PDA

View Full Version : can I carry a visible gun in CA


Busta G.
09-23-2007, 8:08 AM
I heard that as long as the gun is visible and unloaded you can carry a gun in California:38:. Is that true?:confused:

tyrist
09-23-2007, 8:15 AM
Unloaded and carried in a holster. However you can be detained by the police at anytime to verify it's condition. There is also a chance you may do something to violate local city ordinances.

MedSpec65
09-23-2007, 8:17 AM
I might do it within unincorporated rural areas with populations less than 2,500 people, but open carry anywhere else in this State is asking for trouble IMHO.

Experimentalist
09-23-2007, 8:17 AM
I heard that as long as the gun is visible and unloaded you can carry a gun in California:38:. Is that true?:confused:

Search is your friend. Please read through this, lots of good discussion.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=62147

Busta G.
09-23-2007, 8:27 AM
Thank you Experimentalist that was a lot of help I looked on yahoo first and got a lot of ppl saying that they are happy they dont live near me.

Crazed_SS
09-23-2007, 10:49 AM
I heard that as long as the gun is visible and unloaded you can carry a gun in California:38:. Is that true?:confused:

*****Please dont flame me here, just passing on info I was told..**********

My buddy who is a newbie SD Sherriff Deputy admits unloaded open carry is legal, BUT he says if you carry a loaded mag with you along with the gun, you could be arrested for having a loaded weapon. Maybe that's just what they teach them here.... once again, please do not flame me.. just trying to give perspective of what a LEO might think of you open carrying a gun.

SemiAutoSam
09-23-2007, 10:55 AM
Did he happen to back it up with LAW or did he stop short of giving the authority of his words and just gave legal advise without quoting the law ?




*****Please dont flame me here, just passing on info I was told..**********

My buddy who is a newbie SD Sheriff Deputy admits unloaded open carry is legal, BUT he says if you carry a loaded mag with you along with the gun, you could be arrested for having a loaded weapon. Maybe that's just what they teach them here.... once again, please do not flame me.. just trying to give perspective of what a LEO might think of you open carrying a gun.

Crazed_SS
09-23-2007, 11:01 AM
No, Im guessing that's just what they taught him at the academy because I asked him the day of his graduation and he had a prepared answer before I even finished asking. Maybe that's how the DA interprets a loaded weapon in SD County.. I dunno.

N6ATF
09-23-2007, 11:22 AM
Seems like there is a relation to this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=66404

The key word may be "newbie".

Why carry JUST an empty gun around if you're not at the range?

I'm waiting for there to be a law prohibiting an unloaded weapon on the person and a loaded (but separate) mag on the person at the same time. Couldn't be any more clear than that.

Oh, I forgot, this is CA, the laws are supposed to make no sense.

Crazed_SS
09-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Yea, the fact that he is a newbie is important. All he knows is what what recently stuffed into his head at the academy. It makes me think that's what they're teaching new recruits here. Who knows.. Once again, Im just passing on what I was told. Doesnt mean I agree with it. I know what the law says. Dont flame me. Do what you want.

SemiAutoSam
09-23-2007, 11:45 AM
This statement is redundant.

If we can do what we want that means we can flame you.

My logic analyzer is just about to short out on this one.

OK Its only a joke.

Dont flame me. Do what you want.

Crazed_SS
09-23-2007, 11:48 AM
This statement is redundant.

If we can do what we want that means we can flame you.

My logic analyzer is just about to short out on this one.

OK Its only a joke.

:)

I mean do what you want as far as open carrying a pistol and loaded mag here in San Diego.. I really would like for someone to try it. Im interested as to what would happen.

larryb
09-23-2007, 11:53 AM
:)

I mean do what you want as far as open carrying a pistol and loaded mag here in San Diego.. I really would like for someone to try it. Im interested as to what would happen.

Picture this "laying face down with a shotgun to the back of your head and some LEO yelling at you, dont move or I'll blow your F****N head off" That would be my best guess :)

SemiAutoSam
09-23-2007, 11:55 AM
I knew what You meant I was just in a humorous mood for a minute.

