PDA

View Full Version : If the officer suspects you have a firearm in the car?...


Gryff
10-24-2007, 1:00 PM
If I were to be pulled over by a police officer, and then inadvertently admit that I was on the way to the shooting range/competition/etc., does the officer have the right to search the car and inspect the firearms?

Given the laws on firearm transportation, the answer is probably yes. The alternative version of the question is if he were to recognize my shooting bag in the back of my SUV, or the 5.11 tactical vest or pants I might be wearing for a competition, does he have reasonable cause? What if those items inspire him to ask, "Do you have a gun in the car?"

I'm pro-law enforcement, but I do not want to hand him a Search-My-Car-For-Free pass. I don't want to lie to him, but I don't want to throw away my rights, either.

Yes, I know that the best thing is to make sure everything is out of sight, but I want to know what my rights are. If the officer suspects a gun is in the car based on my gear or clothing, does he have a right to search for it?

Thanks,

Jim

bwiese
10-24-2007, 1:04 PM
Q. "Are you carrying any guns or drugs?"

A. "Officer, there are no illegal items of any sort in the vehicle. I do not consent to a search, as is my right under the 4th amendment."

hitnrun
10-24-2007, 1:20 PM
If the facts available to the officer at the time of the stop lead him to develop enough probable cause to believe that there may be a weapon in the vehicle, then yes, the vehicle can be searched.

Things that can lead to PC: gun case, ammo, statements, furtive movements, holsters, etc. Individually these things might not be enough, but if the officer can articulate a nexus and develop PC, he can search.

bwiese
10-24-2007, 1:23 PM
If the facts available to the officer at the time of the stop lead him to develop enough probable cause to believe that there may be a weapon in the vehicle, then yes, the vehicle can be searched.

Things that can lead to PC: gun case, ammo, statements, furtive movements, holsters, etc. Individually these things might not be enough, but if the officer can articulate a nexus and develop PC, he can search.

But an NRA sticker or gun publication cannot be used for PC.

I'd love to have a vehicle search executed because of my NRA sticker or because I have a copy of Shotgun News on my seat.

(Sure it's probably moot for me since there's at least a half-dozen rounds of spent brass floating around in the bed of my truck :) )

battlehatch
10-24-2007, 1:23 PM
Nexus is a great concept, especially if the officer can think quick. From what I have seen, there are so many ways for an officer to get a search out of people whether by PC or by consent. Sometimes all you have to do is ask in the right way...

AfricanHunter
10-24-2007, 1:24 PM
Can someone explain the Nexus concept?

Mark in Eureka
10-24-2007, 1:25 PM
If you are asked if you have an firearm (with you/on you/in the vehicle) and you answer yes, you must produce it for the officer's inspection upon request. This is not volentary, it is in the Penal Code that you must allow any officer to inspect any firearm you are carrying or transporting. Should not be a problem.

mecam
10-24-2007, 1:33 PM
Is it legal to have both my gun and ammo in my range bag, but the gun is in a locked case unloaded in the back seat of my truck? It's a PITA to have to put my ammo in the front seat.

FortCourageArmory
10-24-2007, 1:44 PM
As long as the ammo is not attached to the firearm you are transporting in any way, you are OK. A loaded mag is not considered attached to the gun if it's not physically in the gun. That's straight from the CHP. If the ammo is in the bag and the gun is in a seperate case, you're fine.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 1:57 PM
No locked case is required for rifles. The ONLY time a handgun must be in a locked case is if it’s concealed.

It is perfectly legal to transport a handgun on the front seat in plain view WITHOUT a locked case provided it is not loaded.


Another key thing:

Concealed carry is legal without a CCW if you have a fishing license or hunting license and you are traveling to and from hunting/fishing.

If you are on your way to go fishing and you tell the officer that fact, he is powerless to arrest you for concealed carry.

A licensed hunter going to or from hunting or while engaged in hunting has a different definition while in the county (not city). In that case one can have a fully loaded magazine in the gun, so long as there is no round in the chamber (Fish and Game Code 2006).

While driving around here in Kern County, I carry my fully loaded 25 round magazine inserted into my M1A with the bolt locked back. If I ever need it I give the op-rod a quick tap and the bolt slides forward; perfectly legal. After all, I am ALWAYS on my way hunting or fishing (I do it a lot).

If I am not hunting, or I drive into the city, I pop the magazine out real quick; no big deal.

JawBone
10-24-2007, 2:06 PM
If the facts available to the officer at the time of the stop lead him to develop enough probable cause to believe that there may be a weapon in the vehicle, then yes, the vehicle can be searched.

Things that can lead to PC: gun case, ammo, statements, furtive movements, holsters, etc. Individually these things might not be enough, but if the officer can articulate a nexus and develop PC, he can search.

I Disagree. The vehicle can only be searched if the officer has PC "that a crime has been committed." In this case, your reasonable suspicion/nexus merely that a weapon is being legally transported, without more, is not enough for a search.

For a 12031(e) loaded/unloaded inspection to apply the officer has to either 1) get an admission; 2) see a gun or 3) an easily recognized gun case. Seeing ammo or otherwise coming from "the range" is irrelevant - the driver could have been shooting his friends' gun or rented firearms at the range.

MrTuffPaws
10-24-2007, 2:14 PM
Can someone explain the Nexus concept?

Yeah, I searched google and wiki and only came up with the American/Canadian boarder crossing program.

MrTuffPaws
10-24-2007, 2:16 PM
Q. "Are you carrying any guns or drugs?"

A. "Officer, there are no illegal items of any sort in the vehicle. I do not consent to a search, as is my right under the 4th amendment."

Better to say "I am carrying nothing of concern officer. I do not consent to a search of my person or my vehicle."

That way, they can't state that you were lying if they do happen to find something illegal ;)

AKman
10-24-2007, 2:19 PM
But an NRA sticker or gun publication cannot be used for PC.

I'd love to have a vehicle search executed because of my NRA sticker or because I have a copy of Shotgun News on my seat.

(Sure it's probably moot for me since there's at least a half-dozen rounds of spent brass floating around in the bed of my truck :) )

Glad to see I'm not the only one that uses his truck as a brass catcher.

JawBone
10-24-2007, 2:20 PM
Nexus Definition of PC:

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

Hitnrun above is saying he has PC to search if he comes to the conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances that "a weapon is in the vehicle." Well, last time I checked it isn't illegal to transport a weapon in a vehicle. So he'd better have reason to believe a crime is being committed or has been committed or else it is an illegal search.

AfricanHunter
10-24-2007, 2:23 PM
Another key thing:

Concealed carry is legal without a CCW if you have a fishing license or hunting license and you are traveling to and from hunting/fishing.

If you are on your way to go fishing and you tell the officer that fact, he is powerless to arrest you for concealed carry.

A licensed hunter going to or from hunting or while engaged in hunting has a different definition while in the county (not city). In that case one can have a fully loaded magazine in the gun, so long as there is no round in the chamber (Fish and Game Code 2006).



Is this true in a city? So if I am going surf fishing in Torrey Pines or Newport Beach or Wherever, I can carry concealed on the way there and back? Thats a new one to me. Can you cite PC and give some more details if you have them?

Citadelgrad87
10-24-2007, 2:24 PM
No locked case is required for rifles. The If you are on your way to go fishing and you tell the officer that fact, he is powerless to arrest you for concealed carry.



Please take this assertion correctly. It does NOT mean you "can't be arrested."

It means that no crime has been comitted, ie it is not illegal to CCW in this fashion.

