PDA

View Full Version : Got Searched by LAX Airport Police with Guns


krushed
12-25-2009, 10:40 AM
I wanted to share my experience from yesterday and get some feedback from the 2nd amendment experts here. I'm also trying to figure out what if anything happens now that I should still be concerned about.

I got searched yesterday by the police at LAX. I had 2 legally stored handguns registered to me (unloaded in locked containers - one in a lock box in a bag in the backseat and one in the trunk) and one unloaded featureless OLL in the trunk. After about an hour and a half of searching my car, running all the serial numbers, questioning, a visit by their lieutenant, and a visit by the assistant chief of police, they finally let me go. They escorted me to the terminal I was dropping off my gf at, let me drop her off and then escorted me out of the airport.

Before they did, they took a fair amount of notes and explained that it was just part of their administrative CYA process documenting the stop and search procedures and my personal information. I asked for a copy but didn't get one. They said it was an internal only record and that no adverse information would come of it.

It was an uncomfortable situation that in retrospect, I should have been better prepared for. Aside from being worried about possible long-term fallout from this, it was a good learning experience and at least it didn't end with the confiscation of my firearms or an arrest.



__________________________________________________ _
I was frustrated with myself because since I couldn't cite exact paragraphs from the PC to confidently defend myself even though I had read them to make sure that I was transporting my firearms legally. It had been a while since I reviewed the laws and under the pressure of time and pressure of potential arrest, my confidence was a little shaken. Even so, I was happy to learn about myself that I didn't fall apart, get panicky, or irrational. I feel that I was able to still process and speak clearly and semi-intelligently to the officers. However, if the officers really wanted to ruin my day, they could have.

See if you can identify all the FUD being implied by the police below and help me with lessons learned (I ran through it this morning with the PC to debrief/educate myself) - bonus points if you can cite the PC and more bonus points if you have opinions on what I should/shouldn't have done either specifically or in general.

Details:

This was at the security checkpoint. The officer told me they were doing random searches and asked me if they could search my car.

This is when I voluntarily declared that I had firearms in the vehicle.

They looked in the trunk, came back and asked me to give them the keys and stay put.

Then they asked my gf and I to get out of the car and walk to the curb, frisked us and had us sit down with our legs crossed.

They asked us what we were doing there (answered: dropping gf off at the airport, taking guns up north to go shooting).

One officer asked: "if you're going someplace, where are your clothes?" I told him in the duffel bag. He asked what kind of rifle I had and if it was a "Colt". I said no, it was an off-list lower, a Stag. He asked: What are you doing with all those guns? I told him going up north to go shooting. He asked if I was going shooting, why was I at the airport. I told him that I was there to drop my gf off and then I was going to drive straight up north. I kinda sorta of got the sense that he was trying to get me to trip up. Another officer asked "so you had no other option, right? I answered "no".

About half an hour in, one officer said that they can use their discretion and let me off with just a warning. However, they held me for at least another hour while they continued to search my car and question me. They were quite thorough in their search.

They asked me for my DL, address, work address, phone number, SSN. They also asked for my gf's info. They also took down the serial numbers of the guns.

They asked me several times if the firearms were registered to me. I said yes. They tried to run the OLL and couldn't get results back and finally realized that it was handled as a normal long gun and no registry exists. They told me I should keep the DROS paperwork with the gun.

Initially, they said that the guns were not locked. I said that the locked trunk counts as a locked container. Then they backed off that. They also said that the ammunition needed to be stored separately from the guns (guns in the trunk were fine). The gun in the locked case had 2 loaded magazines with it (but not attached to the firearm). Towards the end of the stop, they said that they didn't have a problem with the guns in the trunk but "the issue is the gun in the locked container with the ammunition in the passenger compartment". This was when the Lt and the assistant police chief showed up and were poking around in the trunk and looking at the guns. I heard one excited officer say "that's concealed!!!" but didn't see who it was. One of the officers I was talking with (he was very professional and courteous) walked over to the excited officer and apparently explained that "it was cool". He was the one that kept telling me that this is just a routine search and that there wasn't really any issue, that it shouldn't be too much longer, and that my gf wouldn't miss her flight. He also made small talk about how we met and stuff like that.

I also had 8 AA batteries duct taped in series with wires connected to it (I built it as an emergency battery backup to my GPS charger). They were like "is this a homemade tazer?" I explained what it was. One of the officers said at this point they were just giving me a hard time.

I found it interesting that there were so many implications about the laws made that I think fall in the FUD category. The officers never outright said that these things were against the law but they said not to do it as if it was against the law.

SteveH
12-25-2009, 10:44 AM
In a perfect world this sort of thing would never happen. But knowing we live in an imperfect world, why would you take guns to LAX if you were not taking them on a flight?

Just because something is lawful it does not mean actually doing it is smart. Learn from Phil's example.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 10:46 AM
First of all, since it appears all of your firearms were legal and legally transported whatever happens next you need not worry much about.

I am very interested in this situation as this search isn't reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Please contact me via email hoffmang at hoffmang dot com - as I'd like to have CGF counsel follow up.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 10:47 AM
In a perfect world this sort of thing would never happen. But knowing we live in an imperfect world, why would you take guns to LAX if you were not taking them on a flight?

Just because something is lawful it does not mean actually doing it is smart. Learn from Phil's example.

I significantly disagree here. Why does the 4A not exist at airports outside the secure zone?

Edited to add: The reason LA didn't get in trouble on the Phil matter was that Phil didn't have all of his transport modes correct.

-Gene

SteveH
12-25-2009, 10:53 AM
I significantly disagree here. Why does the 4A not exist at airports outside the secure zone?

-Gene

The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?

NiteQwill
12-25-2009, 10:59 AM
The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?
Because you can.

This type of thinking leads to "reasonable" gun laws. There is nothing reasonable about them.

I'm curious to wonder the outcome if the OP had BB-enabled "evil features" on his rifle vs. featureless. My assumption is a pessimistic one.

VegasND
12-25-2009, 11:02 AM
The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?
I guess what amazes me about this point of view is that the 'mere citizen' must always have all the 'common sense' while the authorities are always exempt...

Peter W Bush
12-25-2009, 11:03 AM
The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?

If you drink 5 1/2 beers and get pulled over for speeding, swerving, etc., you'll be arrested for DUI. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable about legally transporting a firearm around LAX. The last thing we need are more "gun free zones."

G17GUY
12-25-2009, 11:05 AM
The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?
:rolleyes:

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:08 AM
There is nothing wrong or unreasonable about legally transporting a firearm around LAX. The last thing we need are more "gun free zones."

But does that make it smart? You guys seem unable to seperate legal vs good idea. Hell UOC makes more sense than taking your OLL to the airport just for laughs.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 11:12 AM
But does that make it smart? You guys seem unable to seperate legal vs good idea.

So where is the bright line between the road outside the airport and your driveway? Can LAPD stop everyone on 405 because they're close to the airport? How do you fly with your guns out of LAX - a perfectly legal and suspicion free concept protected by Federal law?

I think its common sense that you can bring an unloaded gun anywhere that's not a secure area. I know I've often had unloaded firearms on SFO property.

