PDA

View Full Version : Info on Fish and Game checkpoints


problemchild
11-28-2012, 1:10 PM
Watching a show on TV now and they are asking people if they have guns in the car and if yes searching the whole car. Do you have to tell them yes if they ask? If they are covered with a tarp or in the trunk and not visible can you say no? What are your rights and what is legal and not legal?

CAHighSierra
11-28-2012, 1:14 PM
Fish and game are a state agency no? You HAVE to declare any fish or game taken if they ask but Im pretty sure if its a state agency you do t have to tell them you have guns.

dunndeal
11-28-2012, 1:16 PM
My understanding is if they have probable cause to believe you were hunting then they are allowed to search to certify that any game you have was legally taken.

Abalone divers have their cars/boats searched regularly by F&G wardens when driving away from areas where abalone diving is common.

Additionally the US Coast Guard has the power to conduct a warrantless search of your boat anytime they want to board your craft.

paul0660
11-28-2012, 1:16 PM
You have a right to ask them to prove their authority, as usual.

bulgron
11-28-2012, 1:40 PM
The question still hasn't been answered. Do I have to say 'yes' if F&G asks me if I have a gun in my car (and I in fact have a gun in the car)?

speedrrracer
11-28-2012, 1:56 PM
I don't know if you are required to tell them about your guns, but it's against the law to prevent them from searching anywhere they please.

"...Prohibit a warden from inspection of any boat, market or receptacle where fish may be
found (FGC 1006)."

taperxz
11-28-2012, 2:04 PM
The question still hasn't been answered. Do I have to say 'yes' if F&G asks me if I have a gun in my car (and I in fact have a gun in the car)?

You have the right to remain silent. If they inspect a car/truck and find that there is no evidence of hunting activity, that would be a violation of search and seizure. They can search hunters and fisherman during, before and after the sport take of game. They can not use these powers to search for any other reasons unless PC has been established for other violations of the law.

Meplat
11-28-2012, 2:13 PM
The question still hasn't been answered. Do I have to say 'yes' if F&G asks me if I have a gun in my car (and I in fact have a gun in the car)?

No! You cannot be compelled to say anything. You cannot lie to a federal officer, but you do not have to say anything at all. You can lie to state and local LE all you want, and they can and will lie to you.

tenpercentfirearms
11-28-2012, 3:19 PM
If they inspect a car/truck and find that there is no evidence of hunting activity, that would be a violation of search and seizure.

I don't think this is quite right. They would need evidence of hunting activity before they could search. They don't get to gamble and search hoping to find something. If they searched and found something, but had no probably cause for a search, that evidence would be thrown out.

Now I am sure they can make up all sorts of reasons for a search. So if they ask you if you have any firearms in the vehicle, you have a right to remain silent. Or you can always ask questions.

"Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"

You respond, "Why do you ask officer?"

"I am conducting a hunting license check."

You reply, "Oh."

Then he stares at you and asks again, "Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"

"Why do you ask officer?"

Or mix it up and simply ask, "Am I free to go?"

If he asks you to step out of the vehicle, ask if you are free to go. If he demands you get out the vehicle, inform him you do not consent to searches and you have nothing left to say until you speak to your lawyer, then ask if you are free to go again.

Only do this is you feel like flexing your rights and have the time.

You are under zero legal obligation to ever answer any law enforcement officer's questions. None. Experts recommend you do not lie to an officer. Simply don't answer the question or invoke your right to remain silent.

Here shortly someone will recomend you answer with "I have no illegal firearms in the vehicle." Personally I think that is a poor idea. I wouldn't even give them that and it just makes you seem like you are some smart guy that pretty much left an opening to search for legal weapons for an E check or some such nonsense. Give them nothing.

taperxz
11-28-2012, 3:46 PM
I don't think this is quite right. They would need evidence of hunting activity before they could search. They don't get to gamble and search hoping to find something. If they searched and found something, but had no probably cause for a search, that evidence would be thrown out.

