmissable search could have been an "inventory"

Yup all the supreme court decision did is remove a short cut that Officers were using. Now we have to fill out the impound sheet and take the vehicle instead of leaving it at scene.

haodoken
05-06-2009, 5:14 PM
Pretty clear cut to me.

1) You were speeding = CVC 22350
2) No CA DL, = CVC 12951 at the least or CVC 12500(a), a Misdemeanor.
3) No other gov't issued picture ID, to verify your identity.
4) Booked for ID purposes (You had no ID in possession). Anyone can give a false name and address. I've arrested many people for using a friend/relatives name who have similar descriptors, common practice for parolees. Happens all the time. CVC 31.
5) Rifle in back seat = PC 12031(e)
6) Vehicle search incident to arrest for CVC 12500(a)

You got to go home with just a ticket. Moral of the story is do not SPEED with a firearm in the BACKSEAT and no DL/other ID on hand.

Librarian
05-06-2009, 5:43 PM
DUDE - COME ON - if you can't muster the brain cells to memorize CDL and SSN over your entire lifetime! I'm stunned when people don't have the memorized.
Why bother? It's on this official document I carry in my wallet.

I've had the same DL number for around 20 years; never had a need to recite it from memory.

Now the social, yeah, that one I've got in my head.

Blue
05-06-2009, 5:46 PM
Do you have a fairly common name? Maybe the name you gave him popped up with someone else with the same name as yours that has warrants.

fairfaxjim
05-06-2009, 6:37 PM
Pretty clear cut to me.

1) You were speeding = CVC 22350
2) No CA DL, = CVC 12951 at the least or CVC 12500(a), a Misdemeanor.
3) No other gov't issued picture ID, to verify your identity.
4) Booked for ID purposes (You had no ID in possession). Anyone can give a false name and address. I've arrested many people for using a friend/relatives name who have similar descriptors, common practice for parolees. Happens all the time. CVC 31.
5) Rifle in back seat = PC 12031(e)
6) Vehicle search incident to arrest for CVC 12500(a)

You got to go home with just a ticket. Moral of the story is do not SPEED with a firearm in the BACKSEAT and no DL/other ID on hand.

1 - write a citation
2 - CVC 12500(a) only if not properly licensed, 12951 if no licence in possession but properly licensed. Citation and if license is produced in court, then charge is dismissed.
3 & 4 What law says you can book for no ID? CVC 31 is for providing FALSE ID. Vehicle can be impounded if DL status cannot be established 14607.6(c), but officer has to attempt to determine status using information provided before impounding. Still don't see where that would be bookable without an determining there was an outstanding warrant or proof that false info had been given.

5. What, legally, does having the firearm in the backseat add to the speeding and no CDL while driving? Absolutely nothing except that it will trigger the inspection for loaded of PC12031(e) - I didn't read where he refused the loaded check, the officers on the scene had gone over the top at the mere sight of the rifle, if his description of the incident is to be at all believed. That is the F'd up point here in CA, every LEO is being trained and encouraged to make it acceptable to treat people like crap for simply legally having a firearm - pure gestapo tactics, nothing less.
6. Again, where was VC12500 proven? OP stated he had DL and had lost it that day. Is everyone who LOSES their DL guilty of CVC12500, NO. I guess the real crime is being guilty of CVC12951 AND having a legally possessed firearm.
Do you mean to tell me you arrest everyone that you pop for speeding that doesn't happen to have a DL on them? Or just the ones with LEGALLY possessed firearms?

It is pretty clear to me why he got to go home, with a ride BTW, and just a ticket - oh yeah, and a $190 towing charge - the officers WAY over reacted and made a bad arrest. They decided to finally do what was right after the fact and threw in the ride home in hopes the OP would let the whole deal, including bad behavior by at least one officer on the scene, pass. They just diluted it down to where it wasn't worth anyone persuing it any further. That doesn't justify it, or make it right, and in fact is a tactic that is used over and over again to prove to the civilians that LEO's truly have the power over them.

I agree that one moral is don't speed, and another is don't lose your DL. The real moral here is that things are so screwed up in CA that ANY interaction with LE, no matter how benign normally, has a very great chance to spiral out of all normal reason when a firearm, even though legally posessed, is introduced into the mix.

While we are finally making great strides in possibly regaining some of our lost 2A rights here in CA, we may find it to be a worthless quest unless this rampant disregard for laws and constitutional rights under color of law can be brought under control.

GuyW
05-06-2009, 7:35 PM
I'd like to know if they treat illegal aliens with no legal ID or DL the same way: Arrest, jail, tow car....

.

Blue
05-06-2009, 7:37 PM
I'd like to know if they treat illegal aliens with no legal ID or DL the same way: Jail, tow car....

.

Not around here. They get a ticket, and normally the cop makes them park their car and take a cab. I've got a friend that has gotten off easy like that 3-4 times.

Nodda Duma
05-06-2009, 7:39 PM
Agreed, he did get off lucky.

But in respect to one thing said, PC 12031 (e) states that:


You did not refuse the inspection of your firearm, you did however not consent to the search. But as E Pluribus Unum says they arrested you and on the terms of your arrest they had PC to search your vehicle. IANAL so I can't give a definite answer to that. You are lucky to have not gotten the misdemeanor charge.


Wait a minute.

Didn't the Supreme Court just say that arrest is NOT PC for a search of the vehicle?

http://www.hometownstation.com/local-news/vehicle-search-clarita-2009-04-22-12-54.html

Supreme Court holds that once a suspect is secured, their vehicle is off-limits too.

-Jason

Riodog
05-06-2009, 7:42 PM
Something is fishy here. I'll have to assume that you were arrested by LASO. I kn ow LAPD would have kept your evil, high powered, sniper rifle. Anyway, consider yourself very lucky to get your firearm back so quickly! Also, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not positive about this but, I think that having two CDLs, even if one is expired, is a crime of some sort. Before you keep an expired CDL to use as ID, check the laws carefully.

Don't think so.
I've got my last 4 or 5 expired Dl's. Not usually accepted as valid ID but not illegal. License was just renewed 2 months ago, done online. Received new license in the mail about 4 days later and nothing was said about the old license. Actually, the new license came about 5 weeks before the old one expired so both were valid for a time.
Rio

PistolPete75
05-06-2009, 7:48 PM
sounds like the arresting cop was arresting you for a chicken shxt infraction. what else is new?

ohsmily
05-06-2009, 7:48 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

Are you kidding??? How hard is it to memorize your DL number? It is used fairly frequently on a many forms as well.

tyrist
05-06-2009, 7:52 PM
Don't think so.
I've got my last 4 or 5 expired Dl's. Not usually accepted as valid ID but not illegal. License was just renewed 2 months ago, done online. Received new license in the mail about 4 days later and nothing was said about the old license. Actually, the new license came about 5 weeks before the old one expired so both were valid for a time.
Rio

12511 CVC..illegal.

hill billy
05-06-2009, 7:52 PM
amazing because everyone in my office now knows theres. Has to be 15 people here. having it memorized still wont get you out of the back seat.

I disagree. I got caught speeding and carrying concealed without my wallet. The fact that I rattled off my DL number and handed it along with my reg and ins. to the officer while we talked about the mountain of guns in my back seat is probably what got me out of there with a ticket only.

cadurand
05-06-2009, 8:00 PM
The moral of the story is.. don't speed if you are driving without your license physically on your person. And if you are going to do this use some common sense and stow your rifle in the trunk out of sight.

Sure, you can argue all the rest but if you are going to break a law.. such as driving without your license with you.. make sure you don't break any other laws at the same time. How hard is it to not speed afterall?

It's not like this cop pulled someone over just for fun. He had a good reason.. the OP was SPEEDING and he had no license on him, and then the cop noticed the rifle in the backseat which he's allowed to check by law.

Sure, we can complain about police tactics all we like but in this case the OP should learn his lesson and be done with it. He even got to keep his firearm without having to jump through hoops to get it back.

what2be
05-06-2009, 8:05 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.
The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

Lucky? How? Because he wasnt shot and killed?
I find it moronic that a cop would go to all that trouble for someone speeding and without thier D/L. Talk about not using good discretion as a LEO. Now maybe if his attitude sucked, yeah, but if he was co-operative and explained nicely he recently lost his license and needed to go to dmv, cmon now, that might be LEGAL what the LEO did but doesent make it right.


Other than the fact that that he had a rifle in plain sight and (presumably)within reach of the driver with no license and no way to identify himself? COME ON!

Are gun cases that expensive? Are they too much trouble? Maybe put the gun in the trunk next time? THIS ISN"T AZ or MT. We KNOW the cops are looking for guns and we KNOW how they react when they find them.

Just b/c we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. 3rd degree is b/c this looks bad for gun owners. Makes us look like reckless retards. If OP were to have to stop for any reason the rifle is in plain sight and an easy grab for a criminal.

We all KNOW how we SHOULD transport our firearems right? (in a locked container or in the trunk)

Yeah, your statement of "just because we can doesent mean we should" is a perfect reference NOT to the OP, but the cop. If the cop had any common sense he should have ran the guys info for a valid D/L and sent him on his way with MAYBE a ticket for both speeding and no D/L in possession. But arrest and tow? And they wonder why people hate them so much. Idiots like that officer ruin it for the ones that have common sense.

I dont throw my guns in the back of my truck when I shoot, I leave em in the backseat. I could care less if the cops get nervous about this. It no different than the guys with deer hunting rifles in the gun racks on the back windows of their pickups. Are they stupid too for not putting them in containers so they can get beat flying around in the bed of the truck?
If I bought a case for every gun I took shooting sometimes I'd need a trailer to haul them all. I put a few in the truck, and if I bring out the big ones that are in cases, I put them in the bed of the truck.

Some of these posts are just silly. The reality is that he did nothing wrong and the Police went too far. Sure, having it the trunk would have been better, but not illegal.

The poster who said that the cops were over reacting to the gun is 100% correct. The anti gun menatility and the desire and willingness to screw someone with a gun is pretty common in SoCal.



At least someone in this thread thinks rationally. :)

Pretty clear cut to me.

1) You were speeding = CVC 22350
2) No CA DL, = CVC 12951 at the least or CVC 12500(a), a Misdemeanor.
3) No other gov't issued picture ID, to verify your identity.
4) Booked for ID purposes (You had no ID in possession). Anyone can give a false name and address. I've arrested many people for using a friend/relatives name who have similar descriptors, common practice for parolees. Happens all the time. CVC 31.
5) Rifle in back seat = PC 12031(e)
6) Vehicle search incident to arrest for CVC 12500(a)

You got to go home with just a ticket. Moral of the story is do not SPEED with a firearm in the BACKSEAT and no DL/other ID on hand.

yeah, and moral of the story is "dont think you will come across rational, intelligent cops because you never know when you are jaywalking and are going to get arrested...or not having your d/l on you and speeding, or maybe spitting out your window, or going to jail for tinted windows, or mayb e someone stole your reg sticker and you get arrested because there is no vehicle registration in your car to prove you have it registered, etc, etc."

dustoff31
05-06-2009, 8:14 PM
The moral of the story is.. don't speed if you are driving without your license physically on your person. And if you are going to do this use some common sense and stow your rifle in the trunk out of sight.