-Gene

NiteQwill
12-25-2009, 11:12 AM
But does that make it smart? You guys seem unable to seperate legal vs good idea. Hell UOC makes more sense than taking your OLL to the airport just for laughs.

Being able to exercise rights is always smart.

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:13 AM
I guess what amazes me about this point of view is that the 'mere citizen' must always have all the 'common sense' while the authorities are always exempt...

If it works. By using good opsec I've managed to avoid being wrongly arrested or having my car searched for the last 40 years inspite of weekly range trips and owning assault weapons in the double digits.

I understand the political activism aspect. But if that was the OP's goal one gun achieves the goal with lessor risk to his collection.

Nessal
12-25-2009, 11:14 AM
The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?




Because you shouldn't have to explain why you are exercising your RIGHTS.

anthonyca
12-25-2009, 11:15 AM
In a perfect world this sort of thing would never happen. But knowing we live in an imperfect world, why would you take guns to LAX if you were not taking them on a flight?

Just because something is lawful it does not mean actually doing it is smart. Learn from Phil's example.

That is how we loose rights. It's only the 1000 foot school zone and not many people fight it, why not increase it to 1500 feet, or five miles? We don't NEED OLLs and they have caused some people some greif. Is it not smart to own OLLs?

We may dissagree about taking legally stored and configured guns into a
non sensitive zone, but do you think we should also give up our fourth ammendment rights along with our second? While we are letting them take our rights we might as well let them regulate the Internet and close down this site. We know in this imperfect world many people with more pull than you do not like this site.

The constitution is the closest to perfect document ever written to govern a society. Many people who work very hard to take your rights do not think it was very smart for the founders to put these great protections in the
supreme law of the land.

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:15 AM
So where is the bright line between the road outside the airport and your driveway?

For me it would be a decision made before i ever left the house. I'm going to the range, bring the guns. I'm dropping the wife off at the airport, leave the guns home.

Two Shots
12-25-2009, 11:16 AM
What was the LEO's probable cause? Did they pick you just for random search? Parked in a loading zone? In other words why did they single you out?

bodger
12-25-2009, 11:16 AM
If we don't exercise these rights, it's exactly what the antis want.

It's not illegal, but nobody doing it anyway for fear of persecution and hassle.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 11:18 AM
For me it would be a decision made before i ever left the house. I'm going to the range, bring the guns. I'm dropping the wife off at the airport, leave the guns home.

So how do you take a gun with you on a flight and make your flight with LAPD violating the Constitution?

This is a pragmatic issue. I'm just hoping that LAPD was being as dumb as they look here.

Also, you didn't answer my question. It looks like your answer is that you defer to LAPD's interpretation of wherever they'd like the 4A to apply.

-Gene

wildhawker
12-25-2009, 11:20 AM
Clearly, from a risk management perspective, one would not own guns in California *at all*- and especially not those black rifles and unsafe handguns.

The point, Steve, is that he should be free to make those decisions of a law-abiding nature and direct the course of his life free from unconstitutional infringements and regulatory burdens.

It seems that you have a tendency to project your values system on others then make very personal judgments where outcomes don't measure up to your expectations; fascinatingly, such is quite often true of our anti-gun and statist friends. You're not one of those, right?

The 4th clearly exists. I am just of the opinion from a risk management perspective that common sense goes a long way towards avoiding this type of thing. Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport? Whats the point of doing so?

I can legally drink 5 and a half beers and drive. But its a hell of a lot smarter to stop at one or not drink and drive at all.

I can legally leave my front door and gunsafe unlocked. But why would I?

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:21 AM
So how do you take a gun with you on a flight and make your flight with LAPD violating the Constitution?

This is a pragmatic issue. I'm just hoping that LAPD was being as dumb as they look here.

Also, you didn't answer my question. It looks like your answer is that you defer to LAPD's interpretation of wherever they'd like the 4A to apply.

-Gene

I don't. I drive and avoid Chicago and Denver in the process.

socalgunrunner
12-25-2009, 11:22 AM
What was the LEO's probable cause? Did they pick you just for random search? Parked in a loading zone? In other words why did they single you out?

I wondering the same thing. I didn't see any mention of it in the OP's post (unless I missed it).

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:23 AM
Also, you didn't answer my question. It looks like your answer is that you defer to LAPD's interpretation of wherever they'd like the 4A to apply.

-Gene

The airport cops were clearly in the wrong here. I'm not deferring anything to them. My only point is that most of these cases could be avoided with a little opsec.

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:26 AM
The point, Steve, is that he should be free to make those decisions of a law-abiding nature and direct the course of his life free from unconstitutional infringements and regulatory burdens.?

I'm in full agreement with you on that point. I'm just more cautious than you I guess.

krushed
12-25-2009, 11:26 AM
moved to original page

SteveH
12-25-2009, 11:29 AM
.

They asked us what we were doing there (answered: dropping gf off at the airport, taking guns up north to go shooting).

Okay, i retract my earlier comments. The original post showed no indication that you had the guns will you for any reason beyond just because its legal to do so.

Though i personally would have dropped the girlfriend off then went back home for the gear.

NiteQwill
12-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Krushed, did you email Gene this info?

This crap gets me infuriated!

Roadrunner
12-25-2009, 11:35 AM
Airport cops = mall ninjas :43:

krushed
12-25-2009, 11:37 AM
I just added a more extensive writeup on the first post. I'll also email it to Gene.

Two Shots
12-25-2009, 11:38 AM
Thanks for giving us all this info on how the LEO's were able to do the search.
They were trying to make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen, disgusting stuff.

CSACANNONEER
12-25-2009, 11:41 AM
Of course, we all know that the entire airport is not a gun free zone nor is it a crime to have firearms in the passenger drop off or passanger pick up areas. If it was, we ould not be able to fly with firearms and there would be no reason for all the TSA regulations surrounding transporting firearms on an airplane.

Krushed,

If you haven't yet, PLEASE contact Gene and let's hope that the CGF can help put a stop to these illegal searches and detainments!

CSACANNONEER
12-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Airport cops = mall ninjas :43:

Wrong. They are actually some of the highest paid LEOs around. Unfortunately, they might also be some of the best trained LEOs too. Most, if not all, depts. need far more training than they give their officers.

okimreloaded
12-25-2009, 11:49 AM
I would have said I do not give my consent for any search of my vehicle officer.

wildhawker
12-25-2009, 11:53 AM
Never never never consent to a search.

http://www.podiummotorsport.com.au/images/bandw_never_give_up.jpg

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 11:53 AM
I just added a more extensive writeup on the first post. I'll also email it to Gene.

I can read that here. Email me your contact info and we should chat in the next couple of days.

-Gene

wash
12-25-2009, 12:04 PM
Everyone says to say "there is nothing illegal in the car" when asked about guns. This is a very good reason to follow that advice.

I wish we didn't have to protect ourselves like that to ensure that our rights are not violated but if you don't want the hassle it's a good idea.

Fate
12-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Glad to hear CGF is going to do a follow up. This is a good case to stop the unreasonable trampling of the 4th Amendment at LAX.


Read my sig!

Tarn_Helm
12-25-2009, 12:11 PM
I guess what amazes me about this point of view is that the 'mere citizen' must always have all the 'common sense' while the authorities are always exempt...
+1
Also, public servants who are actually humble servants of the public should be zealous to err on the side of constitutional caution rather than on that of arbitrarily arrogant authoritarianism.

