PDA

View Full Version : SAN FERNANDO PAYS OVER $44,000, ADOPTS NEW FIREARM POLICES, AND FACTUAL INNOCENCE


JasonDavis
01-24-2011, 2:58 PM
Mission Viejo, CA (January 24, 2011) - The City of San Fernando will pay over $44,000 to San Fernando former Coast Guard Reserve maritime law enforcement Officer Jose Diaz and implement new policies and procedures for the improper arrest and seizure of Coast Guard Reserve officer Jose Diaz. The San Fernando Police Department also agreed to a Finding of Factual Innocence.

The lawsuit sought to ensure San Fernando properly trains its officers to deal with law-abiding gun owners. “The San Fernando Police Department give’s out awards to officer’s that ‘achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations,’” said Davis. “But this contest encourages the illegal confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by officers who do not understand the laws themselves.”

In November of 2007, then Reserve Coast Guard maritime law enforcement officer Diaz was driving to a shooting range when he was stopped by San Fernando Police Officer Marshall Mack to determine if Diaz had the proper vehicle registration. Upon approaching Diaz’s vehicle, Officer Mack observed a firearms case in the back seat with a firearm cable lock entangled around the handle of the case. Officer Mack was able to open the case without a key. The case contained two loaded magazines and a Glock with no magazine in the well of the firearm and no cartridge in the chamber.

At issue, was whether the cable lock entangled around the handle of the case constituted a locked container constituted a “locked container” and whether a coast guard reserve maritime law enforcement officer was permitted to carry pursuant to the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows police officers to carry firearms off duty.

Three years ago, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act was passed by Congress and permitted Qualified Law Enforcement Officers to carry firearms regardless of state law. Shortly thereafter, a New York court held that LEOSA applied to certain members of the Coast Guard – the largest continuous maritime law enforcement service in the United States.

“I showed Officer Mack my Coast Guard ID and informed the officer that the LEOSA permitted me to carry a firearm as a Coast Guard maritime law enforcement reserve officer,” said Diaz. “I also informed Officer Mack that I was carrying the firearm lawfully - unloaded and in a locked container.”
Falsely believing that California law required firearms be stored separate from the ammunition, Mack arrested Diaz for unlawful possession of a loaded firearm because a loaded magazine was touching the firearm within the case. Diaz was booked and spent one night and one day in jail.

As California court precedent in People v. Clark, holds that a firearm is not loaded unless the ammunition is in a position from which it can be fired, the District Attorney instead filed against Diaz for unlawful possession of a firearm in a vehicle. That case was subsequently dismissed.

Diaz’s subsequent civil lawsuit for battery, false arrest, and federal civil rights violations languished with two previous attorneys for two and a half years of litigation. Diaz contacted The Calguns Foundation, Inc. for assistance.

“While we cannot financially support every firearms case, we have a stake in many of them,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman for The Calguns Foundation. “We recommended that Diaz use an attorney knowledgeable in firearm laws and offered informational support.”

Diaz retained firearm rights attorney Jason Davis, who, on the eve of trial, orchestrated a settlement (http://hoffmang.com/firearms/diaz/DiazSignedAgreement.pdf) with the San Fernando Police Department. Davis announced the terms of the settlement today, which includes educational policies on “assault weapons,” carry permits, open carry, and LEOSA.

“Public safety is of the utmost importance . . . and that includes safety from infringement of our constitutional rights under the color of law,” said Davis. “With this settlement, and the policies implemented as a result of the agreement, it is my hope that law enforcement throughout the state will get the message that California’s gun owners insist on their rights.”

LHC30
01-24-2011, 3:03 PM
HOORAHH!!!

Sorry to hear Diaz had to go through this ordeal....Thanks to Jason and crew for furthering education in LE establishments.....Perhaps he can devise a POST training block for STATEWIDE circulation!

wash
01-24-2011, 3:03 PM
This is great.

Pred@tor
01-24-2011, 3:04 PM
nice

J.D.Allen
01-24-2011, 3:05 PM
:party: go get em! :90:

mrrsquared79
01-24-2011, 3:06 PM
Major kudos to Jason and Mr. Diaz!!


:jump:

:party:

:King:

imtheomegaman
01-24-2011, 3:12 PM
Good work. Battle fought and won. Congratulations to all involved, hopefully saves a few others from a similar fate.

Barabas
01-24-2011, 3:12 PM
Of course they're going to settle... it's only taxpayer's money after all.

Congrats Mr. Diaz and Mr. Davis! I love it when settlements end with a finding of factual innocence.

blackberg
01-24-2011, 3:13 PM
good going
-bb

NiteQwill
01-24-2011, 3:14 PM
So good. Unfortunately, Mr. Diaz was STILL arrested and placed in jail. Not to mention that such events may have cost him his military career and security clearance.

