PDA

View Full Version : CDFG's opinion on Terry searches


mastadonn
01-19-2010, 7:07 PM
Here is CDFG website's posted answer to a question about pat down searches. This was posted last Friday.

Seems to me that they would have a couple of issues to overcome.

One being that if you are holding a shotgun, why should they be worried about a concealed weapon/officer safety issue?

The other would be trying to explain that a hunting vest or coat is not a part of clothing?

Question: Over the years I’ve been asked by DFG officials to produce my hunting license, show my game, show my gun and show my shells. However, this past weekend my brother and I, as well as other hunters, were asked at the refuge parking lot to voluntarily submit to a pat down search and to have our gear thoroughly examined for extra shells beyond the 25 shell limit. I really felt like the pat down search was a bit much. We were only a few hundred feet from the parking lot, we arrived well before shoot time and we fully complied without any form of resistance. I’m assuming that since we were asked, we were not required to submit to a pat down search. The only related regulation I can find is this:

“The department may inspect the following: (a) All boats, markets, stores and other buildings, except dwellings, and all receptacles, except the clothing actually worn by a person at the time of inspection, where birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia may be stored, placed, or held for sale or storage.”

Given this, I have three questions: Could I have refused to a pat down search? What would have been the repercussions of refusing a pat down search? What are the repercussions of having more than 25 shells in the field while in places where there is a shell limit? Thanks for your response. (Jim I.)

Answer: According to Northern California District Chief Mike Carion, non-negotiable search of the clothing a person is wearing is limited to situations when an officer believes the person may have a weapon. Outside of that, a clothing search can only be conducted with permission or in conjunction with an arrest.

That being said, hunting equipment and all “containers” are subject to inspection by wardens (Fish and Game Code, sections 1006 and 2012). Failure to allow a search is grounds for arrest.

Many types of hunting gear are designed to hold shotgun shells, game, etc. These items are not technically “clothing” as defined by the law, but are more like hunting equipment, and thus would not be exempt from a search inspection. If the purpose of the search is merely to locate hunting equipment, the officer may ask the person to remove this type of hunting gear so it may be searched. For example, a hunter could be asked to remove a hunting jacket, game bag or maybe even waders if they were designed to hold equipment.

A person may deny consent to an officer who wants to search their clothing. But consenting is a smart choice. If an officer believes that a person may have a firearm or other dangerous weapon and there could be a potential officer safety issue, the individual can still be searched.

So, to answer your questions:

1) Can you refuse a pat down? Yes

2) What are the repercussions for refusal?

Although this could raise a “red flag,” which may cause the officer to think you are hiding something and may lead to a poor contact, it is legal to refuse to a consent search.

3) What are the repercussions to having more than 25 shells in the field?

You could be cited or possibly ejected from the area.

cdtx2001
01-19-2010, 8:57 PM
I'm sorry officer, I do not consent to searches.

GuyW
01-19-2010, 9:39 PM
"According to Northern California District Chief Mike Carion, non-negotiable search of the clothing a person is wearing is limited to situations when an officer believes the person may have a weapon."

Why would F&G search lawful hunters for legal concealed firearms?

Just more harrassment of law-abiding gun owners for the awful possibility that they are (once again) complying with the law...

.

bigcalidave
01-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Failure to allow a search is grounds for arrest.



WHAAAAAAAAAATTTTT ????? I wonder if this applies to anyone or just licensed hunters in the act of hunting? Either way, I'm fairly certain that it's NOT grounds for arrest... Might need to test that one.

GrizzlyGuy
01-20-2010, 7:13 AM
WHAAAAAAAAAATTTTT ????? I wonder if this applies to anyone or just licensed hunters in the act of hunting? Either way, I'm fairly certain that it's NOT grounds for arrest... Might need to test that one.

Other than the pat-down search for weapons (allowed for any LEO if RAS exists per Terry v. Ohio (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1)), the rest only applies to licensed hunters. 4A and 5A are in effect at all times, but when you get a hunting license, you have given consent to limited searches. From the hunting regulations (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations/):

A California hunting license is required for taking any bird or mammal. Hunters must carry licenses and be prepared to show them on request (Section 700, Title 14, CCR). Guns and other equipment used in hunting must be shown on request.

Unless a game warden actually sees you taking game, then I don't know how they would know you are a hunter. 5A means that you need not answer his 'are you hunting?' or 'are you a hunter?' questions.

Ford8N
01-20-2010, 7:59 AM
This is strange. I asked a Sheriff's Deputy if he could stop the little turds who tag my moms fence all the time and search their back packs that have all the paint. He said no, even though he knows they are the turds who are doing the tagging. So...it looks like another case of "ALL GUN OWNERS ARE EVIL" and want to kill cops so let's search them. Yet scum bag taggers get a pass because they have a right to be secure in their possessions and right of "free speech". Taggers get Constitutional rights, gun owners don't.

California sux!!.