PDA

View Full Version : Police Pat down Question


JayRuff
02-08-2010, 11:58 PM
I was fishing last Sunday when 2 LEO's showed up to check my fishing license, they were extremely rude, FYI I'm a law abiding citizen and no I don't look like a gang banger, I had my hands in my pockets before they showed up and I did not even see them but they were furious and one of them started screaming at me ''TAKE YOUR HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS NOW! LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS NOW!'' One of them asked for my I.D. and fishing license, they did a check and everything was good then they start asking me Sh*t load of questions if I had any guns or knifes, drugs etc. on me, I replied ''I do not have anything illegal on me sir'' and one of them asked if he could pat me down, I replied ''no problem'' after he patted me down they just left. I felt pretty harassed and I have never encountered anything like this from LEO's before. My question is, what rights do I have as far as showing I.D. or giving permission for a search? Can I refuse? Should I refuse next time? Is this normal procedure? They did not have probable cause and I think they just wanted to give me a hard time, I was the only one fishing there so they had nothing better to do. I go fishing a lot and all of the other times LEO's just look if my fishing license is valid and sometimes even hang around asking me if I caught anything and what bait I use and some of them even recommend me better spots.

sorensen440
02-09-2010, 12:00 AM
you can always decline to consent to a search

Doheny
02-09-2010, 12:03 AM
Yes you can refuse. They're not supposed to pat you down unless they feel you are armed or dangerous. However, many officers will pat you down as a matter of routine, or bump your pockets if they see a bulge, etc.

We've had a few of these threads lately if you'd like to search about it.

cbn620
02-09-2010, 12:14 AM
While this is up, a recent topic of conversation brought me to think about the pat down more. When they do pat you down, what stops them from then going to a full on search? I mean, if they feel my keys or whatever is in my pockets, then won't they just say they felt a gun and start going through my pockets?

I consented to a search once when I was younger and didn't know better, but I've only been patted down once in my life.

ETA: Oh, and don't forget, come March 2010 you will no longer have to display your fishing license. Just remindin' ya.

bigcalidave
02-09-2010, 12:19 AM
Your fishing license is in plain view, right? Show it to them and tell them to take a hike. If they are giving you attitude already then you can give it back. If they are nice, be nice back.

When they ASK you to search you, say no.

When they force you to let them search you, don't fight at all. Then file a complaint with their dept.

louscamaro91
02-09-2010, 12:19 AM
Can LEO site you for breaking DFG regulations? I know sheriffs can, But I would think most LEO would not be well educated in DFG regulations.

taloft
02-09-2010, 12:35 AM
That is what I was wondering. Were these officers local PD, Sheriffs deputies, DFG, BLM, what? Where did this happen?


Remember this phrase, "On the advice of my attorney, I do not consent to any searches of my person or property." Then shut up and don't resist if they decide to search you anyway. Be polite as possible but, don't talk to them or answer any questions. Apparently, you're not the only one who was fishing that day.

Wild Squid
02-09-2010, 12:39 AM
Geez, sounds like a couple of real *****s. I hate cops like that. I would file a complaint them anyways. If they get enough complaints against them it may be enough to get Internal Investigations to have a talk with them.

JayRuff
02-09-2010, 12:43 AM
That is what I was wondering. Were these officers local PD, Sheriffs deputies, DFG, BLM, what? Where did this happen?


Remember this phrase, "On the advice of my attorney, I do not consent to any searches of my person or property." Then shut up and don't resist if they decide to search you anyway. Be polite as possible but, don't talk to them or answer any questions. Apparently, you're not the only one who was fishing that day.

I'm not sure but I think they were local PD, I was fishing around the dam area of Lake Chabot, where the Chabot Golf Course is.

cbn620
02-09-2010, 1:24 AM
Can LEO site you for breaking DFG regulations? I know sheriffs can, But I would think most LEO would not be well educated in DFG regulations.

FGC § 2012 specifically says you must show license/tags/whatev to a "peace officer," so I'm going to assume yes.

vantec08
02-09-2010, 3:50 AM
The fish & game laws are CA state laws, subject to enforcement by any peace officer as defined in the penal code. By the way .. . I have found that most game wardens are far more knowledgeable about guns and gun law than most LEOs.

OleCuss
02-09-2010, 3:59 AM
I believe you have to show them your license and you may have to identify yourself. Otherwise (unless you personally know the LEO and trust them) you should tell them you do not consent to any search and that since you desire peace and quiet you won't be answering questions.

Telling them you have nothing illegal is not particularly wise. There are all kind of things in the law that you, I, and the legislature don't know about which may mean that you actually are in possession of something technically illegal. That would mean you just lied to a police officer and you can be convicted for that. So after advising that you do not consent to a search and showing them your license - shut up.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I'd bet the lawyers would tell you much the same.

B Strong
02-09-2010, 4:04 AM
You were fishing, they were fishing, everybody was fishing.

Would have been a good time to refuse to consent, and get the names of both officers.

SJgunguy24
02-09-2010, 6:09 AM
I believe you have to show them your license and you may have to identify yourself. Otherwise (unless you personally know the LEO and trust them) you should tell them you do not consent to any search and that since you desire peace and quiet you won't be answering questions.

Telling them you have nothing illegal is not particularly wise. There are all kind of things in the law that you, I, and the legislature don't know about which may mean that you actually are in possession of something technically illegal. That would mean you just lied to a police officer and you can be convicted for that. So after advising that you do not consent to a search and showing them your license - shut up.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I'd bet the lawyers would tell you much the same.

Police lie all the time to get people to talk, lying to a LEO is not illegal at all. If your giving a sworn deposition or are under oath then it is illegal to lie.
I'm not going to say lying to the police is a good thing but you really need to know what the laws and circumstances are before talking.

I carry a copy of the constitution with me at all times. I have backed down quite a few LEO's when they turn up the intimidation a couple of notches. I stand my ground and they know pretty quick that I know their tactics.

GrizzlyGuy
02-09-2010, 6:47 AM
I believe you have to show them your license and you may have to identify yourself. Otherwise (unless you personally know the LEO and trust them) you should tell them you do not consent to any search and that since you desire peace and quiet you won't be answering questions.

Telling them you have nothing illegal is not particularly wise. There are all kind of things in the law that you, I, and the legislature don't know about which may mean that you actually are in possession of something technically illegal. That would mean you just lied to a police officer and you can be convicted for that. So after advising that you do not consent to a search and showing them your license - shut up.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I'd bet the lawyers would tell you much the same.

+1

The "I have nothing illegal" statement is unnecessary and could get you into trouble later as OleCuss points out. If your fishing license had been displayed as required by the DFG regulations (http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10351), you may have been able to avoid the whole incident:

Possession and Display of License

Section 700. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations).

(a) Display of Sport Fishing License: Every person, while engaged in taking any fish, amphibian or reptile, shall display their valid sport fishing license by attaching it to their outer clothing at or above the waistline so that it is plainly visible, except when diving as provided in Section 7145 of the Fish and Game Code. Persons diving from a boat or shore may have their license on the boat or within 500 yards of shore, respectively (see Fish and Game Code Section 7145).

I wouldn't file a complaint as you would then be admitting that you violated that regulation (assuming the license wasn't displayed, you didn't specifically say whether it was or not). I also don't see what you could complain about: you voluntarily gave up your rights by answering their questions and consenting to the pat-down search.

ETA: My obligatory link regarding talking to the cops and consenting to searches (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3551753&posted=1#post3551753).

pullnshoot25
02-09-2010, 7:03 AM
I believe you have to show them your license and you may have to identify yourself. Otherwise (unless you personally know the LEO and trust them) you should tell them you do not consent to any search and that since you desire peace and quiet you won't be answering questions.

Telling them you have nothing illegal is not particularly wise. There are all kind of things in the law that you, I, and the legislature don't know about which may mean that you actually are in possession of something technically illegal. That would mean you just lied to a police officer and you can be convicted for that. So after advising that you do not consent to a search and showing them your license - shut up.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I'd bet the lawyers would tell you much the same.

You can't be convicted for lying to a police officer. You can, however, be convicted for lying to a FEDERAL officer.

An exception, however, is misleading a cop in an investigation. Stating that you have nothing illegal and deliberately directing cops away from an investigation are entirely different things. See PC 418

On that note, it is still not a good idea to state "I have nothing illegal," for if they find anything remotely illegal that you are unaware of, it will look pretty bad.

It's a weird area of the law, but in the end, DO NOT TALK TO COPS!

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 7:20 AM
When I stop someone , it does NOT mean I will do a "pat down" everytime. I CAN for my safety. Which means if I FEEL like its a good thing to do and will be able to explain it in my report, I will do it.

My findings after the pat down MAY lead to an arrest.

