PDA

View Full Version : Cop in Escondido CA claims you must ID while open carrying...


Danz la Nuit
02-11-2011, 8:44 AM
*THIS IS NOT MY STORY, I AM REPOSTING IT*

Quoting this from here
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278259-Un-Lawful-Search-and-%28temporary%29-Seizure-Bee-Canyon-Video&p=3104646&viewfull=1#post3104646)
My buddy and I got stopped the other night while he was open carrying. The cop claimed he had to show ID, he asked what law stated that he had to show an ID. He claimed it was some new "case law" decided within the last month, but couldn't couldn't find it. He said he would email us the law, which he did. The case law he cited was from 2004, regarding requirement to identify yourself. I got some of this on video, but my friends name and address are in it so he doesn't want it online.

This was in Escondido.


:mad:

Untamed1972
02-11-2011, 8:52 AM
Is he refering to case law that talks about IDing yourself if actually arrested and charged with a crime?

Unless you're driving a vehicle or are actually arrested there is no other provision in CA requiring you to produce ID.

You can you post the case law he refered you to?

dantodd
02-11-2011, 8:59 AM
If he emailed it to you. Please provide the case info so the good folks here can review it.

Veggie
02-11-2011, 9:58 AM
I am surprised he actually followed up with the email. Sounds like he may have just been mistaken and not trying to push you around.

QQQ
02-11-2011, 10:02 AM
I won't believe the story until I see the case you're talking about.

Decoligny
02-11-2011, 10:19 AM
The case law from 2004 dealing with Stop and ID is probably Hiibel. It is a SCOTUS decision that deals with a Nevada case. It only applies to the legality of Stop and ID laws. California Penal Code does not contain a Stop and ID law, so Hiibel has absolutely no bearing or enforcability in California. The Cop in question was conversing out of his anus.

johnny_22
02-11-2011, 11:11 AM
On "The Best Defense" TV show on the Outdoor Channel this week, they also showed open carriers needing to present ID. I assumed it applied to the state they were in (CO?). Maybe the officer watches.

gobler
02-11-2011, 11:35 AM
Yeah I was watching that as well. My wife looked at me and was about to comment but said Ca is a not a stop & ID state so no, we do not have to show ID unless arrested or driving. I wonder if they (Best Defense) are pro open carry? I don't know one person who would keep reaching for there gun while yell "It's my Constitutional right!"

Liberty1
02-11-2011, 12:27 PM
http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&ei=EKlVTdAPgvarA9OQ1IMB&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada&source=android-browser-type&ved=0CBIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGFSQgB1UQJELZ2D234p71FhOcJTA

This doesn't apply in CA because we don't have a qualifying statute. And even if we did, RAS to detain is required and UOC alone is not RAS.

DoxRain
02-11-2011, 1:31 PM
Uh, it's Escondido. They do vehicle checkpoints and regularly ask for ID for NO REASON there. What makes you think it would be any different on foot while open carrying? Duh. Thank the republican 'conservatives' out there who run the city council, police dept and county board.

Civilitant
02-11-2011, 3:27 PM
escondido cowboys? noo way...

craneman
02-11-2011, 5:04 PM
Uh, it's Escondido. They do vehicle checkpoints and regularly ask for ID for NO REASON there. What makes you think it would be any different on foot while open carrying? Duh. Thank the republican 'conservatives' out there who run the city council, police dept and county board.

They probably do it because all the "liberals" driving around without licences and no insurance. When they hit a car they convieniently don't speak english and then get away with damaging someone elses property and not having to pay.:rolleyes: Some of the people are sick of it. Duh.

jpigeon
02-11-2011, 5:06 PM
Most LEO's think u have to ID yourself... This needs to be fixed...

PsychGuy274
02-11-2011, 5:57 PM
Uh, it's Escondido. They do vehicle checkpoints and regularly ask for ID for NO REASON there. What makes you think it would be any different on foot while open carrying? Duh. Thank the republican 'conservatives' out there who run the city council, police dept and county board.

They probably do it because all the "liberals" driving around without licences and no insurance. When they hit a car they convieniently don't speak english and then get away with damaging someone elses property and not having to pay.:rolleyes: Some of the people are sick of it. Duh.

Please guys, don't ruin good topics with this kind of thread-crapping.

RandyD
02-11-2011, 8:26 PM
California Penal Code Section 647(e) used to state the following:

"Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: .... (e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification."

However 647(e) was overturned in a 1983 Supreme Court case of Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352. Despite being overturned, the statute remained unchanged for many years, but now the overturned language has been replaced.

HiveDR.
02-11-2011, 9:21 PM
Why not just give the officer your ID and be done with it. Show him/her your a good guy and make friendly conversation. It's going to good allot further then being uncooperative and you may make a convert.

Besides, a good LEO can find a reason to stop anyone and have the PC to back it up, it just takes time, watching and knowing the penal, vehicle, H&S, local city codes etc etc. The SAD fact is it is nearly impossible to walk or drive down a city street and not break some law.

Once he has the PC you will be giving him your ID. Oh, and you will more than likely have a citation to back up the PC he used for asking you for your ID.


I understand and support what you guys really want, CCW's but this is CA. it is not going to happen, to many anti gun politicians running our state and local governments.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-11-2011, 9:25 PM
Most LEO's think u have to ID yourself... This needs to be fixed...

You do if there is probable cause to stop you. I'm not sure where that stands with UOC coming into play given that they are allowed to do the checks to see if it is unloaded.

desertdweller
02-11-2011, 9:58 PM
The problem I see is each story (stop) is different. In the case of the father/daughter, the officer had the option to just say; "I see skid marks and a call was out that you match" and the guy could say; "This is my daughter and we are watching the sunset" or something. I think the officer in this instance had other options available and chose not to use them.

Seems lately (or I wasn't paying attention earlier in life) that ID and only ID is playing a more crucial role in contacts with law enforcement. Sure, a person may have other legal issues that aren't related to that particular contact, but where is the line drawn between reasonable questioning and a fishing expedition? Not an easy balance.