You can MOST CERTAINLY still be arrested for it.

glockman19
10-24-2007, 2:27 PM
Better not forget to have your Hunting license, field dressing equipmetn and knife with you, or, your fishing pole and tackle box.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 2:34 PM
Is this true in a city? So if I am going surf fishing in Torrey Pines or Newport Beach or Wherever, I can carry concealed on the way there and back? Thats a new one to me. Can you cite PC and give some more details if you have them?


Sure... its all right here:
The laws in California are very complex and I have argued with people in a few threads about what the law says. They have not believed me so I have spent tonight researching the laws that apply. Again, this is not arguing wether it is wise or not, only that it is legal.

Handgun Transportation:
A handgun does NOT have to be in a locked case. Plain and simple.
It can be unloaded in plain view. The only time it must be in a locked case is when it is CONCEALED.

This is not generally challanged but what is challanged is the notion that this does not apply to hunters. There is an exemption. If you are a licensed hunter and are in the commission of hunting, or going to, or coming from hunting you may carry concealed without a CCW.

Laws:
PC 12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.

PC 12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or
other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while
engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms
unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing
expedition.

Loaded Firearm:
Best to resite PC 12031

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

This means if you are cruising around town you cannot have ammunition touching the gun in any way (there are exceptions).

If you are a licensed hunter in the commission of hunting you are protected by the fish and game code definition of "loaded"; It is quite different. Loaded in these circumstances means a round in the chamber. You can drive on public streets while hunting with a loaded magazine in the gun provided you are not within city limits.

Laws:
Fish and Game Code 2006. It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way open to the public.
A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the magazine.


P.S.
Yes, it is true in the city... the city limit only applies to "loaded weapons". A licensed fisherman can carry concealed without a permit on his way to lawfully fish. If you are lawfully fishing you can carry concealed. This includes claming... many times I have carried concealed clamming on the beach of Pismo with a loaded magazine in my pocket. Perfectly legal.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 2:38 PM
Better not forget to have your Hunting license, field dressing equipmetn and knife with you, or, your fishing pole and tackle box.

Fishing/hunting license... yes... the rest doesn't really matter....

Many times I have got a wild hair, decided to go fishing without any gear... stopped at the bait store in Lake Isabella and bought a cheap pole and salmon eggs. Nothing says the equipment must be on you. The only requirement is that you be licensed.

Please take this assertion correctly. It does NOT mean you "can't be arrested."

It means that no crime has been comitted, ie it is not illegal to CCW in this fashion.

You can MOST CERTAINLY still be arrested for it.


Sure... a police officer can perform an unlawful arrest... whats your point? Any police officer can arrest anyone when no law has been broken; there are consequences to pay later.

Citadelgrad87
10-24-2007, 2:48 PM
Sure... a police officer can perform an unlawful arrest... whats your point? Any police officer can arrest anyone when no law has been broken; there are consequences to pay later.


My point is simply to clarify. I am certainly not saying you are wrong, and I don't think YOU misundertand the point you are making.

But this site is for general public consumption, and I would hate to see anyone compound the issue by resisting an arrest because they "can't" be arrested.

My point is to know the law, but if the officer is arresting you anyway, deal with it later.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 2:54 PM
My point is simply to clarify. I am certainly not saying you are wrong, and I don't think YOU misundertand the point you are making.

But this site is for general public consumption, and I would hate to see anyone compound the issue by resisting an arrest because they "can't" be arrested.

My point is to know the law, but if the officer is arresting you anyway, deal with it later.

If a police officer is ignorant of the law and arrests for something that is perfectly legal then he should be disciplined. I know he wont be but that is beside the point.

When I am carrying concealed I keep a laminated copy of the law on me to show the officer should I ever be stopped.

AKman
10-24-2007, 2:56 PM
Pick up a big rock and act like you are going to throw it at the officer. Wait, wrong thread.

Citadelgrad87
10-24-2007, 3:00 PM
If a police officer is ignorant of the law and arrests for something that is perfectly legal then he should be disciplined. I know he wont be but that is beside the point.

When I am carrying concealed I keep a laminated copy of the law on me to show the officer should I ever be stopped.


We are in total agreement. Perusing this website, I see that "Is this legal," when asked of various law enforcement personnel in the state, is likely to receive a variety of responses.

Again, my point was not to convince or warn YOU of anything. My point was designed to caution those who read what you wrote that, although you are doing nothing illegal, you may still be arrested. Know the law, know your rights, but keep your cool and deal with that wrongful arrest later.

Wrongful arrests happen all the time, (I am pro law enforcement) I do NOT want to see people making some kind of foolish stand on the side of the road over something they learned, or misunderstood, on the internet.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 3:07 PM
We are in total agreement. Perusing this website, I see that "Is this legal," when asked of various law enforcement personnel in the state, is likely to receive a variety of responses.

Again, my point was not to convince or warn YOU of anything. My point was designed to caution those who read what you wrote that, although you are doing nothing illegal, you may still be arrested. Know the law, know your rights, but keep your cool and deal with that wrongful arrest later.

Wrongful arrests happen all the time, (I am pro law enforcement) I do NOT want to see people making some kind of foolish stand on the side of the road over something they learned, or misunderstood, on the internet.

I was wrongfully arrested; I know what it's like. I thought about defending myself... but ultimately decided it was not worth shooting someone. The cop was a good man, just ignorant. I think I would have a lot of guilt over shooting a criminal let alone someone just trying to do his job; even if he is doing it poorly.

What happened to him?? Nothing... he was mad I beat the case but other than that life went on.

scarry scarney
10-24-2007, 3:08 PM
I might be wrong, but my understanding that the pistol has to be unloaded and transported in a locked case. If a LEO sees the case, or even a round (loaded or spent) in the car and suspect that there is a pistol in the car, the LEO can "inspect" the pistol to ensure that it is being transported in a legal manner. (provided it is not on your CCW).

I would suggest that you just don't open the case and hand the pistol to him. I'm not a cop, but if I was, and you did this to me, I would be showing you the business end of my pistol, real quick!

Hunter
10-24-2007, 3:17 PM
Is this true in a city? ...

Without rehashing the whole discussion that a few of us were part of on this subject, you might want to read the original thread on this matter as the distinction between incorported; unincorporated; and prohibited areas do come into play here. Especially when talking about vehicular travel within those areas with a loaded gun. This is due to PC 12031.

12031(a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

See the original thread here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=450327#post450327

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 3:18 PM
I might be wrong, but my understanding that the pistol has to be unloaded and transported in a locked case.

Please read the posts before and stop spreading misinformation. The pistol only need be in a locked case if it is CONCEALED. In plain view, no case is required.




If a LEO sees the case, or even a round (loaded or spent) in the car and suspect that there is a pistol in the car, the LEO can "inspect" the pistol to ensure that it is being transported in a legal manner. (provided it is not on your CCW).

Again... read the posts above... spent rounds is not enough in itself. If he sees a gun case he can inspect the firearm but NOT search the vehicle.


I would suggest that you just don't open the case and hand the pistol to him. I'm not a cop, but if I was, and you did this to me, I would be showing you the business end of my pistol, real quick!

I would ask the officer for permission to present the firearm to him. Always ask and never move in quick motions.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 3:21 PM
Without rehashing the whole discussion that I was part of on this subject, you might want to read the original thread on this matter as the distinction between incorported; unincorporated; and prohibited areas do come into play here. Especially when talking about vehicular travel within those areas with a loaded gun. This is due to PC 12031.