Now I am sure they can make up all sorts of reasons for a search. So if they ask you if you have any firearms in the vehicle, you have a right to remain silent. Or you can always ask questions.

"Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"

You respond, "Why do you ask officer?"

"I am conducting a hunting license check."

You reply, "Oh."

Then he stares at you and asks again, "Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"

"Why do you ask officer?"

Or mix it up and simply ask, "Am I free to go?"

If he asks you to step out of the vehicle, ask if you are free to go. If he demands you get out the vehicle, inform him you do not consent to searches and you have nothing left to say until you speak to your lawyer, then ask if you are free to go again.

Only do this is you feel like flexing your rights and have the time.

You are under zero legal obligation to ever answer any law enforcement officer's questions. None. Experts recommend you do not lie to an officer. Simply don't answer the question or invoke your right to remain silent.

Here shortly someone will recomend you answer with "I have no illegal firearms in the vehicle." Personally I think that is a poor idea. I wouldn't even give them that and it just makes you seem like you are some smart guy that pretty much left an opening to search for legal weapons for an E check or some such nonsense. Give them nothing.

This is pretty much what i meant. There "special" searches are limited to F&G stuff only. If they went and searched a vehicle for no reason that would be against the law. They need to have reasonable PC that the people were in fact hunting or fishing or going to and from.

If their probable cause to search showed no signs of fishing or hunting and something else was found that was illegal, i suspect the evidence would probably not be admissable in court due to an illegal search and seizure.

becxltoo984
11-28-2012, 4:10 PM
Let me Guess must have been an episodes of wild Justice . They make every California hunter / fisherman look like some total Douche . I cant Stand stand show !

By far CA fish And Game are the worst informed LEO"S in the state .

Glock31B
11-28-2012, 4:28 PM
Let me Guess must have been an episodes of wild Justice . They make every California hunter / fisherman look like some total Douche . I cant Stand stand show !

By far CA fish And Game are the worst informed LEO"S in the state .



They are up there.

woodsman
11-28-2012, 5:32 PM
I have been stopped by them near Utica/Spicer. They stop anyone that has been fishing and they always ask about weapons.

JimWest
11-28-2012, 5:43 PM
Woodsman- How did you respond to them, if I may ask?

Skidmark
11-28-2012, 7:11 PM
CA DFG has my highest respect, for a tough job done well.

I only wish they were even more effective at taking down the poachers.

problemchild
11-28-2012, 7:19 PM
Let me Guess must have been an episodes of wild Justice . They make every California hunter / fisherman look like some total Douche . I cant Stand stand show !

By far CA fish And Game are the worst informed LEO"S in the state .

Yeah the show sucks that way. Just tonight they walked into a house with deer heads mounted on the wall and commented "he sure has been killing a lot of animals". What kind of crap is that?

OK so basically I can say "In have NO guns" in the car or "I have nothing illegal in the car" or ask a stupid question or keep quiet.

Im not breaking any laws and dont feel like having my car strip searched for no good reason.

Oh and EVERY HOUSE THEY RAIDED came from pictures off some Cal website forum that the idiot poachers posted online. Be careful what you post and dont break the law.

dunndeal
11-28-2012, 8:31 PM
CA DFG has my highest respect, for a tough job done well.

I only wish they were even more effective at taking down the poachers.

QFT. They are sworn officers issued a sidearm. When working on the hunting side (versus fish) most of those you encounter are armed with rifles and probably large caliber pistols.

Odds are not in their favor and they paid about 1/3rd as much as a CHP officer.

Stewdabaker23
11-28-2012, 8:45 PM
And with budget cuts they are stretched extremely thin across the state. There are only like 3 wardens that cover from Fresno area to Sacramento area.

kakinuma-kun
11-28-2012, 9:27 PM
You can look at this string HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=342853).

I know there have been others...

Carnivore
11-28-2012, 10:09 PM
First make sure you don't have anything illegal in the car.

If you have been hunting then you need to tell them you have and show them any game taken (yes I know covered above) obviously you will need to let them know you have a fire arm then.