Tripper
02-11-2011, 10:22 PM
if i've done nothing wrong, I do not need to identify myself to an officer, to make him 'feel good', the idea of, "its only showing an ID" is ludicrious, and simply leads to the next thing, and someone hit it, its just fishing, once they have ID, its running you for warrants, next its ???, i dont want or need my name being broadcast over the air to get ran for wants/warrants, hmm, not to mention, crooks listen with scanners, full name, birthdate, possbily address at times, going over the air, I really dont like that, so, its not simply telling him my name, its more to it than that, and a bit more for me to worry about.
Officers 'could' simply ask, is it loaded, ok, have a nice day.
btw, i'm not an open carry person.
and officers do think they can simply ask people for their ID for no reason, that simply asking for it is all the reason they need. this making up 'it was broadcast on the radio, you meet the description' c'mon, do you really need to do that? what you gonna do when someone challenges you on that one, and your dispatch says, "no, we never said anything like that on that day, as a matter of fact, there wasnt a BOL all night"
thats not gonna go well at your trial.

more cops do think that UOC is PC for detention, obtaining ID and running both warrants and serial numbers, and some have enough attitude that they wont even entertain the idea it could be not that way, wont listen for even a second that they could be wrong.
to them UOC is quote "absolutely running you for wants/warrants, and making sure that gun hasnt been used in a crime, you'd be in the back of my car till I'm happy"

so quite frankly, dont try and tell me, just show your ID, or let them check. theres a LOT more to it, and it depends really where your at.

Tripper

sandman21
02-11-2011, 10:46 PM
You do if there is probable cause to stop you. I'm not sure where that stands with UOC coming into play given that they are allowed to do the checks to see if it is unloaded.
CA does not have a stop and ID statue, outside of being given a citation or arrested or driving, you are NOT required to provide ID.

Tripper
02-11-2011, 10:51 PM
CA does not have a stop and ID statue, outside of being given a citation or arrested or driving, you are NOT required to provide ID.

for some reason thats difficult for some LEO's to understand

Tripper

N6ATF
02-11-2011, 11:47 PM
There's a difference between understanding and intentional disregard.

jshoebot
02-12-2011, 12:05 AM
On "The Best Defense" TV show on the Outdoor Channel this week, they also showed open carriers needing to present ID. I assumed it applied to the state they were in (CO?). Maybe the officer watches.

Actually, when the guy was arrested for not showing I'd, they said "the police violated his civil rights." Because he was arrested for not committing a crime and not providing I'd.

Theseus
02-12-2011, 12:11 AM
Why not just give the officer your ID and be done with it. Show him/her your a good guy and make friendly conversation. It's going to good allot further then being uncooperative and you may make a convert.

Besides, a good LEO can find a reason to stop anyone and have the PC to back it up, it just takes time, watching and knowing the penal, vehicle, H&S, local city codes etc etc. The SAD fact is it is nearly impossible to walk or drive down a city street and not break some law.

Once he has the PC you will be giving him your ID. Oh, and you will more than likely have a citation to back up the PC he used for asking you for your ID.


I understand and support what you guys really want, CCW's but this is CA. it is not going to happen, to many anti gun politicians running our state and local governments.

I can give you hundreds of reasons not to ID yourself, but you should only need one. . .

SonOfLiberty
02-12-2011, 1:37 AM
I posted this on RPF

Here is the information I promised you. Hope this helps. Also be careful of the 1000' from school grounds rule.

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District
(first visited in 2004)

We, as police officers, most likely will ASK permission to see your identification at first. Thanks again for your cooperation last night. I hope BAD GUYS don't ruin this cause for us.

Officer Cheatham
Escondido Police Department
This was the E-mail

jshoebot
02-12-2011, 2:50 AM
This was the E-mail

Hiibel was a case that only applies to states that have a "Stop and Identify" statute. CA doesn't have one, so Hiibel doesn't apply here.

Seems like a nice guy though, pretty surprised he actually emailed you!

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-12-2011, 6:24 AM
CA does not have a stop and ID statue, outside of being given a citation or arrested or driving, you are NOT required to provide ID.

You will be charged with 148(A) if you start playing games while they are conducting an investigation.

geeknow
02-12-2011, 6:31 AM
Whomever had the 'contact' with this particular LE should reach back out to him and continue the dialogue. He (the LEO) seems to be trying, and that is a great start at building bridges...

craneman
02-12-2011, 6:35 AM
Whomever had the 'contact' with this particular LE should reach back out to him and continue the dialogue. He (the LEO) seems to be trying, and that is a great start at building bridges...

I think you are right on the money.

jpigeon
02-12-2011, 6:40 AM
You do if there is probable cause to stop you. I'm not sure where that stands with UOC coming into play given that they are allowed to do the checks to see if it is unloaded.

And thats all they should be doing. No id is required to verify a gun is unloaded..

Civilitant
02-12-2011, 6:43 AM
There's a difference between understanding and intentional disregard.

exactly.

ask yourself how stupid do you think cops are? do you REALLY think they have no idea that you don't have to show ID for no reason... they are not stupid. Some are good and some are bad.

they know the law. end of story.

if they choose to harass you .. that's it . It's a choice.. 12031 = authority to check your weapon NOT OBLIGATION to check.

they know the law. they know the law. - repeat until you believe it - and then try to understand why someone who knows the law might be inclined to break it?

sandman21
02-12-2011, 9:31 AM
You will be charged with 148(A) if you start playing games while they are conducting an investigation.

Not it will be a BS charge, People v. Quiroga (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7301307581218989644&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), but hey who needs the 4 or 5A.

The Cable Guy
02-12-2011, 10:51 AM
From the offier's email, it seems to be like he's on "our" side. Not to play the "us vs them" card, but he seems like he's got the right intent. Maybe just misinformed.

PsychGuy274
02-12-2011, 11:39 AM
Why not just give the officer your ID and be done with it. Show him/her your a good guy and make friendly conversation. It's going to good allot further then being uncooperative and you may make a convert.

Because we are not required to. They can ask and if we *politely* refuse then they should be OK with that and move on to the next question. I've been asked for ID several times and I've always refused (when I wasn't required to show it) and politely explained why and I've never had a problem.