MasterYong
01-24-2011, 3:19 PM
As California court precedent in People v. Clark, holds that a firearm is not loaded unless the ammunition is in a position from which it can be fired, the District Attorney instead filed against Diaz for unlawful possession of a firearm in a vehicle.

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!

Why then can't I have a mag in the well and not a round in the chamber? No one in their right mind could say that a loaded mag in the well without a round in the chamber constitutes "ammunition in a position from which it can be fired."

If your gun can fire with no round in the chamber, please, have it checked out by a competent gunsmith- mkay?

bwiese
01-24-2011, 3:23 PM
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.

PatriotnMore
01-24-2011, 3:26 PM
So good. Unfortunately, Mr. Diaz was STILL arrested and placed in jail. Not to mention that such events may have cost him his military career and security clearance.

Bingo, although I am glad to hear this has caused a change in policy, it does not change what this guy had to go through because of ignorance.

MudCamper
01-24-2011, 3:26 PM
WTG.

rodeoflyer
01-24-2011, 3:33 PM
I know that officer well. He has a bad rap around town. This story doesn't surprise me at all.

Next time I run into him i'll make sure to mention it. :p

stix213
01-24-2011, 3:35 PM
$44k settlement? Getting your 2A rights violated seems to be turning into quite a profitable business in CA lately. When oh when can I get my firearms illegally confiscated and unjustly spend the night in jail.... hmmm

Glock22Fan
01-24-2011, 3:37 PM
Well done, Jason

John

stix213
01-24-2011, 3:38 PM
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!

Why then can't I have a mag in the well and not a round in the chamber? No one in their right mind could say that a loaded mag in the well without a round in the chamber constitutes "ammunition in a position from which it can be fired."

If your gun can fire with no round in the chamber, please, have it checked out by a competent gunsmith- mkay?

I believe that is an ambiguous area in the Clark decision.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-24-2011, 3:43 PM
The area of San Fernando is largely either long time conservative homedwellers, or gangs. The police have a hard time there dealing with the gangs, from thier city and the surrounding cities. But, even under tough circumstances, they should have known better. San Fernando is also home to one of the most popular avenues for travel for many So Cal residents as the 210 bisects that area and is a main route to get to the Grapevine. This could have been any of us, geting off the 210 to fuel up, etc.

Librarian
01-24-2011, 3:47 PM
The training bulletin brings little tears of joy to my eyes...

Some samples:

"Because much of the public is unaware of the legalities of "open carrying," if the facts present themselves to be of the "open carry" type, dispatch will advise the caller that California does permit the open carrying of unloaded firearms with some exceptions."

"When making the initial contact with a person carrying a handgun in a holster or otherwise carrying a firearm openly, officers should consider that the individual may be carrying a firearm lawfully, barring any other indicia of reasonable suspicion of a crime being or about to be committed. In assessing the situation, officers must consider the 4th amendment rights of the individuals carrying firearms openly as well as their own safety and the safety of the public."

"Unloaded Open Carry enthusiasts most likely will not produce identification, even if requested. It is their stance that they are complying with all laws and are not compelled to identi$z themselves. In short, there is no authority that requires them to identify themselves. Do not enforce the PC$ 148 solely under this circumstance. Absent any other reasonable suspicions of articulable facts, we cannot arrest for failure to provide Identification. Other law enforcement agencies improperly cite Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District, which allowed for a demand for LD., this case was in Nevada which has a "Stop and I.D." statute. California has no similar requirement for I.D. Thus, it is not a PC 148 to fail to identi$ oneself during an investigative stop. (-In re Gregory S.,ll2 Cal.App.3d 764 (1980).)"

"In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing PC$ 1203 1 , peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place, or on any public street, or in any prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section is, in itself, probable cause for arrest for violation of 12031.

It is important to note that the authority granted by this provision does not permit any search or seizure beyond mere inspection of the firearm to determine whether the firearm is loaded. It does not, without additional factors, give you the right to prolong the contact beyond inspection to run computer checks or complete an FI. To do this you must have consent or additional factors that justify a reasonable suspicion detention."

"If a firearm is determined to be lawfully carried at the time of a Penal Code 12031(e) inspection, the firearm must be immediately returned to the individual. If the firearm was removed from an individual's holster, the officer shall return the firearm to the holstered position for the individual so as to not place the individual in a position of brandishing a firearm in a public place."