Hey! Hey! Hey! What are you? One of those accept responsibility for your own actions weirdos?;)

If this this guy hadn't been speeding and driving without his DL, this post wouldn't have been possible and we would still be reading about legalizing pot.

TenSeven
05-06-2009, 8:22 PM
So let us review:
_________________________________________
fasttimes (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=33467)
Join Date: May 2009 (May 5, 2009 per his bio)

Posts: 1
_________________________________________


His first and only post is an LEO-contact/arrest story that is full of holes and many of you take it at face value?

Call me crazy, but I'll bet the OP just maybe might have left out a little detail or five and embellished on some others. If this even true at all.

The arresting officer gave him a ride home?? Riiiiight...

planedude86
05-06-2009, 8:29 PM
12511 CVC..illegal.

12511 CVC:

12511. No person shall have in his or her possession or otherwise
under his or her control more than one driver's license.

310 CVC:

"Driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under this code or by a foreign jurisdiction.

The wording here is ambiguous, though. In other sections, the phrase "valid driver's license" is used. Sorry, just felt the need to post this curious observation.

Tillers_Rule
05-06-2009, 8:30 PM
In case it hasn't been mentioned, gun aside you still could have been arrested for driving without your license.

bodger
05-06-2009, 8:32 PM
I disagree. I got caught speeding and carrying concealed without my wallet. The fact that I rattled off my DL number and handed it along with my reg and ins. to the officer while we talked about the mountain of guns in my back seat is probably what got me out of there with a ticket only.

Without your CCW license either?
You sure it was a real cop? Or one of those imposters with a Crown Vic and a spotlight.
If it was the latter, you prolly scared him straight. :)

Bill_in_SD
05-06-2009, 8:33 PM
I am not convinced he was arrested for a good reason.

He got his rifle back so there would be less proof he got detained for 9 hours. They are hoping he writes this off to 'being lucky he walked and got his rifle back'.

Can you really get arrested for 2 infractions?

As for speeding, maybe he was a shade lighter/darker than the locals in that neighborhood. Are we supposed to change our route home now if we lost our DL and have a rifle in the back seat?

I am not saying that the LEO involved are evil, but there is some real anti-gun sentiment out there and the sensitivity level after Oakland probably just added fuel to the fire. Later on when cooler heads prevailed, he was released.

Even if it is some drive-by hypothetical by some bored person on the net, it has created some discussion for thought......

TRICKSTER
05-06-2009, 8:38 PM
I love the way many of you are slamming the cops in this case. Everything the cop did was legal. The OP was speeding and had no identification. The law allows the police to book instead of cite for infractions if the person has no identification on their person, verbal ID does not count. The law also allows the police to tow the vehicle incident to arrest and conduct a vehicle inventory.

I wonder how many of you that are so quick to slam the cops in this case would feel if the OP had been a gangbanger, speeding because he had just shot someone with the rifle, and had been given a ticket and released just because the gangbanger had memorized someones name and drivers license number. You know that you would all be screaming about how incompetent the cops were. Remember, the cops don't know who they are dealing with when they stop you, especially if you don't have identification. Lets see, speeding + no ID + gun, as far as the cops know, you could have just robbed a place or shot someone.
The cop did exactly what the law allowed him to do to make sure that something like this didn't happen and let the suspect get away. It's called good police work.

nevadampa30
05-06-2009, 8:44 PM
Pretty clear cut to me.

1) You were speeding = CVC 22350
2) No CA DL, = CVC 12951 at the least or CVC 12500(a), a Misdemeanor.
3) No other gov't issued picture ID, to verify your identity.
4) Booked for ID purposes (You had no ID in possession). Anyone can give a false name and address. I've arrested many people for using a friend/relatives name who have similar descriptors, common practice for parolees. Happens all the time. CVC 31.
5) Rifle in back seat = PC 12031(e)
6) Vehicle search incident to arrest for CVC 12500(a)

You got to go home with just a ticket. Moral of the story is do not SPEED with a firearm in the BACKSEAT and no DL/other ID on hand.


Kido', I hope your not a cop. Otherwise, you would have cost the department with these wrong citations if OP decided to sue

what2be
05-06-2009, 8:47 PM
I love the way many of you are slamming the cops in this case. Everything the cop did was legal. The OP was speeding and had no identification. The law allows the police to book instead of cite for infractions if the person has no identification on their person, verbal ID does not count. The law also allows the police to tow the vehicle incident to arrest and conduct a vehicle inventory.

I wonder how many of you that are so quick to slam the cops in this case would feel if the OP had been a gangbanger, speeding because he had just shot someone with the rifle, and had been given a ticket and released just because the gangbanger had memorized someones name and drivers license number. You know that you would all be screaming about how incompetent the cops were. Remember, the cops don't know who they are dealing with when they stop you, especially if you don't have identification. Lets see, speeding + no ID + gun, as far as the cops know, you could have just robbed a place or shot someone.
The cop did exactly what the law allowed him to do to make sure that something like this didn't happen and let the suspect get away. It's called good police work.

Man, how many times do I have to say it? part of a cops job is to use discretion and instinct. The cop should have made a reasonable assesment the guy was not coming from a drive by, is a gang banger, or just shot someone. The cop didnt bother using common sense, thats what we have a issue with. Can you imagine what would happen if every cop was out citing people for talking on the cell phone, no seatbelt, no helmet, jaywalking, etc? There would be nobody to deal with the murders, rapists, gang bangers, burglars, etc.
If the OP's story was legit, he either encountered a cop that was new on the job, or is so scared to pursue actual criminal activity that he drives around all day looking for speeders and people not wearing their seatbelts so he can arrest them and spend the rest of the day writing reports and booking them in the jail. I have no idea what its like in LA, but where I live, in a rural area, it takes a cop close to 2 hours to book someone in the jail. How efficient would our law enforcement be if they spent all day on these bs kind of arrests? Not very. Im sure they could use that time better out in the field.

DDT
05-06-2009, 8:47 PM
Can you really get arrested for 2 infractions?


Yes you can. We also don't know if the OP was in a borrowed car etc. If it was his own car and he gave the police his proper name they could have immediately confirmed it when they ran the plates and from his reg. papers.

My guess is that there was some discrepancy there and if someone is driving around my neighborhood speeding and has a gun in his car AND can't ID himself I really hope the police don't let him go until they can determine who he REALLY is. This will likely take fingerprinting and comparing the print to his DL print.

As for the car search, I really feel inventory searches are unconstitutional but that's a fight for another day. Maybe the ACLU can do something useful.

glockman19
05-06-2009, 8:49 PM
The moral of this story:

There is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law. In this case the letter of the law was followed.

DDT
05-06-2009, 8:52 PM
The moral of this story:

There is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law. In this case the letter of the law was followed.

There is no spirit of the law, it is as it is written. It is "spirit" of the law that people try to use when enforcing the law in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

glockwise2000
05-06-2009, 8:54 PM
I love the way many of you are slamming the cops in this case. Everything the cop did was legal. The OP was speeding and had no identification. The law allows the police to book instead of cite for infractions if the person has no identification on their person, verbal ID does not count. The law also allows the police to tow the vehicle incident to arrest and conduct a vehicle inventory.

I wonder how many of you that are so quick to slam the cops in this case would feel if the OP had been a gangbanger, speeding because he had just shot someone with the rifle, and had been given a ticket and released just because the gangbanger had memorized someones name and drivers license number. You know that you would all be screaming about how incompetent the cops were. Remember, the cops don't know who they are dealing with when they stop you, especially if you don't have identification. Lets see, speeding + no ID + gun, as far as the cops know, you could have just robbed a place or shot someone.
The cop did exactly what the law allowed him to do to make sure that something like this didn't happen and let the suspect get away. It's called good police work.


It's what we call rookie cop work.

DDT
05-06-2009, 8:57 PM
Man, how many times do I have to say it? part of a cops job is to use discretion and instinct. The cop should have made a reasonable assesment the guy was not coming from a drive by, is a gang banger, or just shot someone. The cop didnt bother using common sense, thats what we have a issue with

Just out of curiosity on what do you base your statement? Where you there? Did you witness the OPs behavior? Do you know if the OP has gang-related tattoos, or tats resembling gang tattoos?

desmark6
05-06-2009, 9:03 PM
A couple things I have learned working as a cop:

1. Bad people lie, I have had many use fictitious names, or the memorized names of relatives including DOB/CDL#'s etc. They were taken to the PD and printed/photographed and their true identity reveales. I have done this several times and only ONCE did it turn out to be who they said they were. The rest were arrested for PC 148.9 (False ID to a peace officer) at a minimum, most of them had outstanding warrants as well.

2. There are 3 sides to every story, the victims side, the suspects side, and the truth.

I am not taking sides on this one since I was not there. However, I am pretty sure there are some pieces of this story that were omitted either intentionally or unintentionally, but either way, I absolutely do not believe this story to be complete.

From what it sounds like, the officers conducted themselves according to the law. Just my .02

xLusi0n
05-06-2009, 9:03 PM
A good lawyer will dig into the cops history to see if he let other people go that were caught speeding with no DL (and no rifle). Then the only determining factor would be that he had a rifle in the car, legally.

Amacias805
05-06-2009, 9:05 PM
the officer was within the law when he detained you at the station for questioning. if you would've had your license than it probably wouldn't have been.


since you were being detained while driving, the officer is suppose to tow the car to prevent being sued, and the officer is required to perform an inventory check of the car when a towing

TRICKSTER
05-06-2009, 9:06 PM
Man, how many times do I have to say it? part of a cops job is to use discretion and instinct. The cop should have made a reasonable assesment the guy was not coming from a drive by, is a gang banger, or just shot someone. The cop didnt bother using common sense, thats what we have a issue with. Can you imagine what would happen if every cop was out citing people for talking on the cell phone, no seatbelt, no helmet, jaywalking, etc? There would be nobody to deal with the murders, rapists, gang bangers, burglars, etc.
If the OP's story was legit, he either encountered a cop that was new on the job, or is so scared to pursue actual criminal activity that he drives around all day looking for speeders and people not wearing their seatbelts so he can arrest them and spend the rest of the day writing reports and booking them in the jail. I have no idea what its like in LA, but where I live, in a rural area, it takes a cop close to 2 hours to book someone in the jail. How efficient would our law enforcement be if they spent all day on these bs kind of arrests? Not very. Im sure they could use that time better out in the field.

So part of a cops job is to be a mindreader? And what's with this "so scared to pursue actual criminal activity that he drives around all day looking for speeders and people not wearing their seatbelts so he can arrest them and spend the rest of the day writing reports and booking them in the jail".Don't you realise how many serious criminals are stopped and caught because some cop contacted them for some minor infraction? Are you saying that common sense is to let someone who you don't know from Adam, who was speeding, not carrying any identification, and has a gun laying on the seat, go without confirming who that person is? It's called the totality of the circumstances, and unfortunately for the OP, all of the wrong things fell into place.

desmark6
05-06-2009, 9:10 PM
xLusiOn, there is nothing that says and officer must take the exact same enforcement action every time. There is the spirit of the law which allows officers to use their discretion on how to handle each situation on a case by case basis. You wouldn't even need a lawyer, just ask him/her, there is no reason for them to hide that answer.

