PDA

View Full Version : OC arrest at Murrieta Walmart? UPDATE!


ChuckBooty
08-29-2009, 4:00 PM
I was leaving Walmart today with my family and saw, like seven police officers cuffing a guy. One officer removed, what looked like an XD (judging from the holster) from his side. It appeared to be an OC situation (although I admit that I didn't see if he had his shirt tucked in on that side before hand). But the hand gun was DEFINITELY not loaded and the guy appeared relatively calm. By the time I left, they had not arrested the guy, rather had him sitting on the front bench while two or three of them were on the phone (I imagined that they were frantically calling back to HQ trying to find something to charge the guy with).

Anyone have any hook-ups with the Murrieta PD? Just curious what the whole story was.

The guy was a younger black male wearing an LAPD hat, T-shirt and jeans. If he WAS OC'ing, he wasn't doing it very smart. He had no one else with him, no tape recorder, and no literature with him.

Well...curiosity got the best of me (plus I REALLY wanted to bring you guys the rest of the story here). So I called the Murrieta Walmart and asked for a manager. I told them that I was a reporter (haha) for the PE and we were doing a blurb on the arrest yesterday. The lady was pretty apprehensive and told me that they were not at liberty to discuss it. I told her that I have police reports and that I knew that there WAS an arrest, I just wanted to get a quick statement. She said, "Well...it wasn't really an arrest. It was an incident that was against our store policy". So I said, "OK..so I think I understand. So this person didn't commit a crime in your store, he was just carrying an unloaded hand gun. This is why he wasn't charged. Right?"
"Exactly" she answered.
"And do you have your store's firearm policy posted?"
"No we don't" (I didn't want to tip her off and start a lecture so I just said thank you very much)

So there ya go. It was definitely an OC situation. I personally saw the police call in the serial on his gun and do a search on him (I'm not sure if he gave his consent or not though).

Gator Monroe
08-29-2009, 4:02 PM
A national OC day could be somthing to ponder ?:chris:

CSACANNONEER
08-29-2009, 4:12 PM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

Decoligny
08-29-2009, 4:38 PM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

Only if they can prove that he tried to pass himself off as a Police Officer.

pullnshoot25
08-29-2009, 4:41 PM
Not a crime to wear any thing resembling or replicating police wear or uniforms, as long as you don't take any outward steps to act like a police officer.

CSACANNONEER
08-29-2009, 4:42 PM
Only if they can prove that he tried to pass himself off as a Police Officer.

Which is why I said "could". Of course, a DA may try to prosecute and a court appointed lawyer might not want to put a lot of time into it so.......it could happen anyway.

Roadrunner
08-29-2009, 4:48 PM
So, is the gentleman claiming to be a Lazy A*s Prima Dona?

Hogxtz
08-29-2009, 4:51 PM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

Bingo!!

Roadrunner
08-29-2009, 5:06 PM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

So, if I'm wearing one of these, can I get in trouble for impersonating a Border Patrol Agent?

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/USBorderPatrolHat.jpg

If not, what's the difference, if someone wears this?

http://rlv.zcache.com/lapd_traffic_hat-p148360753072479673tdto_210.jpg

Or what about this? Do you think he wants us to believe that he is a deputy?

http://rlv.zcache.com/stanislaus_county_sheriff_tshirt-p235426235570082779ohvp_400.jpg

SAN compnerd
08-29-2009, 5:21 PM
I wonder if this will make the Californian. I hope someone can give us the inside scoop.:popcorn:

gcvt
08-29-2009, 5:34 PM
Maybe it was the LA Poverty Dept. (http://lapovertydept.org/), or the LA Performance Division (http://www.thelapd.com/), or the LA Purr Department (http://www.lapurrd.com/)?

Theseus
08-29-2009, 7:07 PM
Which is why I said "could". Of course, a DA may try to prosecute and a court appointed lawyer might not want to put a lot of time into it so.......it could happen anyway.

A public defender still has to fight it as long as the clients wants it. The average client that might need a PD might be easily disinfrachised and easily swayed to a plea though.

halifax
08-29-2009, 9:49 PM
LAPD = Los Angeles Public Defenders office :)

Actually I think I remember reading here on CGN about a year ago that wearing such garb was illegal now.

A black man with a gun! Of course the officer thought it was illegal. Remember the Black Panthers in Sacramento with rifles in 68. Isn't that what started this whole CA anti-gun thing?

Riodog
08-29-2009, 10:37 PM
SOMEONE might try contacting Sgt. Steve Porter for info BUT DON"T MENTION MY NAME!
Rio...err, strike that.

ChuckBooty
08-30-2009, 8:25 AM
SOMEONE might try contacting Sgt. Steve Porter for info BUT DON"T MENTION MY NAME!
Rio...err, strike that.

Hmm.....well? SPILL IT!! ;)

ChuckBooty
08-30-2009, 11:54 AM
bump for my update!

Fjold
08-30-2009, 1:04 PM
The guy was a younger black male wearing an LAPD hat, T-shirt and jeans. If he WAS OC'ing, he wasn't doing it very smart. He had no one else with him, no tape recorder, and no literature with him.



Quick! Call Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and get their help on this racial profiling case.