For the record, the officer who made the polite small talk seemed to be there, doing what he was doing as a routine part of his job, merely with the intent of actually looking out for the OP and preventing his fellow officers from succumbing to their own self-induced FUD and to the justified vigilance (bordering on paranoia) which good LEOs operate with.

The 4th Amendment does seem to be at issue here.

And that is the bad part.

But that is also why we are all here.

Let's all continue to fight the good fight in the new year.
:lurk5::patriot::rant:

pullnshoot25
12-25-2009, 12:30 PM
All this 4A bickering and people cow-towing to police and asking "But WHY would you do X activity in Y place?" is making me want pluck my eyeballs out like olives. Seriously people, grow a pair.

*Calling Elsensei, lets make some videos so these Calgunners know what to do when stopped by police* (once I am done decongesting my lungs.)

Josh3239
12-25-2009, 12:38 PM
I don't understand the problem here.

The OP volunteered information and implied that he waived his 4A and even opened the trunk for LE. He admitted to carrying guns at LAX to LE, LE has much a right to make sure those guns are not used to hurt anyone in LAX or themselves as the OP is to drive around with them in his trunk.


I am very interested in this situation as this search isn't reasonable under the 4th Amendment.

Gene, perhaps you caught something I didn't but it sounds completely reasonable. While the OP didn't actually say it, he did say that when LE told him they were doing random searches at LAX he volunteered information about firearms to the officer and further he stated the officer searched the trunk before he got out of the car. To me, him giving the officer the keys to open the trunk sounds like he waived his 4th to search.

A search of the immediate area within a suspect's control and of the suspect himself, from my understanding, is justified if LE feels that the safety of citizens or the safety of LE could potentially be in danger. Admitting to having guns at LAX sounds reasonable to me that LE would be worried for the safety of the citizens and themselves.

Further, I think it would be difficult to make a case that a reasonable person wouldn't be suspicious if someone was driving around LAX with two guns in their car and no plane ticket. I am not saying the OP did anything wrong or even shouldn't be doing what he is doing, I am just saying that if someone says they wouldn't be a little suspicious they are lying.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 12:42 PM
I don't understand the problem here.

The OP volunteered information and implied that he waived his 4A and even opened the trunk for LE. He admitted to carrying guns at LAX to LE, LE has much a right to make sure those guns are not used to hurt anyone in LAX or themselves as the OP is to drive around with them in his trunk.

Gene, perhaps you caught something I didn't but it sounds completely reasonable.

The details that made this "consensual" were added after my comment. However, the length is still an issue.

-Gene

krushed
12-25-2009, 12:48 PM
[QUOTE=wildhawker;3545629]Never never never consent to a search.

The thought crossed my mind but I wasn't mentally prepared, trained, or confident in taking this route. I didn't know if maybe I was unaware of "special" homeland security provisions that made it possible for them to search whomever they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.

I still don't have enough experience/knowledge to know if choosing to refuse consent to search is a better option or not based on the situation. I was thinking along the lines that they would probably still pull me over and then hold me while they took the time to get a search warrant and then searched me anyways. I felt that it would have resulted in them detaining me for even longer and would have increased the likelihood that my gf would miss her flight. Also, I was thinking that if did not cooperate, it would not have curried any favor with the officers and they would have been even more inclined to give me a hard time. Thoughts of getting my car impounded and both of us taken to the county jail to sort things out crossed my mind.

The whole situation was a bit worrisome to me because it seemed that some of the officers seemed to really be reaching, trying to find something criminal about me. I suppose it is probably their job and their nature. It still really bothered me as I consider myself pretty much a boring, straight-edge, law-abiding, federal employee (engineer) and it could have ended very badly if the officers felt so inclined.

SJgunguy24
12-25-2009, 12:50 PM
This is complete bullsh*t! I get sick and tired everytime I hear stories like this.
There are some cops who can read right through a person and tell whats going on. Then some are just looking for any reason to ruin a persons life.
It pays to study the law and know exactly what the laws are. Don't ever back down, thats weakness, if they feel they can push you around then they will.
I respect LEO's but not when they try to bully people into submission, that I will not stand for and I will challange their knowledge and intentions in a situation like that.
It's wrong, uncostitutional, and should be severely punished. BUT You need to know your rights and never give in.
"Do you mind if we search your vehicle,sir?"
"Yes I mind and no you may not, i'm dropping off not parking. Thank you have a good day."

RP1911
12-25-2009, 1:23 PM
Let's just hope that a certain unit doesn't pay a visit at 5 am in the morning.

anthonyca
12-25-2009, 1:32 PM
Has anyone ever said no to one of these searches outside the sensitive zones?

ivanimal
12-25-2009, 1:34 PM
I don't understand the problem here.




Gene, perhaps you caught something I didn't but it sounds completely reasonable. While the OP didn't actually say it, he did say that when LE told him they were doing random searches at LAX

You answered your own question.

okimreloaded
12-25-2009, 3:28 PM
Everyone says to say "there is nothing illegal in the car" when asked about guns. This is a very good reason to follow that advice.

I wish we didn't have to protect ourselves like that to ensure that our rights are not violated but if you don't want the hassle it's a good idea.

i wouldn't even give them that. By saying there is nothing ILLEGAL in your vehicle you are saying there is SOMETHING in your vehicle and we're not attorneys or judges so what a cop might think is "who are you to tell me what is legal or not legal?"

PonchoTA
12-25-2009, 3:51 PM
Very interesting conversation going on here! :thumbsup:

A question still remains for me though: by entering into LAX driving space, do we automatically "consent" to a search by DHS regulation? Or is there an open-ended "warrant" in place when coming onto the property? In other words, on the back of our driver's licenses it says something to the effect that having this license is a privilege and if we do not consent to sobriety checks on demand, then the license can be revoked (or at least taken) by the LEO present.
Do we have to consent or we are not allowed on the property?

Also, what are the ramifications of answering the officer with "No sir, I do not consent to warrant-less searches and I am not carrying anything illegal in my vehicle. Am I free to go?"

If they ask you to pull over, do you comply then ask if you are being detained, or ask before pulling over?

Do random searches automatically give them an open warrant? Or must they provide a specific warrant for my vehicle?

I know, a lot of newbie questions, but I've got to learn!

:cheers2:

.

anthonyca
12-25-2009, 3:54 PM
All this 4A bickering and people cow-towing to police and asking "But WHY would you do X activity in Y place?" is making me want pluck my eyeballs out like olives. Seriously people, grow a pair.

*Calling Elsensei, lets make some videos so these Calgunners know what to do when stopped by police* (once I am done decongesting my lungs.)

Will your airport stop videos have the foot step sounds when you run to turn off the camera?

Just razzin you Nate. I really enjoyed your open carry LEO encounter vids. I even sent them to my brother in Colorado. As a former cali resident he
was shocked at the set of $@&&$ you have.

Dont Tread on Me
12-25-2009, 4:22 PM
What would be the consequence to refusing to a vehicle search in this context. Would the officers be able to instruct you to leave the airport so you could not drop off your passenger?

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 4:37 PM
What would be the consequence to refusing to a vehicle search in this context. Would the officers be able to instruct you to leave the airport so you could not drop off your passenger?