See the original thread here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=450327#post450327

You are complicating it my friend... when he asked "Does this apply in a city" he was speaking ONLY about concealed carry.

Concealed carry is different than carrying a loaded firearm. Carrying a loaded firearm in the city is illegal wether concealed or not.

As far as CONCEALED carry is concerned, it is legal EVERYWHERE, including the city in the exception listed above. (certain restrictions ie. courthouse, post office et cetera).

Hunter
10-24-2007, 3:24 PM
You are complicating it my friend... when he asked "Does this apply in a city" he was speaking ONLY about concealed carry.

Concealed carry is different than carrying a loaded firearm. Carrying a loaded firearm in the city is illegal wether concealed or not.

As far as CONCEALED carry is concerned, it is legal EVERYWHERE, including the city in the exception listed above. (certain restrictions ie. courthouse, post office et cetera).

As long as one doesn't use on the Fish and Game Code definition of "not loaded" then I agree.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 3:34 PM
As long as one doesn't use on the Fish and Game Code definition of "not loaded" then I agree.

I conceded defeat in that argument long ago... and edited my post to reflect it...

"A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never."

Hunter
10-24-2007, 3:38 PM
I conceded defeat in that argument long ago... and edited my post to reflect it...

"A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never."

I noticed you now say excluding "a city" but a better way would be to say FG code definition of "not loaded" doesn't apply to incorporated areas (without specific city council exemptions) or any prohibited area in an unincorporated area. Just saying it doesn't apply in a "city" still can lead one into a bad situation in certain locals. Such as in NP, game refuges, some county parks, ect.....

1911su16b870
10-24-2007, 3:39 PM
IIRC it all depends on the Probable Cause the officer will be able to articulate in his report for stopping you and searching your vehicle. Officers may search your vehicle because if there is evidence in it (again as supported by his PC), if he did not search the car, that evidence could be destroyed. Then there is allways the officer safety issue to justify a search of your car. Didn't the SCOTUS rule vehicles are not covered under the 4th (barring living in it when its up on blocks)?

AfricanHunter
10-24-2007, 3:41 PM
Thanks Guys,

Very useful info.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 3:54 PM
IIRC it all depends on the Probable Cause the officer will be able to articulate in his report for stopping you and searching your vehicle. Officers may search your vehicle because if there is evidence in it (again as supported by his PC), if he did not search the car, that evidence could be destroyed. Then there is allways the officer safety issue to justify a search of your car. Didn't the SCOTUS rule vehicles are not covered under the 4th (barring living in it when its up on blocks)?

Sorry bud.... not buying....

"I needed to search his vehicle for my safety..."

Many officers "articulate" things that didn't happen just to make the report look good.

Just because it happens does not make it right.

Gryff
10-24-2007, 4:03 PM
Things that can lead to PC: gun case, ammo, statements, furtive movements, holsters, etc. Individually these things might not be enough, but if the officer can articulate a nexus and develop PC, he can search.

Nexus Definition of PC:



http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

Hitnrun above is saying he has PC to search if he comes to the conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances that "a weapon is in the vehicle." Well, last time I checked it isn't illegal to transport a weapon in a vehicle. So he'd better have reason to believe a crime is being committed or has been committed or else it is an illegal search.

So, evidence of shooting activity (i.e. hearing protection, holster, brass) does NOT provide a nexus for probable cause, since NONE of that implies illegal activity. It does imply the presence of a firearm, but that in itself is not illegal. So am I wrong?

This is why I posed the question. I was interested in hearing a discussion about these subtleties. While it is not too difficult to place my competition bag out of site in the back of my SUV, it is not impossible that the blanket, jacket, etc. might have shifted and exposed the bag. I also have three great, well-behaved kids, but being kids you can NEVER be absolutely sure about what they will or will not say while you are talking to the officer.

The fact is that I always transport my firearms legally, so a search really won't hurt me. But living in the Golden State (where the Democrats have all the political gold), I am a touch paranoid about my gun rights. I don't see anything wrong in exercising my Constitutional rights to their fullest extent.

-Jim

eta34
10-24-2007, 5:06 PM
Gryff,

I don't know what you mean by a competition bag, as I am not a competitive shooter. I can only tell you that if the officer sees an articulable gun case, he can search it without warrant or consent (the gun case and NOT the entire car).

Second, there is no "officer safety" searching of your vehicle. Just because I feel uneasy about you does not give me the right to search your vehicle. However, a vehicle is unlike a residence in that a warrantless search can be made if the officer develops probable cause to search it.

From the LEO perspective, transport your weapons legally and you will likely have no problem. Feel free to deny consent to search your vehicle if you don't want the officer to search it...it doesn't bother me. That is your right, and one you should exercise if you feel necessary. It would not offend me in the least.

I realize that some here will exploit the bad searches of a few dirtbags in our profession and lead you to believe that all cops are out to get your guns, but it simply isn't true. Hope that helps some.

MrTuffPaws
10-24-2007, 5:21 PM
IIRC it all depends on the Probable Cause the officer will be able to articulate in his report for stopping you and searching your vehicle. Officers may search your vehicle because if there is evidence in it (again as supported by his PC), if he did not search the car, that evidence could be destroyed. Then there is allways the officer safety issue to justify a search of your car. Didn't the SCOTUS rule vehicles are not covered under the 4th (barring living in it when its up on blocks)?

No, that only applies to Terry (IIRC) searches. Basically, if the officer feels the need, he can pat you down and check the immediate area of the driver for weapons. It was decided upon for the police officer's safety. It does not give him permission to search you or your vehicle other than what is stated.

hitnrun
10-24-2007, 5:33 PM
I Disagree. The vehicle can only be searched if the officer has PC "that a crime has been committed." In this case, your reasonable suspicion/nexus merely that a weapon is being legally transported, without more, is not enough for a search.

For a 12031(e) loaded/unloaded inspection to apply the officer has to either 1) get an admission; 2) see a gun or 3) an easily recognized gun case. Seeing ammo or otherwise coming from "the range" is irrelevant - the driver could have been shooting his friends' gun or rented firearms at the range.


You can disagree all you want. You'd still be wrong. If I have articulable facts that there may be a firearm or some kind of weapon that would pose an immediate threat inside the vehicle, I can search for areas that might contain it and that are accessible to the driver or passengers. I don't need probable cause of a crime being committed. It's a terry search of the passenger compartment. The penal code also says that if I believe (have articulable facts) a gun is in the vehicle, I can seize it to check and make sure it's unloaded. Your primitive knowledge of the law is going to hurt you or someone else if you keep perpetuating it.

Centurion_D
10-24-2007, 5:38 PM
But an NRA sticker or gun publication cannot be used for PC.

I'd love to have a vehicle search executed because of my NRA sticker or because I have a copy of Shotgun News on my seat.

(Sure it's probably moot for me since there's at least a half-dozen rounds of spent brass floating around in the bed of my truck :) )

I've actually had my car searched just because of the fact I had a NRA sticker on my window. I complied and allowed them to search..of course they didn't find anything. They pulled me over in front of a school. After all that they never issued a citation of any kind and let me go. The officer in question thanked me for taking the whole situation so calmly. Go figure they see the NRA sticker and think I might have machine guns, grenades, or some rocket launchers. :rolleyes:

JawBone
10-24-2007, 5:47 PM
If the facts available to the officer at the time of the stop lead him to develop enough probable cause to believe that there may be a weapon in the vehicle, then yes, the vehicle can be searched.

Things that can lead to PC: gun case, ammo, statements, furtive movements, holsters, etc. Individually these things might not be enough, but if the officer can articulate a nexus and develop PC, he can search.