Besides, a good LEO can find a reason to stop anyone and have the PC to back it up, it just takes time, watching and knowing the penal, vehicle, H&S, local city codes etc etc. The SAD fact is it is nearly impossible to walk or drive down a city street and not break some law.

That's not being a good LEO; that's an abuse of power. Being good is knowing the penal code and stopping someone who is actually doing something wrong. Waiting for someone to screw up on a stupid law that you wouldn't enforce otherwise just to detain them for something else that's unrelated is an abuse of power.

Carnivore
02-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Why not just give the officer your ID and be done with it. Show him/her your a good guy and make friendly conversation. It's going to good allot further then being uncooperative and you may make a convert.


Well that is your choice and though I respect it not everyone wants to do that. Would you show me your ID if I stopped you on the street and asked for it? If not then you shouldn't do it to the cops either. Again that is just my feelings on it.

Showing ID doesn't prove you are one of the good guys but it does tell the cop you don't know your rights or are not willing to fight for them. If the cop is (not a good guy himself) he can use that to take things further. That could turn out fine or......:shock:

dustoff31
02-12-2011, 7:37 PM
OK. So did the officer tell your buddy that he had to show ID, or simply ask him to show ID as the officer's email indicates.

Originally Posted by RideTheDirt
My buddy and I got stopped the other night while he was open carrying. The cop claimed he had to show ID, he asked what law stated that he had to show an ID. He claimed it was some new "case law" decided within the last month, but couldn't couldn't find it. He said he would email us the law, which he did. The case law he cited was from 2004, regarding requirement to identify yourself. I got some of this on video, but my friends name and address are in it so he doesn't want it online.

This was in Escondido.


Here is the information I promised you. Hope this helps. Also be careful of the 1000' from school grounds rule.

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District
(first visited in 2004)

We, as police officers, most likely will ASK permission to see your identification at first. Thanks again for your cooperation last night. I hope BAD GUYS don't ruin this cause for us.

Officer Cheatham
Escondido Police Department


jshoebot Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLiberty
This was the E-mail

Hiibel was a case that only applies to states that have a "Stop and Identify" statute. CA doesn't have one, so Hiibel doesn't apply here.

Seems like a nice guy though, pretty surprised he actually emailed you!

Actually, Hiibel doesn't apply because the ruling was issued by a NV state court. CA is not bound by that in any way. One isn't required to show ID because as another poster pointed out, there is simply no requirement to do so in CA law.

sandman21
02-12-2011, 9:03 PM
OK. So did the officer tell your buddy that he had to show ID, or simply ask him to show ID as the officer's email indicates.

Actually, Hiibel doesn't apply because the ruling was issued by a NV state court. CA is not bound by that in any way. One isn't required to show ID because as another poster pointed out, there is simply no requirement to do so in CA law.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) was taken all the way to the SCOTUS and was ruled on. If CA had a law similar to NV we would be required to provide ID when detained based on RAS.

SteveH
02-13-2011, 8:12 AM
I tell cops, don't rush the E-check. Hang back and watch for a while. Contact him for the E-check after he throws that gum wrapper or butt on the ground, jaywalks or crosses against a red dont walk.

jtmkinsd
02-13-2011, 8:44 AM
Sounds to me like the officer is an advocate of the right to carry...he took the time to respond, and remind him of the common pitfall of GFSZs...I've no doubt he has been "briefed" (wrongly of course) that the NV case applies here in CA...and IF CA had stop and ID statute, it would. A simple email thanking him for his follow up and asking politely he follow up and investigate as to whether CA must have a stop and ID statute for Hiibel to apply would be appreciated.

Liberty1
02-13-2011, 1:49 PM
Not it will be a BS charge, People v. Quiroga (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7301307581218989644&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), but hey who needs the 4 or 5A.

E-mail the officer this^ link and ask him to actually read Hiibel. One does NOT have to ID one self unless actually physically arrested (or cited for infraction/misdemeanor) and then only during the booking interview at the jail or with ID card when being cited out in the field. Refusing to ID during an investigative detention does NOT constitute 148 PC - resisting, delaying, obstructing an officer (in CA).

dustoff31
02-13-2011, 5:31 PM
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) was taken all the way to the SCOTUS and was ruled on. If CA had a law similar to NV we would be required to provide ID when detained based on RAS.

So it was. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, I'd still like to know if the officer demanded ID, or simply asked for it.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-14-2011, 3:44 PM
Not it will be a BS charge, People v. Quiroga (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7301307581218989644&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), but hey who needs the 4 or 5A.

That case makes it a lot more complicated than you are indicating. Quiroga could have been charged with 148(A) at the booking facility since at that point he was actively resisting officers in their duties. Nothing prevented the Officers from conducting their investigation at the time of his arrest, which is why the charge was dropped (or so I think after reading the decision). I'd like to see a similar case where police were actively looking for someone with a name and set of descriptors, and then charging the person they detained with 148(A) if they refused to identify. In summation, it's not as clear as you seem to make it out to be with your post.

MasterYong
02-14-2011, 6:09 PM
Most LEO's think u have to ID yourself... This needs to be fixed...

I had a friend go through POST recently and they had a class on OC. They taught in the class that you could ask for ID and the civilian had to comply. I tried to reason with him, because he came to me concerned that it conflicted with what I'd told him about OC. He said the RTO told him that the suspicion of a crime was there: just the mere presence of a gun means that it may be loaded, so if you ask for ID it's kosher because you suspected the gun was loaded.

I know it's BS but this is what they taught him.

sandman21
02-14-2011, 6:47 PM
That case makes it a lot more complicated than you are indicating. Quiroga could have been charged with 148(A) at the booking facility since at that point he was actively resisting officers in their duties. Nothing prevented the Officers from conducting their investigation at the time of his arrest, which is why the charge was dropped (or so I think after reading the decision). I'd like to see a similar case where police were actively looking for someone with a name and set of descriptors, and then charging the person they detained with 148(A) if they refused to identify. In summation, it's not as clear as you seem to make it out to be with your post.
It is not complicated, only when given an infraction or arrested are you required to provide identification. You can read some of the supporting cases for example.
We find no authority to support the court's legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11031250090906283981&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1)

Hiibel still leaves open the question whether someone can refuse to provide their name if they believe that their name will incriminate them, so your example could fall outside the scope of a stop and id statue.