If you refuse the search and he refuses you passage he's seized you under the 4A.

There is no general exception for random searches. There is some risk that a court may not agree and use some of the "border exception" cases against a plaintiff here, but that would be novel and not SCOTUS approved.

The only exception to the warrant/PC regime so far is a DUI checkpoint. Drug checkpoints were recently ruled unconstitutional however.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
12-25-2009, 6:07 PM
Will your airport stop videos have the foot step sounds when you run to turn off the camera?

Just razzin you Nate. I really enjoyed your open carry LEO encounter vids. I even sent them to my brother in Colorado. As a former cali resident he
was shocked at the set of $@&&$ you have.

I know, I know, these will be better!

Glad they have helped people! :)

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 6:45 PM
For me it would be a decision made before i ever left the house. I'm going to the range, bring the guns. I'm dropping the wife off at the airport, leave the guns home.

Unless he was not being truthful about his plans, it seems he was going from home...to the airport...then up north to go shooting.

Why should he have to go to the airport...retrun home to pick up his guns and then drive to his shooting destination? I know that in the same situation, I would have to drive north 45 minutes to the airport...45 minutes south (passing the range) back to the house to get my gun...and 30 minutes north again (back to the range I passed).

Regardless of his reason or route, If his gun/guns are stored and transported per the law, it seems, IMHO, that his rights were violated. 4A at least.

SteveH
12-25-2009, 6:49 PM
Unless he was not being truthful about his plans, it seems he was going from home...to the airport...then up north to go shooting.

Why should he have to go to the airport...retrun home to pick up his guns and then drive to his shooting destination?

In the original post there was no indication he was going to the range. He added that info after the thread was already a couple pages long.

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 7:03 PM
The details that made this "consensual" were added after my comment. However, the length is still an issue.

-Gene

Seems like being waived over by uniformed officers and told that you were selected for a random vehicle search would be an intimidating situation that many people would surrender to out of some level of fear.

Was this in a Secure Area? Are the officers required to let the citizen know that they are not required to consent to said search? Is it the citizens job to know he should ask?

I don't know the law behind these searches but it seems to me that unless there is some shady language in some law that makes this OK...That his consent was not necessarily voluntary.

Legal input?

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 7:10 PM
In the original post there was no indication he was going to the range. He added that info after the thread was already a couple pages long.

I realize that...but how does that change the fact that his storage and transportation of the guns was within the law? What difference does it make where he was going or coming from? It sounds like a 1.5 hour fishing trip that did nothing but waste a law-abiding citizen's time and likely infringe on at least one of his Constitutional rights.

Should we be randomly pulled out of line at the bank...searched and questioned because we may possibly be there to rob the place?

Even when we obey the law, they try and MAKE criminals out of us.

ilbob
12-25-2009, 7:13 PM
They said it was an internal only record
probably true

and that no adverse information would come of it.
likely a blatant lie.

I wonder if it is recoverable through a PRA request.

They did not murder you or beat you within an inch of your life and thats pretty much what it takes these days to have a successful court case against LE, no matter how egregious the conduct.

Untamed1972
12-25-2009, 7:28 PM
The details that made this "consensual" were added after my comment. However, the length is still an issue.

-Gene


not ot mention what is the PC for these random stops/searches in the first place?

CSACANNONEER
12-25-2009, 7:30 PM
Has anyone ever said no to one of these searches outside the sensitive zones?

It seems that if anyone has refused, they no longer have the priviledge of using the internet to comment. I wonder if their families know what happened to them?

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 7:30 PM
not ot mention what is the PC for these random stops/searches in the first place?

If the threat of terror is this clear and present outside the secure area of LAX then everyone in LA who leaves near or goes to the airport has "good cause" to receive a carry license...

-Gene

Untamed1972
12-25-2009, 7:31 PM
I don't understand the problem here.

The OP volunteered information and implied that he waived his 4A and even opened the trunk for LE. He admitted to carrying guns at LAX to LE, LE has much a right to make sure those guns are not used to hurt anyone in LAX or themselves as the OP is to drive around with them in his trunk.



Gene, perhaps you caught something I didn't but it sounds completely reasonable. While the OP didn't actually say it, he did say that when LE told him they were doing random searches at LAX he volunteered information about firearms to the officer and further he stated the officer searched the trunk before he got out of the car. To me, him giving the officer the keys to open the trunk sounds like he waived his 4th to search.

A search of the immediate area within a suspect's control and of the suspect himself, from my understanding, is justified if LE feels that the safety of citizens or the safety of LE could potentially be in danger. Admitting to having guns at LAX sounds reasonable to me that LE would be worried for the safety of the citizens and themselves.

Further, I think it would be difficult to make a case that a reasonable person wouldn't be suspicious if someone was driving around LAX with two guns in their car and no plane ticket. I am not saying the OP did anything wrong or even shouldn't be doing what he is doing, I am just saying that if someone says they wouldn't be a little suspicious they are lying.


you refer to the OP as "the suspect". Prior to informing the LEOs there were guns in the car what was h "suspected" of doing which would have established PC for the stop in the first place? To me...that's where the problem is. There is nothing constitutional about "random stops and searches" in public, "non-secure" places. That is well settled law?

fd15k
12-25-2009, 8:07 PM
How about organizing a rally at LAX - put legal unloaded guns in trunk/locked container, drive around LAX. Provoke LAX PD to violate one's rights, and then sue the hell out of them :D

lrdchivalry
12-25-2009, 8:33 PM
There is some risk that a court may not agree and use some of the "border exception" cases against a plaintiff here, but that would be novel and not SCOTUS approved.

I would think that such a case wouldn't even make it to trial since outside of the federal inspection areas there is no functional equivalent of a border.

pMcW
12-25-2009, 8:45 PM
For me it would be a decision made before i ever left the house. I'm going to the range, bring the guns. I'm dropping the wife off at the airport, leave the guns home.

What if you want to do both in the same trip?

Maybe you live very far south of the airport, and the shooting spot is very far north of the airport. (Which seems to be what the OP was up to, rather than trying to make any sort of political point...)

Matt C
12-25-2009, 9:37 PM
The details that made this "consensual" were added after my comment. However, the length is still an issue.

-Gene

I can't see how it would be much of an issue unless he was trying to suppress something they discovered after the reasonable check to see if the guns were loaded. How about challenging that law (12031e) on 4A grounds, I think Jason had said at one point he might be willing if there was funding.

krushed
12-25-2009, 9:57 PM
probably true


likely a blatant lie.

I wonder if it is recoverable through a PRA request.

They did not murder you or beat you within an inch of your life and thats pretty much what it takes these days to have a successful court case against LE, no matter how egregious the conduct.

I wonder if I'll end up on a "list" somewhere. Like a no-fly list. Or a "search and frisk even if it's a routine traffic stop" list. Or a "don't give a security clearance to this guy" list.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 9:59 PM
I can't see how it would be much of an issue unless he was trying to suppress something they discovered after the reasonable check to see if the guns were loaded. How about challenging that law (12031e) on 4A grounds, I think Jason had said at one point he might be willing if there was funding.

Had this not been a consensual search it would have been defacto unreasonable and not subject to qualified immunity. 12031(e) is a whole other issue and not really relevant or the target here.