"BOTTOM LINE FOR CARRYING ISSUES
Law abiding citizens are carrying firearms in compliance with California laws with increased frequency. Police may stop a person who is openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster and may inspect the firearm to see if it is loaded;
however, the person may not be arrested for violating PC$ 12031 if ammunition is not in such a position from which it can be fired, even though the person may have immediate access to matching ammunition. Upon a determination that the firearm is unloaded, the firearm should be returned and the person in possession advised that he or she is free to leave. Further questioning may be done on a voluntary basis."

'Tis a thing of beauty, it is, it is.

Blackhawk556
01-24-2011, 3:50 PM
I like that they will take classes on assault weapons. Now people with a AR and a bullet button will be in the clear

MR2Chuck
01-24-2011, 3:52 PM
Thank you, Calguns Foundation

Recession
01-24-2011, 3:54 PM
:26:

ojisan
01-24-2011, 3:55 PM
Great victory!
However, just that fact that this program has been going on worries me greatly:
“The San Fernando Police Department give’s out awards to officer’s that ‘achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations,’

How many innocents have been thrown under the bus with trumped-up criminal charges, or illegally lost their property at the minimum since this awards program went into effect?

choprzrul
01-24-2011, 3:56 PM
Again, I would really like to see these violators of fundamental 2A civil rights have to surrender a minimum of 10% of their retirement pensions. I would go so far as to say 10% of EACH officer involved AND 10% from the supervisor. I think that pursuing a % of retirement pensions is the ONLY way to effectively stop civil rights violations.

Give all of the settlement money to Mr. Davis while Mr. Diaz gets the benefit of the retirement pensions.

.

RobG
01-24-2011, 4:02 PM
Great news!! :thumbsup: To Jason Davis the CGF.


I know that officer well. He has a bad rap around town. This story doesn't surprise me at all.

Next time I run into him i'll make sure to mention it. :p

The unfortunate part is that this jackazz still has a job. Violate someones civil rights, get your city sued, city pays out, then walk away scott free:mad:

Oceanbob
01-24-2011, 4:03 PM
Way to go..!!!!!!!!!!!.....I will print this and carry a copy in my GUN case when I travel.

Thanks again.!

Bob

GOEX FFF
01-24-2011, 4:16 PM
WTG CGF, Mr. Davis and Mr. Diaz!

This is what happens when the law-abiding person is expect to know every inch of the law, while some LEO's don't get any training or have any understanding themselves in the matter.

It's gonna get real expensive...

rodeoflyer
01-24-2011, 4:21 PM
I like that they will take classes on assault weapons. Now people with a AR and a bullet button will be in the clear

Ironically, I presented a copy of the Flowchart to none other than.......OFFICER MACK :D little more than a week ago.

The shame is that he isn't that bad a guy, in the "Vic Mackey" sense I suppose I would say. He's given me crap more than several times over the years (i've lived in San Fernando my entire life), but not once did he actually write me a ticket. All we can hope for is that he and the rest of the department learn from being overzealous.

He needed to be taken down a notch, but i'll still say if I call for help I hope he shows up first.

jtmkinsd
01-24-2011, 4:23 PM
“The San Fernando Police Department give’s out awards to officer’s that ‘achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations,’” said Davis.

This is really what is so disturbing. How many other departments have similar programs? And how many law-abiding gun owners suffer the consequences. :mad:

rodeoflyer
01-24-2011, 4:27 PM
The unfortunate part is that this jackazz still has a job. Violate someones civil rights, get your city sued, city pays out, then walk away scott free:mad:

He also took a bullet to the face while off duty on his way in to work. That was 10-12 years ago I think. I highly doubt he is walking away "scott free", but i'm sure he's been given more leeway than another officer might have gotten.

Southbay
01-24-2011, 4:35 PM
More good news, excellent.

bjl333
01-24-2011, 4:47 PM
:jump::party::jump::party:

:thumbsup: CGF & Jason Davis

Centurion_D
01-24-2011, 4:54 PM
$44K..that's all? Man should have got more. A lot more.

Can'thavenuthingood
01-24-2011, 5:09 PM
Thank you Mr. Jason Davis.

I love this place:)

Vick

bden
01-24-2011, 5:12 PM
Awesome! Well done.

gunsmith
01-24-2011, 5:20 PM
this is certainly good news, however, as a law enforcement coastie he had every right to carry?! thats goos news for all the MP's out there-does the law also recognize people who were MP's and then didn't re-up?

CaliforniaCarry
01-24-2011, 5:24 PM
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!

Why then can't I have a mag in the well and not a round in the chamber? No one in their right mind could say that a loaded mag in the well without a round in the chamber constitutes "ammunition in a position from which it can be fired."