In short in CA short of being given a citation or arrested you are not required to identify yourself, 148 is a BS charge if they try it.

jl123
02-14-2011, 6:54 PM
I had a friend go through POST recently and they had a class on OC. They taught in the class that you could ask for ID and the civilian had to comply. I tried to reason with him, because he came to me concerned that it conflicted with what I'd told him about OC. He said the RTO told him that the suspicion of a crime was there: just the mere presence of a gun means that it may be loaded, so if you ask for ID it's kosher because you suspected the gun was loaded.

I know it's BS but this is what they taught him.

There are PD memos floating around here somewhere......forward them to him.

PsychGuy274
02-14-2011, 6:56 PM
There are PD memos floating around here somewhere......forward them to him.

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

They're on the homepage on the left side.

geeknow
02-14-2011, 6:59 PM
Steve H,
If that's what you tell 'cops' (your word), then you may be part of the problem, and I hope to not run into you on the street, for fear you may trump up a charge to justify abusing my rights.
I really hope I misread you there.

383green
02-14-2011, 8:37 PM
He said the RTO told him that the suspicion of a crime was there: just the mere presence of a gun means that it may be loaded, so if you ask for ID it's kosher because you suspected the gun was loaded.

Try asking him this:

If the mere presence of the gun provides reasonable suspicion that there's ammunition in it, then does the mere presence of pockets provide reasonable suspicion that there's contraband in them?

AIMSMALL
02-14-2011, 8:58 PM
You will be charged with 148(A) if you start playing games while they are conducting an investigation.

THIS^!

I was detained and handcuffed, nearly aressted and got chewed out for an hour for this. The reason, I wanted to know what crime the officer was claiming to be investigating and did not ID myself because he just kept saying "I'm conducting an investigation".

Is the officer required to tell you what crime you are being investigated for?

AIMSMALL
02-14-2011, 9:05 PM
Not it will be a BS charge, People v. Quiroga (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7301307581218989644&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), but hey who needs the 4 or 5A.

BS charge depends on wether or not he was conducting a legit investigation, for all you know a call came in saying that a man fitting your description in the area you're in just robbed someone at gunpoint, or maybe some called in a "shots fired" because a car backfired and the LEO's are just checking out the call. In either one of those situations, I believe you would be required to show ID but IANAL.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong also.

sandman21
02-14-2011, 9:18 PM
BS charge depends on wether or not he was conducting a legit investigation, for all you know a call came in saying that a man fitting your description in the area you're in just robbed someone at gunpoint, or maybe some called in a "shots fired" because a car backfired and the LEO's are just checking out the call. In either one of those situations, I believe you would be required to show ID but IANAL.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong also.

You do not give up your 5A rights simply because a LEO is doing an investigation. See vvvvv

It is not complicated, only when given an infraction or arrested are you required to provide identification. You can read some of the supporting cases for example.
We find no authority to support the court's legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11031250090906283981&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1)

Hiibel still leaves open the question whether someone can refuse to provide their name if they believe that their name will incriminate them, so your example could fall outside the scope of a stop and id statue.

In short in CA short of being given a citation or arrested you are not required to identify yourself, 148 is a BS charge if they try it.

AIMSMALL
02-14-2011, 10:05 PM
Thanks for the info here guys, I don't know why I was detained cuffed and all that BS just because I didn't want to show ID. 148 was the PC the LEO said I was in violation of and could be arrested for.

The part that sucks is that even if I explained that I was not interfering with the "investigation" simply by not providing my name it wouldn't have made any differance and he probably would have taken me to jail. Even if charges were dropped it would still end up being a major PITA that could actually cause me other problems with family, work, neighbors etc etc.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-14-2011, 10:15 PM
It is not complicated, only when given an infraction or arrested are you required to provide identification. You can read some of the supporting cases for example.
We find no authority to support the court's legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11031250090906283981&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1)

Hiibel still leaves open the question whether someone can refuse to provide their name if they believe that their name will incriminate them, so your example could fall outside the scope of a stop and id statue.

In short in CA short of being given a citation or arrested you are not required to identify yourself, 148 is a BS charge if they try it.

All depends on the stage 'investigation' that is currently going on. No officer can stop you for "any reason" and demand ID. If there is a legitimate investigation where refusing to identify will at that point delay the officer, you're going to get charged. So far the cases you have linked have had 148(A) thrown out since identification was ruled to not be absolutely necessary at the time of the investigation and at the point 148(A) was charged. That's what I'm getting from the case law, you don't have to "immediately identify" until it does actually delay. The first was not until booking, and the second it wasn't even necessary for identification of who was committing the crime.

sandman21
02-15-2011, 9:44 AM
All depends on the stage 'investigation' that is currently going on. No officer can stop you for "any reason" and demand ID. If there is a legitimate investigation where refusing to identify will at that point delay the officer, you're going to get charged. So far the cases you have linked have had 148(A) thrown out since identification was ruled to not be absolutely necessary at the time of the investigation and at the point 148(A) was charged. That's what I'm getting from the case law, you don't have to "immediately identify" until it does actually delay. The first was not until booking, and the second it wasn't even necessary for identification of who was committing the crime.

No it does not. In CA the only time you are required to provide ID is when booked, which includes being given a citation or being arrested. The CA AG says that 148 can not be used to arrest for someone who refuses to ID themselves, the court cases I provide support that view. After all if 148 was used the way you suggest, you could be arrested for refusing a search of your vehicle since it delays a LEO, you could be arrested for refusing to tell a LEO where you came since it delays them.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-15-2011, 2:34 PM
After all if 148 was used the way you suggest, you could be arrested for refusing a search of your vehicle since it delays a LEO, you could be arrested for refusing to tell a LEO where you came since it delays them.

No, I am saying that you can be arrested depending on the type of investigation being done if it does delay them. I am not sure how this plays out in regards to specific scenarios, but in the cases that you linked it appears that identification was not necessary at the time of the arrest and as such the associated charge of 148(A) was dropped. I am curious whether or not there are times prior to being arrested if 148(A) can still be applied; you say no it does not, however the cases you have linked so far are very specific and don't answer that question.