When getting to the scene, due to a call that involved violence, I will pat down who ever I want. For the safety of me and my partner. If a subject will refuse, they will still be searched. If they try to stop me , they will be RESISTING.

Window_Seat
02-09-2010, 7:32 AM
These questions are common:
Mind if I look around inside your vehicle?
Mind if I search your pockets / you?
Mind if I pat you down?

Or anything similar to that.

The correct answer when asked any of these or similar questions is:

"I'm going to decline to allow a search based on my rights under the Constitution."

If asked the questions that start with "Mind if I...", or "Do you mind if I..." You say "Yes, I do mind, and I do not consent to a search..." Saying "No I don't" after being asked "Mind if I..." is the same as saying "Sure, go right ahead"...

If asked questions like "Do you have anything inside your vehicle/on you that you don't want us to know about", you say "I don't agree with the premise of your question, and I'm going to decline to answer based on my rights under the Constitution."

When asked "Where you headed/going to?" You say "I'm going to decline to answer based on my rights under the Constitution".

NEVER CONSENT to a search if they don't have a warrant.

Erik.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 7:37 AM
If I am at the scene and have a reson to believe that there might be weapons involved OR FEEL that my partner and I will be safer and have a good chance to come home after the shift is over, I will SEARCH FOR WEAPONS whoever I want. This have been the case for the last 17 years. Recently , a fellow decided He did not want to be searched. He still got searched ( while face down) and we recovered and Entrek Merc knife and Bersa .380..... My parter and I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right and obligation to our loved ones to come home after the shift is over.

Please understand that MOST officers are not runnig around and searching people and their cars upon every contact. We don't have time or desire for this.

sargenv
02-09-2010, 7:56 AM
I can understand why police officers might want to search when arriving at the scene of some form of complaint, but the guy was fishing and minding his own business.. why would two officers who observed this guy with a line in the water come up on him and act like complete a__hats and hassle him? Wouldn't it be far more civil if they happened upon him and asked how the fishing was and then proceeded to ask for license, id etc?

Anyone with an attitude that is uncalled for is unpleasant, LEO or civilian.. Why screw with someone who is likely trying to relax? If they were in a bad mood, maybe they should have gone and got coffee and calmed down before hassling someone for what looks to be nothing much going on? I'm certain there are better things to be doing in that area than hassling law abiding fishermen soaking a line at the local lake..

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:01 AM
I can understand why police officers might want to search when arriving at the scene of some form of complaint, but the guy was fishing and minding his own business.. why would two officers who observed this guy with a line in the water come up on him and act like complete a__hats and hassle him? Wouldn't it be far more civil if they happened upon him and asked how the fishing was and then proceeded to ask for license, id etc?

Anyone with an attitude that is uncalled for is unpleasant, LEO or civilian.. Why screw with someone who is likely trying to relax? If they were in a bad mood, maybe they should have gone and got coffee and calmed down before hassling someone for what looks to be nothing much going on? I'm certain there are better things to be doing in that area than hassling law abiding fishermen soaking a line at the local lake..

I'm certain there are better things to be doing in that area than hassling law abiding fishermen soaking a line at local lake..... You are right , and NONE of the people I work with , would start searching a guy like that or a guy sitting in a cafe somewhere....... But when I get to a call of "mutual combat" , Domestic violence , I DON'T ASK people if they mind to be searched. This is how we were trained and this is right.

MonsterMan
02-09-2010, 8:04 AM
If I am at the scene and have a reson to believe that there might be weapons involved OR FEEL that my partner and I will be safer and have a good chance to come home after the shift is over, I will SEARCH FOR WEAPONS whoever I want.

Is your feeling that you and your partner should feel safer during a stop enough probable cause to search anyone you want?

sargenv
02-09-2010, 8:12 AM
But when I get to a call of "mutual combat" , Domestic violence , I DON'T ASK people if they mind to be searched. This is how we were trained and this is right.

And I would expect you to do so :) I'd certainly feel better about it in that situation.. but we've kind of gotten off topic and onto another.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:16 AM
Is your feeling that you and your partner should feel safer during a stop enough probable cause to search anyone you want?

#24 02-09-2010, 09:08 AM
ap3572001
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 540
iTrader: 6 / 88%



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMan
Is your feeling that you and your partner should feel safer during a stop enough probable cause to search anyone you want?

YES. This so called FEELING comes from OTHER factors.

If I do a vehicle stop on a family in a van going to the A's Game who ran a red light, I WILL NOT START searching anyone. If the same van with a family will running red lights at 50miles an hour things might be different. The nature of the stop will be different.

tracer6
02-09-2010, 8:38 AM
officer saftey is PARAMOUNT, i agree. i think we are just dealing with a few bad apples.......

.....i'm sure my attitude helped little, but common sense and intstinct told me it was a bunch of crap. we were fishing, and so were the LEO's that rolled us.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:41 AM
OK. Honestly, anyones rights , are NOT going to change officer safety . NOW. Are You sure we are talking about the same thing?

A search for WEAPONS is DIFFERENT than a search for drugs. Or a search for wanted vehicle.

When I am on a call, I do what I see fit. And then put it in the report.

I stoped a car recently on red light violation. JUST A RED LIGHT . It started like a routine stop. I saw a lady in the car, that looked worried. TO ME THATS HOW SHE LOOKED.

My partner asked Her to step out of the car and wanted to talk to Her. The driver said, " You have no busines talking to Her" and tried to stop Her from comming out. Got very angry and made verbal threats. To make long story short, the driver was searched......... on the ground and went to jail...... Did my parter have right to ask His female passanger to step out. YES. Did the driver have ANY right to prevent Him from doing so. NO. Did He have a right to carry a stolen Colt Revolver-NO!

popngen
02-09-2010, 8:45 AM
YES. This so called FEELING comes from OTHER factors.

If I do a vehicle stop on a family in a van going to the A's Game who ran a red light, I WILL NOT START searching anyone. If the same van with a family will running red lights at 50miles an hour things might be different. The nature of the stop will be different.


I would like to know how to handle this situation in the future from your point of view:

What would you suggest the OP do in his specific situation if he felt his rights were violated? (ie fishing, minding his own business, etc)

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:47 AM
Ok ap - - now how bout granting the same "right" to civilians who suspect someone approaching THEM might armed? after all, this is about "feeling", isnt it? You think we dont want the SAME PROTECTION AS YOU????

Do You get dispached to many shootings , fights, drug deals that went BAD? Its a different subject.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:48 AM
Is that you, .45 shooter? You will pat down whomever you want and do whatever you want, regardless of whether or not RAS exists? Or will you make RAS exist?

NO. Just when I see the need. When I SEE THE NEED. Not someone else.....

MonsterMan
02-09-2010, 8:59 AM
What would you do with a "man with a gun" call? You arrive at the scene and search him (on the ground) just to realize he was an U/L open carrier legally going about his business? Or would you look at the situation and see the weapon is holstered and do a loaded weapon check and let him go about his business?

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 9:04 AM
Obfuscation doesnt work on me - - - nor do consent searches. You not-so-artfully ducked my question. You think we dont want to enjoy the SAME level of protection as YOU???

EVERYONE has a RIGHT to whatever protection they feel they need. Everyone. Every shift I do what I can. But I WILL enjoy coming home, no matter what it takes.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 9:06 AM
What would you do with a "man with a gun" call? You arrive at the scene and search him (on the ground) just to realize he was an U/L open carrier legally going about his business? Or would you look at the situation and see the weapon is holstered and do a loaded weapon check and let him go about his business?

A guy in the coffee shop with a Berreta in a holster will be asked some questions. But WILL be left alone after the fact and WILL NOT BE SEARCHED FOR WEAPONS :D:D:D

BigDogatPlay
02-09-2010, 9:09 AM
So what I don't see answered, and maybe I missed it... what agency was involved here? City PD, SO, CHP, DPR or DFG?

In my experience DFG wardens who are off FTO generally work alone. They have way huge areas of responsibility and too few wardens to be running in pairs to any great degree. They also, generally and in my experience, will not give a fisherman or hunter a hard way to go unless the person being contacted takes it that way to start with.

I did an officer safety class one time that had a couple of wardens in it and they were very matter of fact that they have to presume every contact they make has a firearm somewhere in it, other than their own. Many of them I've known have a wholly different approach because of exactly that, that is far less confrontational.

Yes, any peace officer can enforce F&G laws if the situation presents itself. I did a time or two over the years, and was always happy to sign off deer tags if asked. That doesn't always mean, however, that all peace officers should be going out of their way to enforce F&G. ;)

Window_Seat
02-09-2010, 9:12 AM
If I am at the scene and have a reson to believe that there might be weapons involved OR FEEL that my partner and I will be safer and have a good chance to come home after the shift is over, I will SEARCH FOR WEAPONS "whoever I want". This have been the case for the last 17 years. Recently , a fellow decided He did not want to be searched. He still got searched ( while face down) and we recovered and Entrek Merc knife and Bersa .380..... My parter and I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right and obligation to our loved ones to come home after the shift is over.