If not hunting then if ANYONE asks if you have a gun in the car repeat the following...."I have nothing illegal in the vehicle, no you may not search, am I free to go?" Don't answer any of their stupid questions and don't get caught up in their "if you have nothing to hide" crap either. No need to lie when you can tell the truth. A firearm in your car isn't illegal. I throw in a "let me know when I am free to go" too.

As for DFG I deal with these Dbags all the time fishing out at the islands. Other then one guy that is really cool in Ventura the rest aren't worth the pay they draw.

BTW most of them aren't bright enough to make it onto the CHP that is why they don't make as much.

Loubot10
11-28-2012, 11:11 PM
They have a lot of stretch when it comes to "reasonable" and I've seen people detained until a CHP arrived to issue non-F&G tickets.

The first question is always have you been hunting? And I've never been stopped when I wasn't hunting, so the question of weaponry is assumed. I've got no hate for them.

The only LE job harder than cornering illegals with weapons is cornering anti-establishment legals with weapons. IMO

donw
11-29-2012, 7:41 AM
so...lemme see if this is correct:

i have my legal firearm(s) secured, unloaded, in a locked carrying case, in the back (trunk/bed of truck) covered up (out of visual sight) i am going to, coming from or passing through a legal hunting area and i'm stopped by DFG game warden.

he asks: "Have you been hunting?"

i respond: "No, officer, i have not been hunting"*

he asks: "Are there any guns in the vehicle?"

i respond: "It is a very nice day today officer, am i i free to leave?"

*there is, normally, no way to prove you have been hunting unless you have game in your possession...or, you admit it...even if you do have camo clothing, bino's, rangefinders etc...most hunters i know, go to the field for a "Dress rehearsal" to test their gear, make sure their firearms are 'zeroed', binos and rangefinders are all adjusted properly.

however...if you are in a legal hunting area, and are equipped to hunt, you are considered as hunting, or have been hunting...and you'd better have a current hunting license with any appropriate tags necessary for game in season in that area.

if there are no visual indications, and no admissions, of hunting activities, from an outside, looking in, visual inspection, there is no PC.

no PC, no consent to search...

is this a correct assumption?

is this assumption correct?

SonoftheRepublic
11-29-2012, 10:21 PM
Officer asks: "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?"

Reply: "I'm sorry officer, my attorney has advised me not to answer any questions".

Officer asks: "May I search your vehicle?"

Reply: "No. I do not consent to any searches".

alfred1222
11-29-2012, 11:07 PM
so...lemme see if this is correct:

i have my legal firearm(s) secured, unloaded, in a locked carrying case, in the back (trunk/bed of truck) covered up (out of visual sight) i am going to, coming from or passing through a legal hunting area and i'm stopped by DFG game warden.

he asks: "Have you been hunting?"

i respond: "No, officer, i have not been hunting"*

he asks: "Are there any guns in the vehicle?"

i respond: "It is a very nice day today officer, am i i free to leave?"

*there is, normally, no way to prove you have been hunting unless you have game in your possession...or, you admit it...even if you do have camo clothing, bino's, rangefinders etc...most hunters i know, go to the field for a "Dress rehearsal" to test their gear, make sure their firearms are 'zeroed', binos and rangefinders are all adjusted properly.

however...if you are in a legal hunting area, and are equipped to hunt, you are considered as hunting, or have been hunting...and you'd better have a current hunting license with any appropriate tags necessary for game in season in that area.

if there are no visual indications, and no admissions, of hunting activities, from an outside, looking in, visual inspection, there is no PC.

no PC, no consent to search...

is this a correct assumption?

is this assumption correct?

QFT

Kid Stanislaus
11-29-2012, 11:12 PM
You have a right to ask them to prove their authority, as usual.

And they have a right to laugh out loud!!;)

Kid Stanislaus
11-29-2012, 11:19 PM
This is pretty much what i meant. There "special" searches are limited to F&G stuff only. If they went and searched a vehicle for no reason that would be against the law. They need to have reasonable PC that the people were in fact hunting or fishing or going to and from.