E-mail the officer this^ link and ask him to actually read Hiibel. One does NOT have to ID one self unless actually physically arrested (or cited for infraction/misdemeanor) and then only during the booking interview at the jail or with ID card when being cited out in the field. Refusing to ID during an investigative detention does NOT constitute 148 PC - resisting, delaying, obstructing an officer (in CA).

So essentially refusing to identify doesn't change the reason officers would arrest you in the first place. 148(A) would apply when identification becomes necessary, such as during booking.

lavgrunt
02-15-2011, 10:42 PM
I posted this on RPF

Here is the information I promised you. Hope this helps. Also be careful of the 1000' from school grounds rule.

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District
(first visited in 2004)

We, as police officers, most likely will ASK permission to see your identification at first. Thanks again for your cooperation last night. I hope BAD GUYS don't ruin this cause for us.

Officer Cheatham
Escondido Police Department

This was the E-mail

SERIOUSLY ???!!!!

What an awesome email !!! This officer is WARNING you about the GFSZ, thanking you for your cooperation and asking you to not screw anything up for 'the rest of us'.........!!!!!

We should be praising this officer, not slamming him !!! It's very apparent that the officer ASKED for your friend's ID and your friend complied..........He consentually complied with the officers request.................Totally legal........

It's amazing how so many of you simply focus on the negative, yet there is much to be hopeful about in this incident........you are ignoring the truth..........

Officer Cheatham, thanks for your support !!!

gh429
02-15-2011, 11:11 PM
Seriously... I am frequenting Calguns less these days because so many members seem to just have a problem with authority...

Yes there are ******* cops just like there are ******* people, but there are also good cops just like there are good people.

Like what was said previously, any good cop can cite you for something and force you to show ID. If he's not being a dick just give him your ID and be over with it. Hell even some dick cops become nice after you chat with them for awhile...

I think some of you are making a fuss about nothing...

enchantor
02-15-2011, 11:48 PM
Since it was brought up in this thread, I'd just like to point out a paragraph from the OCSD Training Bulletin linked to from californiaopencarry.org. This portion of the bulletin justifies IDing someone during the detainment of someone who is UOCing.

You can view the article yourself here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OCSD%20Training%20Bulletin.pdf (See end of page 4)

"Peace officers are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in prohibited public areas to determine whether or not it is loaded; refusal to permit inspection is probably cause for arrest for violation of PC 12031 (PC 12031(e)). If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187."

UOCing + Refusing ID = Bad Idea

Decoligny
02-16-2011, 6:44 AM
Since it was brought up in this thread, I'd just like to point out a paragraph from the OCSD Training Bulletin linked to from californiaopencarry.org. This portion of the bulletin justifies IDing someone during the detainment of someone who is UOCing.

You can view the article yourself here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OCSD%20Training%20Bulletin.pdf (See end of page 4)

"Peace officers are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in prohibited public areas to determine whether or not it is loaded; refusal to permit inspection is probably cause for arrest for violation of PC 12031 (PC 12031(e)). If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187."

UOCing + Refusing ID = Bad Idea

Just because one of the bulletins put out by the police has A MISTAKE in it doesn't change the fact that Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District has NO LEGAL BEARING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA due to the fact that Hiibel addresses the legality of Nevada's Stop & ID law. California DOES NOT HAVE a Stop & ID law. If California had a Stop & ID law, then UOCing + Refusing ID = Bad Idea, since it doesn't, UOCing + Refusing ID = 100% PERFECTLY LEGAL.

sandman21
02-16-2011, 9:39 AM
We should be praising this officer, not slamming him !!! It's very apparent that the officer ASKED for your friend's ID and your friend complied..........He consentually complied with the officers request.................Totally legal........
It's amazing how so many of you simply focus on the negative, yet there is much to be hopeful about in this incident........you are ignoring the truth..........
Officer Cheatham, thanks for your support !!!
It's amazing how you never try to contribute to the threads you post in, and make up things, where did the poster you quoted slam the LEO? Yeah that's right he didn't.

Really so a LEO demands that you provide ID, you ask if you are required he states yes because of a court case, it does not seem reasonable that I was free to go without providing ID. That would be considered consensual.

Well think of it this way instead, then. We'll subtract that part of the issue whether or not Hibel v. Sixth does or does not apply to CA.
During the inspection they (LE) note the serial number. The serial number is ran and comes back to John Doe. It would be a very reasonable step in the investigation to next see if the subject who is carrying the weapon is John Doe. I'll let you imagine the reasons why, I can personally think of several.
Arizona v. Hicks does not allow them to note the serial number, 12031(e) only allows for an inspection, in the time it takes to perform the inspection you could not memorize the serial, delaying the inspection so you can memorize the serial is extremely close to what the LEO did in Hicks. Let's say the firearm was stolen by the UOCer John Do from John Doe, so? I have a 5A right not to provide my ID to the LEO. Now what? 148 dissolves my 5A rights? Or let's say the firearm was registered to someone else, so what? Borrowing a handgun is not a crime.

Lets continue with your line of thought, a LEO is investigating someone with drugs in a backpack no description is given, he sees me with a backpack, he asks if he can search the backpack, I refuse. He arrests me for delaying and/or obstructing the investigation.
At this point when you refuse to identify yourself you are delaying and/or obstructing the investigation and off you go to jail for PC 148(a)(1). Since obtaining your identity was a logical and reasonable step in the investigation, this PC would apply.
Could you take it to court and have a argument? You could try, but is there lawfully PC to arrest you? I'd say yes.
What investigation? Does the LEO have a reason to believe that the gun was stolen? No. He only has a name, nothing else. Go find some court cases to backup what you suggest, I have yet to find any, and people with your point of view have yet to find one.

Side notes:
This is just my humble opinion. I am pointing this out not because I don't support exercising your rights, but because I believe that being stupid about your rights can lead to new case-law further limiting them. Ironically there is a very good example of this in open carry history and it is mentioned in the same OCSD bulletin. I'll quote it below:
...The history of Penal Code 12031 is helpful in understanding this issue. Prior to 1967, it was lawful in California for an adult, not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, to carry a loaded firearm in plain view in public and in an incorporated city. Only the carrying of a concealed firearm was proscribed. However, early in May of 1967, a group of Black Panthers marched into the California legislature fully armed. This action resulted in the Legislature enacting Penal Code 12031, effective July 28, 1967, thereafter proscribing the carrying of a loaded firearm in public, even if not concealed, illegal."
Just food for thought.
Why were they marching?