Seesm
08-30-2009, 1:08 PM
glad he was black so it was not some crazy white boy... :)

bomb_on_bus
08-30-2009, 1:22 PM
Well...curiosity got the best of me (plus I REALLY wanted to bring you guys the rest of the story here). So I called the Murrieta Walmart and asked for a manager. I told them that I was a reporter (haha) for the PE and we were doing a blurb on the arrest yesterday. The lady was pretty apprehensive and told me that they were not at liberty to discuss it. I told her that I have police reports and that I knew that there WAS an arrest, I just wanted to get a quick statement. She said, "Well...it wasn't really an arrest. It was an incident that was against our store policy". So I said, "OK..so I think I understand. So this person didn't commit a crime in your store, he was just carrying an unloaded hand gun. This is why he wasn't charged. Right?"
"Exactly" she answered.
"And do you have your store's firearm policy posted?"
"No we don't" (I didn't want to tip her off and start a lecture so I just said thank you very much)

So there ya go. It was definitely an OC situation. I personally saw the police call in the serial on his gun and do a search on him (I'm not sure if he gave his consent or not though).

LOL thats not an uncommon occurence. Google this type of incident in CA and you will be surprised. Whats more alarming is the policies of stores that carry over into a sharred parking lot. What one store may enforce may be not allowed in the neighboring store. But since they share a common parking lot which policy is upheld in the parking lot especially if both stores have equal stakes in the parking lot.

Theseus
08-30-2009, 1:28 PM
Open carry is not against store policy. . . I thought we cleared this up with Wal-Mart. . . looks like we need to roll some more heads.

bomb_on_bus
08-30-2009, 2:30 PM
Open carry is not against store policy. . . I thought we cleared this up with Wal-Mart. . . looks like we need to roll some more heads.


For every head thats cut from the snake two more take its place.

HUTCH 7.62
08-30-2009, 2:59 PM
Surprised the Lib media has'nt run with this one

ChuckBooty
08-30-2009, 3:00 PM
Well I have checked here and opencarry.org and can't find any other reference to this guy. Looks like he was just acting on his own. That's too bad too. This could have been a good time in court.

Mssr. Eleganté
08-30-2009, 3:31 PM
So I called the Murrieta Walmart and asked for a manager. I told them that I was a reporter (haha) for the PE and we were doing a blurb on the arrest yesterday. The lady was pretty apprehensive and told me that they were not at liberty to discuss it. I told her that I have police reports and that I knew that there WAS an arrest, I just wanted to get a quick statement.

Wow! You pulled a "James Rockford" on her and it worked! :thumbsup:

CitaDeL
08-30-2009, 3:51 PM
The incident with Murietta Police is a matter of public record and if we really want more detail, someone could PRA the field interview information as well as the involved officer's names.

pullnshoot25
08-30-2009, 4:56 PM
The incident with Murietta Police is a matter of public record and if we really want more detail, someone could PRA the field interview information as well as the involved officer's names.

I got a template already. I will totally send it in.

bondmid003
08-30-2009, 5:45 PM
I'd like to hear more details about this as well, does anyone know who this guy is?

CavTrooper
08-30-2009, 5:53 PM
Has anyone considered that maybe this individual wants to be left alone, doesnt need or want your help and would rather you keep out of his buisness?

Just an idea.

bigmike82
08-30-2009, 6:02 PM
Fair enough, but until the people who'd like to help are informed of this, I'd prefer that gun owners try to look out for each other, even when we're not asked to do so.

CitaDeL
08-30-2009, 6:36 PM
Has anyone considered that maybe this individual wants to be left alone, doesnt need or want your help and would rather you keep out of his buisness?

Just an idea.

Here's another idea. Because this person is a gun owner in California and has been detained by the police for allegedly carrying a firearm, he is one of us. I don't know about you, but if I were in the same position, I would hope that there were others looking out for me rather than minding their own business.

CavTrooper
08-30-2009, 6:45 PM
Here's another idea. Because this person is a gun owner in California and has been detained by the police for allegedly carrying a firearm, he is one of us. I don't know about you, but if I were in the same position, I would hope that there were others looking out for me rather than minding their own business.

If this person was UOCing LEGALLY chances are he knows what to do at this point, If he was OCing ILLEGALLY why would you want to be associated with him?

The way some have atempted to interject themselves into another persons situation using lies and misinformation should be an embarrasing disgrace, not something you brag about on the internet.

pullnshoot25
08-30-2009, 7:04 PM
If this person was UOCing LEGALLY chances are he knows what to do at this point, If he was OCing ILLEGALLY why would you want to be associated with him?

The way some have atempted to interject themselves into another persons situation using lies and misinformation should be an embarrasing disgrace, not something you brag about on the internet.

Nothing wrong with getting info on a situation.

Meplat
08-30-2009, 7:10 PM
Here's a thought. what if he WAS LAPD? Have you ever run to get something and forgot your Id?:43:

dantodd
08-30-2009, 7:14 PM
If this person was UOCing LEGALLY chances are he knows what to do at this point, If he was OCing ILLEGALLY why would you want to be associated with him?

If he was UOCing legally he may or may not know all the ins and outs of the law and would appreciate finding like minded people to associate with. If he was OCing illegally perhaps he wasn't aware of the laws and was acting based on news coverage of other states and would REALLY appreciate knowing the laws and meeting like minded people.

If he wants to be left alone he can certainly choose not to participate but getting arrested is a public activity.

Kid Stanislaus
08-30-2009, 7:21 PM
Have you ever run to get something and forgot your Id?:43:

NEVER.

Window_Seat
08-30-2009, 7:31 PM
If it's necessary to find information on specific cases or incidents, would filing a FOIA request not be a better route to take? As a matter of fact, would this not be such a bad idea in general for CG, then the legal team(s) could analyze what info they receive on these types of incidents (involving individuals detained with FAs) for what's to come in the future.

Erik.