I would volunteer to be a test case But I have a Wife and Son that depend on me to put food on the table and a roof over their heads etc.

Depending on the Jurisdiction its attempted in there could be a different outcome.

And the legal consul as to the final result of the case as well.





:)

I mean do what you want as far as open carrying a pistol and loaded mag here in San Diego.. I really would like for someone to try it. I'm interested as to what would happen.

CitaDeL
09-23-2007, 1:35 PM
I heard that as long as the gun is visible and unloaded you can carry a gun in California:38:. Is that true?:confused:

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Depends.

Its certainly wise to research. You may want to check in here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/

glockman19
09-23-2007, 4:12 PM
Picture this "laying face down with a shotgun to the back of your head and some LEO yelling at you, dont move or I'll blow your F****N head off" That would be my best guess
YES Very Accurate.

I went into the local station and asked the Sergant about open carry and he said, "If/When we get a call man with gun" we will respond with more than one car and helicopter, throw you to the ground and put our knee in your back before disarming you and handcuffing you. We will then read you your rights, load you into the car and take you to the station where we wil then determine if the gun/firearm is yours. We will most likely arrest you anyway for disturbing the peace.

The police even though you are minding your own business legally carrying an UNLOADED firearm will harass you with a "disturbing the peace" charge in order to deter you from carrying again and they may try to increase it to a misdemenor just to take all your other guns away.

I plan on contacting the District Attorney's office and asking them if the charges would be persued.

While it is PERFECTLY LEGAL, you will be harassed into NOT carrying again and eventhough you DID NOT, Disturb the peace, the officers did they wil charge you for making them look like fools.

xrMike
09-23-2007, 4:52 PM
Why would anybody want to open-carry an unloaded weapon?

CitaDeL
09-23-2007, 4:59 PM
YES Very Accurate.

I went into the local station and asked the Sergant about open carry and he said, "If/When we get a call man with gun" we will respond with more than one car and helicopter, throw you to the ground and put our knee in your back before disarming you and handcuffing you. We will then read you your rights, load you into the car and take you to the station where we wil then determine if the gun/firearm is yours. We will most likely arrest you anyway for disturbing the peace.

The police even though you are minding your own business legally carrying an UNLOADED firearm will harass you with a "disturbing the peace" charge in order to deter you from carrying again and they may try to increase it to a misdemenor just to take all your other guns away.

I plan on contacting the District Attorney's office and asking them if the charges would be persued.

While it is PERFECTLY LEGAL, you will be harassed into NOT carrying again and eventhough you DID NOT, Disturb the peace, the officers did they wil charge you for making them look like fools.

California Penal Code 415
415. Disturbing the Peace

Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:

(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.

(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

I'm not seeing how 'disturbing the peace' even applies. Is there another section that could be applied to a person who is openly carrying an unloaded sidearm in a belt holster?

Why would anybody want to open-carry an unloaded weapon?

Because it may be the only legal means for a person to carry a weapon when they cannot get a license to carry concealed. Also it may be done as a form of activism, to initiate change where it is needed. Or it could be that the person simply wants to assert their second amendment perogative.

M. Sage
09-23-2007, 5:42 PM
I agree. Reasons to carry it would be to help further the cause, because 5 seconds to insert a magazine and rack a slide sure beats not having anything.

SemiAutoSam
09-23-2007, 6:24 PM
The only reason it would be considered disturbing the peace would be if some soccer mom saw you with a gun on your belt and got a case of the OMG there is a man with a gun and he is not a cop so im scared for my life.

If only she knew about the common Joe's that carry concealed.

But thats most likely why the GOV does not want you to expose your weapon when you carry concealed in the first place.

Anyone concur ?

MudCamper
09-23-2007, 6:49 PM
It is legal in most places. Local laws do vary. But as for the CA PC it's all covered in 12025 and 12031. Handgun worn openly on the hip is not concealed. Loaded mags on your person is not loaded. Now depending on your local cops, you'll probably get harassed by them, but, they cannot do what glockman19's local LEO stated or they will lose big time in a civil suit. They are just trying to scare you from exercising your rights.

