PDA

View Full Version : Special Needs Detentions - WTF???


sreiter
04-18-2011, 10:20 PM
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/SNDs.pdf

I won't be to long winded here...please READ this if you aren't aware of it.

Trampling you're 4a with "exigent circumstances" loop hole is a joke compared to this.

What does it mean for 2a?

Open carry pass 12031(e)? tough we're detaining you for the public good.

BB OLL? We're just gonna detain you and put you through whatever checks we want because we can a black rifle is a harm to society

AyatollahGondola
04-18-2011, 11:16 PM
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/SNDs.pdf

I won't be to long winded here...please READ this if you aren't aware of it.

Trampling you're 4a with "exigent circumstances" loop hole is a joke compared to this.

What does it mean for 2a?

Open carry pass 12031(e)? tough we're detaining you for the public good.

BB OLL? We're just gonna detain you and put you through whatever checks we want because we can a black rifle is a harm to society

I read that entire publication, and looked through a few of the case cites. I'd have to conclude that none of those are aimed at gun owners, and the detainments were short unless there was a another crime involved. I'll admit the title is very unnerving, but it's one of those things that excites the imagination more than it confirms one's worst fears.

sreiter
04-18-2011, 11:53 PM
I read that entire publication, and looked through a few of the case cites. I'd have to conclude that none of those are aimed at gun owners, and the detainments were short unless there was a another crime involved. I'll admit the title is very unnerving, but it's one of those things that excites the imagination more than it confirms one's worst fears.

Understood, but as you say, it excites the imagination. And I'm thinking, how it could be used.

I've been arguing with a LA cop on another board about UOC (i don't do it myself)

And he keeps pulling out Biible, and referring specifically to

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf

As the reason LA has a "12031(e) is a PC 833.5 full detain, run serial, run wants and warrants" policy on how to handle OC'er (the DA pdf specifically says Hiibel is ruling case law and you should stop and ID every OC'er)


Anyway, once i argued Kolender v. Lawson enough times, he said, well, if you argue against Hiibel, i still have you with special needs detention.

To me that says the police [state] can do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want.

To me, we really have Zero 4a

BusBoy
04-19-2011, 7:00 AM
I thought that Hiibel didnt apply in California?? Am I wrong and mis-read something on this forum?

Ubermcoupe
04-19-2011, 7:57 AM
To me that says the police [state] can do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want.

To me, we really have Zero 4a

I would agree with this statement, Although not necessarily true to this state, or many states out there, all the time.

It is my understanding that these types of infringements were exactly what the founding fathers aimed to curtail based on their experiences from British colonial rule.

I do not see "special detention" as necessarily new because police have held suspects for periods of time as long as they adhere to due process. All the cases cited in the reading appear to be "short termed."

and to OP: the LA cop your referring to is from LA, not the most UOC friendly (or anything gun related) place in CA.

A little bit of a slippery slope I know, but when I see things like this become the "norm" I begin to worry what rights are next. :confused:
It's activism through places like CGN that keep hope alive (and a reason to say in CA :D) for me.

sreiter
04-19-2011, 11:04 AM
I thought that Hiibel didnt apply in California?? Am I wrong and mis-read something on this forum?

The forum experts says Hiibel shouldnt apply. The LA DA, La city and LAPD believe it does.

So, i guess if LA busts you. You gotta go to court and have a judge decide if Hibbel applies, unless someone has a specific cite where a 12031(e) check was really raised to a 833.5 check. Then someone sued and won for civil rights violations, with Hiibel at the core of the case

cmichini
04-19-2011, 11:59 AM
It's sad, really, when you read this and realize that there are LOTS of conclusions being taken for granted that should not be thrown out there as if they are agreed upon facts.

Ex: Page 2:
As the Supreme Court of Connecticut observed,
“Police often operate in the gray area between
their community caretaking function and their
function as criminal investigators."

Community caretaking? Where does it say they are responsible for caretakeing?
They are for law enforcement. Investigation and apprehension of criminals. The leap to communit caretaking is one that should either supported by logic, statute or case law.