Rob454
08-30-2009, 8:01 PM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

Did he pass himself off as a cop? You can wear whatever you like. My buddy for dresses up in WW2 soldiers uniform and does reenactments of battles and parades and stuff like that. Does that make him a WW2 vet?

ZRX61
08-30-2009, 8:39 PM
Maybe it was the LA Poverty Dept. (http://lapovertydept.org/), or the LA Performance Division (http://www.thelapd.com/), or the LA Purr Department (http://www.lapurrd.com/)?

About 25 years ago a guy in the UK had an LAPD Chevy Caprice with all the equipment (except replica firearms). The only outward difference was the sign on the door said "ALPD"


ALPD was "Al Llewellyns Paint Dept".. Al was the guy who painted it :)

Seesm
08-30-2009, 10:49 PM
Can you get in trouble for impersinating Al? JK :)

MindBuilder
08-30-2009, 11:09 PM
I'm not so sure it's legal to wear an LAPD hat. See this calguns.net thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-116957.html


Liberty1 posted the following in that thread:

AB 1448 (2007) amended 538d PC (effective 1/1/08).

538d. (a) Any person other than one who by law is given the
authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses
the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate,
card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of
fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently
inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) (1) Any person, other than the one who by law is given the
authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses
the badge of a peace officer with the intent of fraudulently
impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief
that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both
that imprisonment and fine.
(2) Any person who willfully wears or uses any badge that falsely
purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the
authority of a peace officer, or which so resembles the authorized
badge of a peace officer as would deceive any ordinary reasonable
person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by
law is given the authority of a peace officer, for the purpose of
fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently
inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars
($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) Any person who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses, or who
willfully makes, sells, loans, gives, or transfers to another, any
badge, insignia, emblem, device, or any label, certificate, card, or
writing, which falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one
who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, or which so
resembles the authorized badge, insignia, emblem, device, label,
certificate, card, or writing of a peace officer as would deceive an
ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for
the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer,
is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that any person who makes or sells
any badge under the circumstances described in this subdivision is
subject to a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

Librarian
08-30-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm not so sure it's legal to wear an LAPD hat. See this calguns.net thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-116957.html


Liberty1 posted the following in that thread:

One might have a problem if one wore the hat "with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer,..."

Establishing that intent, I think, would take more than observing that one was wearing a hat.

MindBuilder
08-31-2009, 3:32 AM
I see no requirement for intent in this section.

(c) Any person who willfully wears ... any ... writing ... which so
resembles the authorized ... writing of a peace officer as would deceive an
ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for
the use ... of a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor ...

ChuckBooty
08-31-2009, 5:48 AM
Yeah...it was really just a generic base ball cap that said LAPD on it. I don't think that there was ANYONE who actually thought he was an officer.

And as far as leaving the guy alone...nobody is trying to bother the guy. We're more concerned with Murrieta PD and how they reacted to UOC. Also, the manager at Walmart CLEARLY told me that it was against store policy to UOC in the store.

famas619
08-31-2009, 5:52 AM
Lets support this guy.

Decoligny
08-31-2009, 7:08 AM
AB 1448 (2007) amended 538d PC (effective 1/1/08).

538d. (a) Any person other than one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The person has to actually be trying to pass himself off as a police officer. Walking peacefully through Walmart while shopping is not trying to pass yourself off as a cop.

Sitting in a Winchell's drinking coffee and eating a donut might just get you some jail time though. :rolleyes:

Glock22Fan
08-31-2009, 7:20 AM
Lots of forces sell the rights to put their insignia on clothing. Just look at the NYPD and NYFD souvenirs. I've got a Bishop Police t shirt that I bought from Bishop Police as a fundraiser.

I have polo shirts from the Cal Sheriff's Association, dark green with a big gold star.

Hard to see how this stuff can be prosecuted as impersonating unless your behavior and words also give that impression.

Eckolaker
08-31-2009, 8:14 AM
Lots of forces sell the rights to put their insignia on clothing. Just look at the NYPD and NYFD souvenirs. I've got a Bishop Police t shirt that I bought from Bishop Police as a fundraiser.

I have polo shirts from the Cal Sheriff's Association, dark green with a big gold star.

Hard to see how this stuff can be prosecuted as impersonating unless your behavior and words also give that impression.

This is absolutely correct. Many LEA's license their name/logo/likeness.

Willful intent is the key.

Sheepdog1968
08-31-2009, 8:19 AM
As much as I am pro gun, I can see where open carry even loaded is bound to cause issues. Legal yes. Wise, I'd have to say no.

Sheepdog1968
08-31-2009, 8:35 AM
I meant to say unloaded and handheld phone ed doesn't allow for editing

wash
08-31-2009, 8:42 AM
Doesn't anyone here think that we should contact this guy so that he doesn't do something foolish in the future?

From the posted account he was not prepared for the situation.

I wouldn't be so quick to support him before we figure out if the guy is playing with a full deck. UOC alone wearing an LAPD hat is pretty foolish.

I think all UOC should be done very carefully and probably in groups. But better yet I think everyone should wait for the Sykes case to go through.

That fight might get shall issue CCW for everyone with much less chance of something going wrong.

If we can't get CCW through the courts, then we should start thinking about UOC demonstrations and even then it might be smart to wait until we get other legal victories.

The worst possible outcome would be several bad incidents by the wrong people.

GuyW
08-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Wearing an LAPD hat could get him in deep dodo for impersonating an officer.

Not unless he was also brandishing a donut....

BTW - do LAPD officers even wear such hats when out of uniform??