I just finished a document detailing the PC on all this:

http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

And you should go check out the open carry forums:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/

N6ATF
09-23-2007, 11:38 PM
Last time I checked, you cannot be charged with a crime by police in CA. Charging is the domain of the District Attorney's office (prosecutor).

hitnrun
09-24-2007, 8:06 AM
I'm not seeing how 'disturbing the peace' even applies. Is there another section that could be applied to a person who is openly carrying an unloaded sidearm in a belt holster?

It wouldn't apply.

xrMike
09-24-2007, 8:08 AM
Hitnrun, I'm curious what you would do if you came across a guy who was open-carrying in public, and you stopped him to verify that his weapon was unloaded, and in the course of your conversation with him, he admitted that he was carrying a couple of loaded mags in his pants pocket. He's not a gang-banger. Let's say he's an "activist" who starts quoting you the exact wording of 12025, 12026, 12031, etc, and how he's exercising his rights under CA law, etc, blah blah... :D

I'm not trying to bait you or trap you or any B.S. like that. I respect all your answers that I've ever seen here, and appreciate the fact that you keep coming back in the face of occasional hostility. But I'd like to hear what a real cop would do in this situation, rather than a lot of speculation. Thanks.

hitnrun
09-24-2007, 8:14 AM
Hitnrun, I'm curious what you would do if you came across a guy who was open-carrying in public, and you stopped him to verify that his weapon was unloaded, and in the course of your conversation with him, he admitted that he was carrying a couple of loaded mags in his pants pocket. He's not a gang-banger. Let's say he's an "activist" who starts quoting you the exact wording of 12025, 12026, 12031, etc, and how he's exercising his rights under CA law, etc, blah blah... :D

I'm not trying to bait you or trap you or any B.S. like that. I respect all your answers that I've ever seen here, and appreciate the fact that you keep coming back in the face of occasional hostility. But I'd like to hear what a real cop would do in this situation, rather than a lot of speculation. Thanks.


Honestly, I would evaluate him for 5150.:p Maybe he has a death wish or just likes getting the wrong kind of attention.:eek: Then after determining that no crime has been committed, he would be free to go. I can't do anything to anyone if they haven't broken any laws.


If/when he starts quoting stuff to me. I would inform him that while his regurgitation of memorized documents is superb, his practical application of common sense is flawed. :D

Piper
09-24-2007, 8:26 AM
Honestly, I would evaluate him for 5150.:p Maybe he has a death wish or just likes getting the wrong kind of attention.:eek: Then after determining that no crime has been committed, he would be free to go. I can't do anything to anyone if they haven't broken any laws.


If/when he starts quoting stuff to me. I would inform him that while his regurgitation of memorized documents is superb, his practical application of common sense is flawed. :D

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you would consider him to be a 5150 or have a "death wish". Oh and why would you consider his common sense flawed? I'm really interested.

hitnrun
09-24-2007, 8:36 AM
Perhaps you could elaborate on why you would consider him to be a 5150 or have a "death wish". Oh and why would you consider his common sense flawed? I'm really interested.




To answer your questions Piper:

The comment regarding a 5150 was merely a funny...because you would have to be crazy to go out in public carrying an unloaded gun. I have nothing against someone doing so, but it could be a death wish depending on where you live/open carry at. You are just asking to be robbed/challenged/etc. But, it isn't illegal so, be my guest. The common sense issue refers to my previous sentence. It's great that you want to exercise your rights. HOORAY! But, I can't think of how a LOGICAL person would think that it is somehow safe to carry a gun unloaded in public. If you do it in a group or live in Mayberry, great. Hey, even if you feel safe, go for it. But when you get robbed at gun point (for reals), or shot (for reals) because a dirt bag with a real gun called your bluff, don't say that hitnrun never told you.


That's all.

xrMike
09-24-2007, 8:57 AM
xrMike, is this what you were talking about? What we have here is what is traditionally known as a bait post or a trap.Thanks for answering my question! No baiting was intended by me.