If your gun can fire with no round in the chamber, please, have it checked out by a competent gunsmith- mkay?

I don't have any cases to back it up (and of course IANAL), but here's my take:

Ammunition inside of a magazine that is inserted into the magazine well of the firearm is placed in a position from where it can be fired solely by the operation of the weapon itself.

A magazine that is external to the firearm requires the user to insert it before operating the firearm. It requires extra steps outside the operation of the firearm itself.

mrdd
01-24-2011, 5:25 PM
Does this clarify the meaning of "locked container" as relates to firearms in the Penal Code?

mpesh
01-24-2011, 5:25 PM
$44K..that's all? Man should have got more. A lot more.

I am surprised that Davis got him anything at all since the case was not locked in a way that prevented the officer from getting the gun without using a key or a combination lock.

Casual_Shooter
01-24-2011, 5:29 PM
Congrats.

nobody_special
01-24-2011, 5:29 PM
I doubt that $44k will even cover his legal bills.

The training memo is excellent, aside from the unconstitutional (e) check...

The victory is a good sign but we still have far to go...

craneman
01-24-2011, 5:34 PM
WTG!!! Good Job!!

Ford8N
01-24-2011, 5:40 PM
Very good. Now we need the DOJ to send out a state wide bulletin about the legality of OLL and open carry...... and UPDATE THE DAMN ASSAULT WEAPON IDENTIFICATION GUIDE.

3rd Edition 2001 :fud:

jb7706
01-24-2011, 5:43 PM
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.

New sig line right there.

Oceanbob
01-24-2011, 5:49 PM
Does this clarify the meaning of "locked container" as relates to firearms in the Penal Code?

That a CABLE lOCK wrapped around a case is USELESS...!!!

Locked Container means just that. LOCKED.!

A briefcase ($29 buck from Staples) locked up tight would have needed a SEARCH WARRANT to open.

This Netbook case I bought at TARGET for $18 with it's combo padlock is all
anyone needs. It doesn't scream GUN CASE either.

GLOCK 29 with two loaded magazines. Same case.

http://i51.tinypic.com/5d6vbs.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/256bq06.jpg

JimSar
01-24-2011, 5:52 PM
I'm not an attorney nor I play one on TV, but the " Finding of Factual Innocence" that was granted is very important in my layman's opinion. In the future, Mr. Diaz can truthfully answer NO if asked "have you ever been arrested...".

Is there such a thing as professional courtesy in law enforcement? It was probably obvious that after Mr. Diaz presented his Coast Guard ID that he's not deemed a threat to society. Can't a police officer give someone the benefit of the doubt if he's not 100% sure about the law?

Of course, Mr. Diaz may have also been guilty of DWL. Driving While Latino. :)

JimSar
01-24-2011, 5:57 PM
Locked Container means just that. LOCKED.!

This Netbook case I bought at TARGET for $18 with it's combo padlock is all
anyone needs. It doesn't scream GUN CASE either.


Great idea. I'll get one next time I'm at Target. My lockable metal case with 3 digit combination is legal, but it screams GUN, especially with the CALGUNS.NET sticker and "Notice To Police" luggage tag.

Tack
01-24-2011, 5:58 PM
I'm glad Diaz was found innocent. I'm sorry that most of the award went to legal fees.

Is a civil suit a possibility?

Sunday
01-24-2011, 6:00 PM
Do a civil suit directly to the officer as a private citizen.

mrdd
01-24-2011, 6:27 PM
That a CABLE lOCK wrapped around a case is USELESS...!!!

Locked Container means just that. LOCKED.!

OK, I am trying to understand the PC 12025 angle. He may have been carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle, based on your statement about the uselessness of the cable lock. But, there was no prosecution for that.

Just wondering whether they decided that it was locked (unlikely), it was not concealed (unlikely), or what? Did they decide that the whole situation was so messed up that they just dropped all charges?

rodeoflyer
01-24-2011, 6:41 PM
Is there such a thing as professional courtesy in law enforcement? It was probably obvious that after Mr. Diaz presented his Coast Guard ID that he's not deemed a threat to society. Can't a police officer give someone the benefit of the doubt if he's not 100% sure about the law?

Of course, Mr. Diaz may have also been guilty of DWL. Driving While Latino. :)

Since when is a military id a guarantee against a threat? I seem to recall a high ranking army officer crazy and killing people at Ft. Hood recently...

As far as "DWL" - that's crap. 79% of the population of San Fernando (all 3 square miles of it) is Latino. Furthermore, the same percentage of police officers are Latino as well.

I'm glad it worked out for Mr. Diaz, but let's be reasonable here. Unfortunately we have to be vigilant about protecting our rights. Had Mr. Diaz's weapon been properly stowed the whole thing would not have happened. Even better - not getting pulled over in the first place with a gun in plain sight .