.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 11:30 AM
BTW - do LAPD officers even wear such hats when out of uniform??


only the ones who were picked on in High School

MindBuilder
08-31-2009, 5:40 PM
If you look again at the sections of law I quoted, I think you'll see that although part (a) might require intent or that someone was fooled into thinking the person was an officer, section (c) seems to apply regardless of intent or whether anyone was fooled. Section (c) only seems to require that an ordinary reasonable person would believe that the writing was "authorized for the use ... of a peace officer". This section can be violated simply by displaying such a writing in a store window, or even by giving it as a gift to a friend in private. I would think that LAPD officers are at least occasionally "authorized" to use a cap labeled "LAPD". But are they exclusively authorized? "Authorized for the use of a peace officer" is actually a very vague phrase. I can only roughly guess at what it means. The fact that it is vague might get you out of a conviction after a costly appeal. But officers still might feel free to arrest you, without the officers worrying about getting in trouble for false arrest. On the other hand, if you could prove that you actually bought or could buy the item directly from the agency in question, it seems very likely that would get you off.

I'm not a lawyer so I could easily be wrong about all this.

Here is the untrimmed version of the catchall section:
(c)Any person who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses, or who willfully makes, sells, loans, gives, or transfers to another, any badge, insignia, emblem, device, or any label, certificate, card, or writing, which falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, or which so resembles the authorized badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a peace officer as would deceive an ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that any person who makes or sells any badge under the circumstances described in this subdivision is subject to a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

And here is my trimmed version:
(c) Any person who willfully wears ... OR TRANSFERS ... any ... writing ... which so resembles the authorized ... writing of a peace officer as would deceive an ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use ... of a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor ... [emphasis added]

Librarian
08-31-2009, 6:02 PM
You don't think "willfully" requires establishing intent?

CitaDeL
08-31-2009, 6:03 PM
You don't think "willfully" requires establishing intent?

Yes,... it is an essential element to complete the crime.

GuyW
08-31-2009, 6:31 PM
You don't think "willfully" requires establishing intent?

That's not a defense.

The question will be, "did you choose to put that hat on your head"?

If yes, that's willful.

Intent focuses on a "guilty mind" IIRC

One of our lawyers here can tell it straight....
.

bubbapug1
08-31-2009, 6:41 PM
Well if UOC is now done at presidential speeches and gatherings I would say the statement and movement is out there and its well and healthy.

We are legally armed...period. Act reponsably (ie lawmakers) and there won't be an issue.

One guy getting popped at Walmart is a big deal, he was within his rights, but it shows LEO's still view an armed vcivilian as a threat, which in many ways, they are.

CavTrooper
08-31-2009, 6:45 PM
So.. wait... this was an "impersonating an officer" arrest and not an "open carry" arrest?

dantodd
08-31-2009, 6:46 PM
The part you are not focusing on is: "which falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer"

I don't believe that any of the hats with LAPD embroidered on them would qualify as purporting to identify someone as a peace officer. The hats are everywhere and do not have the official emblem.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 6:48 PM
So.. wait... this was an "impersonating an officer" arrest and not an "open carry" arrest?

To the best of my knowledge no one knows yet. There doesn't appear to have been a booking and no further info has been posted.

Ron-Solo
08-31-2009, 8:31 PM
You guys are jumping to conclusions that he was arrested. It sounds like he was detained pending further investigation and released once it was determined that he had done nothing wrong, but there is not enough information to draw any conclusion.

KylaGWolf
08-31-2009, 8:45 PM
I was leaving Walmart today with my family and saw, like seven police officers cuffing a guy. One officer removed, what looked like an XD (judging from the holster) from his side. It appeared to be an OC situation (although I admit that I didn't see if he had his shirt tucked in on that side before hand). But the hand gun was DEFINITELY not loaded and the guy appeared relatively calm. By the time I left, they had not arrested the guy, rather had him sitting on the front bench while two or three of them were on the phone (I imagined that they were frantically calling back to HQ trying to find something to charge the guy with).

Anyone have any hook-ups with the Murrieta PD? Just curious what the whole story was.

The guy was a younger black male wearing an LAPD hat, T-shirt and jeans. If he WAS OC'ing, he wasn't doing it very smart. He had no one else with him, no tape recorder, and no literature with him.

Well...curiosity got the best of me (plus I REALLY wanted to bring you guys the rest of the story here). So I called the Murrieta Walmart and asked for a manager. I told them that I was a reporter (haha) for the PE and we were doing a blurb on the arrest yesterday. The lady was pretty apprehensive and told me that they were not at liberty to discuss it. I told her that I have police reports and that I knew that there WAS an arrest, I just wanted to get a quick statement. She said, "Well...it wasn't really an arrest. It was an incident that was against our store policy". So I said, "OK..so I think I understand. So this person didn't commit a crime in your store, he was just carrying an unloaded hand gun. This is why he wasn't charged. Right?"
"Exactly" she answered.
"And do you have your store's firearm policy posted?"
"No we don't" (I didn't want to tip her off and start a lecture so I just said thank you very much)

So there ya go. It was definitely an OC situation. I personally saw the police call in the serial on his gun and do a search on him (I'm not sure if he gave his consent or not though).

Well then their store policy goes against their company policy since they do not ban open carry in their stores if it is legal in the state to do so.

The Nomadd
08-31-2009, 8:54 PM
Well then their store policy goes against their company policy since they do not ban open carry in their stores if it is legal in the state to do so.

Crap! You beat me to it. Methinks someone needs to suggest said manger contact Corporate, and get educated on corporate policy. I'm sure they'll tell him the same thing I was told when I called.

pullnshoot25
08-31-2009, 8:54 PM
PRAR in the mail tomorrow, come hell or high water. THIS I have to get info on.