-Gene

Matt C
12-25-2009, 10:09 PM
Had this not been a consensual search it would have been defacto unreasonable and not subject to qualified immunity. 12031(e) is a whole other issue and not really relevant or the target here.

-Gene

When he informed them that he had firearms in the vehicle at least some search would have been reasonable, under 12031(e). As far as firearms at an airport, well, I've heard MUCH worse explanations for reasonable suspicion. That said, 1.5+ hours for legal guns legally carried is total crazy BS.

I fly with a firearm (declared and checked) most of the time when I fly, often out of LAX and I don't think it's THAT unusual. If they spent 1.5 hours detaining every such person there would be a miles long line to get into LAX. If there was nothing else going on at all here, then this just seems bizarre.

Amacias805
12-25-2009, 10:45 PM
I see a few things wrong!!!!



I was frustrated with myself because since I couldn't cite exact paragraphs from the PC to confidently defend myself

Never try to defend yourself!!! shut up, and let the lawyers sort everything out! the less you say, the better!





This was at the security checkpoint. The officer told me they were doing random searches and asked me if they could search my car.

This is when I voluntarily declared that I had firearms in the vehicle.



also a mistake your answer should have been No you may not! if he is going to search your car, he wasn't going to ask you, he is going to demand to search your car. if he ask you than he is requesting permission from you!

IF HE insists further to search, make sure he says he is demanding a search.

also even if they ask you outright if you had any weapons in the car, DO NOT ANSWER!

-------
Im am not a lawyer and therefore i do not give legal advise!

hawk81
12-25-2009, 10:45 PM
Never tell the cops you have guns. Make them work for this information.

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 11:02 PM
When he informed them that he had firearms in the vehicle at least some search would have been reasonable, under 12031(e).

Perhaps...but did he inform them about his cargo while driving down the street or was he stopped for a random search and intimidated or deceived into his consent? If the consent was questionable, wouldn't the search and the 12031(e) check also be?

Matt C
12-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Perhaps...but did he inform them about his cargo while driving down the street or was he stopped for a random search and intimidated or deceived into his consent? If the consent was questionable, wouldn't the search and the 12031(e) check also be?

It sounds like he just gave consent, I think it would be an uphill battle to argue consent should be thrown out because he was deceived or intimidated anyways, but I haven't really looked at any case law on that. Generally I think consent is consent.

The 12031(e) check is totally separate, once he told them he had firearms they had authority to check to see if those firearms were loaded, consent or no. Personally, I don't see how that law is constitutional, but I don't think it's ever been challenged.

markw
12-25-2009, 11:21 PM
Though i personally would have dropped the girlfriend off then went back home for the gear.

Gah! Why should you have to tip toe around with your legally owned weapons? So what if there's a gun in the trunk? Why inconvenience yourself by making multiple trips?

The OP's problem was he consented to the search. If they have to ask to search, then they don't have legal ground to search. You defend the 2nd amendment, defend the 4th and the 5th too.

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 11:23 PM
It sounds like he just gave consent, I think it would be an uphill battle to argue consent should be thrown out because he was deceived or intimidated anyways, but I haven't really looked at any case law on that. Generally I think consent is consent.

The 12031(e) check is totally separate, once he told them he had firearms they had authority to check to see if those firearms were loaded, consent or no. Personally, I don't see how that law is constitutional, but I don't think it's ever been challenged.

I don't know any case law regarding that either. I am just thinking that being pulled over at a "security checkpoint" by uniformed officers and told that you have been selected for a random vehicle search, would likely be a situation where most people would comply out of various types of fear. Do most people realize that they do not have to submit to this search? Or are they required to? If you refuse the search...is that some type of PC for additional investigation? I guess my point is that many or even most citizens would likely submit to this search and even answer questions. Why is this? They are afraid of the situation. Shouldn't consent be questioned in a case like this and if the original consent is bogus then wouldn't it be a 4A issue?

krushed
12-25-2009, 11:25 PM
Well, I gave consent by answering them "yes" when they asked to search my car. I didn't think that I really had a choice and thought that I'd be searched one way or another. I figured the only difference would be that if the cops had to get a warrant, they'd just get pissed off and try harder to screw me over. I assumed that they would have gotten a warrant. I didn't really think about what PC they would have used to get it. I don't know... it's Christmas and I told them that they couldn't look in my trunk?

Also, if it wasn't clear, after I consented, I told them the location of all of the guns and that they were unloaded in locked containers (lock box and trunk).

I think part of what took so long was that their Lt and the asst. chief of police came towards the end. Some of the officers talked to them for a while and they poked around the trunk (presumably looking at the guns). One of the officers said that they were there to review all the procedures.

Another thing that seemed to take a long time was them figuring out that they couldn't pull up anything in the registry for the OLL.

Also, they were very thorough in searching the interior of my car.

One handgun was in the same bag as the rifle. They had trouble finding it because it was in a separate part of the bag behind some velcro. Even though I declared all the guns (3) and their locations at the beginning of the search, at least one cop seemed surprised when I mentioned that there were 3 guns later in the ordeal. That probably added some time also.

Matt C
12-25-2009, 11:31 PM
I don't know any case law regarding that either. I am just thinking that being pulled over at a "security checkpoint" by uniformed officers and told that you have been selected for a random vehicle search, would likely be a situation where most people would comply out of various types of fear. Do most people realize that they do not have to submit to this search? Or are they required to? If you refuse the search...is that some type of PC for additional investigation? I guess my point is that many or even most citizens would likely submit to this search and even answer questions. Why is this? They are afraid of the situation. Shouldn't consent be questioned in a case like this and if the original consent is bogus then wouldn't it be a 4A issue?

I really don't think you would ever get evidence suppressed because you "thought you had to" give consent. Just no way. Then again it doesn't really matter here, there is nothing to suppress and the whole thing was consensual. He actually handed them the keys. What you don't know can hurt you, and so can cooperating like that. The police are not there to find you innocent, there are there to discover crimes you may have committed, possibly that you are not even aware of. Ignorance of the law is very rarely an excuse.

Maybe just read this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=80571

and this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186405

If you don't consent they might look anyway, but you have a much better chance of getting anything they find suppressed, and if you did want to sue you might actually win. If you give consent you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing either successfully.

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 11:44 PM
Well, I gave consent by answering them "yes" when they asked to search my car. I didn't think that I really had a choice and thought that I'd be searched one way or another. I figured the only difference would be that if the cops had to get a warrant, they'd just get pissed off and try harder to screw me over. I assumed that they would have gotten a warrant. I didn't really think about what PC they would have used to get it. I don't know... it's Christmas and I told them that they couldn't look in my trunk?

Also, if it wasn't clear, after I consented, I told them the location of all of the guns and that they were unloaded in locked containers (lock box and trunk).

I think part of what took so long was that their Lt and the asst. chief of police came towards the end. Some of the officers talked to them for a while and they poked around the trunk (presumably looking at the guns). One of the officers said that they were there to review all the procedures.

Another thing that seemed to take a long time was them figuring out that they couldn't pull up anything in the registry for the OLL.

Also, they were very thorough in searching the interior of my car.