Please understand that MOST officers are not runnig around and searching people and their cars upon every contact. We don't have time or desire for this.

Please trust me, I understand that OS is paramount, and I most definitely understand your desire to get home safely. As a professional driver (Class A) in the trucking industry, I also have a very similar agenda (to get home that is), but unlike you, I'm not allowed to defend myself against the thugs of the highway. If I do, I could go to jail for a very long time, but we can't, because we are forced to do just about everything with 2 hands tied behind our backs & blindfolded.

I resent your idea that you WILL SEARCH, regardless of whether I consent or not, and I completely disapprove of any of that when you have no PC to search, just because you feel like it, and treat me like septic material in the same process. If you have PC, fine, there's a reason, and I am well aware, but go around saying "I will search, like it or not" isn't going to make you very popular here, and maybe you aren't looking to make friends, but burning LACs the way some LEOs (I SAID SOME, NOT ALL) doesn't do the good ones any good, does it?

This all said with lots of respect for ALL OF Law Enforcement, but this kinda crap pisses me off. Sorry Kes. Mods, if too harsh, I'll support your decisions to moderate.

Erik.

popngen
02-09-2010, 9:21 AM
ap,

you didn't answer my question. i think it got buried on page 4. could you spend a few minutes? i'm extremely curious on what you would say.

MasterYong
02-09-2010, 9:25 AM
I'm really not sure that AP is actually a cop.

:troll: perhaps???

He seems to know so little about the law, and has repeatedly stated that he searches people just because they look funny. The lady he pulled over "looked worried"??? You'd better believe she did- she didn't want a ticket! I've only been pulled over once, and you can be damn sure I looked worried. I really wasn't in the mood to be harassed by some jack booted thug like AP claims to be! (in that case the cop was polite, and our exchange was pleasant).

AP: if you are a cop, know that there are people like me out there. If you violate my rights I will spend every second of every day to make sure that you are held accountable for your actions. Your attitude that your rights supersede mine is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. I have money, I have time, and I have a lawyer. You or anyone like you feels like conducting a search against my will without articulable RAS or PC will feel the smack-down of a citizen that wont put up with Orwellian LEOs.

If you really are a a cop: you're the reason the public hates cops. Look in the mirror.

Fate
02-09-2010, 9:27 AM
Please trust me, I understand that OS is paramount,

par⋅a⋅mount
  /ˈpærəˌmaʊnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-mount]
–adjective
1. chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent: a point of paramount significance.
2. above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction.
–noun
3. a supreme ruler; overlord.

Um...officer safety is NOT superior or more important than a citizen's constitutional rights. That notion is unconstitutional.

SJgunguy24
02-09-2010, 9:32 AM
So what I don't see answered, and maybe I missed it... what agency was involved here? City PD, SO, CHP, DPR or DFG?

In my experience DFG wardens who are off FTO generally work alone. They have way huge areas of responsibility and too few wardens to be running in pairs to any great degree. They also, generally and in my experience, will not give a fisherman or hunter a hard way to go unless the person being contacted takes it that way to start with.

I did an officer safety class one time that had a couple of wardens in it and they were very matter of fact that they have to presume every contact they make has a firearm somewhere in it, other than their own. Many of them I've known have a wholly different approach because of exactly that, that is far less confrontational.

Yes, any peace officer can enforce F&G laws if the situation presents itself. I did a time or two over the years, and was always happy to sign off deer tags if asked. That doesn't always mean, however, that all peace officers should be going out of their way to enforce F&G. ;)


The OP said he was at Lake Chabot, i'll take a guess he was questioned by East Bay Regional Parks P.D.

command_liner
02-09-2010, 9:35 AM
This thread touches on an area of the law that has not yet been
litigated, but will be very interesting when it is litigated.

The Brogan Decision makes it illegal to lie to any federal official.
It is a felony. The lie does not have to be under oath, or even
on purpose -- just a false statement.

What happens when lying cop pulls over random federal official,
and that official is lied to, and captures the lie on tape?

The cop gets a straight felony conviction for using a tool that
he has used freely in the past and feels he can use whenever he
wants. State law says the cop can lie, but federal law says no
he cannot -- at least to some people.

Interesting 14th A. issue there. Local cops can lie freely to
some people all the time, but not to other people ever. Some
are more equal than others.

vantec08
02-09-2010, 9:40 AM
Oh I'm sure you will .. . . . . and do you understand that under a declaration of martial law many of us will do likewise? Ya dont get it both ways.

Window_Seat
02-09-2010, 9:41 AM
Um...officer safety is NOT superior or more important than a citizen's constitutional rights. That notion is unconstitutional.

You raise a good point, but usually when OS comes up, it's not just watching out for thugs with guns, and I wouldn't approve of using it based on a personal agenda. Is there actual caselaw on that?

Erik; calmer

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 9:57 AM
I wish I was not a cop...... When have to write long reports after the shift is over. Good overtime , but rather go home.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 9:59 AM
AP, you are quite a cop. Two illegal searches, and two illegal guns found. Any other stories?

Posted On: June 5, 2009 by Southern California Criminal Defense Attorney
911 Calls and Anonymous Tips are Enough for an Officer to Detain you and Conduct a Cursory Search for Weapons.

sorensen440
02-09-2010, 10:14 AM
http://www.untwistedvortex.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dontfeedthetroll.jpg

JSilvoso
02-09-2010, 10:33 AM
STOPS

“[N]ot all seizures of the person must be justified by probable cause to arrest for a crime.” (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 498 [75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 103 S. Ct. 1319] (plur. opn. of White, J.).) In Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court created a limited exception that allows police officers to “stop and … frisk for weapons” when they have an “articulable suspicion [the] person has committed or is about to commit a crime.” (Florida v. Royer, supra, at p. 498.) Thus, an officer who lacks probable cause to arrest can conduct a brief investigative detention when there is “ ‘some objective manifestation’ that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity.” (People v. Souza, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 230; see also United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417 [66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 101 S. Ct. 690].) Because an investigative detention allows the police to ascertain whether suspicious conduct is criminal activity, such a detention “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” (Florida v. Royer, supra, at p. 500; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325] [describing a detention as limited in “duration, scope and purpose”].)

People v. Celis, 33 Cal. 4th 667, 674 (Cal. 2004)


FRISKS

[A] limited frisk for weapons is justified where the officer “can point to specific and articulable facts which, considered in conjunction with rational inferences to be drawn therefrom, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.” (People v. Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 176; see Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) 444 U.S. 85, 92–93 [62 L. Ed. 2d 238, 100 S. Ct. 338]; see Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 21; People v. Lindsey (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1395–1396 [56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619]; People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 135 [13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921]; People v. Dickey, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 927 [21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 785] [minor traffic offenses do not reasonably suggest the presence of weapons, and an officer may not search a driver unless the objective circumstances furnish reasonable grounds to believe the driver is armed or dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon].)

“[T]he officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the crux of the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the totality of the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger.” (People v. Avila (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432]; see Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 27.) Reasonable suspicion must be based on “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” (Illinois v. Wardlow, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 125.) The determination of reasonableness is “inherently case-specific.” (People v. Durazo, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 735.) An inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch is not sufficient, nor is the fact the officer acted in good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, at pp. 22, 27.) Where specific and articulable facts are absent, the patsearch cannot be upheld. (People v. Dickey, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 956.) Whether a search is reasonable must be determined based upon the circumstances known to the officer when the search was conducted. (In re Jaime P. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 128, 133 [51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430, 146 P.3d 965].)


In re H.M., 167 Cal. App. 4th 136, 143-144 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008)


Of course, a police officer can always walk up to you and initiate a conversation. YOU have the option of stopping, responding, talking to the officer, walking on etc... it's all up to you.

If ORDERED to stop... STOP.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 10:37 AM
STOPS

“[N]ot all seizures of the person must be justified by probable cause to arrest for a crime.” (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 498 [75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 103 S. Ct. 1319] (plur. opn. of White, J.).) In Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court created a limited exception that allows police officers to “stop and … frisk for weapons” when they have an “articulable suspicion [the] person has committed or is about to commit a crime.” (Florida v. Royer, supra, at p. 498.) Thus, an officer who lacks probable cause to arrest can conduct a brief investigative detention when there is “ ‘some objective manifestation’ that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity.” (People v. Souza, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 230; see also United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417 [66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 101 S. Ct. 690].) Because an investigative detention allows the police to ascertain whether suspicious conduct is criminal activity, such a detention “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” (Florida v. Royer, supra, at p. 500; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325] [describing a detention as limited in “duration, scope and purpose”].)