Driving While Ignorant would seem to better apply. As I said, i'm glad it was an eventual favorable outcome, but it could have been avoided.

uyoga
01-24-2011, 6:45 PM
I have yet to read about this case in the local media - has anybody?

Sgt Raven
01-24-2011, 6:54 PM
That a CABLE lOCK wrapped around a case is USELESS...!!!

Locked Container means just that. LOCKED.!

A briefcase ($29 buck from Staples) locked up tight would have needed a SEARCH WARRANT to open.

This Netbook case I bought at TARGET for $18 with it's combo padlock is all
anyone needs. It doesn't scream GUN CASE either.

GLOCK 29 with two loaded magazines. Same case.

http://i51.tinypic.com/5d6vbs.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/256bq06.jpg

I bet I can open that case without damaging it and the lock will still be locked to the zipper pulls, and if done right, it won't show that it has been opened after I'm done.

Ding126
01-24-2011, 6:58 PM
Bravo.....Bravo

thatrogue
01-24-2011, 7:02 PM
"Davis announced the terms of the settlement today, which includes educational policies on “assault weapons,” carry permits, open carry, and LEOSA.

“Public safety is of the utmost importance . . . and that includes safety from infringement of our constitutional rights under the color of law,” said Davis. “With this settlement, and the policies implemented as a result of the agreement, it is my hope that law enforcement throughout the state will get the message that California’s gun owners insist on their rights.”

Jason Davis and his kick *** team deserve a round of applause on this one.

RobG
01-24-2011, 7:10 PM
He also took a bullet to the face while off duty on his way in to work. That was 10-12 years ago I think. I highly doubt he is walking away "scott free", but i'm sure he's been given more leeway than another officer might have gotten.

Not to minimize being shot but, it has nothing to do with violating someones civil rights or this case. I suppose we'll never know the repercussions, if any, he recieved.

obeygiant
01-24-2011, 7:56 PM
The Ring of Fire was unleashed and only the innocent survived, Great job Jason!

383green
01-24-2011, 7:58 PM
Hmm, that ring of fire isn't so comfortable to sit on, is it? :D

Great job, Mr. Davis! Congratulations to Mr. Diaz for his long-overdue vindication!

FireControlman
01-24-2011, 8:11 PM
this is certainly good news, however, as a law enforcement coastie he had every right to carry?! thats goos news for all the MP's out there-does the law also recognize people who were MP's and then didn't re-up?

No, no, no, has nothing to do whatsoever with MP's - nothing. LEOSA is for law enforcement officers, not military police - as in enlisted. Coast Guard boarding officers and others assigned into a law enforcement role do fall under LEOSA; this is due to their unique status and is not related in any way to enlisted or officer MPs or MA types.

Im Broken
01-24-2011, 8:14 PM
wait is this in San Fernando Valley, like my area of living? in the 818

Decoligny
01-24-2011, 8:27 PM
Since when is a military id a guarantee against a threat? I seem to recall a high ranking army officer crazy and killing people at Ft. Hood recently...

It wasn't just a Military ID, it was a CoastGuard ID. The CG is the only service that actually serves in a law enforcement capacity, and many members have all the same authority as any other Federal LEO. So he was supposed to be covered by the LEOSA. So, he was legally allowed to carry loaded and concealed.

hoffmang
01-24-2011, 8:32 PM
No, no, no, has nothing to do whatsoever with MP's - nothing. LEOSA is for law enforcement officers, not military police - as in enlisted. Coast Guard boarding officers and others assigned into a law enforcement role do fall under LEOSA; this is due to their unique status and is not related to in any way to enlisted or officer MPs or MA types.

And do be careful. Not all Coasties fall under LEOSA. You have to have arrest powers. Many do but not all.

The Ring of Fire is burning brighter and brighter...

-Gene

cindynles
01-24-2011, 8:34 PM
It wasn't just a Military ID, it was a CoastGuard ID. The CG is the only service that actually serves in a law enforcement capacity, and many members have all the same authority as any other Federal LEO. So he was supposed to be covered by the LEOSA. So, he was legally allowed to carry loaded and concealed.

Yep, remember the Coast Guard is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, not the D.O.D.

Kid Stanislaus
01-24-2011, 11:21 PM
Great news!! :thumbsup: To Jason Davis the CGF. The unfortunate part is that this jackazz still has a job. Violate someones civil rights, get your city sued, city pays out, then walk away scott free:mad:

Well, if he was not properly trained............

DannyInSoCal
01-24-2011, 11:39 PM
Great news!! :thumbsup: To Jason Davis the CGF.