I have towed cars for a driver being in violation of VC12500(a) and I have let others go with just a cite. For instance, I let one illegal unlicensed driver keep his vehicle and drive the last few blocks to his house since it was very cold/raining and he had 2 infants (properly restrained in car seats) in the vehicle. The risk of the infants being exposed to the elements, to me, outweighed the necessity to tow the car. The driver was still cited however.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
05-06-2009, 9:11 PM
A couple things I have learned working as a cop:

1. Bad people lie, I have had many use fictitious names, or the memorized names of relatives including DOB/CDL#'s etc. They were taken to the PD and printed/photographed and their true identity reveales. I have done this several times and only ONCE did it turn out to be who they said they were. The rest were arrested for PC 148.9 (False ID to a peace officer) at a minimum, most of them had outstanding warrants as well.

2. There are 3 sides to every story, the victims side, the suspects side, and the truth.

I am not taking sides on this one since I was not there. However, I am pretty sure there are some pieces of this story that were omitted either intentionally or unintentionally, but either way, I absolutely do not believe this story to be complete.

From what it sounds like, the officers conducted themselves according to the law. Just my .02

Agreed, except I've NEVER had anyone in that situation come out to be who they said they were. Not once. Later on, as a bailiff, I had plenty of opportunities to watch folks come in and try to clear the cases that their brother, cousin, etc. had gotten them involved in by giving false ID info. It's not easy or fun to do that.

Doesn't make all parts of the police behavior described right but somehow, I suspect there's more to the story than we've been told. Absent information from all sides (which we're not likely to see), anyone making a judgement on right/wrong conduct is going off half-cocked.

Just another .02 on the stack.

KylaGWolf
05-06-2009, 9:17 PM
Once they arrested you they had every right to search the car when they took it for impound. They do that more for inventory purposes than anything else. Yes they did have the right to arrest you for not having your license and driving. You made the comment about putting an expired ID in your glovebox. I wouldn't do that due to the off chance that someone steals your car they then have your driver's license number and can turn around and use that to get credit in your name. You might be able to get that charge dismissed if you choose to fight it although you wouldn't get the tow fee removed since at the time the charges stood.

tyrist
05-06-2009, 9:19 PM
A good lawyer will dig into the cops history to see if he let other people go that were caught speeding with no DL (and no rifle). Then the only determining factor would be that he had a rifle in the car, legally.

negative

becxltoo984
05-06-2009, 9:25 PM
Bro sounds like your attitude landed you in jail . Speeding no id and the rifle across the back seat ...Humm :(

TheBundo
05-06-2009, 9:37 PM
It's not a wise idea to drive around, speeding, with no drivers license or any other I.D. and a rifle visible and within reach. Now that you have found out why it is a bad idea, are you going to do it again? Maybe you should have put the rifle in the trunk when you discovered that your license was missing.

I am not saying that the cops are good guys, but jeez dude, try not to make yourself into a example.

I agree. Open, concealed, attached to your antennae, doesn't matter. The speeding, no ID, are what screwed you, and then "camping on" your "rights"

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2009, 9:43 PM
Lucky? How? Because he wasnt shot and killed?
I find it moronic that a cop would go to all that trouble for someone speeding and without thier D/L. Talk about not using good discretion as a LEO. Now maybe if his attitude sucked, yeah, but if he was co-operative and explained nicely he recently lost his license and needed to go to dmv, cmon now, that might be LEGAL what the LEO did but doesent make it right.


No, lucky because he was let go with two infractions, his guns back, and a free ride to his home.

Obviously the officer felt bad for how it went down. They probably thought he was a real criminal with something to hide (hence the "lost" driver's license) and arrested him more for the ability to ID him than anything else. After getting the ID back and realizing he was telling the truth, he gave the kid a ride home.

I went through a similar ordeal except in my case I broke no law, I was legally carrying concealed on my way back from hunting. They arrested me for carrying a concealed weapon and drug me off to jail the whole time I am saying "read PC12027(g), it gives me the right to carry concealed while returning home from hunting". Charges were filed, they kept my firearms for 3 months while I hired an attorney at $2500 to get my charges dismissed. I still had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor 12500(a) "unlicensed driver" charge and do 30 hours community service.

So yeah.... he got off lucky. I am not saying its right... just saying it could have been MUCH worse.

desmark6
05-06-2009, 9:47 PM
If you broke no law, then why would you plead guilty to CVC 12500(a)? That in itself is against the law, and what did you do that gave the officer probable cause to stop you in the first place?

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2009, 10:03 PM
If you broke no law, then why would you plead guilty to CVC 12500(a)? That in itself is against the law, and what did you do that gave the officer probable cause to stop you in the first place?

I broke no law to cause the encounter was my point. I was not speeding. They pulled me over for "weaving" to determine if I had been drinking. I was stone cold sober. I gave him my license and registration and he noticed that it was a few days past my birthday and I had failed to renew my driver's license. This is 99% of the time a fix-it ticket that they sign off later. He asked if he could search the vehicle and I told him no. He took me out of the car and searched it anyway. He found my handgun under the seat and then arrested me for carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded weapon (because there was a loaded magazine next to the handgun).

I was initially charged with VC12500(a) infraction, PC12025, and PC12031. Later after presenting People vs. Clark regarding the 12025 charge, and a valid hunting license took care of 12031, the only charge was 12500(a) which they amended the complaint to be charged as a full misdemeanor. My attorney said that the fact that 99% of the time it is charged as an infraction did not matter, the plain and simple fact was I was technically guilty and if the DA wanted to charge me with the misdemeanor there was little to no defense of it. I had to plead. He negotiated it to 30 hours community service and I get my firearm back. I took it.

What it comes down to is that MANY minor traffic infractions are wobblers that can be charged as misdemeanors. While generally, an officer cannot arrest you for minor infractions, there are many "minor infractions" that are chargeable as misdemeanors which give the officer the right to arrest, impound, and ultimately search a vehicle. This was one of them.

Vanguard
05-06-2009, 10:07 PM
This is why I don't donate to police organizations. There are a lot of jerk LEOs out there. I think they were picked on in high school and it's their way of getting back at the world. :rolleyes:

haodoken
05-06-2009, 10:10 PM
Kido', I hope your not a cop. Otherwise, you would have cost the department with these wrong citations if OP decided to sue

What would he sue for? For being stopped for SPEEDING and having a rifle in his back seat. Add in carrying no ID. Most law abiding people I know carry their DL with them (in this case he lost it) and if they are carrying a firearm in vehicle, it's in the trunk not in plain view. Maybe that kinda of stuff is ok in NV but in CA, you're probably gonna get stopped an have the same thing happen. After he was id'ed not being a parolee/felon, he got a ticket for his infractions. Show his license to the judge and go to traffic school = ticket dismissed. The OP may not like what happened but don't SPEED, leave guns in the open, and not have ID while operating a motor vehicle. Problem solved.

tyrist
05-06-2009, 10:17 PM
Yes you can. We also don't know if the OP was in a borrowed car etc. If it was his own car and he gave the police his proper name they could have immediately confirmed it when they ran the plates and from his reg. papers.

My guess is that there was some discrepancy there and if someone is driving around my neighborhood speeding and has a gun in his car AND can't ID himself I really hope the police don't let him go until they can determine who he REALLY is. This will likely take fingerprinting and comparing the print to his DL print.

As for the car search, I really feel inventory searches are unconstitutional but that's a fight for another day. Maybe the ACLU can do something useful.

What would you say if I told you there were numerous impounded vehicles where the Officers didn't do a good search and dead bodies were found?

I am not joking here either. Never happened to me but it has happened.

E Pluribus Unum
05-06-2009, 10:19 PM
This is why I don't donate to police organizations. There are a lot of jerk LEOs out there. I think they were picked on in high school and it's their way of getting back at the world. :rolleyes:

There are many out there (like me) who have had bad run-ins with police.

My worst ones are as follows:

1.The situation I explained above, cost me $2500 to defend myself for lawful carry of a concealed firearm.

2. Police sergeant towed my lawfully registered, lawfully parked motorhome because he was tired of driving around it to get his mail. Cost me $1200

3. Wrongfully arrested for spousal battery after being assaulted by ex GF. Cost me $500 bail money- no charges filed.

4. I had a vehicle impounded from in front of my own home because the moving permit was covered by debris in the back of my truck. Cost me $500.00

5. I was unlawfully detained and searched for DUI after an officer lied about smelling alcohol on my person.

These and many other scenarios give people cause to question the act of police.

Plain and simple: This guy was speeding through LA county with a firearm with no Identification. It is very suspicious. 90% of the time people doing this are victimizing people and deserve to be identified. Anyone can recite a DL number and name. They had to take him down to the station, run is prints and find out who he really was. Once they did, they gave his gun back THAT night and gave him a ride home. That is unheard of. Even when my firearm was illegally ceased by the CHP I had to wait 2 months for the DOJ background check to come back.

I am the first to yell "police conspiracy" but even I say that it appears in this case that the officer went above and beyond to respect the OP's rights, and yet fulfill his duty to protect and serve the population.

cassius
05-06-2009, 10:26 PM
Memorize your DL #. I have mine memorized just for instances such as this. Glad to hear that they drove you and your firearm home, wouldn't expect that in LA.

Hell the shift supervisor probably made the officer do it for exposing the department to potential hassle / lawsuit, with their over the top BS. A little inverse 'street justice'.

KaTooM
05-06-2009, 10:42 PM
and the OP still has 1 post...:troll:

DDT
05-06-2009, 10:43 PM
What would you say if I told you there were numerous impounded vehicles where the Officers didn't do a good search and dead bodies were found?

I am not joking here either. Never happened to me but it has happened.

I couldn't care less. If the officers don't have PC then no search. If there's PC then get a warrant. I'm sure there are tons of illegal firearms in houses right in your home city that no one knows about because the police can't search those homes without a warrant.

fasttimes
05-06-2009, 11:28 PM
Sorry for the delay in replying to your posts. You guys are so fast on posting, I'm having difficulty forming a coherent reply. I'll try to reply to all the major points and questions.
- The story is true, as far as I can relay it. Clearly, it's only one side of the story, but the facts are as I recall them.
- I'm charged with speeding, I have not admitted to such. We'll see, after the court case is over.
- My name is not common. In fact, I'm nearly positive I am the only one with my name in the world. They did tell me they found me on the computer, and the physical description does match. (Why don't cops have access to DMV photos from the patrol cars?)
- I am a white male, late 30s, long hair, no tattoos, markings, piercings or earring.
- The car I was driving was mine. All papers in order.
- I carry in the back seat vs. the trunk for the same reason anyone OCs. It won't do me any good in the trunk if I need it. We can agree to disagree on this issue, if you so choose.
- Why did I drive without possession of license? What could I do? I lost it somewhere on the way out to the middle of nowhere to shoot. There is none that would not have driven home. The $190 tow was cheaper than a 245 mile taxi ride (even if I could get one to come pick me up in the middle of nowhere.) :)
- I did know my DL# partially, but was not sure about the last 4 numbers, so I did not give that information, fearing that if I was incorrect, they could ad an additional charge of Giving False Information to a Police Officer!