You can disagree all you want. You'd still be wrong. If I have articulable facts that there may be a firearm or some kind of weapon that would pose an immediate threat inside the vehicle, I can search for areas that might contain it and that are accessible to the driver or passengers. I don't need probable cause of a crime being committed. It's a terry search of the passenger compartment. The penal code also says that if I believe (have articulable facts) a gun is in the vehicle, I can seize it to check and make sure it's unloaded. Your primitive knowledge of the law is going to hurt you or someone else if you keep perpetuating it.

Wait. First you need a nexus to develop PC and now you don't need PC? Which is it?

BTW: I agree with you now that your reasoning is officer protection in belief of immediate threat, but not that the presence of a weapon creates PC...not so primitive.

hitnrun
10-24-2007, 5:49 PM
So, evidence of shooting activity (i.e. hearing protection, holster, brass) does NOT provide a nexus for probable cause, since NONE of that implies illegal activity. It does imply the presence of a firearm, but that in itself is not illegal. So am I wrong?

This is why I posed the question. I was interested in hearing a discussion about these subtleties. While it is not too difficult to place my competition bag out of site in the back of my SUV, it is not impossible that the blanket, jacket, etc. might have shifted and exposed the bag. I also have three great, well-behaved kids, but being kids you can NEVER be absolutely sure about what they will or will not say while you are talking to the officer.

The fact is that I always transport my firearms legally, so a search really won't hurt me. But living in the Golden State (where the Democrats have all the political gold), I am a touch paranoid about my gun rights. I don't see anything wrong in exercising my Constitutional rights to their fullest extent.

-Jim

Honestly Jim, I can say that I have never searched a vehicle for weapons if I didn't already know they were going to be in there illegally. I have found them during searches incident to arrest and while searching for other contraband though. If you are going to or coming from the range, then you really don't have anything to worry about. I have stopped hunters all year around and while I see there weapons in plain view, I rarely give them a second look (in terms of wanting to tear apart the vehicle to find more guns).

Most cops could care less that an honest law abiding citizen has guns in his car...so long as they aren't pointed at us. If you lie about having a gun in your car, you will likely bring unnecessary scrutiny upon yourself. If you have not committed any crimes and are in compliance with the law, you shouldn't fret too much about it. It's not really as big of an issue as some here will make you believe. If you admit to having a gun in your car, but refuse a search, the officer still has the right to search your vehicle for firearms ONLY, and to ensure that they are unloaded/locked/whatever.

When I stop people, I will ask if there are any firearms or contraband in the car. If they say no, whatever. If they say I have a gun, I will ask where it is at and if it is unloaded (if not ccw). That's good enough for me. If you are asked to consent to a vehicle search, chances are, there is already PC for that search. You will here people talk about cops fishing for stuff, but when you pull over 100s of people a month, the stuff usually falls in our laps and we don't have to look to hard.;) I don't fish, I catch. <----- BADAZZZ:p

hitnrun
10-24-2007, 5:57 PM
Wait. First you need a nexus to develop PC and now you don't need PC? Which is it?

Both. But, it depends on what you are talking about. There are several different reasons a LEO may have for searching your vehicle for firearms.

1. If I pull you over and recognize you from a previous arrest where you were charged with a gun crime of some sort, I can terry search you and the accessible areas inside your vehicle for firearms ONLY based on my reasonable fears/suspicions that you may be armed again.

2. If you are driving down the road coming from the range and you get stopped with your gun case in plain sight, I can then search for firearms based on the penal code section that says LE can inspect them to make sure they are stored properly/unloaded/etc.

3. If you are are arrested from your vehicle, your vehicle can/will be searched incident to the arrest/storage.

4. If you get pulled over because you and your car match the description of a vehicle used in an ARMED robbery, I can search you and your car for the firearm that was used. That search would be based off of probable cause.


Like I said, lots of ways...

CavTrooper
10-24-2007, 6:12 PM
If you admit to having a gun in your car, but refuse a search, the officer still has the right to search your vehicle for firearms ONLY, and to ensure that they are unloaded/locked/whatever.



I was under the impression the law only allowed for a LEO to inspect the weapon to determine if it was loaded/unloaded, not to search the whole vehicle for more firearms?

JawBone
10-24-2007, 6:16 PM
Both. But, it depends on what you are talking about. There are several different reasons a LEO may have for searching your vehicle for firearms.

1. ...4.

Like I said, lots of ways...

Fair enough. I agree with all those circumstances you listed, but I believe we were talking about a common traffic stop driving home from the range with a tac vest on (previously unknown driver, no crime reported).

If you gave the judge your first answer...I had PC that there was a weapon in the vehicle - your evidence would be tossed because there is no PC "that any crime has been committed." Illegal Search.

If you gave the judge the immediate threat/officer protection answer based on the circumstances (tac vest, he told you he was coming from the range, and you saw large bag in the back of the SUV), then its a legal search of the passenger compartment. (Michigan v. Long).

I'm just getting straight on your reasoning....I think it is an important distinction.

JawBone
10-24-2007, 6:19 PM
I was under the impression the law only allowed for a LEO to inspect the weapon to determine if it was loaded/unloaded, not to search the whole vehicle for more firearms?

PC 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.

...and a search incident thereto.

CavTrooper
10-24-2007, 6:27 PM
PC 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.

...and a search incident thereto.

So the PC allows for LEOs to inspect the firearm ONLY and not the WHOLE VEHICLE for more firearms, like HITNRUN stated?

JawBone
10-24-2007, 6:40 PM
So the PC allows for LEOs to inspect the firearm ONLY and not the WHOLE VEHICLE for more firearms, like HITNRUN stated?

IF the reason is officer fears someone in the car has a weapon and he may be in danger based on reasonable and articulabe evidence, (i.e. not a hunch) [/B] he can "Terry" frisk the passenger compartment of the vehicle (Michigan v. Long). Which means he can look for weapons only in the passenger area (not the trunk) and only where weapons are likely to be. There is some caselaw implying that they can lift up coats/blankets during the search.

This is wholly separate from the loaded/unloaded inspection.

CavTrooper
10-24-2007, 6:57 PM
LEO: "do you have any guns"

ME: "yes I do"

LEO: "may I search your vehicle"

ME: "no you may not, but you are more than welcome to inspect my firearms"

LEO: "Im going to search your vehicle for weapons"

ME: "I do not consent to the search of my vehilce, but you may inspect my firearms"

LEO: "tough s**t pal, Im searching your vehicle"

Reading the PC leads me to belive that this would be against the rules and a violation of my rights, am I wrong?

leelaw
10-24-2007, 7:00 PM
snip
And how do you expect him to inspect the firearms without searching? You think he's going to say "OK, you just go ahead and find them yourself, grab em, then bring em on back my way so I can take a look-see"? That's just silly. :p

CavTrooper
10-24-2007, 7:04 PM
And how do you expect him to inspect the firearms without searching? You think he's going to say "OK, you just go ahead and find them yourself, grab em, then bring em on back my way so I can take a look-see"? That's just silly. :p

I expect him to ask me open the cases so he may inspect the firearms, anything more than that I would consider harrasment.
I am a law abiding firearm owner with a clean record and no history. I know how to handle my firearms and I dont belive there is any law that states I cannot handle them in the presence of a police officer.

leelaw
10-24-2007, 7:14 PM
I expect him to ask me open the cases so he may inspect the firearms, anything more than that I would consider harrasment.
I am a law abiding firearm owner with a clean record and no history. I know how to handle my firearms and I dont belive there is any law that states I cannot handle them in the presence of a police officer.