One handgun was in the same bag as the rifle. They had trouble finding it because it was in a separate part of the bag behind some velcro. Even though I declared all the guns (3) and their locations at the beginning of the search, at least one cop seemed surprised when I mentioned that there were 3 guns later in the ordeal. That probably added some time also.

krushed -

I am just trying to learn from your experience. I am not a Lawyer nor can I offer anything other than my apology that you had to go through the hassle. I tend to think in black and white unless gray is necessary and based upon your explanation, it seems that you were caught in a common and unfair trap. "I didn't think that I really had a choice and thought that I'd be searched one way or another." If you felt like you had the option of going on your way, would you have said "Yes" when they asked to search your car? I suppose that is the main frustration for me. From that point on, you were subject to their will and whim.

krushed
12-25-2009, 11:52 PM
krushed -

I am just trying to learn from your experience. I am not a Lawyer nor can I offer anything other than my apology that you had to go through the hassle. I tend to think in black and white unless gray is necessary and based upon your explanation, it seems that you were caught in a common and unfair trap. "I didn't think that I really had a choice and thought that I'd be searched one way or another." If you felt like you had the option of going on your way, would you have said "Yes" when they asked to search your car? I suppose that is the main frustration for me. From that point on, you were subject to their will and whim.

I'm really glad for this discussion, the good feedback, the support, and the good questions asked. I'm trying to learn from my experience too. I definitely made a lot of mistakes. I don't plan to make them again. I went back and searched the forums for more information and experiences. I am better able to comprehend them now that I've actually gone through it myself. I think it's pretty clear to me now that I should not have consented to a search. My inexperience and lack of confidence led me to believe that I didn't have much of a choice in the matter, otherwise I would have said "no". At least I got the lesson in experience seemingly without costing me more than an hour and a half.

USAFTS
12-25-2009, 11:55 PM
I really don't think you would ever get evidence suppressed because you "thought you had to" give consent. Just no way. Then again it doesn't really matter here, there is nothing to suppress and the whole thing was consensual. He actually handed them the keys. What you don't know can hurt you, and so can cooperating like that. The police are not there to find you innocent, there are there to discover crimes you may have committed, possibly that you are not even aware of. Ignorance of the law is very rarely an excuse.

Maybe just read this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=80571

and this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186405

If you don't consent they might look anyway, but you have a much better chance of getting anything they find suppressed, and if you did want to sue you might actually win. If you give consent you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing either successfully.

Sadly, you are probably right. Thanks for the links. It is all good information.

Matt C
12-25-2009, 11:56 PM
I'm really glad for this discussion, the good feedback, the support, and the good questions asked. I'm trying to learn from my experience too. I definitely made a lot of mistakes. I don't plan to make them again. I went back and searched the forums for more information and experiences. I am better able to comprehend them now that I've actually gone through it myself. I think it's pretty clear to me now that I should not have consented to a search. My inexperience and lack of confidence led me to believe that I didn't have much of a choice in the matter, otherwise I would have said "no". At least I got the lesson in experience seemingly without costing me more than an hour and a half.

Yup, we all get wiser from our experiences. Also, make sure nothing questionable is at your home, the LA gun unit might just come a knockin.

krushed
12-26-2009, 12:03 AM
Yup, we all get wiser from our experiences. Also, make sure nothing questionable is at your home, the LA gun unit might just come a knockin.

Do they now have probable cause to search my home? How would you rate the probability of this?

Matt C
12-26-2009, 12:08 AM
Do they now have probable cause to search my home? How would you rate the probability of this?

It has happened before, from LAX stops. Just don't have anything questionable. Judges will sign warrants for just about anything these days it seems.

socal2310
12-26-2009, 12:42 AM
krushed,

I wouldn't rate you as terribly likely to be subject to a search warrant thanks to your lack of "color", but if the police in question decide you are interesting enough, they'll think of something they can pass off to a magistrate as probable cause.

Kind of a sad state of affairs, that just having to contemplate such issues doesn't make us paranoid but eminently reasonable gun owners isn't it?

I'll lay $1 down on 20:1 against you being served, but I'd still use it as an excuse to clean out the medicine cabinet and dispose of any expired prescriptions, particularly those containing narcotics.

Ryan

CaliforniaLiberal
12-26-2009, 1:16 AM
It seems to me that what drives the cops to these gray areas is the "you've got to protect us from terrorists no matter what!" mentality of the public. If (God Forbid) someone did shoot up the LAX terminal there would be a million voices screaming blame at all the LE agencies. LE is unreasonably held 100% responsible for the protection of the public and so they feel pressured to see how far they can get away with violating constitutional rights.

And then responsible, law abiding gun owners are forced to push back to defend their rights.

This sort of thing, these actions by Law Enforcement will continue and get worse as long as the masses of people in this country feel that they are entitled to absolute protection by LE from "terrorism" or any random violence.

When citizens expect to provide their own protection from the evil violence in the world and are permitted the means to do so and the assistance of Law Enforcement then we will be moving toward Freedom.

Synergy
12-26-2009, 1:58 AM
My insight and maybe of some assistance to CGN/members here. I live next to LAX, fly out of there quite often and work around the airport.

OP- Let me guess, you came into LAX on Century Blvd? There are 3 entry points into LAX: West on Century Blvd, North on Sepulveda, from El Segundo (through the tunnel), South on Sepulveda from Westchester.

From my experience at LAX post 9/11 and the "security checkpoint" it's only on Westbound Century Blvd. A security checkpoint on Sepulveda would cause a logistic and traffic nightmare. I question the validity of a security checkpoint when two other routes are completely unsecure 100% of the time. Also this checkpoint is run by LA Airport Police, they may have a couple LAPD motor cops or traffic cops. The checkpoint is a LA Airport Police operation.

krushed
12-26-2009, 2:03 AM
My insight and maybe of some assistance to CGN/members here. I live next to LAX, fly out of there quite often and work around the airport.

OP- Let me guess, you came into LAX on Century Blvd? There are 3 entry points into LAX: West on Century Blvd, North on Sepulveda, from El Segundo (through the tunnel), South on Sepulveda from Westchester.

From my experience at LAX post 9/11 and the "security checkpoint" it's only on Westbound Century Blvd. A security checkpoint on Sepulveda would cause a logistic and traffic nightmare. I question the validity of a security checkpoint when two other routes are completely unsecure 100% of the time. Also this checkpoint is run by LA Airport Police, they may have a couple LAPD motor cops or traffic cops. The checkpoint is a LA Airport Police operation.

Yeah, I entered LAX from Century Blvd. Good information to know I guess.

CABilly
12-26-2009, 2:57 AM
So did they pull you over or were they lurking at a stop sign? Or is there a security gate at which you must stop? What was his probable cause to make contact at all? If they were doing random searches, a la checkpoint, was there enough notice for you to legally turn around and avoid it?

six10
12-26-2009, 2:58 AM
When citizens expect to provide their own protection from the evil violence in the world and are permitted the means to do so and the assistance of Law Enforcement then we will be moving toward Freedom.

That.

wolff
12-26-2009, 6:34 AM
Krushed:

Don't think this has been commented on yet...