The unfortunate part is that this jackazz still has a job. Violate someones civil rights, get your city sued, city pays out, then walk away scott free:mad:

If they fired his azz and he lost his pension - Overnight LEO training would be consistent, updated frequently, and accurate....

Kudos to Davis and CGF...

keefbeef
01-24-2011, 11:58 PM
"When making the initial contact with a person carrying a handgun in a holster or otherwise carrying a firearm openly, officers should consider that the individual may be carrying a firearm lawfully, barring any other indicia of reasonable suspicion of a crime being or about to be committed. In assessing the situation, officers must consider the 4th amendment rights of the individuals carrying firearms openly as well as their own safety and the safety of the public."

"Unloaded Open Carry enthusiasts most likely will not produce identification, even if requested. It is their stance that they are complying with all laws and are not compelled to identi$z themselves. In short, there is no authority that requires them to identify themselves. Do not enforce the PC$ 148 solely under this circumstance. Absent any other reasonable suspicions of articulable facts, we cannot arrest for failure to provide Identification. Other law enforcement agencies improperly cite Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District, which allowed for a demand for LD., this case was in Nevada which has a "Stop and I.D." statute. California has no similar requirement for I.D. Thus, it is not a PC 148 to fail to identi$ oneself during an investigative stop. (-In re Gregory S.,ll2 Cal.App.3d 764 (1980).)"

It is important to note that the authority granted by this provision does not permit any search or seizure beyond mere inspection of the firearm to determine whether the firearm is loaded. It does not, without additional factors, give you the right to prolong the contact beyond inspection to run computer checks or complete an FI. To do this you must have consent or additional factors that justify a reasonable suspicion detention."

"BOTTOM LINE FOR CARRYING ISSUES
Law abiding citizens are carrying firearms in compliance with California laws with increased frequency. Police may stop a person who is openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster and may inspect the firearm to see if it is loaded;
however, the person may not be arrested for violating PC$ 12031 if ammunition is not in such a position from which it can be fired, even though the person may have immediate access to matching ammunition. Upon a determination that the firearm is unloaded, the firearm should be returned and the person in possession advised that he or she is free to leave. Further questioning may be done on a voluntary basis."


Wow... just... wow... :patriot:

E Pluribus Unum
01-25-2011, 1:33 AM
LEOSA was the key here.

Any one of us would have been charged with concealed carry without a permit.

Joe
01-25-2011, 1:42 AM
Excellent work Jason Davis!

Untamed1972
01-25-2011, 8:18 AM
Outstanding job guys! When you read articles like this can any LEO be suprised at why law-abiding gun owners have cause to feel like LE isn't their friend?


“The San Fernando Police Department give’s out awards to officer’s that ‘achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations,’”


WTF is that all about? You've got to be kidding me!!! I'm sorry but having such a program in place is simply an outrage and an afront to decent law-abiding people. So someone try and tell me now that CA-LE are not TRAINED to find every excuse they can to arrest someone with a gun and confiscate it whether they are doing anything illegal or not.

moleculo
01-25-2011, 9:12 AM
Can we get an actual copy of the training memo posted? I would like to forward it to my city's PD Chief and city council. Here in Monrovia, our Chief has had a "Stop Gun Violence Bounty" program:

Stop Gun Violence Bounty Program

In February 1997, Monrovia implemented the Stop Gun Violence Bounty Program. Any person who sees a person illegally possessing a gun in a public place or on any school campus is encouraged to immediately report it by calling the Monrovia Police Department any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by dialing 9-1-1. It is preferred the caller identify him/herself; however, it is not mandatory. The caller may remain anonymous.

Upon receipt of the information, the police dispatcher issues a confidential identification number to the caller and requests a call back telephone number. If the caller wishes to remain anonymous, he/she will be instructed to call the department in one hour for final disposition using the identification number. The dispatcher then immediately dispatches a police officer to investigate and locate the suspected violator.

If the police officer does locate and arrest the suspect for illegally possessing a gun in a public place, the watch commander makes immediate arrangements for the caller to receive a new $100 bill. Donated funds from individuals, businesses and organizations are used to fund the bounties.

If they're are going to promote a program like this, I would like to make sure the Chief has properly educated his officers on the law and the consequences of ignoring it.

Link to Chief's program here: http://www.ci.monrovia.ca.us/city-government/departments/police-department/welcome-from-chief/96-programs-a-projects

tabrisnet
01-25-2011, 9:47 AM
It wasn't just a Military ID, it was a CoastGuard ID. The CG is the only service that actually serves in a law enforcement capacity, and many members have all the same authority as any other Federal LEO. So he was supposed to be covered by the LEOSA. So, he was legally allowed to carry loaded and concealed.