People v. Celis, 33 Cal. 4th 667, 674 (Cal. 2004)


FRISKS

[A] limited frisk for weapons is justified where the officer “can point to specific and articulable facts which, considered in conjunction with rational inferences to be drawn therefrom, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.” (People v. Medina, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 176; see Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) 444 U.S. 85, 92–93 [62 L. Ed. 2d 238, 100 S. Ct. 338]; see Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 21; People v. Lindsey (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1395–1396 [56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619]; People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 135 [13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921]; People v. Dickey, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 927 [21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 785] [minor traffic offenses do not reasonably suggest the presence of weapons, and an officer may not search a driver unless the objective circumstances furnish reasonable grounds to believe the driver is armed or dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon].)

“[T]he officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the crux of the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the totality of the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger.” (People v. Avila (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432]; see Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 27.) Reasonable suspicion must be based on “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” (Illinois v. Wardlow, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 125.) The determination of reasonableness is “inherently case-specific.” (People v. Durazo, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 735.) An inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch is not sufficient, nor is the fact the officer acted in good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, at pp. 22, 27.) Where specific and articulable facts are absent, the patsearch cannot be upheld. (People v. Dickey, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 956.) Whether a search is reasonable must be determined based upon the circumstances known to the officer when the search was conducted. (In re Jaime P. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 128, 133 [51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430, 146 P.3d 965].)


In re H.M., 167 Cal. App. 4th 136, 143-144 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008)


Of course, a police officer can always walk up to you and initiate a conversation. YOU have the option of stopping, responding, talking to the officer, walking on etc... it's all up to you.

If ORDERED to stop... STOP.

You are right. I , myself was stopped few times by local LEO's. I did stop and talk to them.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Just few more things about a search.

If I am doing a search for weapons, for my own safety, I will only look for weapons.

Remember , we are taught about the rights of the people.

Officers get into BIG trouble who violate those rights.

No one wants the "time on the beach"

PS. by the way, most of us wish that good folks were armed. A lot less "CODE 3" driving for us......

haveyourmile
02-09-2010, 10:43 AM
Remember , we are taught about the rights of the people.

Officers get into BIG trouble who violate those rights.

No one wants the "time on the beach"

You seem to skim over the questions that you don't want to answer. What gives?

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 10:45 AM
Ok. Ask the question./ specific one. Just ask me.

vantec08
02-09-2010, 10:59 AM
It wont happen in my lifetime . .. . and you know this HOW? I consistently get 3 things from you:
1 -- "I have authority and . .. you dont"
2 -- "My right to survive supercedes yours"
3 -- "I'm in it for the money (overtime)

Everything is about you. This is a classic example of modern government -- but then, you exist to serve politicians since they make the laws.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 10:59 AM
I should not search people for weapons? Should not do what I am trained to do? Question orders about all the high risk warrants ??????

grammaton76
02-09-2010, 11:14 AM
Thread has been re-opened.

It goes without saying that a number of people have become shrill in this thread. I suggest that folks take a deep breath and read Terry v. Ohio before continuing, and attempt to take a more academic tone to this debate. Too much of this has just been flame war back and forth, and it will not be tolerated. Got it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

50 Freak
02-09-2010, 11:17 AM
My suggestion to AP still stands. Please review the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and realize that they apply to all citizens of the US and not just law enforcement.

Better yet, please take a class at your local college on Consitutional Law. It will open your eyes.

No one is saying they don't want you to not make it home at nite. We are just saying, your safety does not superseed our Rights as guaranteed under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.

popngen
02-09-2010, 11:24 AM
Ok. Ask the question./ specific one. Just ask me.

Ap,

I asked you twice; I just wanted to know what would be the OP's proper response to the situation if he felt that his rights were violated?

What would you do?

Alfred

M1A Rifleman
02-09-2010, 11:26 AM
My 2 cents: They were no doubt responding to some type of call or complaint. It would explain why they may have had a bad attitude. It would be odd for PD to want to check a fishing Lic - where were you?

It may have been a good idea after things ran their course to ask what this is all about and why the questions etc.

You can always refuse to cooperate with ID checks or pat downs, but being uncooperative, especially in their eyes will not turn out good for you. I can bet in this case you would have been physically detained, cuffed, searched, and possibly cited for interfering with an investigation. Its always best to remember they are doing their job, sometimes poorly, however making their job more difficult or stressful will not be good for you.

Window_Seat
02-09-2010, 11:32 AM
I agree, and admit that I was harsh in my initial post, but I stand by my attitude, and will keep things civil.

As far as Terry v. Ohio (still have to read it in it's entirety), I read an interesting article just yesterday in the thread titled more on the Terry Stop (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=267219&highlight=Terry). The thread contained a link of an article titled Civil Rights Equals Detainment?! So Says the Federal Court (http://blog.goal.org/2010/01/15/civil-rights-equals-detainment-so-says-the-federal-court.aspx) that I thought was very good reading. I'd like everyone (including ap3572001) to read it as well if they haven't.

Erik.

Wild Squid
02-09-2010, 11:50 AM
Just few more things about a search.

If I am doing a search for weapons, for my own safety, I will only look for weapons.

Remember , we are taught about the rights of the people.

Officers get into BIG trouble who violate those rights.

No one wants the "time on the beach"

PS. by the way, most of us wish that good folks were armed. A lot less "CODE 3" driving for us......

If you say you wish good folks were armed, then why do you also say you pat people down for weapons? I understand situations can be vastly different, but if you have a good enough reason to pat someone down, you should already have a reason to arrest them. Nobody likes to get patted down by a cop just for the hell of it, meaning to appease his comfort level.

grammaton76
02-09-2010, 11:54 AM
If you say you wish good folks were armed, then why do you also say you pat people down for weapons?

Notice that in his various posts about folks found to have guns, he mentioned finding STOLEN guns at least once. Further, the incident with the nervous-looking woman - he may have thought it was a hostage situation, and given that the guy HAD a stolen gun on him, it possibly was.

A guy carrying a stolen gun is by definition not one of the good guys.

For all we know, he could be letting otherwise law-abiding folks slide on illegal CCW - he DIDN'T say what he's done to the folks he finds guns on. Folks are assuming, I think, that finding a gun on someone = arresting them for it. That could be his SOP, or not. I don't know, and neither do the rest of us.

There are a too many unknowns here to make a solid argument for burning him at the stake.

50 Freak
02-09-2010, 12:05 PM
Hey Grammy,

I don't think that is the issue most of the posters have an problem with. It is with his cavalier attitude of "I have to make it home at nite, so damn everyone's rights".

I take offense to that, and if AP were to pull some of the stunts that he's stated he's done to me, I'd be talking to IA and making sure a report follows him in his short LE career. Not to mention I'd be calling his watch commander, captain, or anyone that would listen.

grammaton76
02-09-2010, 12:17 PM
I don't think that is the issue most of the posters have an problem with. It is with his cavalier attitude of "I have to make it home at nite, so damn everyone's rights".

I take offense to that, and if AP were to pull some of the stunts that he's stated he's done to me, I'd be talking to IA and making sure a report follows him in his short LE career. Not to mention I'd be calling his watch commander, captain, or anyone that would listen.

Then I'd suggest you have two goals: changing him personally (I'm not 100% clear that this isn't in large part miscommunication anyway - a Terry search is justified with RAS present, and not delving into RAS on Calguns for each instance doesn't mean he didn't have it at the time - we weren't there), and ensuring that an officer violating rights is more likely to encounter the IA conversation if he violates rights.

For any individual, you're more like to change his mind via PM's than a public dogpile - a defensive individual is only going to leave the forum and keep the same mindset, perhaps even more strongly entrenched. Venting spleen in the open forum can provide plenty of approbation from the echo chamber effect, but it's unlikely to affect a real change.

To ensure that the public is aware of rights, you're better off working on a FAQ or something, updating your Facebook with appropriate links, etc. Create more rights-conscious individuals in order to decrease the "career continuance rate" of abusive officers.

AJAX22
02-09-2010, 12:20 PM
I have a question...

Does a pocket knife clipped onto a pocket constitute probable cause for a weapons frisk?

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Ap,

I asked you twice; I just wanted to know what would be the OP's proper response to the situation if he felt that his rights were violated?

What would you do?

Alfred

At first I would talk to the officer( officers) . I would take their star number and their name. And ask for a SGT. to come ( if possible) .

PS. Most people who make stupid comments about this subject , have no clue what its like to do a high risk felony stop..... ALONE. ( Waiting for another unit to come) Or stop someone who WILL not go back to prison.

popngen
02-09-2010, 12:25 PM
ap-

Thanks for the response!

paul0660
02-09-2010, 12:27 PM
stupid?