Did LE actually give you the warning speech!?:
"About half an hour in, one officer said that they can use their discretion and let me off with just a warning."
A warning for what exactly? What the heck were you purported to have done that was illegal? This chaps my hide:mad:

To my mind, whether you're entering a "security zone" or just walkin' down the street, a "Terry Stop" is a Terry Stop - LE can detain a citizen for a brief period of time, unless something's found during the "pat down" (which included your car since you said YES (don't do that again!) that causes the situation to escalate.
However, seeing as you did NOT a present an immediate threat they ought to have ceased their contact much sooner. Unloaded and reasonably secured firearms are not a frakin' crime, people; think about all the pickup trucks at airports in Wyoming, or Montana! If you were a retired sheriff, or some Judge, do you think it'd have gone down like it did?
Checking the gun numbers was wrong, wrong, wrong - they had no evidence that you were not the rightful owner, or that those exact guns were contraband. They had no decent, no lawful reason for the extended detention, IMHO - LE put you both thru the B.S. because deep down, many cops today do not trust the public or want them armed (or informed as to laws and their rights, for that matter).
Another Example: Say you have a CCW, and are pulled over by a traffic cop one block from an airport. He asks if you're carrying a gun, which you are, and show your card. How much sense would it make if that cop then proceeded to frisk then sit your a** down on the curb while he spends an hour to "check the numbers" on the pistols listed on the card because, the cop's just trying to be safe, you know, making sure the public's protected.... This sounds dumb, but my point is this: Why is Krushed - who's conduct is legal, somehow considered to be more of threat to the public than a CCW holder or any other person in lawful possesion of a firearm?
Increasingly, we are being heavily propagandized and programmed to accept unreasonable arrest and detainment tactics - especailly when it comes to "travel".
It's no accident that We're being 'taught' that we citizens need to explain ourselves to LE, when truly, it's the other way around!
One of the replies was right on! Just keep repeating:
"Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

(I'm no lawyer, though I am looking to express the gist of it here)
Because it's pretty cut and dry - unless you pose an imminent threat, unless you consent, you have the Right of unimpeded travel. Unless there's evidence of a crime, LE detainment must be brief and to the point.

Happy New Year to Us All!

Untamed1972
12-26-2009, 7:07 AM
How did the stop actually occur? Is there a "checkpoint" where all cars pass thru, and then cars are randomly selected for searches? Or was it an actual traffic stop?


If it's a checkpoint, I can see how someone could believe they have no right to refuse the search. With all the changes in airport security since 9/11 people are made to feel like they are under such close scutiny at airports that I think someone could easily think this checkpoint is just like the security check point inside the airport.

So even though he gave consent, could the original stop be attacked since there was likely no PC for the stop to begin with? I have heard of consensual encounters with LE, but I've never heard of a "consensual traffic stop" which would allow a LEO to stop you with no PC just to "request permission" to do a "random search" of your car.

From everything I've ever heard, read, and been taught there is nothing constitutional about a "random search". Searches must be exactly the opposite, they're must be specific, articulable facts and PC to support the justification for the search. If "random searches" were legal then the 4A means nothing.

My question with that other case with recently got resolved always was the same.......what was the PC for the original stop that lead to the search of his vehicle? Sounds like LAX Police need a reminder that the constitution is not void on LAX property.

RP1911
12-26-2009, 8:09 AM
Yes there is a checkpoint with cones etc.

Do a Google search for LAX map. You'll see the ramp that leads to the upper deck (departures) and the side street that leads to Sepulveda Blvd. The checkpoint is right before the split.

snobord99
12-26-2009, 8:18 AM
For those that say "they wouldn't ask for permission if they had PC." FAIL. PC or not, they're asking for permission. Asking (and getting) consent is basically a slam dunk at a suppression hearing but PC has to be argued at that hearing and stands a MUCH higher chance of being suppressed. Even if LEO thought they had PC, they're going to ask for consent.

Legally speaking, I don't see any question that this was consensual. You could obviously argue it wasn't, but few (if any) court would say this wasn't consensual.

PC: I don't know how he was encountered by the police in the first place, but LEO can random search whatever they want if you say "yea, sure, go ahead."

If consent didn't exist, I'll be looking into how that would work out (for my own interest). I don't believe that there has been a SCOTUS case on this, but there may have been lower court decisions. Instinctively, I would say that there's a good argument that this would be OK as an administrative search. It's not because it would be classified as a border search but because of the increased security concerns at an airport. Kind of like having to go through security to get into a courthouse. Again, I'll be doing some research though...

paul0660
12-26-2009, 8:39 AM
Check out number 5: http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/airops/pdf/rules/Section_02-General.pdf

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 8:54 AM
I wonder if I'll end up on a "list" somewhere. Like a no-fly list. Or a "search and frisk even if it's a routine traffic stop" list. Or a "don't give a security clearance to this guy" list.


LOL, I'm pretty sure that by posting on this (or any other gun forum) that you run a greater chance of being on a "list". If you also shoot competitively and your name is published in any type of magazine, brochure, flyer, etc., thie risk is even greater. I've gave up caring about "lists" and came out of the closet years ago. So what if I'm on a list? As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, I have an 85% (my guess) chance of not doing time. I'm here because I feel that we all should be out in the open, band together and help stop the wrongfull percecution and prosecution of the other 15% like DonA and BWO. Sure, I and everyone else here has assumed a small risk but, freedom is not free.


Check out number 5: http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/airops/pdf/rules/Section_02-General.pdf

Yet is is perfectly legal for me to fly with firearms and ammo. I guess the fact that I have or, will be buying a ticket means that I have permission?

paul0660
12-26-2009, 8:59 AM
I guess the fact that I have or, will be buying a ticket means that I have permission?

There might be a more complete explanation of what LAX's rules are somewhere. John Waynes are more precise:

OC Muni Code 2-1-11 (a) defines "airport" as John Wayne Airport.

Quote:
Sec. 2-1-53. Rules of conduct.

(i) No person, except peace officers, an authorized post office or Airport employee or a member of the armed forces of the United States on official duty, shall carry any weapon, explosive or flammable material on or about his person, openly or concealed, on the Airport without the written permission of the Airport Director. This Section shall not apply to persons carrying firearms in cases, broken down or unloaded when said firearms are being transported by air. For the purposes of this section, a weapon includes all those listed in California Penal Code Sections 12000-12654.

Anyway, it seems there is a muni code for which the OP could have been cited, notwithstanding the hinky search.

Btw, I would never sit on the curb.........I find that the worst aspect of this incident for some reason.

krushed
12-26-2009, 9:38 AM
Yeah, sitting on the curb with my legs crossed sucked. Both my feet fell asleep and when they asked me to get up and walk to my car, I thought I was going to face plant. One of the officers told me he'd brace me if I stumbled. That was considerate of him.

At that point I was feeling pretty violated and at their mercy. I was half afraid they'd use that as PC to administrate a drug/alcohol test or a strip search :eek:. The officer that was escorting me to my car called out that my feet were asleep. I think he announced it on my behalf that so the more overzealous of the officers didn't get too excited.

I felt tired coming out of the ordeal but hopeful. What I find most emotionally draining about the situation is the specter of being on their radar and potentially harassed in the future just because of this. I hate the idea that I will spend my next few years constantly concerned about potential fallout from this. I am concerned about the possibility of them deciding that they want to bust into my house, unannounced, guns drawn, at 5AM so they can search my apt. I hate how open-ended this could be.

krushed
12-26-2009, 9:43 AM
I just want to be an average joe, work hard at my job, and spend time with my family without having to worry that the police are out to ruin my life.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 9:53 AM
It has happened before, from LAX stops. Just don't have anything questionable. Judges will sign warrants for just about anything these days it seems.