Finally, I was lead to the code I was looking for:
CVC 40302(a) is the authority to arrest when the person arrested fails to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
The arrest makes legal the towing for storage under 22651(h)(1) when an officer arrests a person driving or in control of a vehicle for an alleged offense and the officer is, by this code or other law, required or permitted to take, and does take, the person into custody.
The tow may make legal the the search/"inventory" of the car, although there is debate here due to the recent Arizona v Gant decision.

Moral of the story: Always keep and expired license in the car (hide it in a secret place, if worried about theft.) Just in case your license comes up missing through whatever cause. Seems legal, IMHO. Loosing your license opens you up to a huge invitation of your privacy and freedom.

A final thought:
The purpose of the post was not the whine or gripe as some stated, but to insure that the law was followed to the letter by the cops. That's all I can ask from a cop. They seem to have followed the law, so I have no problem with their actions. The one out of control cop was trying to play the "bad cop" role, and I saw right through it and was unphased by the antics. The rest of the cops seemed professional enough (jerks, but professional.) Besides the passive-aggressive overly tight cuffs, and the excessive booking times, I was treated properly, and was offered water (three times) and food (once). Through this, I've learned how to avoid the possibility of this happening again.

I won't bother trying to recover the $190 tow fees, but I'm still planning on fighting the speeding ticket. Nothing to loose, and I think I can beat it.

TenSeven
05-07-2009, 1:08 AM
...What could I do? I lost it somewhere on the way out to the middle of nowhere to shoot...


To me, this is one of the most suspicious parts of your 2 posts on CGN.

Well... that, and you open the user account on the 5th and then suddenly have a LEO issue the very next day. Hmmm...

You just mysteriously lost just your CDL, or your whole wallet? There are so many holes in your story you look like a sponge.

The arresting officer gave you a ride home?? J,M&J, that is... yeah... no...

Some of you may remember BigBamBoo's hoax thread some months ago (the one where 10% -A CG Board Sponsor and CGF Board Member - went berserk defending him) about the CHP some months ago? Not surprisingly, all those threads/post were taken away from public view. (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get banned from CG for bringing this up)

Here we go again.


Reads like and smells like just another anti-LEO troll thread on CalGuns...

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-07-2009, 2:28 AM
Wait a minute.

Didn't the Supreme Court just say that arrest is NOT PC for a search of the vehicle?

http://www.hometownstation.com/local-news/vehicle-search-clarita-2009-04-22-12-54.html



-Jason

Inventory of the vehicle (due to it being towed) after the arrest is within the scope of that decision.

supersonic
05-07-2009, 5:12 AM
To the OP: Why not take your story (complete) and any evidence/processing papers & receipts you were given...to a reputable attorney to see if you have a case? Most atty's will consult for free on something like this. Just DO IT. It will cost you nothing. And, after things are "straightened out," come back here & report to us what the outcome was. If you don't do this, I call BS on it & a HUGE waste of a nonsense thread.

ilbob
05-07-2009, 5:45 AM
You were a safe arrest. Much safer for them to bust you for misplacing a piece of paper than to go after actual criminals.

The cops involved got to spend a few hours off the streets to process you, probably ended up getting OT out of the deal.

The rifle may have had nothing to do with it at all.

Nodda Duma
05-07-2009, 5:47 AM
Inventory of the vehicle (due to it being towed) after the arrest is within the scope of that decision.

Sounds like they searched along the side of the road... prior to being towed. Cops taking advantage of a technicality (searching w/o warrant, claiming inventory due to towing), or unaware / ignoring Supreme Court ruling?



-Jason

socal2310
05-07-2009, 5:49 AM
There is no spirit of the law, it is as it is written. It is "spirit" of the law that people try to use when enforcing the law in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

There is a "Spirit of the Law" whenever discretion comes into the mix. The latitude is necessary since demanding strict enforcement would place an unreasonable burden upon police since politicians desiring to be perceived as tough on crime would likely legislate to compel enforcement that would be as restrictive of our freedom as they felt SCOTUS would let them get away with.

It appears that the police dotted all of their i's and crossed their t's, but perhaps went further than was strictly necessary. What we don't know (and unless someone wishes to file a PRAR for dashcam videos, we will never know) is:
A.) Did OP tell us everything?
B.) What impact did his attitude have on the disposition of the incident?
C.) What were the cops in question dealing with before the unfortunate encounter? Police are human too and like it or not, if they are having a bad day, you may well have a bad day.

Ryan

BigBamBoo
05-07-2009, 7:08 AM
..............

CalNRA
05-07-2009, 7:19 AM
:popcorn:

the term "hoax" is a serious charge.

Bruce
05-07-2009, 7:45 AM
Excuse me?? Hoax? Hmm.....really...love for you to verify that. Like for you to go meat with the all the folks we had a sit down with...or better yet...go request the official formal complaint filed by my daughter and wife with the Redding branch of the CHP. Until then...get your facts straight and STFU.

Peace,Stan

So what happened in your case?

Maestro Pistolero
05-07-2009, 8:01 AM
The officer giving the arrestee a ride home is in itself suspicious. This is not the kind of customer service we've come to expect from the police department. Was he being nice because he has an idea that this was an improper arrest?

RVMS
05-07-2009, 8:23 AM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

If there was no ammo with the rifle it was useless anyway, you could have had it in the trunk and he would have had no PC for the search.

The mere posession of a gun gives the police the right to check if it is loaded. There is no court decision that limits that search to the gun itself and many areas interpret it to mean they can search the whole area. The trunk is a different story. Had they found anything illegal in the trunk, it probably would have been inadmissible and they knew that. If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

wow, that is exactly what a cop would say.... and you wonder why people hate you... all I know is that he wasn't unlicensed, he just didn't have one on him and that you have the information on the computer.... so there is that one.... have fun with the inferiority complex.

Mazilla
05-07-2009, 8:35 AM
in defense of the cops maybe they were on the lookout for a real bad guy that met your description or location.

I've heard that one before, I was sitting in the back of a cruiser(handcuffed) with my friend after we got stopped for "my partner made the call, you must have made an illegal turn back there or something" talking to said "partner" about how we got pulled over because "there was a report of a stolen car matching my vehicles description". Once I explained to them that our parents are "rich and white" they quickly stopped what they were doing, released us and drove away. No ticket, no charge, no apology for embarrassing us in the middle of our neighborhood grocery store parking lot. I wish I knew what I know now at 18.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 8:37 AM
wow, that is exactly what a cop would say.... and you wonder why people hate you... all I know is that he wasn't unlicensed, he just didn't have one on him and that you have the information on the computer.... so there is that one.... have fun with the inferiority complex.

How could someone who just joined and has 4 posts possibly know how people feel about me? Besides, I do not ever wonder if people hate me; for every one that does there are two that don't and if there are a few that do its because they are too attached to their own opinion and too shallow to have an intelligent discussion with those that differ. These are not the kind of people I care about.

bwiese
05-07-2009, 8:49 AM
This is a perfect example of why you should just throw your rifle in your trunk.

It's also helpful to memorize your CDL#, I thought everyone did that.

bombadillo
05-07-2009, 8:50 AM
If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

I can't believe a statement like this made it here without a whole lot of scrutiny. To say that you believe in second amendment rights and post things like that is insane! Aw, come on who cares if they had to break a couple of rights to knock down the doors of the wrong house 3 times just to find the right house that had the bad guys in it, it was all for the good of the cause.

Bruce
05-07-2009, 8:56 AM
wow, that is exactly what a cop would say.... and you wonder why people hate you... all I know is that he wasn't unlicensed, he just didn't have one on him and that you have the information on the computer.... so there is that one.... have fun with the inferiority complex.


How could someone who just joined and has 4 posts possibly know how people feel about me? Besides, I do not ever wonder if people hate me; for every one that does there are two that don't and if there are a few that do its because they are too attached to their own opinion and too shallow to have an intelligent discussion with those that differ. These are not the kind of people I care about.

I think the youngster thinks you're a cop. ;)

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 9:00 AM
I can't believe a statement like this made it here without a whole lot of scrutiny. To say that you believe in second amendment rights and post things like that is insane! Aw, come on who cares if they had to break a couple of rights to knock down the doors of the wrong house 3 times just to find the right house that had the bad guys in it, it was all for the good of the cause.

I believe in second amendment rights. In this case, his second amendment rights were not violated. He was not arrested because of guns. He was arrested because he broke a law and had no identification as required by the law.

It is not like he was simply walking down the street with a firearm and got harassed by the police. He was speeding. Granted, had he not had the gun, he probably would have been let go at the scene. I am not arguing that I agree with the officer, I am simply stating that because of the situation, he got off lucky. Right now he could be in jail, or out on bail for a drummed up charge, while they hold his weapon and he waits for arraignment. He could have to hire a lawyer to defend him or give up his gun in a plea bargain. All I am saying is he got off lucky, right, wrong, or indifferent it could have been much worse.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 9:01 AM
I think the youngster thinks you're a cop. ;)

If he only knew.... :)

Its kinda funny... cops think I am a cop basher.... cop bashers think I'm a cop lover.... Nobody likes me... :rolleyes:

fasttimes
05-07-2009, 9:02 AM
Regarding the hoax accusation -- believe it or not. I don't care.

- I've been following these forums for several months. I registered when I had a need to post.

- I could of lost my license that day, or five years ago. Who cares, as it's irrelevant to the charge -- not in possession (for any reason)

- I don't carry a wallet. Haven't in my entire adult life. I take what cards I deem needed on a case by case basis, and stick them in my pocket. On this trip, I had my license and my debit card.

- Why not go to lawyer first before posting? Because I believed what the cops did was probably legal (they aren't dumb). I wanted the statute that authorized arrest, so I could heck for myself; I have those now. Also, I wanted to vent a little.

- Regarding the ride home. During booking I was asked about any health conditions I might have, and my answers may have influenced this. I also believe they though they have a major felon caught, and felt like jerks when it turned out it was just little 'ol me after all. As I said in the original post-- I don't know exactly what to make of it.

HowardW56
05-07-2009, 9:03 AM
wow, that is exactly what a cop would say.... and you wonder why people hate you... all I know is that he wasn't unlicensed, he just didn't have one on him and that you have the information on the computer.... so there is that one.... have fun with the inferiority complex.

Has this become the children's forum?

Bruce
05-07-2009, 9:07 AM
(I hope I'm posting in the correct forum- mods, please move if incorrect)

Over the weekend, I was pulled over for speeding somewhere in the County of Los Angeles; it may or may not be an incorporated city. OK, no problem, I got caught in a speeding trap, I'll fight it later. I'm relaxed, but I know they will probably say something about the rifle.

When the offices approached, they started to talk to me, then noticed my .22 rifle in the back seat, and stopped mid-sentence. There attitude changed immediately. They made a statement about the rifle; I forget exactly what they said. I replied it was unloaded and I was carrying it legally.

I for one would like to know what you said to them, word for word.

They asked if I was going to be a problem, and asked for my license. I didn't have my license on me because I had lost it easier that day shooting out in the desert (don't ask me how, I still can't figure it out) and I said so. They asked me a couple more times for an ID of some type, and each time I said I lost it and gave them my name and address (and later even gave my SSN when asked). They clearly thought I was lying, and/or wanted an excuse to search me and the car.