If their probable cause to search showed no signs of fishing or hunting and something else was found that was illegal, i suspect the evidence would probably not be admissable in court due to an illegal search and seizure.

Its my understanding that if they so much as look thru the window and see a single fish hook they are authorized to search the vehicle. Game wardens have broader authority to search due to the fact that they work in isolated areas and often work alone (if that makes any sense to you, then you're brighter than I). There have been instances where regular law enforcement could not search but they called in the game wardens and they were authorized to do so. Its a dirty deal but then again, this if the PRC.:(

taperxz
11-30-2012, 6:41 AM
Its my understanding that if they so much as look thru the window and see a single fish hook they are authorized to search the vehicle. Game wardens have broader authority to search due to the fact that they work in isolated areas and often work alone (if that makes any sense to you, then you're brighter than I). There have been instances where regular law enforcement could not search but they called in the game wardens and they were authorized to do so. Its a dirty deal but then again, this if the PRC.:(

Its my understanding that if LEO sees as little as a single roach.... Most of your concerns are from watching to much TV

Hunting and fishing is a sport. If you treat the wardens like you would treat referees in football, then you have an understanding of their "role" in search and seizure laws in regards to hunting and fishing,

The only difference is that they are LEO in the real world also. Their special powers extend to F&G only. "a single fish hook'? Maybe but what is anyone doing with a single fish hook on them? really

Curley Red
11-30-2012, 8:01 AM
[B]Maybe but what is anyone doing with a single fish hook on them? really

I have a single fly attached to my dashboard cover that was from a friend that passed away. So there is one example as to why someone would have a single hook.

Librarian
11-30-2012, 3:21 PM
Let us stay a bit more directly on topic, please.

Gun_Owner_901
11-30-2012, 10:51 PM
If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

Doheny
12-03-2012, 5:16 PM
The question still hasn't been answered. Do I have to say 'yes' if F&G asks me if I have a gun in my car (and I in fact have a gun in the car)?

Yes you do.

F&G code section 2012 says that you need to show all licenses, tags, method of take (guns, fishing equipment, nets, etc.) as well as any catch when asked by anyone authorized to enforce the F&G code.


F&G 2012: All licenses, tags, and the birds, mammals, fish, reptiles,
or amphibians taken or otherwise dealt with under this code, and any
device or apparatus designed to be, and capable of being, used to
take birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians shall be exhibited
upon demand to any person authorized by the department to enforce
this code or any law relating to the protection and conservation of
birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians.

taperxz
12-03-2012, 5:56 PM
Yes you do.

F&G code section 2012 says that you need to show all licenses, tags, method of take (guns, fishing equipment, nets, etc.) as well as any catch when asked by anyone authorized to enforce the F&G code.

NO YOU DON't!! F&G codes only apply to those who are participating in the activity. F&G codes do not apply to those not hunting or fishing. If you are driving home from a trip either hunting or fishing, You don't have to tell them squat! They must have proof or knowledge of your activity in order to continue their shake down powers. Not to mention, since when was the "right to remain silent" ever made illegal??

Dirty dirt
12-03-2012, 6:03 PM
No! You cannot be compelled to say anything. You cannot lie to a federal officer, but you do not have to say anything at all. You can lie to state and local LE all you want, and they can and will lie to you. I would read CA veh section 31 and penal code section 148.9 before telling lies

scarry scarney
12-03-2012, 6:23 PM
You might also want to check out 12031 para (e)

12031(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, 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 in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

taperxz
12-03-2012, 6:35 PM
You might also want to check out 12031 para (e)

12031(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, 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 in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

This is wrong also! They need to see the firearm in order to inspect it. If its in a locked case or a place they can't see it, you do not have to tell the LEO that the gun is in fact in the vehicle. Whether you are carrying legal or illegal.

taperxz
12-03-2012, 6:36 PM
I would read CA veh section 31 and penal code section 148.9 before telling lies

Since when do firearms have anything to do with the VC?