I wish the calgunners who are so quick to jump you would think about what an excellent resource it is to have a few cops on board here.

hitnrun
09-24-2007, 9:03 AM
Thanks for answering my question! No baiting was intended by me.

I wish the calgunners who are so quick to jump you would think about what an excellent resource it is to have a few cops on board here.

I know it wasn't your intention. I just wish everyone else was as innocent...or at least not so obvious about it.:)

MudCamper
09-24-2007, 9:06 AM
More anti cop rhetoric from a law abiding gun owner. I'm SHOCKED!

I'm not anti-cop. But you are basically telling us that, if you open carry, expect to get harassed by the cops, and further, you berate and belittle those brave men who would choose to crusade for our rights. And after that you are surprised by my "anti-cop rhetoric" reaction?

Honestly, I would evaluate him for 5150.

That appeared to be a veiled threat to me, of detention. If not, it was intended to be an insult. Either way, it's clearly FUD.

If/when he starts quoting stuff to me. I would inform him that while his regurgitation of memorized documents is superb, his practical application of common sense is flawed.

What other choice does he have? You don't understand why anyone would open carry unloaded because you are privileged to have the right to carry however you want. The rest of us are not so privileged.

hitnrun
09-24-2007, 9:09 AM
I'm not anti-cop. But you are basically telling us that, if you open carry, expect to get harassed by the cops, and further, you berate and belittle those brave men who would choose to crusade for our rights. And after that you are surprised by my "anti-cop rhetoric" reaction?



That appeared to be a veiled threat to me, of detention. If not, it was intended to be an insult. Either way, it's clearly FUD.



What other choice does he have? You don't understand why anyone would open carry unloaded because you are privileged to have the right to carry however you want. The rest of us are not so privileged.


Are the smileys not working on your computer...cause I can see them just fine.

Re read my response to your tag team partner, Piper. He jumped on me a full 6 seconds before you! It should be on page 3. That explains what I was saying. Don't blow a gasket man...it's only the internet.:p


Let's recap here. I never made threats, veiled, nude, or otherwise. I never made a comment about being privileged because of peace officer status. I never even said that he shouldn't be allowed to carry. For you to accuse me of stating the exact opposite of what I posted, is approaching the threshold of "lying." But, you choose to interpret that however you like.


Just to be clear...have I EVER posted anything anti 2A while I have been a member here? Have I ever once encouraged restrictions of 2A rights while I have been a member here? Have I not participated in one click email programs, phone calls and faxes to the governor, etc.? Have I ever at any time promoted any kind of 2A restrictions for non-LEOs?


The answer is not once ever have I not supported 2A rights, yours AND mine. I bought a lifetime membership to the NRA and contribute regularly on top of the membership. I call state senators and reps, email, fax, etc. I do all of this and then get shat on by the very same people I am standing with in the very same fight for rights...and I still get called a communist? WTF? Every other cop on here, whether they post it or not, is in the same boat for the same reasons. We all care about CA gun laws and feel obligated to do something. Keep that in mind the next time you accuse me of being an anti and $H!t talking me.

Kestryll
09-24-2007, 9:14 AM
This thread has been cleaned up and the personal attacks and unnecessary 'LEOs suck' comments have been removed.

I am flat tired of threads like this turning in to cheap shots, personal attacks and random outburst of 'cops suck because I don't like them!'.

If you have nothing to add other than your personal animus for LEOs in general, don't bother posting.
If you have something that is not flattering but adds materially to the discussion, post it.

It that simple.

One more note.
If this isn't clear enough or if you have questions ask them via PM but do ask them because if I see any more rude or snide comments aimed at another member that person will be taking some time off.

xrMike
09-24-2007, 9:18 AM
I also think it's kinda silly to open carry simply to make a statement and exercise your rights, for the following reasons:

-- you're basically just looking for trouble and conflict, and eventually you WILL get some (I have kids and a mortgage; every day I spend in jail is a day I'm not making money).
-- you WILL become the target of real, possibly armed criminals, and tough guys, and drunks
-- you're announcing to the world in any hostile situation: "Kill me first!"