This just looks so wrong...

he was covered under LEOSA, was carrying LUCC (ok, not properly locked), was arrested for carrying loaded (which it was not)... and he had the legal right to carry concealed loaded.

The entire situation makes no sense.

Civilitant
01-25-2011, 9:55 AM
it makes perfect sense if you patrol / act like this regularly and have become desensitized to your own .. blah blah -until there are consequences.

Jack L
01-25-2011, 10:08 AM
I know that officer well. He has a bad rap around town. This story doesn't surprise me at all.

Next time I run into him i'll make sure to mention it. :p


I am of the belief LEOs that make bad arrests or confiscations should have marks against their record, stunting their ability to get raises or more benefits. Make it hurt of not much will change.

Librarian
01-25-2011, 10:51 AM
Can we get an actual copy of the training memo posted? I would like to forward it to my city's PD Chief and city council. Here in Monrovia, our Chief has had a "Stop Gun Violence Bounty" program:


It's a part of the settlement document linked in the first post.

jnojr
01-25-2011, 11:29 AM
Falsely believing that California law required firearms be stored separate from the ammunition, Mack arrested Diaz for unlawful possession of a loaded firearm because a loaded magazine was touching the firearm within the case. Diaz was booked and spent one night and one day in jail.

Was Ofc. Mack fired, charged with a crime, arrested, imprisoned, or in any way held personally responsible for his illegal actions?

I'll go waaaay out on a limb and guess, "No".

I'm sure he'll be very grateful to the taxpayers of San fernando for going ahead and taking care of that $44,000 check for him while he continues to accumulate his obscene pension.

And we wonder why these things Just. Keep. Happening.

jnojr
01-25-2011, 11:33 AM
Well, if he was not properly trained............

Since when is "I wasn't properly trained" a valid excuse for breaking the law and depriving another individual of their rights?

Arresting someone for something that is not a crime is, in and of itself, a crime. What would happen to any California citizen if they had arrested someone under the exact same circumstances? Keep in mind that you, as a citizen, have the exact same legal powers of arrest as an LEO. I'll tell you what would happen... you'd be charged with at least one felony, have the book thrown at you, and your absolute best chance would be a plea bargain, because no jury would acquit you because you "made an honest mistake" and "really, really thought that Diaz had committed a crime".

Untamed1972
01-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Since when is "I wasn't properly trained" a valid excuse for breaking the law and depriving another individual of their rights?

Arresting someone for something that is not a crime is, in and of itself, a crime. What would happen to any California citizen if they had arrested someone under the exact same circumstances? Keep in mind that you, as a citizen, have the exact same legal powers of arrest as an LEO. I'll tell you what would happen... you'd be charged with at least one felony, have the book thrown at you, and your absolute best chance would be a plea bargain, because no jury would acquit you because you "made an honest mistake" and "really, really thought that Diaz had committed a crime".

You can thank "qualified immunity" for that. If YOU think you're doing something legal but you're actually not.....oh well you get the book thrown at you. If THEY think they're doing something legal when they actually aren't you get a "Oh....sorry about that."

CEDaytonaRydr
01-25-2011, 11:54 AM
Sorry, I'm a bit unfamiliar with this case but for clarification:

The cop opened the case from one side and was able to "wiggle" the pistol out of the case, while locked... Right?

So, for my own edification, as long as the container has a lock in the closed position on it, I'm good.

Untamed1972
01-25-2011, 12:14 PM
Sorry, I'm a bit unfamiliar with this case but for clarification:

The cop opened the case from one side and was able to "wiggle" the pistol out of the case, while locked... Right?

So, for my own edification, as long as the container has a lock in the closed position on it, I'm good.


If you can get the gun out of the case w/o having to remove the lock....then it's not a locked container.

The other interviening issues for THIS case was the fact that he had LEO status and hence despite being able to remove the firearm from the case, it didn't matter because with LEO status he was not required to carry in a locked container anyway.

For regular joe, if you are container carrying, to avoid getting hit with a CCW w/o a permit charge, the container needs to be locked such that you cannot still access the firearm w/o unlocking the case.

just4fun63
01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
Perhaps he can devise a POST training block for STATEWIDE circulation!

This is something we should look into. I've seen the POST firearms training and it's laughable.

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 12:25 PM
If THEY think they're doing something legal when they actually aren't you get a "Oh....sorry about that."