Dirty dirt
12-03-2012, 8:31 PM
Delete

taperxz
12-03-2012, 8:56 PM
I was pointing out that there are potential punitive consequences for lying "all you want" to local and state leo's. And I agree you dont have to provide information. A question is just that a questionA local warden here used to run reg checks then run the RO and do a weapons records check. If it came back with registered weapons he would pull the driver over for an alleged vehicle code violation or other PC .
And ask if weapons were on board. This was in rural settings. Dont know if it happens in urban areas.

Wardens and all LEO can lie to you, If you don't know your rights then you will have to do as they ask. Where i live, its about as rural as you can get in this state. I suppose you warden was checking on registration for rifles also??? FYI there is no such thing.

Dirty dirt
12-03-2012, 9:28 PM
Wardens and all LEO can lie to you, If you don't know your rights then you will have to do as they ask. Where i live, its about as rural as you can get in this state. I suppose you warden was checking on registration for rifles also??? FYI there is no such thing.

Delete

weezil_boi
12-03-2012, 9:57 PM
If Im not hunting/fishing, and since my guns are legit/properly stowed... then:
1. If hes Federal = I wont lie.
2. If hes not federal = Id just lie since its none of his damn business, its not illegal (or wrong) in that case since they dont need to know.

If they had a good reason to suspect I was hunting/fishing, then they could already search and they had no reason to ask me about guns in the first place... thats just rude ;)

MOA1
12-03-2012, 10:54 PM
The last time a LEO checked a weapon of mine he was disrespectful with it. Tossing it on it's side across the hard case, not on the foam, on the hard plastic.

I was pissed and made it known that the guy was a donkey and to be careful with my ****! Still pissed about it.

So, why would I want another donkey touching any gun I own?

All they're doing is rousting you to the full extent they can, not because they think you are a person that is doing illegal stuff but because they want to intimidate the public. They want you to be scared, they want you to think you can't get away with anything because officer Fife is on the job.

If everyone just rolls over they will get worse and worse about violating your rights. You can be one that just takes it in the rear or you can be one of the few the politely assert your rights. The more people that assert their rights the less time they have to hassle everyone. Then, and only then will things work better for everyone.

See how that works, just be polite, assert your rights and there is no way they can hassle every car that comes down the road. I'll gladly get hassled if it means we can work to a better understanding between us and them.

The less people that stand up, the worse it gets. Makes me mad at the ones that give it all away so they can "be on their way", home for supper on time, ya know. Spineless.


YMMV

taperxz
12-04-2012, 2:40 PM
I was just trying to help the OP out. We are all grownups (assumption) and have to make our own choices. Not sure what the snide comment on the rifles was about. Carry on.

Not sure what you mean as snarky? I was just stating facts.

LEO can lie to you

You don't have to tell anyone you have a firearm in the car or at least remain silent.

Checking serial numbers on rifles is a farce due to no mandatory registration on long guns, currently.

OH and i do live in a very rural area.

Dirty dirt
12-04-2012, 3:37 PM
Delete

victor1echo
12-04-2012, 4:25 PM
Watching a show on TV now and they are asking people if they have guns in the car and if yes searching the whole car.
Kind of vauge here. Were people pulled over, or is this some kind of check point?

Carnivore
12-04-2012, 6:05 PM
If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.:facepalm:

You are very welcome to do this if you want in your car. However, many people have been arrested for having a perfectly legal firearm that an officer didn't believe was. Some have been arrested twice for the same firearm hence the law suit against the California AW bill. To think you are safe simply because you "know" it's legal is naive at best. What they don't know won't hurt you.

IVC
12-04-2012, 7:20 PM
Wardens and all LEO can lie to you, If you don't know your rights then you will have to do as they ask.

You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

taperxz
12-04-2012, 7:31 PM
You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

No you don't. You don't even have to show them ID in this state. You most certainly have options. LOL! You don't even have to talk to them even if they demand you to do so.