If you want to open carry because you think you can get to the loaded mags in your pocket and at least have a fighting chance in a hostile situation, well... I'd never tell anybody else to break the law, but personally, I'd rather just break the law and carry concealed. It's only a misdemeanor if you get caught, and you stand a much better chance of surviving a violent encounter (by maintaining the element of surprise). And if you have to kill somebody in a legitimate and righteous encounter, you probably won't get any jail time for it (not guaranteed, but unlikely).

Of course I would never do that. I'm just saying -- if the ability to defend myself was so high in my list of priorities that I'd be willing to open-carry down main street, I'd probably choose to carry concealed (illegally) instead. Less hassle, less risk, greater survivability.

Piper
09-24-2007, 9:19 AM
To answer your questions Piper:

The comment regarding a 5150 was merely a funny...because you would have to be crazy to go out in public carrying an unloaded gun. I have nothing against someone doing so, but it could be a death wish depending on where you live/open carry at. You are just asking to be robbed/challenged/etc. But, it isn't illegal so, be my guest. The common sense issue refers to my previous sentence. It's great that you want to exercise your rights. HOORAY! But, I can't think of how a LOGICAL person would think that it is somehow safe to carry a gun unloaded in public. If you do it in a group or live in Mayberry, great. Hey, even if you feel safe, go for it. But when you get robbed at gun point (for reals), or shot (for reals) because a dirt bag with a real gun called your bluff, don't say that hitnrun never told you.


That's all.



Me personally, if I chose to do this, it would be a pistol with an empty mag in it and a full mag in my pocket. At least the BG will have to weigh the risks, meanwhile that gives me time to leave or replace the empty mag with a full mag. In the current antigun/ anti-armed citizen environment we have in Kalyfornya, it is the only real alternative to having only a can of pepper spray or a very expensive Taser or nothing. Unfortunately, there are people in government who fail to think, and just react to gunlaws because, well golly it's the law!

MudCamper
09-24-2007, 9:51 AM
Let me post a hypothetical. Let's say you have to travel through a rough neighborhood (for work, or whatever). Here are your choices of self-defense:

1) completely unarmed
2) legal folding knife
3) pepper spray
4) semi-auto handgun on hip unloaded, 2 loaded mags on alternate side hip

Yes, they are all less than perfect choices, but as a Californian living in a non-issue county, these are your choices.

First, if you knew you would not get harassed by the police, which would you carry?

Second, given how you think the police would really treat you (or how hitnrun stated the police would treat you) which would you you carry?

For me the answer to the first question is 4. The answer to the second question is 2 and 3.

CalNRA
09-24-2007, 1:40 PM
If I knew I won't get harassed by the law enforcement, I would carry the pistol with mags outside the magwell.

so in the real world, I would drive my a** out of there ASAP.

M. Sage
09-24-2007, 5:02 PM
1) completely unarmed
2) legal folding knife
3) pepper spray
4) semi-auto handgun on hip unloaded, 2 loaded mags on alternate side hip


I'd take 2, 3 and 4. Right now, though, I settle for 2, sometimes 2 and 3.

bridgeport
09-24-2007, 6:35 PM
This traveling through a rough neigborhood etc. stuff is ridiculous. Remember at the old Pomona shows how guys would dress up as cowboys and WWII re-enactors and carry their six shooters or carbines. Legal open carry would be accepted by any LEO depending upon the circumstances etc. On the other hand you could be arrested for carrying a cap gun if you appeared to be a threat. Everything works in its proper context when and where legal.

M. Sage
09-24-2007, 6:38 PM
This traveling through a rough neigborhood etc. stuff is ridiculous.

Tell me about it. I'm about sick of doing it when I've got nothing but a pocket knife.

I really hated it when my wife was walking down Market in SF at night on the way home from school. I really considered making her carry my pistol.