Way to ramp it up AP. Is that how you work?

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Ok. Not stupid , but not informed.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 12:34 PM
I have a question...

Does a pocket knife clipped onto a pocket constitute probable cause for a weapons frisk?

When? Just a guy walking on the street- NO.

paul0660
02-09-2010, 12:35 PM
The first word out of your head...........counts. You should know that from your 17 years.....................that, after all, is what you expect from us.

Cheers.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Officer safety is NOT paramount. Officer safety does NOT trump the Constitutional Rights of citizens of the United States of America.

The job is dangerous. But it is voluntary. Don't like it? Get a different job. But don't trample on the Constitution. LEOs that believe their safety is more important then the Constitution are in violation of their Oath.

And remember Ben Franklin's famous quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Josh3239
02-09-2010, 12:43 PM
I have a question...

Does a pocket knife clipped onto a pocket constitute probable cause for a weapons frisk?

From my understanding, it really depends on what you are doing and where you are amongst many other things. Police are given a lot of latitude if they believe that a person is armed.

In Terry v Ohio, the officers performed a stop and frisk simply on the basis that the men were acting suspicously, based on those actions the officers concluded they were about to rob a local store.

Privacy is an important concept in search and seizure law. In most cases anything in plain view has a very low expectation of privacy and can be searched by officers. In Katz v USA, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan Jr stated his opinion on how to test a person's expectation of privacy:
1) The individual must prove that she or he expected privacy and
2) Society must recognize that expectation as reasonable.

I am not a LEO or a lawyer, one side says that since you are armed the officers do have the right to search the knife and you only for additional weapons. Another side says that they need more suspicion besides a pocket knife. There are a lot of variables, suspicion can go up depending on what you do and the expectation of privacy can go down as well depending on what happens.

tileguy
02-09-2010, 12:52 PM
sounds like AP needs a new job thats not as risky

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 1:19 PM
Officer safety is NOT paramount. Officer safety does NOT trump the Constitutional Rights of citizens of the United States of America.

The job is dangerous. But it is voluntary. Don't like it? Get a different job. But don't trample on the Constitution. LEOs that believe their safety is more important then the Constitution are in violation of their Oath.

And remember Ben Franklin's famous quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You come to a scene of a bar fight, a domestic violence scene and fail to search everyone involved and You flunk out of FTO( Field Training) . Understand? I did not make the rules.

paul0660
02-09-2010, 1:28 PM
You come to a scene of a bar fight, a domestic violence scene and fail to search everyone involved and You flunk out of FTO( Field Training) . Understand?

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. How does the above relate to pulling someone over for ONLY running a red light (your words) or a similar traffic offense. AP, you have still not said anything but that A)you want to go home (DUH); B)you have the authority to search anyone anytime.

It isn't that simple, and no cop I know thinks that it is.

Which, actually, might be the point. I am taking my feedbag home.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 1:30 PM
I had NEVER searched a person for weapons , JUST for the red light. Why would I ? What am I looking for? here is what NO LEO's do not get. Sometimes , something may BEGIN as a red light. Ok? Or an observation. I have the same right as anyone else to begin to pay attention to someone. Right? Ok. When You get a call, its different. Very different.

AJAX22
02-09-2010, 1:35 PM
My question was more in line with... since the knife is in plain view (clipped onto a pocket)... what justification is there for a further search?

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 1:36 PM
When I get to a spot where a person got shot a couple min. ago... I do what it takes to make the scene safe for me , ENT's ,bystanders and other officers. If that violates something. Oh Well.....

tuolumnejim
02-09-2010, 1:41 PM
I should not search people for weapons? Should not do what I am trained to do? Question orders about all the high risk warrants ??????

With that bolded sentence I'm going to tell you, other people were trained to do things that we find repugnant.

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/orders/

greg36f
02-09-2010, 1:41 PM
You come to a scene of a bar fight, a domestic violence scene and fail to search everyone involved and You flunk out of FTO( Field Training) . Understand? I did not make the rules.

I think that with the Rod Tauson thing going on, that this topic is going to rub a lot of nerves raw....Probably not the best time.

Having said that, I do see ap's point, even though he has a bit of a brusque way of making it. After years of service, many cops (good ones) develop a "sense of what’s not right". Just because ap seems to be having trouble articulating why he did what he did, does not make it wrong.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLATING ANYONES RIGHTS, but often times, there are a thousand little things going on that an experienced officer can articulate that a normal citizen cannot.

The threshold for conducting a quick pat down for weapons only is pretty low.

In the case of the nervous driver, there was probably time of day, location, attitude of all parties in the car, prior knowledge of parties involved, lack of, or too much eye contact, inappropriate responses to questions asked, ect.

They say that 80% of human communication is non verbal. Any good cop knows this and uses it.

If you think that you were wronged, complain. Complain to the Sgt., the Lt., the chief and all the way up until you are satisfied.

AJAX22
02-09-2010, 1:43 PM
When I get to a spot where a person got shot a couple min. ago... I do what it takes to make the scene safe for me , ENT's ,bystanders and other officers. If that violates something. Oh Well.....

how far does that extend though?

is there any scenario for which the 'oh well' doesn't hold? or is it just a situation where self preservation trumps civil liberties?

And if violating something is justification if it is done for personal safety... why can't I (oh well) get away with violating the law (carrying a weapon) for personal safety?

Sniper3142
02-09-2010, 1:48 PM
You can always refuse to cooperate with ID checks or pat downs, but being uncooperative, especially in their eyes will not turn out good for you. I can bet in this case you would have been physically detained, cuffed, searched, and possibly cited for interfering with an investigation. Its always best to remember they are doing their job, sometimes poorly, however making their job more difficult or stressful will not be good for you.

You know what...

I see similar statements like this from time to time on this and other boards, usually made by LEOs.

Understand this..

I DON'T CARE IF ME STANDING UP FOR MY RIGHTS ANGERS OR PISSES OFF A LEO!!

You seem to be saying that refusing to let a LEO do whatever they want (search, check ID, etc) by standing up for our RIGHTS will get us in more trouble. That sounds a lot like a THREAT or an INTIMIDATION ATTEMPT to me.

:mad:

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 1:52 PM
With that bolded sentence I'm going to tell you, other people were trained to do things that we find repugnant.

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/orders/

My grand uncle died there, the other one was killed in Warsaw.

My375hp302
02-09-2010, 1:55 PM
Carful, you can't pat down someone because you "feel" like it. You must have at least a reasonable suspicion that the person has some illegal/dangerous item on them. A good test for reasonable suspicion is, would a person of reasonable intelligence (Not an LEO) when presented with the same situation and the same set of facts come to the same conclusion as you? If you can't answer yes, you can't search them. If you do and they resist and you injure them you are abusing you powers under color of authority, federal civil rights violation. Then your not talking about being fired, your talking about doing some Fed time. God help that Officer if he doesn't find something on him at that point.

When I stop someone , it does NOT mean I will do a "pat down" everytime. I CAN for my safety. Which means if I FEEL like its a good thing to do and will be able to explain it in my report, I will do it.

My findings after the pat down MAY lead to an arrest.

When getting to the scene, due to a call that involved violence, I will pat down who ever I want. For the safety of me and my partner. If a subject will refuse, they will still be searched. If they try to stop me , they will be RESISTING.

tuolumnejim
02-09-2010, 1:57 PM
My grand uncle died there, the other one was killed in Warsaw.

Then I hope you either misspoke or you need a Constitutional refresher course.

gun toting monkeyboy
02-09-2010, 1:59 PM
Hey, I know this is a silly question, but aren't you allowed to carry a concealed weapon while fishing? I thought that there was an exception to carry a loaded firearm while engaged in legal fishing or hunting, and an exeption to carry an unloaded concealed firearm while going to/from said activity. Did this change recently?

My375hp302
02-09-2010, 2:03 PM
At first I would talk to the officer( officers) . I would take their star number and their name. And ask for a SGT. to come ( if possible) .

PS. Most people who make stupid comments about this subject , have no clue what its like to do a high risk felony stop..... ALONE. ( Waiting for another unit to come) Or stop someone who WILL not go back to prison.

I do, and I still think your wrong. If you are that scared for you life find another career my friend. I've had two guns pointed at me. But I still have the sence to not search someone that is not under arrest/detention, or has not given me consent.

And a little advice, stop posting on this matter and don't ever tell anyone who you are or where you work. If a defense attorney in your area got ahold of this they would reopen every case you've ever done.

M1A Rifleman
02-09-2010, 2:04 PM
You know what...

I see similar statements like this from time to time on this and other boards, usually made by LEOs.

Understand this..