IVC
12-04-2012, 8:10 PM
No you don't. You don't even have to show them ID in this state. You most certainly have options. LOL! You don't even have to talk to them even if they demand you to do so.

There was a recent ruling that residents cannot resist police even during an illegal entry, the reasoning being that there is an available recourse through the court system. I believe it was in Indiana and that it was the state Supreme Court (not federal).

I did a quick search and couldn't find similar case/ruling for CA, so you might be right that you can choose NOT TO obey a direct order form an LEO. Also, the above ruling was about entering a residence, not just any order so I am not sure anymore.

However, remember that what you think is illegal and what the LEO thinks is illegal are two different things, and one of you two has the benefit of qualified immunity should he make a mistake, while the other can end up with the resisting arrest felony.

At this point it would be good to hear from some of the legal experts on this forum what one can and cannot do when confronted with a direct order from an LEO, e.g., being ordered to step outside the car, or being ordered to keep one's hands on the steering wheel.

taperxz
12-04-2012, 8:14 PM
There was a recent ruling that residents cannot resist police even during an illegal entry, the reasoning being that there is an available recourse through the court system. I believe it was in Indiana and that it was the state Supreme Court (not federal).

I did a quick search and couldn't find similar case/ruling for CA, so you might be right that you can choose NOT TO obey a direct order form an LEO. Also, the above ruling was about entering a residence, not just any order so I am not sure anymore.

However, remember that what you think is illegal and what the LEO thinks is illegal are two different things, and one of you two has the benefit of qualified immunity should he make a mistake, while the other can end up with the resisting arrest felony.

At this point it would be good to hear from some of the legal experts on this forum what one can and cannot do when confronted with a direct order from an LEO, e.g., being ordered to step outside the car, or being ordered to keep one's hands on the steering wheel.

Orders given for officer safety are a separate issue from the OP of this thread regarding fish and game checkpoints and how they ca or can't legally operate.

IVC
12-04-2012, 9:16 PM
Orders given for officer safety are a separate issue from the OP of this thread regarding fish and game checkpoints and how they ca or can't legally operate.

How can you tell whether it's "for safety" or just "illegal?" Terry stop is a type of gray area search that would be illegal to resist, even though it's a search without consent and without PR/RS.

taperxz
12-04-2012, 9:21 PM
How can you tell whether it's "for safety" or just "illegal?" Terry stop is a type of gray area search that would be illegal to resist, even though it's a search without consent and without PR/RS.

Fish and game checkpoints are designed to allow hunters the opportunity to have their deer tags validated. In order to be searched you have to tell them you were engaged in the sport take of game, they need to see you doing it or painfully obvious you were doing it. Equipment ect.

johnny1290
12-05-2012, 2:09 AM
Good grief.

The long and the short of it is, you only have rights you can afford to defend. It can cost a few grand and a night or so in the pokey, months of anticipation and pre trial fun, followed by a dismissal the night before court (in effect fining you)

If the risk/reward works for you, hey, I'm all for it. Easy for me to say though since I'm not the one that has to consider paying the consequences.

707spartan
12-05-2012, 2:56 AM
I understand this is about being stopped in a vehicle. what about camping/hiking to hunting destinations here's my situation

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=652452

camsoup
12-05-2012, 10:06 PM
If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

...should we also simply bend over every time we are asked??

you know you have a right to make all the stops you want with a firearm in the car, correct?

MP301
12-06-2012, 9:37 AM
You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order.If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

Very very Bad and dangerous information you posted.

LE will almost always ask for permission first whether they have PC or not. This is because the majority of people give permission for a search - even when they are doing something illegal (just watch any number of cop shows to see this in action).

So, since many people give permission, they try that route first. That way, they don't have to worry about artculating PC in court if its challenged (especially since it can be a stretch in some cases). You can't challenge giving permission if you freely choose to give it.

So, after you say no, and they think they can articulate PC if they find something, they will then search anyway.