Piper
09-24-2007, 6:43 PM
"A strong body makes the mind strong.
As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun.
While this gives moderate exercise to the body,
it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.
Games played with the ball, and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."
Thomas Jefferson
Source: in a letter written in Paris to his nephew and ward Peter Carr,
Foley, ed., Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, p. 318.
http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.B699

E Pluribus Unum
09-24-2007, 7:15 PM
Me personally, if I chose to do this, it would be a pistol with an empty mag in it and a full mag in my pocket. At least the BG will have to weigh the risks, meanwhile that gives me time to leave or replace the empty mag with a full mag. In the current antigun/ anti-armed citizen environment we have in Kalyfornya, it is the only real alternative to having only a can of pepper spray or a very expensive Taser or nothing. Unfortunately, there are people in government who fail to think, and just react to gunlaws because, well golly it's the law!

It might be good to point out here that even when in 100% compliance with the law it is VERY important to always be professional and courteous to all LEOS... it would be VERY easy for the LEO to say that the loaded magazine was in the gun and therefore was "loaded". It is your word vs. his.

Piper
09-24-2007, 8:18 PM
That a peace officer would be willing to jeopardize his or her career to falsify a statement to arrest me for a misdemeanor, to me is actually entertaining. Truthfully, after I had fun playing with them at the CJ, I would have loads of fun as they squirm in their seat as my attorney makes a total fool out of them. At worst, I will end up with probation and a fine if I lose. If s/he submits a report with false statements and is caught, s/he stands to lose considerably more. Falsifying an official court document reaps sever repurcussions. Even some of the arrogant ones that are on the street today aren't foolish enough to do that. But one can always hope. :D

E Pluribus Unum
09-24-2007, 11:32 PM
That a peace officer would be willing to jeopardize his or her career to falsify a statement to arrest me for a misdemeanor, to me is actually entertaining. Truthfully, after I had fun playing with them at the CJ, I would have loads of fun as they squirm in their seat as my attorney makes a total fool out of them. At worst, I will end up with probation and a fine if I lose. If s/he submits a report with false statements and is caught, s/he stands to lose considerably more. Falsifying an official court document reaps sever repurcussions. Even some of the arrogant ones that are on the street today aren't foolish enough to do that. But one can always hope. :D

I beg to differ sir. Police lie under oath and falsify reports ALL of the time. The most often I can think of is with regards to probable cause. 99% of the time, the officer will not get caught... they become lax and think they can get away with it all of the time. Until someone like me comes along.. :)

Case in point:

Cop pulls in behind me and performs a vehicle stop. Conversation goes like this:

Officer: License and registration please
Me: Certainly officer; may I ask your PC for pulling me over?
Officer: I observed you weaving
Me: I am sorry sir, you are mistaken I was not weaving; besides, I thought as long as the vehicle stays in the lane, I thought it was legal.
Officer: Weaving, even within the lane, while not illegal, gives me probable cause to pull you over, to check for substance abuse.
Me: I am not under the influence, I do not do drugs, I am not impaired.
<Officer takes a walk around the car>
Officer: I notice you do not have a front license plate; California law requires a front license plate. I am issuing you a citation for no front plate and no proof of insurance.

In court, the testimony went as follows: [Excerpts from the transcripts, condensed and legal mumbo jumbo removed for ease of reading]

Me: What was your probable cause for pulling me over?
Officer: I saw that your vehicle had no front license plate.
Me: How did you see this from the rear of the vehicle?
Officer: I saw it while traveling [the opposite way] and I flipped around and made the enforcement stop.
Me: Do you recall me asking your probable cause when you pulled me over?
Officer: Yes, I do
Me: Do you recall telling me your PC was that you observed me weaving?
Officer: No sir, I do not, I told you my PC was no front plate.
Me: So at no point did you say your PC was weaving?
Officer: No I did not
Me: Are you absolutely sure?
Judge: Asked, and answered, move on
Officer: Is it not true that you circled my car after you pulled me over to search for PC and that you witnessed my car from behind only?
Officer: That is absolutely untrue; as I said before I witnessed your car from the front and pulled you over for that.
Me: What you do not realize sir is that I was recording the entire time; I have everything on tape that was said and I would like to play that tape for the court.
Judge: Officer, were you aware that you were being recorded?
Officer: No sir your honor, I was not
Judge: I cannot allow that evidence, it is illegal to record someone without consent.
Me: You're honor, I was under the impression that there is an exception to this when a witness has perjured himself. I did not produce the evidence of my own accord, I am doing so only to prove that the officer has perjured himself today. Not only that you're honor; there is a decal on my back window that says, "Audio and Visual Surveilled", here is a photo.
Judge: I will allow you to play the tape.