I DON'T CARE IF ME STANDING UP FOR MY RIGHTS ANGERS OR PISSES OF A LEO!!

You seem to be saying that refusing to let a LEO do whatever they want (search, check ID, etc) by standing up for our RIGHTS will get us in more trouble. That sounds a lot like a THREAT or an INTIMIDATION ATTEMPT to me.

:mad:

1st, what you do and how you do it makes no difference to me, as I'm not the one upset by your actions or others on this post. 2nd, Generally, you have no right to fight the police, the court of law is where you air your grievances. If you disagree with this, then good luck. :43:

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:10 PM
You come to a scene of a bar fight, a domestic violence scene and fail to search everyone involved and You flunk out of FTO( Field Training) . Understand? I did not make the rules.

This is a completely different situation then you have previously stated. In your previous statements you say that you can basically pat down anyone anytime you want just because you feel like it. You also had a very arrogant attitude. Perhaps you have been on the job too long, and have had to deal with way too many dirtbags to be able to treat normal law-abiding citizens with respect. This seems to be a common problem with LEOs.

My earlier point was that "Officer safety", sometimes refereed to in the terms, "we just want to get home to our families safely", is just another emotional argument like the typical "it's for the children" argument used to take away the rights of citizens.

louscamaro91
02-09-2010, 2:19 PM
I have a lot of respect for LEO and I have never had a first hand experience with one that has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I have many LEO friends and we often chat about some things we have the same love for "GUN!"

The only negative thing I've every experienced with an LEO was a Rookie lying in his police reports. These reports we're not criminal reports that would have affected me but an eviction of tenants that police had to make contact. He had made some statements that we're out of context and doctors my statements that we're not verbatim.. Big mistake as I had my lawyer present who was a witness to my statement. I do sometimes think they do have an immunity while on the clock, but this is not true as this Rookie taking my statement was made an example of what not to do. I was not bitter towards the officer after the dust settled.

Like I said they put their pants on the same way we do and are very much human. Some are bad seeds while others are not and some are considered someones friends as "I" consider some my friends. I hope this thread clams down as there is a lot of animosity towards LEO because of that Det. statements

cadurand
02-09-2010, 2:21 PM
I cannot believe someone is comparing this guy to the Nazi's. That's really low.

We have an LEO willing to talk openly and quite frankly about how he'd handle scenarios. It's an eye opener and a chance to learn how to handle any future encounters with LEO. I don't see too many encounters in my future but it's interesting to read.

He's clearly stated he's on our side with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

I am sure most of us here work for a company/someone else. Those companies all have policies. Police Departments have policies too. As employees we are expected to follow policy.

Don't like the policy? Take it up with management.. not the guy in the field following it.

Do I like the idea of Terry stops.. not really. But I understand how they came to be and I don't blame a police officer for using this "tool" in the course of his job.

dmaverick
02-09-2010, 2:26 PM
I cannot believe someone is comparing this guy to the Nazi's. That's really low.

We have an LEO willing to talk openly and quite frankly about how he'd handle scenarios. It's an eye opener and a chance to learn how to handle any future encounters with LEO. I don't see too many encounters in my future but it's interesting to read.

He's clearly stated he's on our side with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

I am sure most of us here work for a company/someone else. Those companies all have policies. Police Departments have policies too. As employees we are expected to follow policy.

Don't like the policy? Take it up with management.. not the guy in the field following it.

Do I like the idea of Terry stops.. not really. But I understand how they came to be and I don't blame a police officer for using this "tool" in the course of his job.

+1! Totally agree

paul0660
02-09-2010, 2:28 PM
I am pretty sure if he had been compared to Bull Conner we would have found out that Rosa Parks was his father's mother.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 2:40 PM
When I go on a call , I never know what I will face. When I MAKE THE CONTACT. Vehicle stop, a complaint, ANYTHING. FIRST THING I WAS TRAINED to do was to MAKE SITUATION SAFE. For me and others. And those others ALSO have rights. But in some situations things get a bit rough....Thats all.

If someone thinks I have done them wrong , they HAVE A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY......................

That is also their right.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:45 PM
When I MAKE THE CONTACT. Vehicle stop, a complaint, ANYTHING. FIRST THING I WAS TRAINED to do was to MAKE SITUATION SAFE.

That IMO is an abhorrent policy. That policy treats every citizen as though he is a criminal.

louscamaro91
02-09-2010, 2:46 PM
When I go on a call , I never know what I will face. When I MAKE THE CONTACT. Vehicle stop, a complaint, ANYTHING. FIRST THING I WAS TRAINED to do was to MAKE SITUATION SAFE. For me and others. And those others ALSO have rights. But in some situations things get a bit rough....Thats all.

If someone thinks I have done them wrong , they HAVE A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY......................

That is also their right.

I understand the differences in a call and a stop.
A call is done with urgency and an elevated fear on the callers behalf and voluntarily, why else would you call the police?
A stop is different because your enforcing a law that was broken and not necessarily a call for help.
Does this make sense?

Fate
02-09-2010, 2:48 PM
1st, what you do and how you do it makes no difference to me, as I'm not the one upset by your actions or others on this post. 2nd, Generally, you have no right to fight the police, the court of law is where you air your grievances. If you disagree with this, then good luck. :43:

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

And other state's Supreme Courts have ruled similarly:

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
Granted, such situations might be rarities, but blanket statements are meant to be challenged. ;)

tuolumnejim
02-09-2010, 2:51 PM
I cannot believe someone is comparing this guy to the Nazi's. That's really low.

We have an LEO willing to talk openly and quite frankly about how he'd handle scenarios. It's an eye opener and a chance to learn how to handle any future encounters with LEO. I don't see too many encounters in my future but it's interesting to read.

He's clearly stated he's on our side with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

I am sure most of us here work for a company/someone else. Those companies all have policies. Police Departments have policies too. As employees we are expected to follow policy.

Don't like the policy? Take it up with management.. not the guy in the field following it.

Do I like the idea of Terry stops.. not really. But I understand how they came to be and I don't blame a police officer for using this "tool" in the course of his job.

They were "taking orders" too, if you don't like what I posted just tell me. As for you have to follow policy, that doesn't fly with me when policy is telling you to do something blatantly un-Constitutional.
Following or obeying un-Constitutional orders is illegal no matter who you are or what they are.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 2:55 PM
I understand the differences in a call and a stop.
A call is done with urgency and an elevated fear on the callers behalf and voluntarily, why else would you call the police?
A stop is different because your enforcing a law that was broken and not necessarily a call for help.
Does this make sense?

Yes. When I get a call of "shots fired" and then I hear on the radio " vicitm is down" and then "two more shots fired". I get to a scene of extreme violence. ( At least in my book). People are screaming, its dark. I am not sure who is who here.... A shooter can be RIGHT THERE . Someones rights, or rights to be searched are NOT number one on my list.

Now , when I make contact myself. W/O a call. I must have seen or heard something to get me interested. I have a RIGHT and OBLIGATION to do that. Ok. if in the course of my job I make a mistake. I will pay for it.

OneNcustdy
02-09-2010, 2:57 PM
Much like any business if you feel like you have been treated poorly, by all means complain. Police work does have its limits and there is an expectation of customer service. If in fact you were just fishing and feel that contact was over board in some fashion, it helps no one to sit back and let it happen without bring it to the attention of their supervisors. You have the right to refuse however, if there is enough reasonable suspicion for the officer to articulate that during the contact there was a need to ensure the safety of the citizen as well as the officer, a “pat down” ‘Terry Search” for weapons maybe conducted only if at that point you can justify that there is an absolute need.

Again the totality of the circumstances can dictate the need to conduct a search. If a person is fishing, is there a likely chance that they may have a knife on them during your contact? If the answer is yes, the next question, what risks is there for him carrying the knife on him (the danger it posses for you as the officer)? If there is an amount of risk that the knife at any point can be used as a weapon against you, can you pat the subject down? If the subject has his hands in his pocket where the subject can easily access the weapon is it a smart thing to ask him to remove his hands from his pockets during the conversation, yes. Is an ability for the Officer to use tact during the contact change the scenario from a potential complaint to a harmless contact in the field come into play? Absolutely.

I was not present during the contact, so I can’t say if at any point they did anything exactly wrong other than being abrupt and rude based on what I have read on Calguns. You do have the right to refuse a search however, if the Officer has enough reasonable suspicion (which is a lower threshold than probable cause) to believe you are armed with a weapon they may opt to pat you down. Take this scenario for example.

I contact a person during a bike stop for riding without a light on at night. I contact him which is well within a legal detention. The subject is a fidgety looking around and extremely nervous. During this contact he places his hands in his pockets numerous times and has been told numerous times to remove his hands out of his pockets. Can I justify conducting a pat down of the subject and does it mean he will be arrested? Now that you read that, the answer is further down so you don’t cheat without coming to your own conclusion first before seeing what I say LoL.