They may still even search on just a hunch, with the idea that if they find an contraband (stolen gun, drugs, etc.), at the very least they ruined your day and got the illegal stuff off the street even if they lost the PC challenge later in court.

Or, they may decide they don't need another complaint in their jacket and end the fishing expedition right after it becomes apparent that you won't budge on giving permission.

Things they will consider in deciding how far they will go -

Circumstances.

If there is a bunch of crap going on, like responding to a cal
, you look like you just killed your parents, etc., (and it's not just a general fishing expedition)....they are more likely to search anyway.

Who they are dealing with.

If they run you in their database and you have a laundry list of past legal issues, you may have a problem. If you have prior negative contacts with LE like being a dickhead for little or no reason(and they know about it from notes in their database or from prior personal contact), you may have a problem.

And finally, if your a dickhead or disrespectful, etc., during the current contact, you may have a problem.

As has been said before, if you choose to exercise your rights to the fullest, that is your choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. But antagonizing the "offending" officer(s) by being a jerk has absolutely zero benefit for you whatsoever.

LEOs are just as human as you are. They also have limited immunity. So even though at might make you feel better being a *** because you can, odds are it will be much more painful for you in some form then it is for him/her....be it at that time or in the future.

Food for thought...

woodsman
12-06-2012, 9:57 AM
Woodsman- How did you respond to them, if I may ask?

I was with other rigs and just wanted to get home so I said yes and had to dig it out of the bottom of my jeep behind the driver seat. My ammo box had rifle ammo in it but they never asked if I had a rifle.

Interestingly, the officer made a comment regarding my transportation of ammo and handgun. While I did have my ammo and gun in separate locked containers, the officer was adamant that it was law to have them that way and they could not be in the same container. I suggested he check the CHP website.

Frankly, the point that ticked me the most was they had me unload nearly everything from my jeep ( stuff in rear in tie downs, assorted camping boxes etc.. ) looking for fish. I said to him do you want to see my license and the response was " Only if we find some fish".

Sniper3142
12-06-2012, 1:02 PM
You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

This is WRONG on so many levels!

You do not have to do as they say! A cop can tell you to hop on one leg and sing the star spangled banner. Guess what... you do not have to do it!

When I was in the military I followed orders from officers and enlisted people above me in the rank structure. As a Citizen and a Civilian I follow the LAW. Cops don't get to make up laws. They only enforce them. I don't folow their orders.

IVC
12-06-2012, 2:57 PM
So, after you say no, and they think they can articulate PC if they find something, they will then search anyway.

And you cannot resist this search once they order you out of your car to perform the search. This is exactly my point.

IVC
12-06-2012, 3:03 PM
As a Citizen and a Civilian I follow the LAW. Cops don't get to make up laws.

Correct. Cops also follow laws. The problem is when you both think you are following the law, yet you have conflicting positions.

You think you are following the law and resist, the cop thinks he is following the law and arrests you for resisting. Resisting is a felony. I don't really see any other scenario.

Dirty dirt
12-06-2012, 6:11 PM
Delete

Doheny
12-06-2012, 8:10 PM
This is WRONG on so many levels!

You do not have to do as they say! ...<snip>... I don't folow their orders.

Ok, so the next time a cop asks to see your license, to turn off the car, get out of the car, get back on the curb, etc, tell him you don't have to do what he says and you don't follow his orders.

Let us know how that works out for ya.

taperxz
12-06-2012, 9:58 PM
Ok, so the next time a cop asks to see your license, to turn off the car, get out of the car, get back on the curb, etc, tell him you don't have to do what he says and you don't follow his orders.

Let us know how that works out for ya.

Those requirements or demands only apply to the vehicle code if you are actually the driver of the vehicle.

Dirty dirt
12-06-2012, 10:11 PM
I wonder how many people in jail and prison think or believe themselves to be innocent and a victim of the justice system.

IVC
12-06-2012, 10:24 PM
Those requirements or demands only apply to the vehicle code if you are actually the driver of the vehicle.