KylaGWolf
08-31-2009, 8:55 PM
If you look again at the sections of law I quoted, I think you'll see that although part (a) might require intent or that someone was fooled into thinking the person was an officer, section (c) seems to apply regardless of intent or whether anyone was fooled. Section (c) only seems to require that an ordinary reasonable person would believe that the writing was "authorized for the use ... of a peace officer". This section can be violated simply by displaying such a writing in a store window, or even by giving it as a gift to a friend in private. I would think that LAPD officers are at least occasionally "authorized" to use a cap labeled "LAPD". But are they exclusively authorized? "Authorized for the use of a peace officer" is actually a very vague phrase. I can only roughly guess at what it means. The fact that it is vague might get you out of a conviction after a costly appeal. But officers still might feel free to arrest you, without the officers worrying about getting in trouble for false arrest. On the other hand, if you could prove that you actually bought or could buy the item directly from the agency in question, it seems very likely that would get you off.

I'm not a lawyer so I could easily be wrong about all this.

Here is the untrimmed version of the catchall section:


And here is my trimmed version:

Key phrases in that section c is insigna, which means more than just the letters...such as badge or star or the rest of the police symbol for that department.

Ron-Solo
08-31-2009, 9:05 PM
All LASD logos are copyrighted, so you might get in trouble in that aspect. ;)

sfpcservice
08-31-2009, 9:14 PM
PRAR in the mail tomorrow, come hell or high water. THIS I have to get info on.

+1!

jdberger
08-31-2009, 9:31 PM
This is absolutely correct. Many LEA's license their name/logo/likeness.

Willful intent is the key.

Maybe the pistol was licensed but the hat was not!

MindBuilder
08-31-2009, 9:35 PM
Librarian wrote:
You don't think "willfully" requires establishing intent?
GuyW is right.
Stated another way, the word "willfully" attaches to "wear" or "transfer". So if you willfully wear or willfully transfer a prohibited writing or emblem, then you are in violation. You don't have to know that the item is prohibited to be in violation.


CavTrooper wrote:
So.. wait... this was an "impersonating an officer" arrest and not an "open carry" arrest?
It may not have even been an "impersonating an officer" arrest. It may have been an "exhibiting a prohibited writing or emblem" arrest.


dantodd wrote:
The part you are not focusing on is: "which falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer"
The phrase you quote from the law is connected to the phrase that follows it with the word "or". Therefore to make the law I quoted easier to understand for our purposes here, you can just delete the part you quoted from the law and see that it's not necessary for the writing or emblem to "falsely purport" anything for the writing or emblem to be in violation of the law. In other words, exhibiting or transferring the item is a violation if it
...so resembles the authorized badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a peace officer as would deceive an ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer,...


dantodd wrote:
I don't believe that any of the hats with LAPD embroidered on them would qualify as purporting to identify someone as a peace officer. The hats are everywhere and do not have the official emblem.
I'm not saying I think you're wrong about that. But police, judges or juries may well have a different opinion than either of us.


KylaGWolf wrote:
Key phrases in that section c is insigna, which means more than just the letters...such as badge or star or the rest of the police symbol for that department.
The law says badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, OR writing [emphasis added]
So it's not just insignias that are prohibited. The word "or" implies that it is any of those things. Even just a writing.

GuyW
08-31-2009, 10:04 PM
I don't believe that any of the hats with LAPD embroidered on them would qualify as purporting to identify someone as a peace officer. The hats are everywhere and do not have the official emblem.

Wait!

You mean those guys outside of Home Depot aren't really Border Patrol officers??
.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 10:31 PM
Wait!

You mean those guys outside of Home Depot aren't really Border Patrol officers??
.

No, and the guys with mirrored sunglasses on the boardwalk aren't really "Female Body Inspectors," not officially anyway.

Librarian
08-31-2009, 11:33 PM
Entirely aside from the subject of the thread, whose encounter disposition seems unrelated to this bit, some suggestion of the applicability of PC 538d has been put forth.

I don't think 'willfully putting on the hat (with the insignia)' is enough.

I poked through Lexis just now, and there's not much on that bit of 538d, but there is

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL SAPIEN LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

F036242

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 296

...

As previously set forth, the one-year enhancement imposed pursuant to section 667.17 is "in lieu of the penalty that would have been imposed under Section 538d." Section 538d provides in pertinent part: "Any person other than one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Because the penalty contained in section 667.17 is in lieu of the penalty provided in section 538d, if we determine that defendant could have properly been punished for two counts of violating [*37] section 538d, it follows that two enhancements could be properly imposed.

The proscription against impersonating a police officer is clearly meant to encompass preventing defendants from fooling others into believing that they are police officers and thereby gaining an advantage over the person fraudulently induced in this belief. In the case here, defendant first encountered Ms. Garcia. She saw that he was dressed in a police officer's uniform and she complied with his demands. It is reasonable to infer that her compliance was based in part on her observation of the uniform, or at least that defendant intended her to be fraudulently induced into believing so. After defendant had gained Garcia's compliance, Cruz entered the room. Cruz realized that defendant was dressed in a police uniform. He too complied with defendant's demands and was handcuffed. Again, it is reasonable to infer that his compliance was based in part on his observation of the uniform, or at least defendant intended him to be fraudulently induced into believing so. The appeals court pretty clearly expects an intent, and uses behavior of the defendant to suggest an intent existed.