They ordered me to exit the car, frisked me, and put me in the back of their patrol car. Where again, I was asked for ID and I replied the same as above. I also reminded them I hadn't consented to any searches of any kind.

Again, what exactly did you say?

By this time, there were 5 cars and 10 cops on the scene. They were searching the interior of the car, and a bit later, they opened the trunk and searched that. One of the later arriving cops poked his head through the window and threatened me in an enraged manner, "if you don't change your attitude I'll have to deal with me" banging on the squad car window several times. I thought he was going to break it.

I know once they started searching the trunk I must be under arrest and not just being detained, so I refused any further questions (not that I said much before either.) Sure enough, about two minutes later, they put the cuffs on me (nice and tight, of course). Checking to see if the gun was loaded or not was one of the very last things they bothered to do, before they slapped on the cuffs.

I was taken to the station and booked; finger printed twice, and mug shots taken. I was released approximately 9 hours later. They had towed my car "for storage" and I was given release papers for the car, waving all department fees (but I still had to pay $190 for the tow yard fees). The arresting officer even drove me home himself, along with my gun and ammo! Don't know what to make of that.

Police or sheriff? They may have wanted to arrest you for 12031PC, but were over-ruled by a supervisor. You were most likely printed on a computer system that checks the county, state, and federal databases. Depending on the day of the week, or time of day, that can take from 15 minutes to several hours to get an answer. In these days of "identity theft", they want to be sure of who they have.

On the ticket, I was sited for CVC 22350 (Basic Speed Law) and CVC 12951(a) (Possession of License); Both infractions.

I received papers (CHP form 180) today from the department in question stating my car had been towed and where I could pick it up (I already got it back the next day). It stated as reason for storage: CVC 22651(h) which states: (1) When an officer arrests a person driving or in control of a vehicle for an alleged offense and the officer is, by this code or other law, required or permitted to take, and does take, the person into custody.

So, that's where I stand. So, it comes down to did the officer have cause for arrest? I still don't know under what statute I was arrested. When I went to the station for further information, all they said was that I was not arrested! If that's the case, then why was the car stored, as that is the stated reason.

I have 7 more days to request an informal hearing regarding the towing and storage of my car. If I win, I will be reimbursed the costs. If not, it's a $190 lesson to always keep and expired license or ID in the glove compartment at all times.

Could someone please let me know what the CPC or CVC that authorizes arrest in this situation. Also, could someone also let me know the Cal Supreme Court (?) case that struck down the ID card requirements, establishing simply stating Name and Address (and/or DOB?) as adequate identification when demanded by police.

After that, I'll look into further relief that I might be able to avail myself of. How was your Saturday? :rolleyes:

Further info in my second post here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2438920&postcount=100).

:cool:

bwiese
05-07-2009, 9:08 AM
This is a perfect example of why you should just throw your rifle in your trunk.

It's also helpful to memorize your CDL#, I thought everyone did that.

Bugei
05-07-2009, 9:10 AM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

Heh. You must be young. We used to have to write these things called "checks" to pay for stuff, and a lot of grocery stores and such required us to write our DL number on them when we filled them out.

Pretty much all the old farts had the number memorized, if only for that reason.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 9:11 AM
Regarding the hoax accusation -- believe it or not. I don't care.

- I've been following these forums for several months. I registered when I had a need to post.

- I could of lost my license that day, or five years ago. Who cares, as it's irrelevant to the charge -- not in possession (for any reason)

- I don't carry a wallet. Haven't in my entire adult life. I take what cards I deem needed on a case by case basis, and stick them in my pocket. On this trip, I had my license and my debit card.

- Why not go to lawyer first before posting? Because I believed what the cops did was probably legal (they aren't dumb). I wanted the statute that authorized arrest, so I could heck for myself; I have those now. Also, I wanted to vent a little.

- Regarding the ride home. During booking I was asked about any health conditions I might have, and my answers may have influenced this. I also believe they though they have a major felon caught, and felt like jerks when it turned out it was just little 'ol me after all. As I said in the original post-- I don't know exactly what to make of it.

I hope none of that was directed at me... I never meant to imply anything other than it could have been much worse for you. In my case I was being a good boy, not even speeding and I got drug off to jail, my car towed which cost $800.00, and a $2500 legal bill. Then I had to do 30 hours community service and live with a misdemeanor charge for the rest of my life because the infraction I was guilty of was chargeable as a misdemeanor.

I know I have already said that but I want to drive the point home that instead of being resentful at what happened, be thankful it was handled the way it was. If they had ceased your gun and charged you with a minor misdemeanor it would not have been cost effective to fight it and at the very least you would have plead to an infraction, and they would have destroyed your firearm. It seems LA county is bent on destroying as many guns as possible and had this been charged by a DA, you probably would have never seen it again.

Rejoice brother; you have your freedom AND your firearm and it only cost you $200.00. Next time throw a towel over your gun. :)

kalguns
05-07-2009, 9:38 AM
Even if it is legal to have a "truck gun" with ammo in the ashtray, why ask for the hassle? Why give the "man" any reason to hassle you. Follow the law. Keep a low profile. Fly under the radr. Speeding with a gun in plain sight:shrug: I mean come on man. WISE UP!

xrMike
05-07-2009, 9:43 AM
Pathetic... everyone I know has their CDL memorized. Loan applications, professional licenses, background checks, bank accounts, etc... if you can remember 7 digit number after writing it 100 times stop smoking weed.It's probably an age thing. By the time you reach 25 or so, you've had to write your DL number down enough times on forms and applications, that it gets committed to memory.

Prior to that, you just don't know it without looking.

I still haven't committed my VISA digits to memory yet, and I guess that's a good thing. Means I don't use it enough.

ETA: just read OP's 2nd post where he says he's in his late thirties... Uh, yes, you really should know it by now! :)

fasttimes
05-07-2009, 9:43 AM
I hope none of that was directed at me... Not that I'm aware. Every encounter should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, for any misconduct.

I don't feel "lucky", as I believe they pushed as far as they could: No ID-- take to magistrate. Booked resulting in positive ID-- No longer a legal reason to hold (assuming I sign ticket).

On the other hand, I don't resent the encounter-- they believed I was speeding. And they will get a chance to prove that in court.

I'm still going to carry in the same manner as before (where legal)-- I can't defend myself with the gun in the trunk. However, I will insure the same or similar combination of circumstances cannot happen again.

It's very easy to find yourself in an encounter with law enforcement, especially if you or the circumstances are at all out of the ordinary. I was stopped by the Border Patrol about 6 months ago (no gun on board this time.) It was a fishing expedition (zero reason for stop), and they went away in about 10 minutes when I refused consent for any searches (even said they were going to get the K9s if I didn't consent). I've had a lot of interaction with LE in my life, but only a few arrests. That's simply the way things are, unless you are one of the bland sheeple. Push the boundaries of your freedom, they are going to try and push back (and win every now and then.)

fasttimes
05-07-2009, 9:44 AM
Even if it is legal to have a "truck gun" with ammo in the ashtray, why ask for the hassle? Why give the "man" any reason to hassle you. Follow the law. Keep a low profile. Fly under the radr. Speeding with a gun in plain sight:shrug: I mean come on man. WISE UP!

Baaaaaaa :) Personally, my libertarian ideals won't allow giving up more freedoms than required. We all have to make the choice on how any additional freedoms to surrender. The excuse was speeding this time. Maybe next time it will be a safety inspection (they have this right BTW).

tombinghamthegreat
05-07-2009, 9:45 AM
Even if it is legal to have a "truck gun" with ammo in the ashtray, why ask for the hassle? Why give the "man" any reason to hassle you. Follow the law. Keep a low profile. Fly under the radr. Speeding with a gun in plain sight:shrug: I mean come on man. WISE UP!

Um well it for defense and why put the ammo in the ashtray when you could put ammo/loaded mags right next to the gun or on a side saddle like for a shotgun?

Roadrunner
05-07-2009, 9:47 AM
I believe in second amendment rights. In this case, his second amendment rights were not violated. He was not arrested because of guns. He was arrested because he broke a law and had no identification as required by the law.

It is not like he was simply walking down the street with a firearm and got harassed by the police. He was speeding. Granted, had he not had the gun, he probably would have been let go at the scene. I am not arguing that I agree with the officer, I am simply stating that because of the situation, he got off lucky. Right now he could be in jail, or out on bail for a drummed up charge, while they hold his weapon and he waits for arraignment. He could have to hire a lawyer to defend him or give up his gun in a plea bargain. All I am saying is he got off lucky, right, wrong, or indifferent it could have been much worse.

Short of doing something else wrong, how exactly does a person get arrested for driving over the speed limit and without his license?

I would bet that alot of people do this because they get in a hurry, and make mistakes. I think that the only additional variable is the rifle. I'm just speculating here, but does anyone for a moment think that they arrested the OP for the rifle and as an excuse to maybe search for other things in the trunk? I'm not a law scholar, but I have done some reading, and what I understand is actually frightening. The way I interpret this whole incident, is the cop stopped the OP for speed, and saw the rifle which sent up a red flag. On top of that, the OP forgot his drivers license which caused more alarms to go off in the cops mind. This in turn caused him to call for the cavalry because we all know that a guy with an unloaded rifle and no drivers license and speeding has to be doing something wrong, right? So the cavalry get there, they remove the OP from the car and arrest him for whatever, tow his car because they can, and inventory it. In reality, everything they did wasn't exactly above board, but like any good fishing expedition, it requires cutting corners to obtain the objective. During the inventory of the trunk, they come up with zip, the rifle is legal, and all they have is a guy that was speeding and no drivers license with him. OOPS! So, they release him with the ticket, and in the goodness of their heart they tell him that they won't charge him money for whatever paperwork they had to do before towing his car. That's mighty big of them. But he still has to pay 190.00 to get his car from the tow yard.

I think the OP should sue for the tow fees.

what2be
05-07-2009, 9:54 AM
- I don't carry a wallet. Haven't in my entire adult life. I take what cards I deem needed on a case by case basis, and stick them in my pocket. On this trip, I had my license and my debit card.




WOW, I thought I was the only one that didnt carry a wallet. I too only carry my D/L, and a credit card or debit card, (and my ccw if im carrying).

Last time I had a wallet was when I was 8 years old and was riding my mini bike through the fields and lost it. Havent had one since then. That was about 32 years ago...

RandyD
05-07-2009, 10:11 AM
I am an attorney and former LEO. LEOs have discretion in how they handle each situation. Based on the account of the person cited, I think the officers should have reacted differently, but we do not have the LEOs version of the event. It appears that they did not violate the law. If a potential client presented this scenario to me to litigate as a violation of civil rights, I would not offer a contingency fee, and would want to know the other side of the matter before I offered to accept the case on an hourly arrangement.