CGF does not want people to UOC because it is not a 2A protected right, which is why CA could do that, no state 2A and no federal 2A. The 4 and 5A are well established rights, and are not going to be taken away like LOC was. The CGF would not suggest keeping your mouth shut when dealing with LEO and OLL if you could be charged with 148.
Even if Hibel applied to CA, UOC is not RAS to detain someone, I would still not be required to provide my name. You should also tell the CGF not to bypass the large capacity magazine ban because it might lead to something worse.

SteveH
02-16-2011, 11:45 AM
Steve H,
If that's what you tell 'cops' (your word), then you may be part of the problem, and I hope to not run into you on the street, for fear you may trump up a charge to justify abusing my rights.
I really hope I misread you there.

What leads you to the idea of trump up charges?

A police officer responding to a "man with gun" call should by this point know its anything from political protest to a robbery. In neither case should he just rush in. Instead he should observe from a position of advantage and try to determine if the "gunman" is engaged in lawfull or unlawful conduct prior to contacting the person.

Decoligny
02-16-2011, 12:43 PM
Well think of it this way instead, then. We'll subtract that part of the issue whether or not Hibel v. Sixth does or does not apply to CA.

During the inspection they (LE) note the serial number. The serial number is ran and comes back to John Doe. It would be a very reasonable step in the investigation to next see if the subject who is carrying the weapon is John Doe. I'll let you imagine the reasons why, I can personally think of several.

At this point when you refuse to identify yourself you are delaying and/or obstructing the investigation and off you go to jail for PC 148(a)(1). Since obtaining your identity was a logical and reasonable step in the investigation, this PC would apply.

Exactly WHAT CRIME is the officer investigating? If he is NOT INVESTIGATING A CRIME, PC 148(a)(1) has no bearing at all. Cops don't get to "investigate" whether the Rolex on your wrist is stolen just because Rolexs get stolen a lot. They don't get to investigate to determine if your gun is stolen just because guns get stolen.

Could you take it to court and have a argument? You could try, but is there lawfully PC to arrest you? I'd say yes.

Side notes:

This is just my humble opinion. I am pointing this out not because I don't support exercising your rights, but because I believe that being stupid about your rights can lead to new case-law further limiting them. Ironically there is a very good example of this in open carry history and it is mentioned in the same OCSD bulletin. I'll quote it below:

...The history of Penal Code 12031 is helpful in understanding this issue. Prior to 1967, it was lawful in California for an adult, not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, to carry a loaded firearm in plain view in public and in an incorporated city. Only the carrying of a concealed firearm was proscribed. However, early in May of 1967, a group of Black Panthers marched into the California legislature fully armed. This action resulted in the Legislature enacting Penal Code 12031, effective July 28, 1967, thereafter proscribing the carrying of a loaded firearm in public, even if not concealed, illegal."

Just food for thought.

See above

Liberty1
02-16-2011, 1:25 PM
Well think of it this way instead, then. We'll subtract that part of the issue whether or not Hibel v. Sixth does or does not apply to CA.

During the inspection they (LE) note the serial number. The serial number is ran and comes back to John Doe. It would be a very reasonable step in the investigation to next see if the subject who is carrying the weapon is John Doe. I'll let you imagine the reasons why, I can personally think of several.

At this point when you refuse to identify yourself you are delaying and/or obstructing the investigation and off you go to jail for PC 148(a)(1)...

Wrong. Read this CA case law: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7301307581218989644&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

HspncElvis
02-16-2011, 2:11 PM
*THIS IS NOT MY STORY, I AM REPOSTING IT*

Quoting this from here
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278259-Un-Lawful-Search-and-%28temporary%29-Seizure-Bee-Canyon-Video&p=3104646&viewfull=1#post3104646)

You are not far from me. Officer was wrong. You do not have to show ID when open carrying. However, officer does have the authority to check your weapon to make sure it is not loaded. Your friend had not commited a crime. He does not have to show ID.

lavgrunt
02-16-2011, 11:49 PM
It's amazing how you never try to contribute to the threads you post in, and make up things, where did the poster you quoted slam the LEO? Yeah that's right he didn't.

HUH ?? Please re-read my post. Just because YOU don't like the fact that I don't agree with you or others in this thread doesn't allow you to get nasty. How about a little class.


Really so a LEO demands that you provide ID, you ask if you are required he states yes because of a court case, it does not seem reasonable that I was free to go without providing ID. That would be considered consensual.

It doesn't say that in any of the OPs posts. I am just going off the officer's email. You are adding facts not in evidence.


Arizona v. Hicks does not allow them to note the serial number, 12031(e) only allows for an inspection, in the time it takes to perform the inspection you could not memorize the serial, delaying the inspection so you can memorize the serial is extremely close to what the LEO did in Hicks. Let's say the firearm was stolen by the UOCer John Do from John Doe, so? I have a 5A right not to provide my ID to the LEO. Now what? 148 dissolves my 5A rights? Or let's say the firearm was registered to someone else, so what? Borrowing a handgun is not a crime.

WOW!! That's a very broad reading of 'Hicks.' You might wanna look at it again. The crux in 'Hicks' was based on items in plain view. Not applicable here. Also, there is no 'time limit' specified in 12031(e). What is a 'reasonable amount of time' to conduct the 'e' check will have to be determined by a court of law. Hasn't happened.......yet.

Lets continue with your line of thought, a LEO is investigating someone with drugs in a backpack no description is given, he sees me with a backpack, he asks if he can search the backpack, I refuse. He arrests me for delaying and/or obstructing the investigation.

Not a realistic scenario at all. Apples and oranges. I do agree with you that 148 is not applicable in your scenario.


What investigation? Does the LEO have a reason to believe that the gun was stolen? No. He only has a name, nothing else. Go find some court cases to backup what you suggest, I have yet to find any, and people with your point of view have yet to find one.