Each contact an officer has is much like a finger print, very unique in nature, never routine and can result in life or death in CERTAIN SITUATIONS. If you feel that you have been wronged, it does not hurt with letting the powers that be know that the contact was unpleasant, unprofessional and could be handled in a different way. Just remember there are always two sides to every story and we have only heard one side.

OneNcustdy
02-09-2010, 3:03 PM
Yes the bike guy gets searched based on me being able to articualte the need of a saftey concern. He was told numerous times to removes his hands during the contact and yet ignored my command. I am now concerned that their maybe a weapon he is trying to access and formulate a plan of attack and escape. Now if I find a knif in his pocket, does that mean I am going to arrest him, no. I would just remove it and hold onto the knife untill the contact was over. I would remind him that I was holding onto the knife for my safety and his and for him to remind me that I have his knife in the event I forget to give it back to him after the contact is over. It all depends on the state of mind the officer is in and if he can articualte to any reasonable person that the pat down was for safety reason due to surrounding circumstances the officer can articulate.

50 Freak
02-09-2010, 3:18 PM
That would be me.

Based on Mr AP's statements, I still stick with my Nazi reference.

Sorry but being a LE member on Calguns does not automatically constitute a 2nd Amendment or Bill of Rights supporter (as evidence by the EPA cop).

Everyone remembers the video of the CHiPers that tackeled the little old lady in New Orleans in her home during Katrina....guess what, that CHiPer is a Calguns member.

I had hope that the LE members on here would actually be a portal to their respective depts/colleages that not all gun owners are thugs/bangers or extremists. I wonder if that is the case anymore.

OneNcustdy
02-09-2010, 3:26 PM
For every thousand cops, there are going to be a few bad apples. Not every person who is heavy into their 2nd Amendment Rights is a radical just like every cop on Calguns does not think your a radical extremists.

I do believe the name calling does your argument no justice it makes what ever point your putting out their kinda look like just flaming, IMO, but you have every right to freedom of speech we are in the right forum for it LoL.

SJgunguy24
02-09-2010, 3:37 PM
When I go on a call , I never know what I will face. When I MAKE THE CONTACT. Vehicle stop, a complaint, ANYTHING. FIRST THING I WAS TRAINED to do was to MAKE SITUATION SAFE. For me and others. And those others ALSO have rights. But in some situations things get a bit rough....Thats all.

If someone thinks I have done them wrong , they HAVE A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY......................

That is also their right.

I had a family member who was a FTO and I've had extensive LEO contacts myself . The whole "Make the situation safe" is the nice way of saying. "I'm in control here and you will get with my program." That way everybody in charge feels safe.
"And those others" to me means us, the public in general. I know a police officer deals with the worst of what humans have to offer and it does wear on you over time. That's why cops have a high suicide, alcoholism, and divorce rates. It's a tough job and at a moments notice that could be the last thing you ever do.
My relative always told me some people have the ability to see right through a person and can tell their true intention. Those make the best cops, but you also have to be on the ball, complacency can and does kill. While I respect cops and the job, I cannot respect a person who swears to uphold and protect the constitution while using it to wipe their azz.

AJAX22
02-09-2010, 3:55 PM
Somehow I don't think this is the sort of debate/discussion that will get resolved over tea and crumpets.

perhapse we should restrict (voulentarily) our discussion to perceptions of probbable cause and search chriteria

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 5:01 PM
I had a family member who was a FTO and I've had extensive LEO contacts myself . The whole "Make the situation safe" is the nice way of saying. "I'm in control here and you will get with my program." That way everybody in charge feels safe.
"And those others" to me means us, the public in general. I know a police officer deals with the worst of what humans have to offer and it does wear on you over time. That's why cops have a high suicide, alcoholism, and divorce rates. It's a tough job and at a moments notice that could be the last thing you ever do.
My relative always told me some people have the ability to see right through a person and can tell their true intention. Those make the best cops, but you also have to be on the ball, complacency can and does kill. While I respect cops and the job, I cannot respect a person who swears to uphold and protect the constitution while using it to wipe their azz.

.... And I believe that people who never never walked the mainline in a prison, never been stabbed with a homemade spear. Never had to break up a fight in the prison yard, never drove "code 3" to the scene of a shooting or an armed robbery, never had to scream over the air that their partner was hit or held several suspects at a gun point while praying for back-up HAVE ANY BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT OFFICERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. You feel You are violated? You feel You were treated in wrong way? REPORT IT!!! And/Or Get a lawyer. By the way, I AM 100% FOR GUN RIGHTS.

Doheny
02-09-2010, 5:26 PM
.......HAVE ANY BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT OFFICERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. You feel You are violated? You feel You were treated in wrong way? REPORT IT!!! And/Or Get a lawyer. By the way, I AM 100% FOR GUN RIGHTS.

Lighten up, Francis...

.

mastadonn
02-09-2010, 5:28 PM
CA DFG's answer (from their Q&A page)

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.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 5:35 PM
This became an all day thing. OK. In order to give a CLEAR answer , I would need a situation. An example ( Like we called it in the academy, A WORD PICTURE). Then I will have a fair chance to state my actions regarding a search. OK?

50 Freak
02-09-2010, 5:39 PM
.... And I believe that people who never never walked the mainline in a prison, never been stabbed with a homemade spear. Never had to break up a fight in the prison yard, never drove "code 3" to the scene of a shooting or an armed robbery, never had to scream over the air that their partner was hit or held several suspects at a gun point while praying for back-up HAVE ANY BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT OFFICERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. You feel You are violated? You feel You were treated in wrong way? REPORT IT!!! And/Or Get a lawyer. By the way, I AM 100% FOR GUN RIGHTS.

Wow AP, so you are saying we since we have not done any of those things we are not capable of critizing the LE community? Hate to break it to you buddy, but as YOUR EMPLOYERS we have every freaking right to tell you how to do your job. If you cannot handle this job without trashing the Rights of people you have sworn to uphold, I kindly suggest you quit. There are plenty of others out there dieing to take your place. You will not be missed.

But let me just say to one thing for you to ponder. Many of us are ex military, we have been in firefights, we have had guns pointed at us by gangbangers, we have jobs where we have to deal with societies scum. We live with the fear of walking down the crappiest parts of the cities with NO FIREARMS, NO BODY ARMOR, NO MACE, NO BATON, NO BACKUP. Yet we do this on a daily basis, so sorry buddy, your boo hoo story just doesn't fly in my book.

Anyways, we are getting off the subject. AP, I wish you safety in your line of work, being a cop nowadays is not easy. Many of my friends chose that path and I worry about their safety all the time. Our Rights are a hard fought gift from our forefathers, the trampeling of them (however slight) is a slap in the face of those who died for them. We here on CG are ever vigilent not to even give one inch in the protection of those Rights. You as a officer of the law have a taken a sworn oath to also protect those Rights. Peace brother and watch your 6.

Sniper3142
02-09-2010, 5:45 PM
1st, what you do and how you do it makes no difference to me, as I'm not the one upset by your actions or others on this post. 2nd, Generally, you have no right to fight the police, the court of law is where you air your grievances. If you disagree with this, then good luck. :43:

I find it VERY INTERESTING (and maybe a Freudian Slip) that you read my post and came to the conclusion that me wanting to Stand Up for my Rights means I would "fight the police".

I never said anything like that.

:(

So... do you view All Civilians who stand up for their rights as "combative" or "resistant"?!?

hawk84
02-09-2010, 5:57 PM
I'm certain there are better things to be doing in that area than hassling law abiding fishermen soaking a line at local lake..... You are right , and NONE of the people I work with , would start searching a guy like that or a guy sitting in a cafe somewhere....... But when I get to a call of "mutual combat" , Domestic violence , I DON'T ASK people if they mind to be searched. This is how we were trained and this is right.

a friend of mine and myself were boxing in the green area of my complex one day when the police showed up.

Two cops come up the stairs and tell us to stop fighting, we stop fighting, they ask us whats going on, I pull out my mouthpiece, "were boxing, care to make a wager"

why someone called the police on two guys outside with headgear/gloves and mouth pieces on that everytime someone went down the other helped him back up Ill have no idea

mmbasser
02-09-2010, 6:04 PM
Hey, I know this is a silly question, but aren't you allowed to carry a concealed weapon while fishing? I thought that there was an exception to carry a loaded firearm while engaged in legal fishing or hunting, and an exeption to carry an unloaded concealed firearm while going to/from said activity. Did this change recently?


Not a silly question. In fact you are right as far as I know....maybe not at Chabot, but in general.