Right.. good luck with the whole "consider harassment" bit when officer safety is involved and he doesn't let you have access to firearms which may or may not be loaded during a traffic stop. Is that how it would work in an ideal environment? Probably. Is that how it works in the real world? Nope.

CavTrooper
10-24-2007, 7:18 PM
Right.. good luck with the whole "consider harassment" bit when officer safety is involved and he doesn't let you have access to firearms which may or may not be loaded during a traffic stop. Is that how it would work in an ideal environment? Probably. Is that how it works in the real world? Nope.

Ive been hunting, shooting and driving for a awhile now (mostly out of state) and thats the way it goes. Ive ALWAYS had the LEO or game warden ask me to open my cases for them.
Guess this is just another one of them CA things.

E Pluribus Unum
10-24-2007, 7:21 PM
Right.. good luck with the whole "consider harassment" bit when officer safety is involved and he doesn't let you have access to firearms which may or may not be loaded during a traffic stop. Is that how it would work in an ideal environment? Probably. Is that how it works in the real world? Nope.

If the firearm is in the open, then the officer can go into the car and retrieve the weapon without searching the vehicle.

If the firearm is concealed within a locked case, the citizen can hand the case to the officer and say "The gun is in this case" to submit to a firearms check.

Search is NOT required for inspection.

RAD-CDPII
10-24-2007, 7:34 PM
Honestly Jim, I can say that I have never searched a vehicle for weapons if I didn't already know they were going to be in there illegally. I have found them during searches incident to arrest and while searching for other contraband though. If you are going to or coming from the range, then you really don't have anything to worry about. I have stopped hunters all year around and while I see there weapons in plain view, I rarely give them a second look (in terms of wanting to tear apart the vehicle to find more guns).

Most cops could care less that an honest law abiding citizen has guns in his car...so long as they aren't pointed at us. If you lie about having a gun in your car, you will likely bring unnecessary scrutiny upon yourself. If you have not committed any crimes and are in compliance with the law, you shouldn't fret too much about it. It's not really as big of an issue as some here will make you believe. If you admit to having a gun in your car, but refuse a search, the officer still has the right to search your vehicle for firearms ONLY, and to ensure that they are unloaded/locked/whatever.

When I stop people, I will ask if there are any firearms or contraband in the car. If they say no, whatever. If they say I have a gun, I will ask where it is at and if it is unloaded (if not ccw). That's good enough for me. If you are asked to consent to a vehicle search, chances are, there is already PC for that search. You will here people talk about cops fishing for stuff, but when you pull over 100s of people a month, the stuff usually falls in our laps and we don't have to look to hard.;) I don't fish, I catch. <----- BADAZZZ:p

OK, it sounds like there are a number of paranoid folks out there. Iíve been through a civilian police academy, one of my former employees is a reserve officer in Oakland and Iíve been on ride-alongs. The police are out to get the bad guyís, not the normal law abiding citizen. The can spot a suspect vehicle and find a reason to pull them over for a legitimate cause if they want to. I have an NRA fourth break light hitch cover for my SUV, Iíve never been asked if I had weapons in the car. Even if I was CCW at the time, I would tell the officer if asked, chances are, they will tell you to not do it again and let you go. Of course, that is providing you are fully cooperative, not a jerk, donít look like a criminal (yes they do have a sixth sense about them), etc. Even my buddy in Oakland, he just loves to bust the bad guys, has let good folks go for CCW. Worst case basis for a CCW arrest, first offense in CA is a misdemeanor, $200-300 fine, provided everything else is on the up-and-up, I believe it is tied to a ďpseudo right to carryĒ clause in CA Law somewhere, canít seem to find the reference to it now that PDO is defunct. I have a CA and UT CCW, when driving to NV, I just put the loaded gun in a locked box and burry it in the back, if I get stopped and ask, Iíll just tell the truth, on my way to Nevada, of course, I would provide my CCWís.

hitnrun, am I all wet on this one?

NRA UR2
10-24-2007, 7:36 PM
With a CCW I am legally entitled to carry concealed in my vehicle. However, If I am stopped for any reason, I have to immediately announce to the officer that I have a CCW license. If I fail to do so I can be arrested for a felony. Theway the officer will find out is if he runs my drivers license through the computer, my CCW info automatically shows up. In fact its a good idea to mention the CCW even if you're not carrying just to show good faith. Every officer knows the law(or should), but not everyone applies the law the same way. I'd be leery of a small town cop whos only been on the job for several weeks.

compulsivegunbuyer
10-24-2007, 7:38 PM
I always have wondered, what if I forget to put the lock on the case on the way to or from the range, but the firearm is unloaded. Is a overzealus LEO going to arrest me for concealed weapon? I mean, it would suck to get arrested on a technicality, and lose my gun rights for something like that. It seems to me the law should be geard toward people who go out and commit crimes.

Gryff
10-24-2007, 8:17 PM
Honestly Jim, I can say that I have never searched a vehicle for weapons if I didn't already know they were going to be in there illegally. I have found them during searches incident to arrest and while searching for other contraband though. If you are going to or coming from the range, then you really don't have anything to worry about. I have stopped hunters all year around and while I see there weapons in plain view, I rarely give them a second look (in terms of wanting to tear apart the vehicle to find more guns).

Most cops could care less that an honest law abiding citizen has guns in his car...so long as they aren't pointed at us. If you lie about having a gun in your car, you will likely bring unnecessary scrutiny upon yourself. If you have not committed any crimes and are in compliance with the law, you shouldn't fret too much about it. It's not really as big of an issue as some here will make you believe. If you admit to having a gun in your car, but refuse a search, the officer still has the right to search your vehicle for firearms ONLY, and to ensure that they are unloaded/locked/whatever.

When I stop people, I will ask if there are any firearms or contraband in the car. If they say no, whatever. If they say I have a gun, I will ask where it is at and if it is unloaded (if not ccw). That's good enough for me. If you are asked to consent to a vehicle search, chances are, there is already PC for that search. You will here people talk about cops fishing for stuff, but when you pull over 100s of people a month, the stuff usually falls in our laps and we don't have to look to hard.;) I don't fish, I catch.

Hitnrun,

Thanks for the input. It is always helpful to have the LEO perspective. As I said, I travel with my gear legally stowed, but I posted this query as a theoretical "what if?" situation. I won't get busted for having gear illegally, but I wanted to know where my rights end.

I will ask if there are any firearms or contraband in the car.

If I am asked this question by an LEO, I have the right to not answer, correct?

I will NOT lie to the officer, but I am under the belief that I do not have to answer the question (and that my refusal to answer does not create probable cause). Yes, I know that it will make me more suspicious to the LEO, but I'm trying to figure out what the theoretical limits of my legal rights are.

I grew up around cops, and I shoot with a bunch of them (and consider some to be very good friends). As I class of people, I like them. So, I won't play games to see how far I can push an officer, but neither do I want to roll over because the guy has a badge.

I don't know what you mean by a competition bag, as I am not a competitive shooter. I can only tell you that if the officer sees an articulable gun case, he can search it without warrant or consent (the gun case and NOT the entire car).

This is what my competition bag looks like.

http://www.mle-shootingsports.com/images/sporting-clays-bag.gif

If you are a competitive shooter, you know what it is. If not, then you probably won't be sure. Does something like this constitute an "articulable gun case?" I wouldn't think so, but my opinion might be worth the air it takes to speak it.