That is 538d(a), and the discussion has moved to 538d(c), but it is my opinion that establishing that a bearer of some insignia which might be interpreted as giving the authority of a uniform would have to actually mean that. I think 'writings' might be intended to mean business cards or citations or report forms purporting to come from a police officer.

Most of the other 15 cases Lexis returned were more obviously intended to deceive - use of a stolen uniform, showing a badge, stating to others that one was a police officer and closely related actions.

I'll happily defer to a Real Lawyer should one care to jump in here.

artherd
09-01-2009, 12:17 AM
it looks to me at first blush that 538d(c) bans the sale/transfer/use of fake business cards or badges that express or imply you work for a Law Enforcement Agency.

Shirts that say "FBI" should still be legal, absent intent to deceive.

WokMaster1
09-01-2009, 7:10 AM
Well if UOC is now done at presidential speeches and gatherings I would say the statement and movement is out there and its well and healthy.

We are legally armed...period. Act reponsably (ie lawmakers) and there won't be an issue.

One guy getting popped at Walmart is a big deal, he was within his rights, but it shows LEO's still view an armed vcivilian as a threat, which in many ways, they are.

That was in AZ not CA & it was locked & loaded, not UOC.


In the meantime, can you imagine that all LE agencies recalling all the T-shirts, hats, fleece & anything that has a badge or POLICE, SHERIFF, etc. All monies paid will be reimbursed in full.

Untamed1972
09-01-2009, 7:43 AM
The law says
So it's not just insignias that are prohibited. The word "or" implies that it is any of those things. Even just a writing.



But I think a prosecutor would have a difficult time proving that simply the letters "LAPD" which could be an acronym for many different things is solely the the insignia of Los Angeles Police Dept. Unless LAPD has actually copy writed the acronym. Absent any other identifying info, just the letters LAPD....are just that.....letters that could mean anything.

Decoligny
09-01-2009, 8:28 AM
L.A.P.D.

Law Abiding Person Detained

Fate
09-01-2009, 9:32 AM
I prefer "Law Abiding Personal Defense" ;)

Liberty1
09-01-2009, 10:35 AM
That was in AZ not CA & it was locked & loaded, not UOC.

Apparently the AR was unloaded according to sources close to carrier because they were concerned about retention issues should the pro-Obama/socialist health care/anti gun fraction attempt a grab.

Holstered side arms however were loaded.

ChuckBooty
09-03-2009, 4:59 AM
PRAR in the mail tomorrow, come hell or high water. THIS I have to get info on.

So did this get sent? I'm really curious about it. Especially since the manager told me that this is against Walmart policy and apparently it is not. I'd like to bring this incident to the attention of their corporate office.

I was thinking about this incident....something about it really was bugging me (other than the obvious) and I realize what it was. When the guy was being arrested, EVERYBODY (exept me since I saw what was really happening) assumed this guy was a criminal. Whispers of "gang member" and "street thug" were audible. One lady brought her little kindergartener over and said, "See that honey? He is SHOPLIFTING! That's what happens when you steal!". Now I'm usually the FIRST person to roll his eyes whenever someone infers the whole, "They just did this cuz I'm black" card. But in this case, I think it was pretty clear that everyone jumped to conclusions because a young black guy with a gun was on his knees getting cuffed by the PD. I have to admit, it looked like a scene out of "Cops"...but in reality, these "cops" were abusing a citizen, violating his civil rights, and trying REALLY hard to find something, ANYTHING, to arrest this guy. All because THEY didn't feel that HE should be "allowed" to carry a gun. That this "priveledge" should be reserved just for THEM...after all...they're special. They've had "training". THEY are the only thing separating society from complete, utter, anarchy. THIS is how they think.

arrrrgh! rant over....for now

dantodd
09-03-2009, 7:28 AM
So did this get sent? I'm really curious about it. Especially since the manager told me that this is against Walmart policy and apparently it is not. I'd like to bring this incident to the attention of their corporate office.


WalMart obviously has a lot of gunnies as customers in other states. It might be a good opportunity for them to make a statement, if given the opportunity before someone publicizes their "New California Policy" against legal gun owners.

Merle
09-03-2009, 2:46 PM
IIRC, it's up to the DM to set policy for Walmart and their allowance of weapons on the premises. Does anyone know if this is currently policy (and if policy, it has to be published) where it's at?

coolusername2007
09-03-2009, 4:55 PM
Any additional news about this guy? FYI...I've UOC'ed just down the road at the neighboring Temecula Walmart with no problems.

cousinkix1953
09-03-2009, 5:03 PM
I remember when you could buy LAPD badges in the back of gun magazines as long as you didn't live in the city Los Angeles. Number 714 was quite popular and Joe Friday's DRAGNET was on TV in those days...

coolusername2007
09-03-2009, 5:05 PM
Just called the Murrieta Walmart and talked with one of their managers. She would not give any specifics on the incident, but did confirm this store's policy is not different than the corporate Walmart policy. So to confirm I asked her again if it was OK to open carry in their store. She said yes.

Stormfeather
09-03-2009, 5:19 PM
any news?

pullnshoot25
09-03-2009, 6:33 PM
Just called the Murrieta Walmart and talked with one of their managers. She would not give any specifics on the incident, but did confirm this store's policy is not different than the corporate Walmart policy. So to confirm I asked her again if it was OK to open carry in their store. She said yes.

About freaking time these clown managers got their acts together.

any news?

I sent in a PRAR to the Murietta PD (right alongside another one to the SDPD) so we should see results in the next 10 days or so.