Page 3:
Thus, while one of the objectives of DUI
checkpoints is to arrest impaired motorists, these
checkpoints fall into the category of special interest
detentions because their co-objective is to reduce the
death and destruction that results from drunk driving."

Again, they are there to enforce laws (within the confines of 4A) and respond to crimes, investigate and apphrehend. The police do not prevent crime. Their presence may deter it, but that is incidental and they can not prevent crime.

Does anyone know when our titles officially convert from 'citizen' to 'subject'?

sreiter
04-19-2011, 12:17 PM
It's sad, really, when you read this and realize that there are LOTS of conclusions being taken for granted that should not be thrown out there as if they are agreed upon facts.

Ex: Page 2:
As the Supreme Court of Connecticut observed,
“Police often operate in the gray area between
their community caretaking function and their
function as criminal investigators."

Community caretaking? Where does it say they are responsible for caretakeing?
They are for law enforcement. Investigation and apprehension of criminals. The leap to communit caretaking is one that should either supported by logic, statute or case law.

Page 3:
Thus, while one of the objectives of DUI
checkpoints is to arrest impaired motorists, these
checkpoints fall into the category of special interest
detentions because their co-objective is to reduce the
death and destruction that results from drunk driving."

Again, they are there to enforce laws (within the confines of 4A) and respond to crimes, investigate and apphrehend. The police do not prevent crime. Their presence may deter it, but that is incidental and they can not prevent crime.

Does anyone know when our titles officially convert from 'citizen' to 'subject'?

yeah i wondered how the whole "we are sworn to protect/ community care giver" thing reconciled with "police are under zero obligation to protect you" thing

Para
04-19-2011, 12:21 PM
Does anyone know when our titles officially convert from 'citizen' to 'subject'?

Currently we are officially 'consumers'. . .

sfpcservice
04-19-2011, 1:32 PM
Anyway, once i argued Kolender v. Lawson enough times, he said, well, if you argue against Hiibel, i still have you with special needs detention.

To me that says the police [state] can do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want.

To me, we really have Zero 4a

According to the paper, a Special Needs Detention is only allowed when suspicion of a crime is not present. That would exclude running serial numbers and ID checks in my opinion.

Also, since this new "detention" was born out of an "ever increasing role" for peace officers, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate the structure of police agencies and realign them. I'm thinking something along the lines of having Peace Officer criminal investigators that only respond to investigate a confirmed crime, and a non-peace officer corps of emergency response officers who are authorized to carry via BSIS, and use force as required by the same legal mechanisms a regular citizen can, oh wait...they would be regular citizens. I think the vehicle code even allows a regular person to use a red lamp if danger exists....Hmm.

scarville
04-19-2011, 2:09 PM
It seems the core of the argument is that the collective trumps the individual so "Public Interest" outweighs any archaic Constitutional concerns.

I can see how this could be used against RKBA. Not directly but the underlying rationale is dangerous to all individual rights. However, it tooks decades of mistakes by the courts to get to this point on the Fourth Amendment so I can always hope I'll be dead or offworld before the Second Amendment guano-storm hits.

GaryV
04-19-2011, 2:34 PM
Anyway, once i argued Kolender v. Lawson enough times, he said, well, if you argue against Hiibel, i still have you with special needs detention.

Assuming the article is correct, then he's wrong:

Illinois v. Lidster - Specifically, the Court ruled that this language simply means that a detention will not be upheld under a special needs theory if the officers’ primary objective was to determine if there were grounds to arrest the detainee.

Since the entire purpose of an e-check is to determine whether you are in compliance with the law, it would appear to fall outside the limits of special needs detention.

sreiter
04-19-2011, 4:28 PM
Assuming the article is correct, then he's wrong:



Since the entire purpose of an e-check is to determine whether you are in compliance with the law, it would appear to fall outside the limits of special needs detention.

GOT to love the minds of the folks on here. Great point

HazeyWolf
04-20-2011, 4:33 PM
Has 12031(e) been challenged legally for being unconstitutional in CA? If not, why?