Just because there's no case law doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just hasn't been challenged........yet. And whether you like it or not, 12031(e) does give LE the authority to conduct a 'limited investigation.' How far it goes depends on the circumstances.

BTW, you do know 'Hiibel' was affirmed by the SCOTUS, right? The now infamous OCSD memo is dead on. I'm sure it was given the blessing by the OCDA's office and I kinda gotta go with them over any keyboard lawyer...........It sucks, it ain't fair, but who knows.......maybe we'll see case law come out of it................LOL !!!

Liberty1
02-16-2011, 11:57 PM
A reasonable time for a chamber check is about three seconds...however it is not reasonable under Terry and JL v Florida to detain someone and search for evidence of a criminal violation absent PC to arrest for that crime. 'e' is a fishing expedition.

Liberty1
02-17-2011, 12:10 AM
Hiibel would apply IF CA had a complient stop and ID statute. It doesn't. Even if CA did it would not apply to UOC. As UOC is not RAS (yet) to detain.

lavgrunt
02-17-2011, 12:25 AM
A reasonable time for a chamber check is about three seconds...however it is not reasonable under Terry and JL v Florida to detain someone and search for evidence of a criminal violation absent PC to arrest for that crime. 'e' is a fishing expedition.

Hey 'A' !!! Good to hear from you !!! Been a while.........

Yea, I agree with you......however, many other factors come into play; is the officer engaging in conversation with the OCer? What type of questions? Is it consensual? Does 'Beheler' come into play etc? I wish someone would just challenge it in court and get it over with !!!

It's only a fishing expedition if the fish is biting............Gotta have well educated fish.....

lavgrunt
02-17-2011, 12:33 AM
Hiibel would apply IF CA had a complient stop and ID statute. It doesn't. Even if CA did it would not apply to UOC. As UOC is not RAS (yet) to detain.

Hiibel applies to everyone if officers demand/ask for ID during an investigation, even in California. The difference in California is, you can't be arested/prosecuted on a 'stand alone' charge for not providing ID, as happened in 'Hiibel.' It's a SCOTUS decision and is binding to all the states, just like 'Miranda v. Arizona.'

sandman21
02-17-2011, 11:01 AM
HUH ?? Please re-read my post. Just because YOU don't like the fact that I don't agree with you or others in this thread doesn't allow you to get nasty. How about a little class.

Where did the poster you quote slam the LEO? He didnít. **** where did anyone ďslamĒ the LEO? You simply donít like when anyone disagrees with a LEO, and feel the need to get nasty towards anyone who does. :rolleyes:


WOW!! That's a very broad reading of 'Hicks.' You might wanna look at it again. The crux in 'Hicks' was based on items in plain view. Not applicable here. Also, there is no 'time limit' specified in 12031(e). What is a 'reasonable amount of time' to conduct the 'e' check will have to be determined by a court of law. Hasn't happened.......yet.
No itís not a broad interpretation of Hicks; the LEO has to manipulate the firearm to see the serial numbers then the serials are reported back to the station, sounds familiar.

There is always a time limit on any detention; you canít detain someone for 3 hours to write a ticket, you canít detain someone to inspect a firearm for longer than it takes to inspect it. The only thing an e-check allows is an inspection of the firearm; an inspection takes seconds not enough time to memorize the serial and does not take minutes.
Remember that in any scenario PC 12031(e) gives you the authority to detain the person so you can inspect the firearm per
PC 12031(e). Unless you develop additional probable cause, the length of the detention will be limited to the time required to inspect the firearm. (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/SPD_oc_memo.pdf)


Looks like SPD gets it, you donít give up your 4A rights simply because the SCOTUS has not looked at every possible situation.



Just because there's no case law doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just hasn't been challenged........yet. And whether you like it or not, 12031(e) does give LE the authority to conduct a 'limited investigation.' How far it goes depends on the circumstances.
So what? That whole line does not depend on if an e-check is legal, which its not, even if I match the description of a suspect you are looking for and you detain me, I still am not required to ID myself. I have court cases to justify my position, you have one that does not apply.

If an e-check is an investigation, what RAS does the officer have to detain me? It canít be the firearm since UOC is legal, Florida v. J.L. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.), so your detention is outside of RAS which means it violates Terry v. Ohio. So yes there is case law, you and other LEOís simply choose to ignore it.

BTW, you do know 'Hiibel' was affirmed by the SCOTUS, right? The now infamous OCSD memo is dead on. I'm sure it was given the blessing by the OCDA's office and I kinda gotta go with them over any keyboard lawyer...........It sucks, it ain't fair, but who knows.......maybe we'll see case law come out of it................LOL !!!
Yes I know, and? The SCOTUS ruled on a state passed statue requiring a person detained based on RAS to provide there name. Does CA have a statue like that? Nope, then the ruling does not apply, if we pass a stop and id statue like NV then I would need to provide my name when detain based on RAS, from Hiibel ďThe principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stopĒ. However the mere presence of a fire arm is not RAS, so if a LEO stopped me for OC, I would still not be required.

However, since you wont actually read the court cases and decide for yourself you can go look in your CA source book see what the CA AG has to say, or how about In short, Per the District Attorneyís Ofiice, there is no authority that we are aware of that requires them to identify themselves so do not enforce the 148 PC section solely under this circumstance (http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf)


Hiibel applies to everyone if officers demand/ask for ID during an investigation, even in California. The difference in California is, you can't be arested/prosecuted on a 'stand alone' charge for not providing ID, as happened in 'Hiibel.' It's a SCOTUS decision and is binding to all the states, just like 'Miranda v. Arizona.'

No it does not; it applies to states with a stop and id statue, from Hiibel ďThe principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stopĒ, Does CA have a stop and id statue? No, so Hiibel does not apply, the OC memo is wrong, you are wrong, and so was the other officer. Miranda is not even close to being a comparison, apples to tanks. You are also wrong Hiibel was not convicted of a stand alone charge he was convicted of what would be a 148 charge here.

lavgrunt
02-17-2011, 11:29 AM
I don't have time for this anymore............The usual FUD...........

I'm done..........Thanks for your time and the lively debate...........

sandman21
02-17-2011, 11:43 AM
I don't have time for this anymore............The usual FUD...........