CSACANNONEER
09-03-2009, 6:57 PM
We will never know the whole story until someone reads a police report and/or finds this guy. So, if we just want to keep speculating, maybe the only reason he was UOC is because he was out of ammo and going to Walmart to find some. He took his gun in just to make sure the ammo would fit in his gun before he bought it. Seriously, I've had this happen at a gunshop so, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Let's just all hope that I'm wrong and the poor guy ends up with a fat paycheck from Walmart to keep this quiet.

ChuckBooty
09-04-2009, 6:42 AM
I find it strange that someone was UOC'ing without being part of this site or part of the OC forums.

MudCamper
09-04-2009, 8:59 AM
I find it strange that someone was UOC'ing without being part of this site or part of the OC forums.

Happening more and more. The recent Escondido OC event in the news was a group that is not related to CalGuns nor OCDO. The genie's out of the bottle. That's why all the "STOP UOCing for now" threads are a waste of breath.

Southwest Chuck
09-04-2009, 9:45 AM
I find it strange that someone was UOC'ing without being part of this site or part of the OC forums.

I know this is kind of simplistic, but your making the basic assumption that this guy has a computer or at least common access to one. Have we come to the point that someone is deemed "strange" Because they don't have a computer or surf the web on a regular basis? :confused: Maybe we have. I just have to get accustomed to that idea I guess.

wash
09-04-2009, 9:59 AM
I bet the guy saw it on TV.

Lots of good, reliable information there...

Southwest Chuck
09-04-2009, 10:02 AM
I bet the guy saw it on TV.

Lots of good, reliable information there...

x's 2

coolusername2007
09-04-2009, 2:42 PM
Happening more and more. The recent Escondido OC event in the news was a group that is not related to CalGuns nor OCDO. The genie's out of the bottle. That's why all the "STOP UOCing for now" threads are a waste of breath.

The Escondido OC'ers posted their event details on OCDO.

motorhead
09-05-2009, 12:56 AM
You shouldn't. I was considering something like this until I found this site and decided to hold off. The law is out there for all to read. Back when police were harassing people for legally carrying knives, there were no forums, but people (myself included) researched the law and choose to follow it to the letter. At that time it was thanks to a couple stories that others posted about OCing fixed blades that I choose to stick to folding knives. The laws are out there, and thanks to the internet, people don't have to take the word of the local PD or hire a lawyer. The fact that he didn't get arrested shows that either he simply doesn't want to post online, or that like a lot of people, he developed his Google-Fu enough to come to the legal conclusion that UOC is legal.

hell, i've been carrying large fixed blades for 40 years. always knew it was legal. never cared who thought otherwise. to this day get asked "is that legal?"

tankerman
09-05-2009, 4:47 AM
Not everyone spends their life on the internet.
I find it strange that someone was UOC'ing without being part of this site or part of the OC forums.

pullnshoot25
09-05-2009, 7:59 AM
Not everyone spends their life on the internet.

Agreed. However, by searching "open carry in California" or some variant thereof one will find Californiaopencarry.org, my blog and several CGN threads. One would think that somehow they would end up on CGN for the dake of questions and whatnot. Hell, I get 3-4 email a week about legalities and future events.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 7:53 PM
Pullnshoot, any news on this incident?

ChuckBooty
09-21-2009, 1:04 PM
bump? Anything from the city?

pullnshoot25
09-21-2009, 1:19 PM
Not yet. Should be any day now, if not today.

coolusername2007
09-23-2009, 9:54 AM
I thought they had 10 days to respond to your request. Its clearly been more than 10 days. Now what?

Liberty1
09-23-2009, 11:04 AM
Its clearly been more than 10 days. Now what?

Send another letter politely quoting the law.

Glock22Fan
09-23-2009, 11:22 AM
Send another letter politely quoting the law.

Liberty1 is absolutely correct, but (sadly) even that might not work.

These are supposed to be public officials, obeying the law, but TBJ's experience is that many such requests are ignored until your attorney gets tough with them. Most people can't afford to involve an attorney, so the officials learn that they can mostly ignore such requests with impunity - apologising for the "misunderstanding" on the rare occasion that their bluff is called.

However, your letter should also include a copy separately addressed (and receipt requested) to the city attorney. Sometimes this wakes them up.

chiselchst
09-23-2009, 5:23 PM
Just called the Murrieta Walmart and talked with one of their managers. She would not give any specifics on the incident, but did confirm this store's policy is not different than the corporate Walmart policy. So to confirm I asked her again if it was OK to open carry in their store. She said yes.

I wish that was the case regarding the selling of firearms. In NorCal, they do not sell firearms in Contra Costa County (Concord, Walnut Creek, Martinez, etc). Not even sure if they sell ammo now either. The counties not that left, I have no idea why they choose this county (my county, LOL).

Point is, apprarently thier "store policy" can be local? Not State, but county only...?

If we get anywhere with this thing with WalMart, maybe we could get them to start selling guns again in thier Co Co County stores...:D

BigDogatPlay
09-23-2009, 5:30 PM
Wal-Mart no longer sells firearms at any California location. They haven't in several years. Corporate decision.

Some stores do not sell ammo because of local ordinance and or heat in the community.

Having said that, if AB962 gets signed, my opinion with certainty is that Wal-Mart would stop handling ammo in California all together. While it's not a major impact to their bottom line, it's a major PITA for all of us.

dantodd
09-23-2009, 7:03 PM
Wal-Mart no longer sells firearms at any California location. They haven't in several years. Corporate decision.



With incorporation this too shall pass.... hopefully.

coolusername2007
09-26-2009, 8:45 PM
Hey Pullnshoot, still waiting for an update. Are you planning on taking any further steps to contact the Murrieta PD regarding your request?

pullnshoot25
09-26-2009, 9:46 PM
I will call Monday. If I cannot get any results, then I will sent it Certified return mail.