Please don't spread FUD by implication. The search warrant for a home was received after the LA Gun Unit found actual contraband at an LAX check point.

Here there is no contraband. Further the argument that firearms = PC for a search is completely bogus. Legal behavior is never PC as he could just as easily been about to fly out with firearms.

-Gene

Matt C
12-26-2009, 10:02 AM
Please don't spread FUD by implication. The search warrant for a home was received after the LA Gun Unit found actual contraband at an LAX check point.

Here there is no contraband. Further the argument that firearms = PC for a search is completely bogus. Legal behavior is never PC as he could just as easily been about to fly out with firearms.

-Gene

So... what was the valid PC for the no knock warrant in my case?

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 10:08 AM
So... what was the valid PC for the no knock warrant in my case?

You were looking at calguns while on campus. Right? That's enough for most LA judges to know that you must be a criminal.

OK, so there was no valid reason.

Matt C
12-26-2009, 10:24 AM
You were looking at calguns while on campus. Right? That's enough for most LA judges to know that you must be a criminal.

OK, so there was no valid reason.

No, I think that was a totally unrelated illegal search situation with someone else, where the cops did not even wait for a warrant.

elsensei
12-26-2009, 10:25 AM
I haven't read everything written on this thread, but what I have read makes me sick to my stomach. This reminds me of watching an episode of "cops" where time and again, the "bad guys" get busted by the police, because when asked if the police can search their car, the crooks they "yes".

What a bunch of idiots.

I could make a living doing seminars on constitutional rights for drug dealers!

The time for cooperating with the police, in the hopes that they respect your rights, are long gone.

Consenting to a search, volunteering that you have weapons in a car, or, generally speaking to the police, in any manner other than to ask if you're under arrest or free to go, is just stupid.

If people on this website (who are supposed to be among the more liberty minded individuals in America) would just stop waiving their constitutional rights, the post volume on this site would decrease by 50%...thereby making my day much easier.

If you don't invoke your constitutional rights for your own self preservation, then do it for my poor, tired eyes.

Before any of the statists-in-disguise start whining about my "bad attitude" towards the police, know that I am not anti-cop; I am just anti-tyrant. I support the police to the extent that they support my rights. That's it, and that's all.

Untamed1972
12-26-2009, 11:51 AM
For those that say "they wouldn't ask for permission if they had PC." FAIL. PC or not, they're asking for permission. Asking (and getting) consent is basically a slam dunk at a suppression hearing but PC has to be argued at that hearing and stands a MUCH higher chance of being suppressed. Even if LEO thought they had PC, they're going to ask for consent.

Legally speaking, I don't see any question that this was consensual. You could obviously argue it wasn't, but few (if any) court would say this wasn't consensual.

PC: I don't know how he was encountered by the police in the first place, but LEO can random search whatever they want if you say "yea, sure, go ahead."

If consent didn't exist, I'll be looking into how that would work out (for my own interest). I don't believe that there has been a SCOTUS case on this, but there may have been lower court decisions. Instinctively, I would say that there's a good argument that this would be OK as an administrative search. It's not because it would be classified as a border search but because of the increased security concerns at an airport. Kind of like having to go through security to get into a courthouse. Again, I'll be doing some research though...


Yes.....the search may have been consentual, but if there was no PC for the original stop then to me it kinda taints the whole thing. Absent PC for the stop then LEO should not even have a chance to ask for consent. Because if this is legal then whats to stop LEOs from just stopping anyone they want while driving for not other reason then ask if they mind submitting to a randon search. There must be PC for the stop before consent can be asked for.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 1:21 PM
So... what was the valid PC for the no knock warrant in my case?

And your case wasn't about the LAX checkpoint was it?

-Gene

Matt C
12-26-2009, 1:35 PM
And your case wasn't about the LAX checkpoint was it?

-Gene

No, it was about the police finding pictures of the same sort of firearms they actually found in the OP's vehicle, and there was no illegal conduct there either. Fact is he may or may not end up getting his home searched, probably not but it is certainly possible. So I gave him a friendly warning/heads up. It's not FUD and there is no reason for you to overreact.

snobord99
12-26-2009, 2:03 PM
Yes.....the search may have been consentual, but if there was no PC for the original stop then to me it kinda taints the whole thing. Absent PC for the stop then LEO should not even have a chance to ask for consent. Because if this is legal then whats to stop LEOs from just stopping anyone they want while driving for not other reason then ask if they mind submitting to a randon search. There must be PC for the stop before consent can be asked for.

Again, I don't know how he was encountered by the police in the first place. Maybe you do, but I don't. There's a difference between him already sitting there in his car not moving and the cops walking up to him to talk to him versus him driving and they get behind him and light him up. I don't know what happened, I didn't see it mentioned. Maybe you saw or know something I don't.

GuyW
12-26-2009, 2:11 PM
Would you recommend that we all take three guns along everytime we drop someone off at the airport?


yes



Whats the point of doing so?


...could be a lot of perfectly legal and rational reasons.

.

GuyW
12-26-2009, 2:16 PM
Wrong. They are actually some of the highest paid LEOs around. Unfortunately, they might also be some of the best trained LEOs too. Most, if not all, depts. need far more training than they give their officers.

Gee - how about EDUCATING LEOs? These F#$$%#$ can't think...

BTW 99% of what I do with my kids is education. I TRAIN my dogs...

.

GuyW
12-26-2009, 2:23 PM
that a reasonable person wouldn't be suspicious if someone was driving around LAX with two guns in their car and no plane ticket.


Hey - I get suspicious when I see a lib walking loose on the street - but I don't call the Gestapo...

.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 3:45 PM
So I gave him a friendly warning/heads up. It's not FUD and there is no reason for you to overreact.

I'm not overreacting but at the same time I'd like OP to not be worried that LAPD is coming to get him as you implied.

They had the guns in question in their hands and all was legal. That was not the case with Dominguez. They had not seen your firearms and it wasn't the photos that started their interest in you. Now, their interest was still all wrong, but it's not very analogous.

OP here has little to nothing to worry about moving forward.

-Gene

Matt C
12-26-2009, 3:54 PM
I'm not overreacting but at the same time I'd like OP to not be worried that LAPD is coming to get him as you implied.

They had the guns in question in their hands and all was legal. That was not the case with Dominguez. They had not seen your firearms and it wasn't the photos that started their interest in you. Now, their interest was still all wrong, but it's not very analogous.

OP here has little to nothing to worry about moving forward.

-Gene

You are probably right, but I'm a little paranoid and follow the better safe than sorry approach these days.

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 5:57 PM
Gee - how about EDUCATING LEOs? These F#$$%#$ can't think...

BTW 99% of what I do with my kids is education. I TRAIN my dogs...

.

So, when LEAs have trainings for their LEOs are they making a statement about their officers? I've never heard of a LEA education day or a re-education day just training days.

bodger
12-26-2009, 6:12 PM
The military doesn't call boot camp "Basic Education" either. ;)