This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

taperxz
12-06-2012, 10:27 PM
This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

The only way an LEO can stop you in a vehicle is for violation or perceived violation of the vehicle code. However minor. No blinker, light out ect.

The vehicle code is an LEO's ticket into your life.

Dirty dirt
12-06-2012, 10:38 PM
There are other reasons for a stop but a vehicle code violation is used most frequent by beat cops

Doheny
12-06-2012, 10:44 PM
Those requirements or demands only apply to the vehicle code if you are actually the driver of the vehicle.

Fail.

If you're a passenger in a stopped car and the officer tells you to get out (or do anything else), you don't think you need to?

Your lack of undestanding applies to not only the F&G code, but the CVC as well.

MOA1
12-06-2012, 10:47 PM
I wonder how many people in jail and prison think or believe themselves to be innocent and a victim of the justice system.

Many are........ guilty until proven wealthy.

How does the AV courthouse (Palmdale) get a 98% conviction rate? Are they that good? Are the cops right 98% of the time?

Do you know what "over file" means. I do.

Does that answer your "I wonder"?

Dirty dirt
12-06-2012, 11:01 PM
No, no it doesn't. welcome to the Forum one new member to another

MOA1
12-06-2012, 11:08 PM
Can't say I didn't try. :)

BassNut
12-06-2012, 11:52 PM
NO YOU DON't!! F&G codes only apply to those who are participating in the activity. F&G codes do not apply to those not hunting or fishing. If you are driving home from a trip either hunting or fishing, You don't have to tell them squat! They must have proof or knowledge of your activity in order to continue their shake down powers. Not to mention, since when was the "right to remain silent" ever made illegal??

So, does that mean that the 150 yard from any occupied dwelling, barn, ect ect for discharging a firearm does not apply to target shooting??????? I ask because the 150 yard rule is a F&G code. I ask because now you have me wondering.

markw
12-07-2012, 12:36 AM
If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

That's how you loose a firearm. You'd be amazed at how many LEO think black rifle == AW. Ask Mark Haynie about letting them look at your guns that you know are legal. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:41 AM
So, does that mean that the 150 yard from any occupied dwelling, barn, ect ect for discharging a firearm does not apply to target shooting??????? I ask because the 150 yard rule is a F&G code. I ask because now you have me wondering.

The 150 yard F&G rule does not apply to target shooting. HOWEVER, counties may or may not have laws pertaining to where you can or can't shoot so you may want to check locally first.

dieselpower
12-07-2012, 6:52 AM
Many are........ guilty until proven wealthy.

How does the AV courthouse (Palmdale) get a 98% conviction rate? Are they that good? Are the cops right 98% of the time?

Do you know what "over file" means. I do.

Does that answer your "I wonder"?

Bingo. Pick you battles wisely. There are many reasons to assert your rights on a traffic stop or a check point, but the best reason not to is...it's not worth it. You can very easily wind up looking at felony convictions for doing nothing wrong or illegal.

Sniper3142
12-07-2012, 9:07 AM
This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

Here is a good one:

A cop tells you to stop video taping or recording them while they conduct their offical duties in public. That is one demand/order that a citizen often gets from the police and should almost always refuse to follow!


Fail.

If you're a passenger in a stopped car and the officer tells you to get out (or do anything else), you don't think you need to?

Your lack of undestanding applies to not only the F&G code, but the CVC as well.

And you aren't totally right either.

A passenger does not have to comply with all request/orders from a cop like the driver does. For instance, a passenger does not have to provide ID.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 9:14 AM
Fail.

If you're a passenger in a stopped car and the officer tells you to get out (or do anything else), you don't think you need to?

Your lack of undestanding applies to not only the F&G code, but the CVC as well.

I understand the F&G code pretty well FWIW.

Does a passenger need to exit the vehicle upon demand? YES! For either officer safety or probable cause giving them the ability to search. That does not mean the passenger needs to identify themselves, talk to LE, or if they want, can simply walk away if they are not being detained or arrested for a crime.