I'm done..........Thanks for your time and the lively debate...........

Color me shocked. :rolleyes:

753X0
02-17-2011, 12:00 PM
I didn't see this distinction in this thread, apologies if I missed it.

Seems to me that identifying yourself consists of nothing more than telling the LEO your name, and possibly DOB. As far as I know, there is no law requiring any person to even HAVE a state issued ID, so, clearly, you can't be compelled to show one.
So, if that's the case, an (e) check should go pretty easy. Officer checks gun, asks for ID, OC'er tells officer his name. Officer can now verify the firearm is in it's owners possession, if it is.

Funtimes
02-17-2011, 10:06 PM
I didn't see this distinction in this thread, apologies if I missed it.

Seems to me that identifying yourself consists of nothing more than telling the LEO your name, and possibly DOB. As far as I know, there is no law requiring any person to even HAVE a state issued ID, so, clearly, you can't be compelled to show one.
So, if that's the case, an (e) check should go pretty easy. Officer checks gun, asks for ID, OC'er tells officer his name. Officer can now verify the firearm is in it's owners possession, if it is.


The problem with that, as people have pointed out, is that if he is going to "verify" that the person with the firearm is who it is registered to, he is now detaining you beyond the scope of time alotted to do the e-check.

Skoonie
02-17-2011, 11:47 PM
The problem with that, as people have pointed out, is that if he is going to "verify" that the person with the firearm is who it is registered to, he is now detaining you beyond the scope of time alotted to do the e-check.

Why would an officer NEED to verify that the OCer is the owner of the firearm if it is not illegal to borrow/loan/carry another persons firearm? And further what could the officer do if the firearm came back with another RO?

Theseus
02-18-2011, 6:00 AM
Why would an officer NEED to verify that the OCer is the owner of the firearm if it is not illegal to borrow/loan/carry another persons firearm? And further what could the officer do if the firearm came back with another RO?

Although not illegal in and of itself, some officers and agencies seem to mistake the fact that illegally concealing a handgun is subject to a charge enhancement if the handgun is not registered to the individual carrying it.

So, while for OC it means nothing, when concealing, ownership is important.

12voltguy
02-18-2011, 8:41 AM
There are things cops don't "NEED" to do, they do them because they have an obligation as a community caretaker. In any given situation there are reasonable steps that can be taken, questions that can be asked, etc for the purpose of maintaining public safety. These steps and questions aren't always the same and aren't always found A through Z in a manual. In my personal opinion, if there was a armed person in front of my house, legal or otherwise, I'd hope the officer asked a few more questions about what they were doing besides just checking if their weapon was loaded. I think the average reasonable person would agree with me, and so would the court.

To answer the second part of your post (What would the officer do if the weapon came back to another person), I'm going to go out on a limb and say, ask more questions?? The officer is concerned with asking enough questions to determine if criminal activity is about to happen, is happening, or happened. Is it so hard to believe that LE is actually trying to legitimately do their job and protect the people?

you see alt of criminals OP to gain attention of people & cops do you,lol that is funny stuff. think the average reasonable person would agree with me & so would the court, that OP people are not about to commint a crime

sandman21
02-18-2011, 9:24 AM
There are things cops don't "NEED" to do, they do them because they have an obligation as a community caretaker. In any given situation there are reasonable steps that can be taken, questions that can be asked, etc for the purpose of maintaining public safety. These steps and questions aren't always the same and aren't always found A through Z in a manual. In my personal opinion, if there was a armed person in front of my house, legal or otherwise, I'd hope the officer asked a few more questions about what they were doing besides just checking if their weapon was loaded. I think the average reasonable person would agree with me, and so would the court.

To answer the second part of your post (What would the officer do if the weapon came back to another person), I'm going to go out on a limb and say, ask more questions?? The officer is concerned with asking enough questions to determine if criminal activity is about to happen, is happening, or happened. Is it so hard to believe that LE is actually trying to legitimately do their job and protect the people?

The courts donít agree with you, Florida v. J.L. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.), there is no exception to the 4A simply because a gun involved. I also donít find it reasonable that a LEO can detain someone without RAS that a crime is being committed; itís no different than DWB. A LEO should not and canít stop anyone for any reason, I donít think you want or are suggesting we should allow them. And yes any LEO can ask any question he wants, does not mean anyone has to answer, nor that they can be charged with obstructing.

UOC a gun not registered to you is not a crime, and there are no facts to suggest that a crime is being committed. Is it so hard to believe that we still have rights if we exercise our 2A? Practicing your 1A right to protest does not mean you can be detain, refusing to give up your 4A rights does not mean you can be detained.

P.S. The poster was trying to say that the bad guy is not going to open carry, and that simply OCing does not mean you are going to commit a crime.

Skoonie
02-18-2011, 10:22 AM
For those of you who believe the LE encounter (For an UOC stop) should last a matter of seconds I ask you consider this example. You are speeding down the road and get stopped for speeding and speeding only. The officer questions you about speeding and then prolongs the encounter and detainment to ask if you have anything illegal in the vehicle. You say no and the officer delays the stop further by taking a look through your windows to see what he can in plain view.

Based on many opinions in this thread, the detainment should be over as soon as the chamber is checked. Does that mean the driver in the above scenario is being detained unreasonably long because the officer took a few extra steps beyond the original stop? Does the officer need PC to arrest for the unknown crime he may spot in the vehicle just because he decided to look (As the person quoted above suggests) IMO, again, the answer is no, and no.

If an officer stopped someone for speeding they have already broken a law and yes I would agree the "fishing expedition" could be justified and an ID check performed but if you want to compare the two scenarios as an analogy it would be more like an officer stopping you for doing nothing wrong but wants to know if you had been speeding while not in the presence of the officer! Just because your in a car not breaking a law should an officer be able to pull you over and try to word play you into admitting to a crime, run a wants/warrant check, search your vehicle etc..... Someone speeding= broken law. Someone UOC has broken no law by simply being a MWAG I have met some less than intelligent officers but im gonna go out on a limb by assuming most officers must know that someone that has just committed a crime would not just put a unloaded gun on their hip an go on about the day.