(Plays tape back)

Me: Furthermore, your honor, I subpoenaed the radio transmissions for that day and it shows that Officer gettem responded to a call at mile marker 24, a full 20 miles south and 30 minutes before he pulled me over; I was heading north so he could not have seen me from the front because he was approaching from the rear.

Me: Based on this evidence I would like to make a motion to suppress the testimony of this witness and if the state has no further evidence, I further motion the court to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence.

Judge: How do you explain this officer?
Officer: I don't know your honor; I write a lot of tickets every day and he is driving a Chevy truck which is a common vehicle; it is very possible I got the stops mixed up. He has it all on tape so my memory has obviously failed me but I assure you I never meant to be deceitful.

Judge: Motion to dismiss is granted.




Afterwards... nothing.... no disciplinary action, nothing. I followed up with the agency and the court trying to get the officer punished for his perjury to no avail. His statement of getting mixed up was enough to protect him from scrutiny.

Life Lesson: Police have ALL the power… why get in a peeing match on scene?? Sign the ticket like you are one of the rest of the 100 sheep he ticketed that day… and then beat him up in court.

Liberty1
09-24-2007, 11:42 PM
Good show! I'm a proponent of recording government action. What I don't understand is why he has an expectation of privacy (other then the judge covering for him) while acting in his official capacity? I was taught that a citizen has no expectation when speaking with a police officer so why not the other way around?

E Pluribus Unum
09-24-2007, 11:50 PM
Good show! I'm a proponent of recording government action. What I don't understand is why he has an expectation of privacy (other then the judge covering for him) while acting in his official capacity? I was taught that a citizen has no expectation when speaking with a police officer so why not the other way around?

No clue... makes no sense... It’s been a long time since the case, but I had found case law that showed an exception to the expectation of privacy in instances regarding perjury. When I brought this exception up, the judge warned me that if I accuse an officer of committing perjury, I better have very strong evidence to support it or I could be in deep trouble. I told the judge that I had irrefutable proof that what the officer testified to is false; as to his intentions when can it ever be proven that one's intention is to lie or he is simply mistaken?

I think had he not allowed the evidence, it might have been cause for appeal... but I will never know. :)

EVERY single time I have an encounter with law enforcement, I hit record on the cell phone. I have had SO many officers lie on the stand I decided to start doing it. It has gotten me out of 2 tickets as a result; as soon as the officer lies or is forced to play the "I must have been mistaken" card it RUINS their "expert witness" status. If more and more people do that and catch them in their lies, they will stop.

Liberty1
09-25-2007, 12:16 AM
EVERY single time I have an encounter with law enforcement, I hit record on the cell phone. I have had SO many officers lie on the stand I decided to start doing it. It has gotten me out of 2 tickets as a result; as soon as the officer lies or is forced to play the "I must have been mistaken" card it RUINS their "expert witness" status. If more and more people do that and catch them in their lies, they will stop.

I do the same thing except I'm on the other side of the window :p . It's unsubstantiated a couple of bogus complaints thankfully.

Here is a recorded open carry police encounter which drew witnesses as it was also radio broadcast. Nice idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewhampshireunderground%2Ecom%2F forum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D10019%2E45

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 12:35 AM
I do the same thing except I'm on the other side of the window :p . It's unsubstantiated a couple of bogus complaints thankfully.