Thanks,

Jim

AJAX22
10-24-2007, 8:19 PM
your trunk is considered a locked case

stevepsd
10-24-2007, 8:24 PM
With a CCW I am legally entitled to carry concealed in my vehicle. However, If I am stopped for any reason, I have to immediately announce to the officer that I have a CCW license. If I fail to do so I can be arrested for a felony. Theway the officer will find out is if he runs my drivers license through the computer, my CCW info automatically shows up. In fact its a good idea to mention the CCW even if you're not carrying just to show good faith. Every officer knows the law(or should), but not everyone applies the law the same way. I'd be leery of a small town cop whos only been on the job for several weeks.

Not true in California. You do not have to notify the LEO that you are carrying CCW, unlike some other states, like Utah.

Gryff
10-24-2007, 8:25 PM
I realize that some here will exploit the bad searches of a few dirtbags in our profession and lead you to believe that all cops are out to get your guns, but it simply isn't true.

It's not the cops that want my guns. It's the district attorneys in Alameda and San Francisco counties (along with their respective sheriffs) that worry me.

:D

-Jim

internet_user
10-24-2007, 8:26 PM
Yes, an officer can search your car if there is a gun in your car.

I was pulled over with my Ruger 10/22 in my back seat, I told him right when he got to my window that I had my rifle in my car. We ended up just BSing about guns and he let me off.

pnkssbtz
10-24-2007, 8:28 PM
Yes, an officer can search your car if there is a gun in your car.

I was pulled over with my Ruger 10/22 in my back seat, I told him right when he got to my window that I had my rifle in my car. We ended up just BSing about guns and he let me off.
LOL...

F.U.D. FTW!

MudCamper
10-24-2007, 9:07 PM
As some have stated, if the officer sees a firearm, or if you admit that you have a firearm, then he has the right to inspect it per 12031(e). However, what I wonder is, of he asks you if you have any weapons in the car, do you have to answer that question? Can you just answer as Bill said, "I have nothing illegal in the car, and I do not voluntarily consent to searches." Does this fly? Aren't you knowingly violating 12031(e) in this case?

As for all the related but off topic discussions of carry and transport, I recommend everyone read my flyer on the topic (http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf). I carry this with me when transporting firearms (like I carry my rifle flyer (http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaRifles.pdf) when transporting my ARs).

five.five-six
10-24-2007, 9:10 PM
Both. But, it depends on what you are talking about. There are several different reasons a LEO may have for searching your vehicle for firearms.

1. If I pull you over and recognize you from a previous arrest where you were charged with a gun crime of some sort, I can terry search you and the accessible areas inside your vehicle for firearms ONLY based on my reasonable fears/suspicions that you may be armed again.


Like I said, lots of ways...


ok, if you pull me over and happen to know (from past experiance) that I am an 03 ffl and a gun collector, will that alone give PC or Terry caus to search my vehicle? how about the locked bed of my truck?


what do I say if I do not want to be searched and do not want to lie?

Piper
10-24-2007, 9:36 PM
If you are are arrested from your vehicle, your vehicle can/will be searched incident to the arrest/storage.

Hey HitnRun, do they send you guys to legal update seminars anymore? For everyones information, hitnrun is refering to 22651(h)(1) CVC where it says that a peace officer can tow a persons car if he arrests the person who owns or is in control of the car. If this were October 2005, he would be right. However, it is not.

In November of 2005, in a case entitled Miranda v. Cornelius, the 9th circuit court said that unless a vehicle is taken for evidence or a "community caretaking function" exists (i.e. vehicle is a hazard to the safe flow of traffic or the vehicle could be stolen, vandalized or broken into) it is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment to seize the vehicle. In December of 2006, the Calfornia Supreme Court for the most part echoed the 9th circuit and further said in "People v. Williams" that if a car is seized without being able to articulate those reasons, any contraband found during "inventory" is inadmissable as the search is unconstitutional because the seizure is unconstitutional. Ultimately, if you have someone with you and you are arrested for some reason, you should give your licensed passenger permission to drive your vehicle. That will take care of the community caretaking function.

However, if the vehicle is unregistered or uninsured, it's fair game.

eta34
10-24-2007, 9:41 PM
Piper is correct. However, case law states that LEO can search the passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to any arrest. So, if you are arrested, the inside of the car is subject to a full search. The trunk, however, is not subject to this search.

eta34
10-24-2007, 9:43 PM
Hitnrun,

Thanks for the input. It is always helpful to have the LEO perspective. As I said, I travel with my gear legally stowed, but I posted this query as a theoretical "what if?" situation. I won't get busted for having gear illegally, but I wanted to know where my rights end.



If I am asked this question by an LEO, I have the right to not answer, correct?

I will NOT lie to the officer, but I am under the belief that I do not have to answer the question (and that my refusal to answer does not create probable cause). Yes, I know that it will make me more suspicious to the LEO, but I'm trying to figure out what the theoretical limits of my legal rights are.

I grew up around cops, and I shoot with a bunch of them (and consider some to be very good friends). As I class of people, I like them. So, I won't play games to see how far I can push an officer, but neither do I want to roll over because the guy has a badge.



This is what my competition bag looks like.

http://www.mle-shootingsports.com/images/sporting-clays-bag.gif

If you are a competitive shooter, you know what it is. If not, then you probably won't be sure. Does something like this constitute an "articulable gun case?" I wouldn't think so, but my opinion might be worth the air it takes to speak it.

Thanks,

Jim

If I saw that bag sitting on your back seat I would assume it is a laptop case or a large cooler/lunch container type thing. Perhaps it might be a gym bag. I would never in a million years believe that to be a firearm bag. I carry my guns to the range in long gun cases. My handguns go in their original cases inside a backpack....I don't know that you could articulate that as a gun case.

Piper
10-24-2007, 9:54 PM
Actually, the case that prompted People v. Williams happened in Santa Monica. Williams vehicle was towed and a bag in the backseat was found to have a loaded gun it. The California supreme court threw out the gun because searching the bag was an unlawful search under the 4th amendment. So, while a peace officer can look for anything that is visible, enclosed containers are off limits.

Mark in Eureka
10-24-2007, 11:19 PM
First off, I am not going to be doing anything illegal, so why are we worrying about PC for a search? What Search? Are you going to lie to the officer if he asks if you have a weapon on you or in your car? If you do and if you are caught you will be going to jail and they will win their case against you. Are you going to play word games? If you answer yes and the officer wants to see them you show it to him. Open your trunk and show them him. If he wants to open the cases up - let him. Life is too short to worry about this.

Now if an officer searches my car without my permission, which he is not going to get, I will make my next stop at his station and will be making a complaint to the chief or sheriff and then on to members of the City Council or Board of Supervisors.

E Pluribus Unum
10-25-2007, 12:12 AM
If I saw that bag sitting on your back seat I would assume it is a laptop case or a large cooler/lunch container type thing. Perhaps it might be a gym bag. I would never in a million years believe that to be a firearm bag. I carry my guns to the range in long gun cases. My handguns go in their original cases inside a backpack....I don't know that you could articulate that as a gun case.

I was reading the penal code for fun one night... (the phonebook got boring) and I remember a statute that requires gun cases to look like gun cases and that it is illegal to make a gun case that looks like something else....

Kinda stupid, but it's in there somewhere if memory serves.