Except ignorance is just an act. They swore an oath to support and defend COTUS. That means there's really no honest choice between violating civil rights or not. If you don't understand English, you shouldn't have sworn it, and you shouldn't be in the position where you can enforce facially, intentionally, and maliciously unconstitutional laws, knowing that you are only disarming victims and helping criminals. That there is an equally acceptable choice in policing between being a tyrant and a respectable human being, is a travesty.

Nor-Cal
01-25-2011, 12:27 PM
This is awsome!

753X0
01-25-2011, 12:36 PM
HOORAHH!!!

Sorry to hear Diaz had to go through this ordeal....Thanks to Jason and crew for furthering education in LE establishments.....Perhaps he can devise a POST training block for STATEWIDE circulation!

POST should be all over this.

DTOM CA!
01-25-2011, 12:49 PM
Why such a rush to put someone in jail ? The Officer could see that he made an attempt to store the guns unloaded in a locked case. How bout telling him it is not a legally locked case, put it in the trunk and tell him to get a better locking case ASAP. It seems like splitting hairs especially when the guy is in the Coast Guard. This reminds me to always carry firearms in non discript locked containers and hide ammo out of sight.

Untamed1972
01-25-2011, 12:57 PM
Why such a rush to put someone in jail ? The Officer could see that he made an attempt to store the guns unloaded in a locked case. How bout telling him it is not a legally locked case, put it in the trunk and tell him to get a better locking case ASAP. It seems like splitting hairs especially when the guy is in the Coast Guard. This reminds me to always carry firearms in non discript locked containers and hide ammo out of sight.

Why? Because his Dept. trained and INCENTIVIZED him to take guns away from people for any reason he could think of even if it required ignoring clear evidence in front of his face that there was nothing illegal about what he saw.

stormy_clothing
01-25-2011, 12:58 PM
simple - gun convictions are worth tons in fines and prestige for department stats and the mayors and DA's who claim them.

the shtty thing is SF is probably stepping up parking enforcement or some other money grab to pay for this.

Vtec44
01-25-2011, 1:04 PM
Hopefully the guy in here, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=388167, will contact Jason ... or vice versa.

rodeoflyer
01-25-2011, 1:16 PM
simple - gun convictions are worth tons in fines and prestige for department stats and the mayors and DA's who claim them.

the shtty thing is SF is probably stepping up parking enforcement or some other money grab to pay for this.

God I hope not. A basic parking ticket went form $25 up to $45 about 2 years ago.

The city is only roughly 3 square miles. There isn't any money. In 2009 they didn't put up the city's Christmas decorations because they couldn't afford to pay $40,000 in public works costs.

willm952
01-25-2011, 1:27 PM
Great to hear! Thanks Calguns, Jason Davis and Jose Diaz. Maybe LAPD will get the message.

dilligaffrn
01-25-2011, 1:30 PM
Good Job!

Ogolden1
01-25-2011, 1:35 PM
The training bulletin brings little tears of joy to my eyes...

"If a firearm is determined to be lawfully carried at the time of a Penal Code 12031(e) inspection, the firearm must be immediately returned to the individual. If the firearm was removed from an individual's holster, the officer shall return the firearm to the holstered position for the individual so as to not place the individual in a position of brandishing a firearm in a public place.".

I thought one of the legal elements of "brandishing" was that you had to be "waving or pointing it in a threatening manor!"

Someone, please clarify that for me!


.

Liberty1
01-25-2011, 2:38 PM
RoF FTW!!! :)

Dutch3
01-25-2011, 3:11 PM
Great to hear! Thanks Calguns, Jason Davis and Jose Diaz. Maybe LAPD will get the message.

Yes...maybe Burbank, too.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-25-2011, 4:23 PM
I'm not an attorney nor I play one on TV, but the " Finding of Factual Innocence" that was granted is very important in my layman's opinion. In the future, Mr. Diaz can truthfully answer NO if asked "have you ever been arrested...".

Is there such a thing as professional courtesy in law enforcement? It was probably obvious that after Mr. Diaz presented his Coast Guard ID that he's not deemed a threat to society. Can't a police officer give someone the benefit of the doubt if he's not 100% sure about the law?

Of course, Mr. Diaz may have also been guilty of DWL. Driving While Latino. :)


Having met Mr. Diaz & discussed the matter, that was my take on it.


As far as "DWL" - that's crap. 79% of the population of San Fernando (all 3 square miles of it) is Latino. Furthermore, the same percentage of police officers are Latino as well.


That might only mean that 79% of the city is at risk from the cops.


The Raisuli

Ford8N
01-25-2011, 7:03 PM
DWL is a hazard. So is a driving a Escalade with spinners, having a shaved head and wearing Dickies. This is California after all.

model63
01-25-2011, 7:35 PM
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.

+1, however the folks in S.F. do it better than most...