Here is a recorded open carry police encounter which drew witnesses as it was also radio broadcast. Nice idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewhampshireunderground%2Ecom%2F forum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D10019%2E45




I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with that video. Any time a man is walking down the street with a gun, one might wonder what he's doing. I have no problem with him being detained for 2-5 minutes while they verify he is not a psycho. He was not arrested, he was not mistreated, his rights were not violated and most importantly, the police were not crooked.

I would venture to say that the same thing would have happened had he been carrying a baseball bat.

Furthermore, I understand what the author is TRYING to do... but what he WILL do is cause the city to pass an ordinance restricting open carry.

Liberty1
09-25-2007, 12:48 AM
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with that video. Any time a man is walking down the street with a gun, one might wonder what he's doing. I have no problem with him being detained for 2-5 minutes while they verify he is not a psycho. He was not arrested, he was not mistreated, his rights were not violated and most importantly, the police were not crooked.

I would venture to say that the same thing would have happened had he been carrying a baseball bat.

Furthermore, I understand what the author is TRYING to do... but what he WILL do is cause the city to pass an ordinance restricting open carry.

It's a recognized state right and there is state pre-emption of gun laws so Manchester NH can't ban it.

Walking down the street with a holstered firearm in and of it self is not RS for a terry stop investigation where carrying a firearm is not a crime absent a credible witness that a crime did occure, is occuring, or will occure . Consensual encounter? Ok. But not an involuntary detention. It might have only been minimal in length because he was recording/broadcasting it and friends showed up.


Here are a couple of good legal references for police response issues from two good authorities (non CA however):

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/supreme/opinions/0497pdf/k00jiz95.pdf

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a...gun in Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution...would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not -- such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.

Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by...the Constitution...and this court's relevant caselaw.



http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005


Chief's Counsel

Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun..., a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."

From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 1:01 AM
It's a recognized state right and there is state pre-emption of gun laws so Manchester NH can't ban it.

Walking down the street with a firearm in and of it self is not RS for a terry stop investigation where carrying a firearm is not a crime absent a credible witness that a crime did occure, is occuring, or will occure . Consensual encounter? Ok. But not an involuntary detention. It might have only been minimal in length because he was recording/broadcasting it and friends showed up.


Here are a couple of good legal references for police response issues from two good authorities (non CA however):

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/supreme/opinions/0497pdf/k00jiz95.pdf

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a...gun in Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution...would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not -- such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.

Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by...the Constitution...and this court's relevant caselaw.



http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005


Chief's Counsel

Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun..., a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."

From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.


I realize all of that.. but even considering all of that, they are not crooked cops. They did not lie, the did not cheat, they only investigated. Had there not been a camera things might have been different, but there was so we will never know. :)

Liberty1
09-25-2007, 1:08 AM
Oh, sorry. I was referring to your case mostly. But I still see an unlawful detention as "crooked" but as we saw the minimal detention caused seemingly minimal damage. However such minimalism can be the tool to discourage the exercise of Rights.

Carry on...openly :D !

glockman19
09-25-2007, 6:44 AM
E Pluribus Unum,

Great work. I'd like to know more about the sticker that notifies others of video & audio taping.

Piper
09-25-2007, 7:26 AM
E Pluribus Unum, great job! The fact that you caught him in a lie should cause him to think twice about lying again. While he escaped with the help of his convenient memory loss that time, I think it would be tougher to justify the conflict between stories where a loaded versus unloaded firearm is involved. There are too many factors in a stop like that (i.e. misdemeanor conviction, loss of property, hundreds of dollars in fines etc.). I completly understand your point, a lie is a lie, but from the judges point of view, he has to weigh both sides. The fact that the cop could do enough t-stops to potentially mix up the circumstances, is reasonable, but I think a judge would be very quick to sanction a cop that turned in an official police report with false statements.

One of the many things that I was required to do when I took an arrest report to the D.A. was swear that the statements in the report were true. That becomes an official court document and there are stiff penalties for that. If a cop does try to lie about something like that, I would really like to be there when he does.

Kestryll
09-25-2007, 8:53 AM
Okay, this thread has devolved in spite of a clean up and a warning.
We're done with this thread but not with this issue, PMs will follow.