I'm really suprised NO ONE has addressed this!:confused:

Perhaps the LEOs in question had prior experiences/knowledge, and were covering all the possibilties. I suspect there was some over reaction to the "hands in pockets" stuff. But put youreslf in thier position. What would you think/do?

Not making excuses, just thought I'd point out that you can leagally CCW while fishing.

B Strong
02-09-2010, 6:17 PM
These questions are common:
Mind if I look around inside your vehicle?
Mind if I search your pockets / you?
Mind if I pat you down?

Or anything similar to that.

The correct answer when asked any of these or similar questions is:

"I'm going to decline to allow a search based on my rights under the Constitution."

If asked the questions that start with "Mind if I...", or "Do you mind if I..." You say "Yes, I do mind, and I do not consent to a search..." Saying "No I don't" after being asked "Mind if I..." is the same as saying "Sure, go right ahead"...

If asked questions like "Do you have anything inside your vehicle/on you that you don't want us to know about", you say "I don't agree with the premise of your question, and I'm going to decline to answer based on my rights under the Constitution."

When asked "Where you headed/going to?" You say "I'm going to decline to answer based on my rights under the Constitution".

NEVER CONSENT to a search if they don't have a warrant.

Erik.

I'm a pretty boring guy, but I've ridden sportbikes for many years, and as a result I've come into contact with LEO's under circumstances where they're enforcing the CVC.

For the most part, it's all in a days work for them, and I know that riding top tackle and wearing a racing suit will draw attention, so I've been through stops more often that most people (and not drawing very many tickets over the years either - I pass the attitude test)

If an officer makes small talk, there is no reason not to converse with them like you would with any other human being.

If the conversation turns to searches, you don't have to recite the Constitution or answer like Sam Giancana at the McClellan Committee hearings, just say no thank you.

Most LEO's are just doing their job the best way they know how, it's not personal, they're not out to screw you or take advantage of you, they're just doing the job.

The times where I've encountered an officer that was off his nut on some subject, I keep my mouth shut except for yes sir, no sir, and wait for the storm to pass, as it eventually will.

If you feel that you've been abused or mistreated, get the officer's name and badge number and go through the existing system to file a complaint - all of us yakking here aren't solving anything when it comes to police misconduct, past the general informing of our fellow forum members.

And if anybody really believes that an officer that is in a given situation shouldn't have his safety as a concern, shame on you.

I'm not going to throw the front door of my house open to anybody with a badge and a request to peek through my skivves, but if I'm out at night and something goes down where an officer sizes me up and wants to pat me down, I understand. I'd do exactly the same in their place. I may not consent to a search, but I well understand the situation.

Fate
02-09-2010, 6:35 PM
Wow AP, so you are saying we since we have not done any of those things we are not capable of critizing the LE community? Hate to break it to you buddy, but as YOUR EMPLOYERS we have every freaking right to tell you how to do your job. If you cannot handle this job without trashing the Rights of people you have sworn to uphold, I kindly suggest you quit. There are plenty of others out there dieing to take your place. You will not be missed.

But let me just say to one thing for you to ponder. Many of us are ex military, we have been in firefights, we have had guns pointed at us by gangbangers, we have jobs where we have to deal with societies scum. We live with the fear of walking down the crappiest parts of the cities with NO FIREARMS, NO BODY ARMOR, NO MACE, NO BATON, NO BACKUP. Yet we do this on a daily basis, so sorry buddy, your boo hoo story just doesn't fly in my book.

Anyways, we are getting off the subject. AP, I wish you safety in your line of work, being a cop nowadays is not easy. Many of my friends chose that path and I worry about their safety all the time. Our Rights are a hard fought gift from our forefathers, the trampeling of them (however slight) is a slap in the face of those who died for them. We here on CG are ever vigilent not to even give one inch in the protection of those Rights. You as a officer of the law have a taken a sworn oath to also protect those Rights. Peace brother and watch your 6.
:iagree: Thanks for putting that into words. Been holding my tongue after seeing one of my earlier posts vanish.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 7:25 PM
The hardest part of the job these days is that we got to please the supervisors, the public, the attorneys and the people who's safety we are sworn to protect. Many times we are wrong if we do and we are wrong if we don't.

There are cops with issues .......and there are all kinds of people with issues....I guess it is what it is.

StudioDison
02-09-2010, 7:27 PM
every day this place is more and more a police state.

Doheny
02-09-2010, 7:42 PM
The hardest part of the job these days is that we got to please the supervisors, the public, the attorneys and the people who's safety we are sworn to protect. Many times we are wrong if we do and we are wrong if we don't.

There are cops with issues .......and there are all kinds of people with issues....I guess it is what it is.

Taking your spelling and grammar into consideration, I'm not convinced you're a cop.

You must get a lot of reports bounced back for correction.

.

Mstrty
02-09-2010, 8:24 PM
ap3572001:
While I dont agree with some of your posts. I do admire your persistence. A lot of people discussing their point verses 345 decending points would of bowed out with final comment never to be heard of again. I do believe that you belive you are doing the right thing. All I have to say is "search him not me".:D
Doheny: Go easy on my HS spelling and grammar.;)

Maxwell663
02-09-2010, 8:43 PM
I had the same thing happen to me this last summer while fishing bass fishing at Santa Margarita Lake here on the Central Coast.

dwh100
02-09-2010, 8:46 PM
I was fishing last Sunday when 2 LEO's showed up to check my fishing license, they were extremely rude, FYI I'm a law abiding citizen and no I don't look like a gang banger, I had my hands in my pockets before they showed up and I did not even see them but they were furious and one of them started screaming at me ''TAKE YOUR HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS NOW! LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS NOW!'' ......

So... Did you catch anything besides a hassle from the LEOs...you know...as in fish?

Mikeinblack
02-09-2010, 9:31 PM
I fortunately have had great luck with my LEO interactions to-date, (not that they have been fun, but always respectful and courteous). I think that if a LEO is habitually abusing his power, the formal complaint process will make that crystal clear to their Superiors, and the problem will eventually fix itself -one way or another.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 9:58 PM
Taking your spelling and grammar into consideration, I'm not convinced you're a cop.

You must get a lot of reports bounced back for correction.

.

I use spell check . If I stopped You while on duty ( unless I am on "plain detail") You would believe it right away. Unless......It was Halloween :D

sorensen440
02-09-2010, 10:03 PM
Taking your spelling and grammar into consideration, I'm not convinced you're a cop.

He is a cop

bambam8d1
02-09-2010, 10:13 PM
when you get patted down just giggle. smile at the cop and say you missed a spot.

sorensen440
02-09-2010, 10:14 PM
when you get patted down just giggle. smile at the cop and say you missed a spot.
Gotta be careful with that in this state as you might just find yourself getting a extra special pat down

pullnshoot25
02-09-2010, 10:38 PM
Most LEO's are just doing their job the best way they know how, it's not personal, they're not out to screw you or take advantage of you, they're just doing the job...

And if anybody really believes that an officer that is in a given situation shouldn't have his safety as a concern, shame on you.

1) Yeah, about that... I find that hard to believe about 95% of the time. This coming from yet another (relatively) boring guy that happens to like carrying a gun around.

2) No one is saying that officers shouldn't be safe. However, officer safety is not a reason to violate the Constitution which, believe it or not, happens with alarming regularity, especially where I am at and even more so in San Francisco.

The hardest part of the job these days is that we got to please the supervisors, the public, the attorneys and the people who's safety we are sworn to protect. Many times we are wrong if we do and we are wrong if we don't.

There are cops with issues .......and there are all kinds of people with issues....I guess it is what it is.

Minor correction, but your job is to protect the public and uphold the Constitution. Of course, the people in the context it is used in could be construed as the public. However, I figured I would be anal-retentive and just clarify everything.

SvenFrost
02-09-2010, 11:40 PM
I use spell check . If I stopped You while on duty ( unless I am on "plain detail") You would believe it right away. Unless......It was Halloween :D

Is it the uniform or is it the attitude?:rolleyes:

GrizzlyGuy
02-10-2010, 5:05 AM
Hey, I know this is a silly question, but aren't you allowed to carry a concealed weapon while fishing? I thought that there was an exception to carry a loaded firearm while engaged in legal fishing or hunting, and an exeption to carry an unloaded concealed firearm while going to/from said activity. Did this change recently?

You can carry concealed but not necessarily loaded, even while engaged in the activity. More info in the FAQ:

Can I carry a concealed weapon while fishing? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_carry_a_concealed_weapon_while_fishing.3 F)

Can I carry a concealed weapon while hunting? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_carry_a_concealed_weapon_while_hunting.3 F)

ap3572001
02-10-2010, 8:55 AM
Is it the uniform or is it the attitude?:rolleyes:

Both..... I guess......