What a bunch of bastards.

7x57
09-27-2009, 6:06 AM
With incorporation this too shall pass.... hopefully.

My understanding is that they quit selling because BATF came down on them for dodgy bookkeeping or something. It appears they don't pay enough to get people who can pay attention.

7x57

halifax
09-27-2009, 6:13 AM
My understanding is that they quit selling because BATF came down on them for dodgy bookkeeping or something. It appears they don't pay enough to get people who can pay attention.

7x57

CA DOJ also. My field rep seemed to be gloating a bit when he was talking about the "big settlement" the DOJ received from putting Wal-mart out of the gun business in CA.

advocatusdiaboli
09-27-2009, 7:08 AM
Establishing that intent, I think, would take more than observing that one was wearing a hat.

Agreed but food for thought...
1. we don't know what he did or said prior to his detention by public safety.
2. If someone assumes you are and says so or asks and you don't correct them, that might be construed as intent--I admit to not knowing the case law on this but that seems to pass the "reasonable man" test.
3. Intent is one of the most difficult facts to prove so fact patterns emerge to construe it--we need to know them better and what he did.

7x57
09-27-2009, 7:38 AM
CA DOJ also. My field rep seemed to be gloating a bit when he was talking about the "big settlement" the DOJ received from putting Wal-mart out of the gun business in CA.

I guess I don't really know which, so it could just be CA DOJ alone. All I remember is that they'd been stupid and got hammered for it by .gov. Which .gov wasn't part of the info, or if it was I forgot it.

7x57

Trakker
09-27-2009, 7:46 AM
Bingo!!

FBI = Fine Booty I...

just had too...high school days.

pullnshoot25
09-28-2009, 11:10 PM
Not much information. Looks like they decided to detain but then not do the paperwork.

Enjoy.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/cwjqzti39ebix

ChuckBooty
09-29-2009, 6:46 AM
Not much information. Looks like they decided to detain but then not do the paperwork.

Enjoy.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/cwjqzti39ebix

Is it strange that they didn't keep any real records of this? Also...if this memo (and it's great that we now have another LE memo, BTW) came out in Dec 2008 (not all THAT long ago), why would NINE COPS come detain a citizen that was UOC'ing? And why would it take them so long to figure out that the guy was within his rights?

Tell ya what though..if I were to UOC in Temecula or Murrieta, I'd be damn sure I had that memo. Thanks PAS! Nice work!

MudCamper
09-29-2009, 8:04 AM
Not much information. Looks like they decided to detain but then not do the paperwork.

Enjoy.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/cwjqzti39ebix


I'm confused. It says it's a report of the incident, but then it's just a copy of the old CPOA memo?

Is it strange that they didn't keep any real records of this? Also...if this memo (and it's great that we now have another LE memo, BTW) came out in Dec 2008 (not all THAT long ago), why would NINE COPS come detain a citizen that was UOC'ing? And why would it take them so long to figure out that the guy was within his rights?

Tell ya what though..if I were to UOC in Temecula or Murrieta, I'd be damn sure I had that memo. Thanks PAS! Nice work!

It's not a new memo. Here's a better copy (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/CPOA-Client-Alert-12042008.pdf). And 8 other memos (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/).

inbox485
09-29-2009, 8:28 AM
This is a blatant dodge tactic. I'd keep at it until you get more than a memo that didn't even come from Murrieta's PD.

coolusername2007
09-29-2009, 8:30 AM
Not much information. Looks like they decided to detain but then not do the paperwork.

Enjoy.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/cwjqzti39ebix

This isn't "not much information". This is NO information. Guess they don't want to keep records of their 4A rights violations.

Theseus
09-29-2009, 11:34 AM
Is it strange that they didn't keep any real records of this? Also...if this memo (and it's great that we now have another LE memo, BTW) came out in Dec 2008 (not all THAT long ago), why would NINE COPS come detain a citizen that was UOC'ing? And why would it take them so long to figure out that the guy was within his rights?

Tell ya what though..if I were to UOC in Temecula or Murrieta, I'd be damn sure I had that memo. Thanks PAS! Nice work!

The officers in my detainment that lead to my charge also destroyed and kept no records of the incident.

The only way they managed to get the information seems to be form their dispatch log when they illegally detained me and seized my ID.

inbox485
09-29-2009, 12:37 PM
The officers in my detainment that lead to my charge also destroyed and kept no records of the incident.

The only way they managed to get the information seems to be form their dispatch log when they illegally detained me and seized my ID.

I thought that was a crime. In any case, have you thought of counter sueing the department concurrently while they are dragging you through court? Not even sure if it is an option, but it could get them to reconsider.

CavTrooper
09-29-2009, 6:53 PM
The officers in my detainment that lead to my charge also destroyed and kept no records of the incident.

The only way they managed to get the information seems to be form their dispatch log when they illegally detained me and seized my ID.

Is that where you were arrested for violating the 1000' GFSZ?

Hows that going?

Anothercoilgun
09-29-2009, 7:17 PM
Is it strange that they didn't keep any real records of this? Also...if this memo (and it's great that we now have another LE memo, BTW) came out in Dec 2008 (not all THAT long ago), why would NINE COPS come detain a citizen that was UOC'ing? And why would it take them so long to figure out that the guy was within his rights?

Tell ya what though..if I were to UOC in Temecula or Murrieta, I'd be damn sure I had that memo. Thanks PAS! Nice work!

There is no rhyme nor reason to sillyness these days.