Piper
10-25-2007, 12:20 AM
Mark, I'm not going to tell you what to do. Having said that, the thread is entitled "If the officer suspects you have a firearm in the car." I suppose I could ask, why the thread? From my experience, LE play word games all of the time. Case in point, as a police officer I suspected some real bad guys I knew might possibly have stolen property in their car. This was based on my personal knowledge of them and the fact that their car matched the description of the vehicle leaving the scene. However, the victim couldn't give a definative yes or no about the make, model, license plate etc. So, I played mind games with the individual I suspected. I approached him, asked to see inside his trunk at which time he promptly told me to f off. At that point, I told him that based on the victims description of the vehicle, I could get a warrant, tow his car and search it. When he held fast, I walked back to my unit and had the dispatcher run the plate and I let him see and hear me do it. At that point, he thought I was calling for a tow, changed his mind and opened his trunk which allowed me access. Either he already dumped the compressor or he never had it. The point is I used deception to get what I wanted to further my investigation and look at other options. The same goes for a situation with anything involving police and while cooperation is fine, I'm not going to give up my rights to convenience LE. Hitnruns statement regarding 22651h was wrong, but people who are ignorant of the law will go along with LE because they are LE. We know that LE are not as knowledgable of all of the gun laws as they would have us believe, so I'm not going to volunteer anything. As a cop I didn't ask any question that I didn't already know the answer to. If it's obvious that they are fishing, and I know I haven't done anything wrong, I'm not giving them anything that they can use against me. BWO is being screwed with and by all accounts, he's innocent. He cooperated and look what it got him. Sorry, but the criminal justice system is called an adversarial system. There's a reason why it's called that.

cadurand
10-25-2007, 9:23 AM
You know, most of this is just theory and debate. I've been pulled over a few times since taking up the sport of shooting. I've got emtpy 45 brass sitting right in plain view in the console of my car. No cop has ever said antyhing about it. After reading these threads I will get rid of it just to make things simpler for future stops. I've only had a police officer ask to search my car once. I said no, he didn't search my car. This had nothing to do with shooting or weapons. I was waiting for my friend outside of a community center where a school dance was taking place. I totally understood the police asking what I was up to. My friend showed up, dropped her daughter off at the dance, and we left for dinner.

While we all might think we know our rights. The time to argue about them is not when a police officer may or may not be abusing them. That's only going to make things worse. If I ever felt like a police officer did something to violate my rights I would address that issue in court or with his supervisor and some later date.

I am sick of hearing about officer safety though. It's a dangerous job. You knew that when you volunteered. It seems at times that officer safety trumps my personal safety. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Piper
10-25-2007, 9:37 AM
Yep, "officer safety" is getting as tired as "for the children" or "it's a matter of national security". Those phrases have become abused to the point where to me they are meaningless and only cause me to be suspicious of the person saying it. In fact they mean "we don't have a good reason to do what we're doing, but we're going to do it anyway."

But hey, what do I know, right?

E Pluribus Unum
10-25-2007, 9:46 AM
It would be much safer for officers on any traffic stop, two patrol cars minimum, 4 cops get out and pull everyone out felony stop style, search the entire vehicle for guns/bombs... isssue the traffic ticket and leave.

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 9:55 AM
As I have said in the past,

If an officer can search any bag under 12031(e), then it is a loophole to search any bag without probable cause.

In a court case regarding PC 12031(e), the ruling allowed the officer to use solely in his discretion from his experience the definition of what a firearms case is, and search it.

An officer can point to any bag or case and claim it is a firearm case and search it for firearms legally under PC 12031(e).


(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.No where does it say "Search" it says only "inspect". Inspecting is not searching. However the court case ruled that an officer can search a bag, so the courts have ruled that searching is inspecting.

Again, using this a cop can search anything he wants without probable cause. He can literally point to your wallet and say "in my experience I've seen that used as a firearms case" and search it.

There is ZERO conditions on what he may, in his own experience, define as a "firearms case".

E Pluribus Unum
10-25-2007, 10:01 AM
As I have said in the past,

If an officer can search any bag under 12031(e), then it is a loophole to search any bag without probable cause.

In a court case regarding PC 12031(e), the ruling allowed the officer to use solely in his discretion from his experience the definition of what a firearms case is, and search it.

An officer can point to any bag or case and claim it is a firearm case and search it for firearms legally under PC 12031(e).


No where does it say "Search" it says only "inspect". Inspecting is not searching. However the court case ruled that an officer can search a bag, so the courts have ruled that searching is inspecting.

Again, using this a cop can search anything he wants without probable cause. He can literally point to your wallet and say "in my experience I've seen that used as a firearms case" and search it.

There is ZERO conditions on what he may, in his own experience, define as a "firearms case".


First of all... it states only in the incorporated city limits; this would not apply in the county.

Second; he could only search areas that a firearm could fit... a wallet is too small.

Third, He can search the firearms case... or case big enough for the firearm... not the vehicle it is in.

BONECUTTER
10-25-2007, 10:13 AM
I look at it this way.....unless I have something illegal in my car. I see no benifit to not concenting to a search.

If im pulled over its probably going to be for a traffic infraction and playing the legal game will only insure I get a ticket and I would rather get it over with so I can go on my day and the cop can not waste his time on me and maybe....heaven forbid....go catch a bad guy.

MudCamper
10-25-2007, 10:43 AM
First of all... it states only in the incorporated city limits; this would not apply in the county.


Common mistake. This is not true:

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.

PC 374c makes shooting from any public road illegal, which triggers 12031(f).

Can't plug this enough: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

Piper
10-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Here's the bottom line, some police abuse the authority that they have and citizens suffer the consequences of that abuse by either losing their freedom, losing their property or all to often losing their lives. The authority that LE has is tremendous and abuse of that authority is easy if we as citizens don't check that and question everything that LE does. LE doesn't like that, but not questioning what LE does simply is a pass to further abuse their authority.

Alot of appellate cases are as a result of LE abusing authority given to them. Case in point is "People v. Williams." It was and still is common for police to arbitrarly tow a car under 22651h when they arrest someone. There's no logical reason to do it, but because the vehicle code says they can, they will. And it costs the individual money to recover their car. The arrest could be totally bogus, so the citizen suffers the humiliation of the arrest and the cost of recovering their seized property. It's no skin off of LE's arse, they do paperwork all day long, but what about the hassle to the person being screwed with? The 9th circuit and the California supreme court said no, but unless we know that, LE will do it and continue doing it unless we say no.

As far as I'm concerned, LE doesn't need to know what I have in my car. If someone is doing something illegal and LE knows they're doing something illegal and all of LE's ducks are in a row, they won't stop and ask for permission, they will simply take control of that person and seize the vehicle and everything that's in it. Consenting to a search is simply giving LE authority that they don't have through probable cause or a warrant. I won't give them that no matter how innocent I am.

E Pluribus Unum
10-25-2007, 10:56 AM
Common mistake. This is not true:







Can't plug this enough: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

Ok... I could buy that... ;)

I think the key point is however, he may be able to search a bag to inspect the weapon... but I still do not see where the mere fact of having a gun in the car gives the officer a right to search the entire vehicle.

Sounds like it is better just to keep the weapon concealed, the ammo concealed... and LIE. No probable cause.... no search.

MudCamper
10-25-2007, 11:49 AM
Sounds like it is better just to keep the weapon concealed, the ammo concealed... and LIE. No probable cause.... no search.

This is still my open question. If a LEO asks "do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" and you don't answer him, or more specifically, you answer a different question: "I have nothing illegal in the car, officer, and I do not consent to any searches." Are you breaking any laws? (and lets assume for sake of this discussion that you do have a firearm in a lockbox or the trunk)

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 11:53 AM
Both. But, it depends on what you are talking about. There are several different reasons a LEO may have for searching your vehicle for firearms.