My personal advice regarding this matter is to encourage everyone reading this to learn from the situation and take actions to avoid a similar circumstance. Last week one of the more active topics discussed on this board was about cleaning firearms in public view while at home. This situation clearly demonstrates that legally possessing a firearm in public can bring a negative reaction from law enforcement upon you, and that the police have broad discretion on how to handle each situation. If you want to avoid such consequences then it is clear that you should place your firearm in the trunk. It is interesting to me that the person who was cited, wants to continue carrying his rifle in the back seat of his car in public view. He is inviting a similar situation upon himself.

homerm14
05-07-2009, 10:31 AM
First as some others have said we only have one side of the story. Second an inventory check of a vehicle is fine before towing. Third no ID = detention and transportation for identification purposes. Last before you start throwing out the recent Supreme Court ruling you should read it. It covers being arrested outside of the vehicle not inside which was the case in this incident.

DDT
05-07-2009, 10:44 AM
First as some others have said we only have one side of the story. Second an inventory check of a vehicle is fine before towing. Third no ID = detention and transportation for identification purposes. Last before you start throwing out the recent Supreme Court ruling you should read it. It covers being arrested outside of the vehicle not inside which was the case in this incident.

I suspect you ought to read the case. The person was arrested for driving with a suspended license, not "outside of the vehicle" as you suggest.

The difference in his case was that the search incident to arrest was not an inventory because they didn't tow his vehicle. It was merely a fishing expedition because they cops had him in custody.

I personally think there is a 4th amendment case against so called "inventories" that are really just searches without PC. But for now they are completely legal.

homerm14
05-07-2009, 11:08 AM
I suspect you ought to read the case. The person was arrested for driving with a suspended license, not "outside of the vehicle" as you suggest.

The difference in his case was that the search incident to arrest was not an inventory because they didn't tow his vehicle. It was merely a fishing expedition because they cops had him in custody.

I personally think there is a 4th amendment case against so called "inventories" that are really just searches without PC. But for now they are completely legal.

I did read the case (at least the one that was sent to all police departments). I also discussed it with two judges and a public defender. By the way inventory checks were put in place to protect the person whos car was being towed to make sure nothing went missing. On top of all that it is legal to search a vehicle (not trunk) for the ID of a driver found without one. From what I recall (don't have it right in front of me) the driver was seen driving the vehicle and then parked it. He was arrested after leaving the vehicle and then the vehicle was searched after his arrest. Narcotics were found in the vehicle and the additional charge added. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

DDT
05-07-2009, 11:42 AM
I did read the case (at least the one that was sent to all police departments). I also discussed it with two judges and a public defender. By the way inventory checks were put in place to protect the person whos car was being towed to make sure nothing went missing. On top of all that it is legal to search a vehicle (not trunk) for the ID of a driver found without one.

OK, so now you are admitting that you haven't read the actual decision. Here is a copy. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf) Please read it before you try to analyze it. That will help alot in the discussion.

Ok, from the very first paragraph of the decision "Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car" Now, what part of that sounds like it only applies to people arrested outside their vehicle?

Now, to move on to your assertion that it is acceptable to search the vehicle interior for the ID of a driver without one how does this fit into Held: Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believethat the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. From what I can see there is no way you can claim officer safety with the guy sitting the patrol car and surely you can't claim that the guy had his ID because then there'd be no 12951(a) violation. Finding a license would constitute a violation of 12951(b) but simply stating his DL is lost is not reasonable suspicion that he is refusing to properly ID himself.


Inventory checks were not put into place to protect the person whose car is being towed. It does nothing to prevent anything from going missing. It was put into place for 2 reasons. First to CYA the cops so they can say XYZ wasn't in the car when it was towed. Second (or maybe really first) it was to give the cops access to the vehicle for purposes of a search. The car could very easily be put into neutral and sealed with evidence tape before being towed which would provide the same protection against theft to the car owner. As I said, this is not the topic of the thread and has no relevance but I am confident that the decision, as written, would deem them unconstitutional. I know that every tow in CA will have an inventory search done until and unless a court rules it unconstitutional.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 11:49 AM
Short of doing something else wrong, how exactly does a person get arrested for driving over the speed limit and without his license?

This has already been explained. He was accused of a violation. If he had his driver's license on him, the officer would have been stuck giving him a ticket and letting him on his way. Because he did not have proper ID, he was taken to jail for ID purposes.

While the police cannot require you to show them your ID for no reason, if you are accused of a crime (including speeding) you are required to identify yourself. If you cannot, the officer may take you downtown to identify you.

It sucks but thats the way it is. With identity theft the way it is today, a DL number is easy to get. They have to prove it was you.

socal2310
05-07-2009, 11:54 AM
I've had a lot of interaction with LE in my life, but only a few arrests. That's simply the way things are, unless you are one of the bland sheeple. Push the boundaries of your freedom, they are going to try and push back (and win every now and then.)

Well, my sympathy just evaporated. I can appreciate that the police probably went too far, but we all know why. I would be willing to jeopardize my own well-being for the sake of freedom, my lack of willingness to jeopardize the well-being of my family except under the most dire of circumstances does not make me a sheep.

Ryan

DDT
05-07-2009, 11:54 AM
I didn't get your edits before I started posting. Read Scalia's concurrence. It is pretty clear on the fact that the opinion doesn't make any sort of differentiation of "current" or "recent" vehicle occupants. In fact, he discussed the opinions impact on both Belton-Thornton and Chimal.

DougH9
05-07-2009, 12:00 PM
I wonder what would have happened if he would have been an undocumented worker.

I think they have rights to protect them from such abuse.

DDT
05-07-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't feel "lucky", as I believe they pushed as far as they could: No ID-- take to magistrate. Booked resulting in positive ID-- No longer a legal reason to hold (assuming I sign ticket).

I've had a lot of interaction with LE in my life, but only a few arrests.

THIS is why you were probably booked. Interesting that you left off the fact that you have a previous arrest record when saying that they refused to believe you were who you claimed to be when contacted. There is always more to the story and at least we now know that it wasn't a simple matter of pulling over a speeder who happened to have lost his DL at the range. Also, you mention that you keep the gun on the backseat for Self-defense purposes, this too is not as you originally posited the situation, just there because you were returning from the range.

I don't suppose you want to admit that you reached back and tied to move the rifle after you were lit up now do you? Let's see, a criminal with a record gets pulled over and refuses to ID himself, there's a rifle in the backseat, (perhaps) he reached into the backseat while pulling over to conceal or move the weapon.....

This all adds up to you being fortunate that they put you in the patrol car rather than laying down on the asphalt.

high_revs
05-07-2009, 12:33 PM
I would be shocked if a single person I knew had that memorized.

I have mine memorized. :) It was even before going to the ranges a lot where I had it memorized. NOt from writing checks either.

What about the towing charges? Is he pretty SOL on that?

DDT
05-07-2009, 12:39 PM
I have mine memorized. :) It was even before going to the ranges a lot where I had it memorized. NOt from writing checks either.

What about the towing charges? Is he pretty SOL on that?

It was a proper arrest and tow so I can't imagine how he'd get them returned. Even if the judge kicks his speeding ticket suspicion of speeding is reasonable for a traffic stop and at that point the "no ID" would stand and that was the reason for the arrest and tow.

xLusi0n
05-07-2009, 12:45 PM
xLusiOn, there is nothing that says and officer must take the exact same enforcement action every time. There is the spirit of the law which allows officers to use their discretion on how to handle each situation on a case by case basis. You wouldn't even need a lawyer, just ask him/her, there is no reason for them to hide that answer.

I have towed cars for a driver being in violation of VC12500(a) and I have let others go with just a cite. For instance, I let one illegal unlicensed driver keep his vehicle and drive the last few blocks to his house since it was very cold/raining and he had 2 infants (properly restrained in car seats) in the vehicle. The risk of the infants being exposed to the elements, to me, outweighed the necessity to tow the car. The driver was still cited however.

The cop doesn't have to do the same enforcement each time, I'm talking about trends. Does he let women off more than men etc...? Of course owning a firearm doesn't appear to be one of the protected categories like race, gender, etc... all I'm saying is if the lawyer can show that say in 100 cases similar to this, he's never impounded anyone's vehicle or arrested them...then perhaps the only reason he did this was because of the firearm...which was carried legally. It's not a slam dunk defense, but it's a start.

homerm14
05-07-2009, 12:47 PM
OK, so now you are admitting that you haven't read the actual decision. Here is a copy. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf) Please read it before you try to analyze it. That will help alot in the discussion.

Ok, from the very first paragraph of the decision "Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car" Now, what part of that sounds like it only applies to people arrested outside their vehicle?

Now, to move on to your assertion that it is acceptable to search the vehicle interior for the ID of a driver without one how does this fit into From what I can see there is no way you can claim officer safety with the guy sitting the patrol car and surely you can't claim that the guy had his ID because then there'd be no 12951(a) violation. Finding a license would constitute a violation of 12951(b) but simply stating his DL is lost is not reasonable suspicion that he is refusing to properly ID himself.


Inventory checks were not put into place to protect the person whose car is being towed. It does nothing to prevent anything from going missing. It was put into place for 2 reasons. First to CYA the cops so they can say XYZ wasn't in the car when it was towed. Second (or maybe really first) it was to give the cops access to the vehicle for purposes of a search. The car could very easily be put into neutral and sealed with evidence tape before being towed which would provide the same protection against theft to the car owner. As I said, this is not the topic of the thread and has no relevance but I am confident that the decision, as written, would deem them unconstitutional. I know that every tow in CA will have an inventory search done until and unless a court rules it unconstitutional.

Ok I read it again, and yes Grant was indeed out of the car when he was arrested. Your interpretation of inventory checks is just that your interpretation. If you have something to support the theory of it giving cops access to search please post it. If proved unconstitutional we will stop doing it. I agree with the finding of Arizona VS Grant and will gladly stop doing said checks. As far as PC to search for an ID within reach of the operator that is also open to interpretation. I could argue in order to charge someone for CVC 12500(b) I must prove that they had the ability to provide the license, but refused to do so.

fasttimes
05-07-2009, 12:54 PM
THIS is why you were probably booked. Interesting that you left off the fact that you have a previous arrest record when saying that they refused to believe you were who you claimed to be when contacted. There is always more to the story and at least we now know that it wasn't a simple matter of pulling over a speeder who happened to have lost his DL at the range. Also, you mention that you keep the gun on the backseat for Self-defense purposes, this too is not as you originally posited the situation, just there because you were returning from the range.

I don't suppose you want to admit that you reached back and tied to move the rifle after you were lit up now do you? Let's see, a criminal with a record gets pulled over and refuses to ID himself, there's a rifle in the backseat, (perhaps) he reached into the backseat while pulling over to conceal or move the weapon.....

This all adds up to you being fortunate that they put you in the patrol car rather than laying down on the asphalt.

You are reading way more into my statement than is there. I have never been arrested on anything serious, and I have never been convicted of any crime whatsoever.

Regardless, I was in the back of the squad car long before they had a chance to run me for anything.

I never said I keep it for protection. I said it can't serve that function locked in a trunk. It's irrelevant to the story, and was only brought up in this thread when someone suggested I keep it in the trunk. I was never asked why by the police why I was carrying the rifle in the back seat, and I never offered. I only said to them it was unloaded and I was carrying legally, as stated in the OP.

DDT
05-07-2009, 12:58 PM
Ok I read it again, and yes Grant was indeed out of the car when he was arrested.

Your interpretation of inventory checks is just that your interpretation. If you have something to support the theory of it giving cops access to search please post it.

Yes, it is my opinion. I believe that I have stated that a number of times. I would not think you a professional if you simply chose to stop performing a search that is both legal and probably department policy I really hope you wouldn't stop doing them because "some guy on the Internet" said he believed they were illegal. :D


If proved unconstitutional we will stop doing it.

I have no doubt of this, while we may have disagreed and may disagree again I have no "probable cause" to believe that you take the law lightly and would violate it knowingly. I take you at your word and by your example as an honorable and professional police officer.

I agree with the finding of Arizona VS Grant and will gladly stop doing said checks.

I fully expect that you will do what you believe is both "right" and enables you to fulfill your duties as a police officer.

As far as PC to search for an ID within reach of the operator that is also open to interpretation. I could argue in order to charge someone for CVC 12500(b) I must prove that they had the ability to provide the license, but refused to do so.

Absolutely; and if you had some articulable reason that you suspected the person was violating 12500(b) then a search is reasonable, there is no reason that a warrant can't be issued for such a search. My only claim is (and this is my opinion only) that merely being unable to produce ID is not probable cause that a 12500(b) violation has occurred. Now, if you saw the guy go through his wallet and shove something under his seat as you were approaching the vehicle that would be articulable probably cause for a search.

homerm14
05-07-2009, 1:08 PM
Yes, it is my opinion. I believe that I have stated that a number of times. I would not think you a professional if you simply chose to stop performing a search that is both legal and probably department policy I really hope you wouldn't stop doing them because "some guy on the Internet" said he believed they were illegal. :D




I have no doubt of this, while we may have disagreed and may disagree again I have no "probable cause" to believe that you take the law lightly and would violate it knowingly. I take you at your word and by your example as an honorable and professional police officer.



I fully expect that you will do what you believe is both "right" and enables you to fulfill your duties as a police officer.



Absolutely; and if you had some articulable reason that you suspected the person was violating 12500(b) then a search is reasonable, there is no reason that a warrant can't be issued for such a search. My only claim is (and this is my opinion only) that merely being unable to produce ID is not probable cause that a 12500(b) violation has occurred. Now, if you saw the guy go through his wallet and shove something under his seat as you were approaching the vehicle that would be articulable probably cause for a search.

By the way I feel there is no real relevance based on the original post and Arizona VS Grant. i just felt like stirring the pot. At least you intelligently played with me. This is why I love going to court so I can learn how do do things better and make my cases stick.

DDT
05-07-2009, 1:17 PM
By the way I feel there is no real relevance based on the original post and Arizona VS Grant. i just felt like stirring the pot. At least you intelligently played with me. This is why I love going to court so I can learn how do do things better and make my cases stick.

I agree that Grant has no application to OP. I can see nothing the police did wrong in this case. It's always good to exercise the brain, it's just a lot more fun when done without slinging slurs or accusations, just discussing differences and opinions. Stay safe.

5hundo
05-07-2009, 1:27 PM
it kind of sucks that they can screw you for license or registration since they clearly have that information available. If you deny them the right to search your car they can arrest you and tow the car until a warrant is aquired.

Look all I know is this I've been in court and seen judges allow illegal search and seizures among many other things.

go to court plead no contest chances are the no DL will get dropped or a 10 dollar fee and request traffic school.

Or get a lawyer ....

You're going to want to do this...

Judges aren't as quick with the questionable judgements if there is an actual defense attourney in the room. A public defender doesn't really care (because he works for the same court that's trying to convict you) but if you hire a pro, a judge won't try to stick their neck out too far...

I hate to tell you this but in this country Justice is sometimes a product and the more you pay for this product the better quality you get...

DDT
05-07-2009, 1:31 PM
You're going to want to do this...

Judges aren't as quick with the questionable judgements if there is an actual defense attourney in the room. A public defender doesn't really care (because he works for the same court that's trying to convict you) but if you hire a pro, a judge won't try to stick their neck out too far...

I hate to tell you this but in this country Justice is sometimes a product and the more you pay for this product the better quality you get...

Which part of "he did what he is accused of" are you missing? A search/inventory incident to towing a vehicle is perfectly legal in CA and he admits that he committed 12951(a). He is talking about challenging the speeding portion of the stop but that doesn't negate the 12951(a) which was the reason for the arrest and tow. An attorney will not help you slip off the hook for speeding. Either he has evidence that he wasn't speeding or it comes down to "cop" says A "guy with record" says B.

Bruce
05-07-2009, 1:37 PM
fasttimes;
After reading your responses in this thread, it's clear to me you pretty much talked yourself into jail. Chalk it up to experience and keep your guns in the trunk. (Or at least out of sight)

HowardW56
05-07-2009, 1:48 PM
Short of doing something else wrong, how exactly does a person get arrested for driving over the speed limit and without his license?

I would bet that alot of people do this because they get in a hurry, and make mistakes. I think that the only additional variable is the rifle. I'm just speculating here, but does anyone for a moment think that they arrested the OP for the rifle and as an excuse to maybe search for other things in the trunk? I'm not a law scholar, but I have done some reading, and what I understand is actually frightening. The way I interpret this whole incident, is the cop stopped the OP for speed, and saw the rifle which sent up a red flag. On top of that, the OP forgot his drivers license which caused more alarms to go off in the cops mind. This in turn caused him to call for the cavalry because we all know that a guy with an unloaded rifle and no drivers license and speeding has to be doing something wrong, right? So the cavalry get there, they remove the OP from the car and arrest him for whatever, tow his car because they can, and inventory it. In reality, everything they did wasn't exactly above board, but like any good fishing expedition, it requires cutting corners to obtain the objective. During the inventory of the trunk, they come up with zip, the rifle is legal, and all they have is a guy that was speeding and no drivers license with him. OOPS! So, they release him with the ticket, and in the goodness of their heart they tell him that they won't charge him money for whatever paperwork they had to do before towing his car. That's mighty big of them. But he still has to pay 190.00 to get his car from the tow yard.

I think the OP should sue for the tow fees.

Attitude....

supersonic
05-07-2009, 2:27 PM
Originally Posted by fasttimes
I don't feel "lucky", as I believe they pushed as far as they could: No ID-- take to magistrate. Booked resulting in positive ID-- No longer a legal reason to hold (assuming I sign ticket).

I've had a lot of interaction with LE in my life, but only a few arrests.

DINGDINGDINGDING!!! RED FLAG!! RED FLAG!!!!!!
I can hear your credibility right now. Envision, if you can, the Doppler Effect as a child screams out the window of a car that has just passed you by @ 55mph.;)

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 2:47 PM
Which part of "he did what he is accused of" are you missing? A search/inventory incident to towing a vehicle is perfectly legal in CA and he admits that he committed 12951(a). He is talking about challenging the speeding portion of the stop but that doesn't negate the 12951(a) which was the reason for the arrest and tow.

But... the vehicle code prohibits officers from pulling over vehicles simply to check for valid driver's licenses in possession.

Technically, if he can beat the speeding charge, any evidence obtained in the subsequent stop could be excluded because without a speeding charge, there is no PC to stop the vehicle.

First, I say technically because one would have to prove the officer was lying about the speeding; that is not going to happen.

Second, it is irrelevent because the only charge here was 22350 and 12951(a) which if he proves the officer was mistaken he beats 22350, and if he brings a valid license to court, the law requires the judge to dismiss 12951. This would defeat all of the charges and the point is moot.

If however he had an AW or a dead body in the trunk.... he could exclude the evidence if it is found that there was no PC for the vehicle stop.

DDT
05-07-2009, 2:50 PM
But... the vehicle code prohibits officers from pulling over vehicles simply to check for valid driver's licenses in possession.

Technically, if he can beat the speeding charge, any evidence obtained in the subsequent stop could be excluded because without a speeding charge, there is no PC to stop the vehicle.

No, the court would have to believe that the police pulled him over not believing that he was speeding. A mere finding of fact that he wasn't speeding doesn't mean they didn't have reasonable suspicion that he was speeding.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 3:10 PM
No, the court would have to believe that the police pulled him over not believing that he was speeding. A mere finding of fact that he wasn't speeding doesn't mean they didn't have reasonable suspicion that he was speeding.

Hence... my comment that he would have to prove the police officer lied about thinking he was speeding... :)

Technically it is possible... but highly unlikely.

supersonic
05-07-2009, 3:18 PM
.....this thread = W . A . S . H . ............................................;)

DDT
05-07-2009, 3:19 PM
Hence... my comment that he would have to prove the police officer lied about thinking he was speeding... :)

Technically it is possible... but highly unlikely.

OK, if the defendant can prove that the police targeted him with no probable cause the towing fees might be returned.

neomentat
05-07-2009, 3:44 PM
i know you feel wronged in this situation because you're not a criminal on the run and your offenses were minor.

however, think this through from the officer's point of view,

-pulled over a speeder,

-hear a story of "ummm I lost my license and I have no other valid form of ID on me" (now you sound like the small percentage of criminals they do encounter)

-half way through your story they notice a RIFLE laying on the back seat, so reasonably they go into officer safety mode.

-so given the above circumstances, the officer can either believe you're an up standing citizen speeding in your vehicle without ANY form of identification because you don't know where it is or how you've lost it while having a firearm at hand. Or it is reasonable to suspect that you're a criminal on the run?

Which conclusion would your own logic arrive at?

Man up to the consequences of your own action and stop this whining. Another poster said here perfectly YOU GOT OFF WAY EASY!!!

luchador768
05-07-2009, 3:56 PM
It's not a wise idea to drive around, speeding, with no drivers license or any other I.D. and a rifle visible and within reach. Now that you have found out why it is a bad idea, are you going to do it again? Maybe you should have put the rifle in the trunk when you discovered that your license was missing.

I am not saying that the cops are good guys, but jeez dude, try not to make yourself into a example.

+1 just not having your DL/ID can get you locked up if you are caught speeding, etc. Put yourself in the officers position, you have a guy breaking the law (speeding) cannot ID himself (No ID) and armed (rifle in back seat). On the surface you look a lot like a bad guy.

DDT
05-07-2009, 4:19 PM
+1 just not having your DL/ID can get you locked up if you are caught speeding, etc. Put yourself in the officers position, you have a guy breaking the law (speeding) cannot ID himself (No ID) and armed (rifle in back seat). On the surface you look a lot like a bad guy.

And has a record per the name he does use.

Solidmch
05-07-2009, 4:21 PM
i know you feel wronged in this situation because you're not a criminal on the run and your offenses were minor.

however, think this through from the officer's point of view,

-pulled over a speeder,

-hear a story of "ummm I lost my license and I have no other valid form of ID on me" (now you sound like the small percentage of criminals they do encounter)

-half way through your story they notice a RIFLE laying on the back seat, so reasonably they go into officer safety mode.

-so given the above circumstances, the officer can either believe you're an up standing citizen speeding in your vehicle without ANY form of identification because you don't know where it is or how you've lost it while having a firearm at hand. Or it is reasonable to suspect that you're a criminal on the run?

Which conclusion would your own logic arrive at?

Man up to the consequences of your own action and stop this whining. Another poster said here perfectly YOU GOT OFF WAY EASY!!!


+1,000,000

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 4:28 PM
Another poster said here perfectly YOU GOT OFF WAY EASY!!!


Be careful man... I said that... and then I was told nobody likes me! Learn from my mistakes. ;)

bombadillo
05-07-2009, 7:45 PM
I believe in second amendment rights. In this case, his second amendment rights were not violated. He was not arrested because of guns. He was arrested because he broke a law and had no identification as required by the law.

It is not like he was simply walking down the street with a firearm and got harassed by the police. He was speeding. Granted, had he not had the gun, he probably would have been let go at the scene. I am not arguing that I agree with the officer, I am simply stating that because of the situation, he got off lucky. Right now he could be in jail, or out on bail for a drummed up charge, while they hold his weapon and he waits for arraignment. He could have to hire a lawyer to defend him or give up his gun in a plea bargain. All I am saying is he got off lucky, right, wrong, or indifferent it could have been much worse.

Fair enough, I understand from the LEO's side too. I know that if a person w/o ID came in our area with a firearm visible in the back seat, then he would at the VERY minimum be detained. 2 bonehead moves on the OP's head was not having the gun in the trunk locked, because it probably would have just been let go if he had his basic info, and speeding. I guess we all live and learn. Cheers.

KylaGWolf
05-07-2009, 9:33 PM
I have no idea what its like in LA, but where I live, in a rural area, it takes a cop close to 2 hours to book someone in the jail. How efficient would our law enforcement be if they spent all day on these bs kind of arrests? Not very. Im sure they could use that time better out in the field.

Living in LA is not all that great. The traffic sucks muchly. The county is majorly anti gun. And too many damn gang bangers or I should say wanna be gang bangers. I try to avoid LA if at all possible.

KylaGWolf
05-07-2009, 9:35 PM
Be careful man... I said that... and then I was told nobody likes me! Learn from my mistakes. ;)


Hey I happen to agree with you that he should learn from this mistake.

1*mike
05-07-2009, 9:49 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor. You were arrested on the misdemeanor charge and you were cited for the infraction.

The arrest is legal, the detention was legal, you are stuck paying the tow fees. Move on with life and learn from it.

If there was no ammo with the rifle it was useless anyway, you could have had it in the trunk and he would have had no PC for the search.

The mere posession of a gun gives the police the right to check if it is loaded. There is no court decision that limits that search to the gun itself and many areas interpret it to mean they can search the whole area. The trunk is a different story. Had they found anything illegal in the trunk, it probably would have been inadmissible and they knew that. If there had been guns or drugs in the trunk you still would have been charged and it would be off the streets, so what if they had to bend the constitution to do it.

Welcome to the state of affairs. You got off lucky.

If the trunk was searched not "incident to arrest" but rather for an inventory due to the tow, 22651(h)(1)CVC then it is not bending the constitution. The PD is obligated to protect the property of the arrestee, by listing it on the CHP 180 (impound form).
Other than that you were spot on.

And FASTTIMES perhaps the day you lost your ID is a good day to go w/out the rifle in the back seat. Esp. when you consider that you didnt have any ammo (unless of course you did).

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-07-2009, 10:41 PM
Sounds like they searched along the side of the road... prior to being towed. Cops taking advantage of a technicality (searching w/o warrant, claiming inventory due to towing), or unaware / ignoring Supreme Court ruling?



-Jason

Not a search if it is in plainview. And it is not "claiming inventory" due to towing when the vehicle must be impounded.

E Pluribus Unum
05-07-2009, 11:54 PM
If the trunk was searched not "incident to arrest" but rather for an inventory due to the tow, 22651(h)(1)CVC then it is not bending the constitution. The PD is obligated to protect the property of the arrestee, by listing it on the CHP 180 (impound form).
Other than that you were spot on.

It most certainly is "bending the constitution". I did not say it was breaking the constitution, only bending. I happen to believe that the 4th amendment protects me from ALL unreasonable searches; if I want the contents of my trunk protected and inventoried, then I give the police PERMISSION to search it. Without consent, it gets un touched but it releases liability too. Obviously the courts don't agree with me.

So many of our amendments have been BENT over time; the 4th is no different. This idea that "we have to inventory your vehicle for your own safety" is complete crap. It is just the government's way of circumventing the plain English of the 4th amendment.

1*mike
05-08-2009, 6:12 AM
Food for thought, could the officer have been searching the trunk for ID. The lack of ID gives the Officer a search of you and your car for ID.

THe rules are clear about impounding vehicles. If it is done out of policy or practice or to be punitive, the courts will throw out the search. But if one's department says you shall tow... well then its very legit.

DDT
05-08-2009, 6:56 AM
Food for thought, could the officer have been searching the trunk for ID. The lack of ID gives the Officer a search of you and your car for ID.

Can you cite case law saying that not having ID is probable cause for a search? I'd really like to know because I'm quite certain that Arizona v. Gant moots almost all searches incident to arrest. If someone fails to ID violating 12951(a) on what basis do you have a right to search in light of Gant?

THe rules are clear about impounding vehicles. If it is done out of policy or practice or to be punitive, the courts will throw out the search. But if one's department says you shall tow... well then its very legit.

At this time there has been no 4th amendment challenge to inventory searches so they are legal. I think that what others here have said is that they are likely to fall to a constitutional challenge. I would agree but unless and until that challenge is mounted and decided in favor of individual rights the searches will stand.

1*mike
05-08-2009, 7:14 AM
Can you cite case law saying that not having ID is probable cause for a search? I'd really like to know because I'm quite certain that Arizona v. Gant moots almost all searches incident to arrest. If someone fails to ID violating 12951(a) on what basis do you have a right to search in light of Gant?



At this time there has been no 4th amendment challenge to inventory searches so they are legal. I think that what others here have said is that they are likely to fall to a constitutional challenge. I would agree but unless and until that challenge is mounted and decided in favor of individual rights the searches will stand.

individual challenges have been made and won. However, there is no challenge before the courts, that I am aware of. If the ACLU believed the inventory search was challengeable you'd see the 5th 9th or some one weighing in.

Anyways I believe there are more serious issues than a search of a trunk which the court deem lawful. I expect there will be gun restriction legislation targeted at reducing the weapons entering into Mexico, that will bring the rest of US to somewhere close to CA laws. Not to thread jack---

homerm14
05-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Food for thought, could the officer have been searching the trunk for ID. The lack of ID gives the Officer a search of you and your car for ID.

THe rules are clear about impounding vehicles. If it is done out of policy or practice or to be punitive, the courts will throw out the search. But if one's department says you shall tow... well then its very legit.

DDT and I discussed this quite a bit earlier in the post. It is my understanding searching for an ID would only be allowed in an area immediately accessible to the driver (passenger compartment, glove box, etc) trunk would probably be off limits. Inventory checks, at the moment are good ( although this probably will only hold up if the department has a policy pertaining to that) and from what I have heard (not an expert) were originally allowed due to people complaining about missing items. Obviously things my change now (if argued in court) due to Grant.

DDT
05-08-2009, 11:48 AM
individual challenges have been made and won. However, there is no challenge before the courts, that I am aware of. If the ACLU believed the inventory search was challengeable you'd see the 5th 9th or some one weighing in.

Anyways I believe there are more serious issues than a search of a trunk which the court deem lawful. I expect there will be gun restriction legislation targeted at reducing the weapons entering into Mexico, that will bring the rest of US to somewhere close to CA laws. Not to thread jack---

I agree that the potential for federal infringements using Mexico for cover is a huge issue but not the subject of this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by individual challenges. My question was about the probably cause for a search pursuant to a 12951(a) violation. Why would someone not having ID be probable cause for a search?

Unit74
05-08-2009, 7:36 PM
Yes, the officer had cause for the arrest because you were speeding and you had no identification. Unlicensed driver is chargable as an infraction OR a misdemeanor.

He said he didn't have it on him. He lost it earlier that day. That's not 12500. It's 12951, an infraction. A non-arrestable ticket.

The only way I can see that he would have been arrested is for the 40302VC. But how many would actually take him for that? Very few. I'm sure a check was done on his verbal info if it came back as him, and he was the RO, the agency might be tap dancing. Sounds like he pissed in their Cheerios for some reason.

This of course is solely based up what he has told us.

planedude86
05-08-2009, 8:26 PM
Food for thought, could the officer have been searching the trunk for ID. The lack of ID gives the Officer a search of you and your car for ID.

THe rules are clear about impounding vehicles. If it is done out of policy or practice or to be punitive, the courts will throw out the search. But if one's department says you shall tow... well then its very legit.

See People v. Garcia 145 Cal.App.4th 782 regarding conducting a search of a person for ID purposes.

Librarian
05-08-2009, 8:52 PM
See People v. Garcia 145 Cal.App.4th 782 regarding conducting a search of a person for ID purposes.
Which you can see (if you have a Findlaw login - which is free and a good idea if you rot your brain with court cases very often) here (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/145/782.html), and says in pertinent part:YEGAN, ACTING P.J.-

[1] The celebrated case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, allows the police to perform a "pat down search" for weapons where there is reason to believe that the person is armed and dangerous. This rule cannot be morphed into a new rule to justify a search for ordinary evidence, here evidence of identification. We reverse. As we shall explain, nothing in either the letter or spirit of Terry v, Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. l [20 L.Ed. 3d 889, 88 S. Ct. l868] can be used as a springboard to justify a "patdown" search for identification.
...
A fair reading of Terry v. Ohio, and its reference to the lower court opinion in State v. Terry show that the "frisk" allowable upon a proper showing was " ' . . . only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.' " (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 16, fn. 12 [20 L. Ed. 2d at p. 903, fn. 12.) Our own Supreme Court has unanimously so held. (People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 161 [pat-down search "only" for weapons].) If stare decisis means anything (and it does) and if the word only means only (and it does), the trial court was required to grant this suppression motion as a matter of law. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.)

DDT
05-08-2009, 10:44 PM
Garcia (there were a lot of them, thanks to Librarian for posting the right one) was about a defendant who "refused" to ID himself, not someone who claimed to have lost his ID but was willing to ID. So, even if Garcia was decided differently it would not have bearing on a vehicle search to discover ID in this case.

After reading that 12951 is not a VC which can be cause for arrest (my previous posts were assuming that 12951 did allow for arrest) I would have to think that the OPs 4th was violated and recovering towing charges is not impossible but will probably cost more in legal fees than towing costs.

bondmid003
05-09-2009, 3:13 PM
If only Johnny Cochran were still alive, i'm sure he'd relish the chance to stick it to a CA Police Department one more time

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2009, 11:58 PM
He said he didn't have it on him. He lost it earlier that day. That's not 12500. It's 12951, an infraction. A non-arrestable ticket.

The only way I can see that he would have been arrested is for the 40302VC. But how many would actually take him for that? Very few. I'm sure a check was done on his verbal info if it came back as him, and he was the RO, the agency might be tap dancing. Sounds like he pissed in their Cheerios for some reason.

This of course is solely based up what he has told us.

He said they had trouble ID'ing him based on the info he gave. He said they even had to get his SS number. I assume this was at the booking.

If they were unable to get an ID based on his supplied name and DOB, he could have been detained on suspicion of 12500(a) pending ID at the jail. THAT is what I was saying. Once the ID comes back with a valid CDL, 12500 is moot, he gets his tickets for the moving violations and he is on his way.