1. If I pull you over and recognize you from a previous arrest where you were charged with a gun crime of some sort, I can terry search you and the accessible areas inside your vehicle for firearms ONLY based on my reasonable fears/suspicions that you may be armed again.


Like I said, lots of ways...


ok, if you pull me over and happen to know (from past experiance) that I am an 03 ffl and a gun collector, will that alone give PC or Terry caus to search my vehicle? how about the locked bed of my truck?


what do I say if I do not want to be searched and do not want to lie?

tyrist
10-25-2007, 12:46 PM
If there is a reasonable belief that there is a firearms inside of the vehicle, all placed which could possibly conceal such a weapon can be searched.

I am however curious as to how many of you people are searched by Officers. It would seem to me alot of you are overly paranoid. For the most part officers do not search and tow ordinary peoples vehicle. Usually that is something reserved for parolees and gang members.

MudCamper
10-25-2007, 1:15 PM
It would seem to me alot of you are overly paranoid.

It's not that. It's that we want to know how to exercise our 2nd and 4th Ammendment rights without getting into any other trouble. It would be easier to just always surrender our 4th Ammendment rights. But rights are like muscles. Without use they atrophy. It is, IMO, our duty to exercise them.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 1:24 PM
It would seem to me alot of you are overly paranoid.

Try telling that to mat corwin, BWO, when it appears that everything he had was/is legal

I want to know if personal knowledge of me being a 03ffl and gun collector constitutes PC for a search of my vehicle

Gryff
10-25-2007, 2:28 PM
I am however curious as to how many of you people are searched by Officers. It would seem to me alot of you are overly paranoid.

It's not paranoia, it's a discussion. Somebody thought it a good idea to write the Constitution, so I think it's a good idea to exercise the freedoms and protections it mandates.

Keep in mind that this is also a time when some authorities argue that security is more important than Constitutional principals. Therefore, I thought the discussion would be worthwhile to have.

-Jim

eta34
10-25-2007, 2:50 PM
Actually, the case that prompted People v. Williams happened in Santa Monica. Williams vehicle was towed and a bag in the backseat was found to have a loaded gun it. The California supreme court threw out the gun because searching the bag was an unlawful search under the 4th amendment. So, while a peace officer can look for anything that is visible, enclosed containers are off limits.

I am not exactly sure what you mean here. According to Belton, an officer may search the vehicle and any containers (closed or open) incident to arrest.

oaklander
10-25-2007, 2:57 PM
Q: Do you have any firearms in the car?

A: No.

Problem solved.

;)

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 2:59 PM
First of all... it states only in the incorporated city limits; this would not apply in the county.

Second; he could only search areas that a firearm could fit... a wallet is too small.

Third, He can search the firearms case... or case big enough for the firearm... not the vehicle it is in.

I don't have a link to the case, but there IS a case on this issue.

And the judge said that the officer could use whatever knowledge he had from personal experience to define what a "gun case" is.

That is, whatever the officers thinks could be a gun case, he can search.

That is an astounding huge grey area. All the officer has to say is "I saw a gun there once" and it is totally allowed.

And since I've seen really really really tiny derringers that could fit in a wallet, then you can claim anything under the sun as a "gun case" and search it.

Heck, if a trunk of a car is considered a locked container that is by definition a gun case and he could search it.

And while the PC code says nothing about searching, the courts have ruled that by "inspecting" he may look through a container for the firearm that he believes to be there.

tyrist
10-25-2007, 3:09 PM
Don't forget that there are wallet guns, belt buckle guns, flash light guns, pen guns, and pretty much anything else you could imagine.

So if he wants to search he probably can if he has enough "experiance". It would be up to your attorney to prove otherwise. Also be advised that a vehicle does not have the same right to privacy as a home. So it is much easier to search a vehicle and have the case stick.

Piper
10-25-2007, 3:17 PM
If there is a reasonable belief that there is a firearms inside of the vehicle, all placed which could possibly conceal such a weapon can be searched.

I am however curious as to how many of you people are searched by Officers. It would seem to me alot of you are overly paranoid. For the most part officers do not search and tow ordinary peoples vehicle. Usually that is something reserved for parolees and gang members.

Hey tyrist, if you feel the need to submit to a search everytime a LEO asks, be my guest. My refusal to submit to an arbitrary search has nothing to do with my guilt or innocence. The government is becoming too intrusive, and we as citizens have a duty to limit those intrusions into our private lives. No one likes it when I say this, but the best example of incremental government intrusion is Nazi Germany. And we all know the unintended consequences of submitting to goverment. An example of rebeling against government intrusion comes from our own country. The result is the birth of the most powerful country in the world. So it's going to take alot of convincing to get me to blindly submit to an unwarranted search of anything that's in my control.

tyrist
10-25-2007, 3:24 PM
I am not advocating somebody should wave thier rights. I just find is a bit paranoid that everyone is concerned about all of these grey areas when the ones I know of don't really push things.

Example: sir can I see your license registration and insurance. Driver opens glove box and a gun falls out. (this has happened so many times).

If you don't want your car searched for weapons keep the drugs, gun parts, and your parolee identification out of sight. Drive with a license, keep your car registered, stay sober, make your court dates, pay your parking tickets, and don't let people "barrow" your vehicle :).

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 3:48 PM
I am not advocating somebody should wave thier rights. I just find is a bit paranoid that everyone is concerned about all of these grey areas when the ones I know of don't really push things.

Example: sir can I see your license registration and insurance. Driver opens glove box and a gun falls out. (this has happened so many times).

If you don't want your car searched for weapons keep the drugs, gun parts, and your parolee identification out of sight. Drive with a license, keep your car registered, stay sober, make your court dates, pay your parking tickets, and don't let people "barrow" your vehicle :).

Or... how about:


Officer: License and registration?

Driver hands them over.

Officer: Is that a pistol bag I see in your back seat?

Driver: No thats my backpack.

Officer: Do you own any firearms?

Driver: Yes I own firearms.

Officer: I am going to need to see your pistol bag *points to backpack* to verify you are legally transporting your firearms.

Driver: But I don't have any firearms in it...

*insert arrest of driver for non compliance here*

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 3:50 PM
I I just find is a bit paranoid that everyone is concerned about all of these grey areas when the ones I know of don't really push things.




like I say, go tell thet to BWO, he was doing nothing illegal, yet spent a month in jail had everything confiscated, still has huge legal bills which are mounting... all because of the good old LEO

JawBone
10-25-2007, 3:50 PM
Or... how about:


Officer: License and registration?

Driver hands them over.

Officer: Is that a pistol bag I see in your back seat?

Driver: No thats my backpack.

Officer: Do you own any firearms?

Driver: Yes I own firearms.

Officer: I am going to need to see your pistol bag *points to backpack* to verify you are legally transporting your firearms.

Driver: But I don't have any firearms in it...

*insert arrest of driver for non compliance here*

Honestly you are reading way too much into People v. Green if that is the case you are basing this on. It has to be obvious to the officer that it is a gun case. The evidence from your example would be suppressed.

As the court said, the probable contents must be able to be inferred from its outward appearance. (i.e. shaped like a gun.)

tyrist
10-25-2007, 4:11 PM
The backpack example I have never heard of. Easy enough case to win since a backpack does not infer a firearm as it's contents.

Does anyone actually have all the information on blackwaterops case? I try not to pass judgement since I don't have any facts. Assuming what you say is true and he is innocent, he is unfortunately a biproduct of our legal system and case law. He is not alone however.

Besides I believe he was arrested because of some statements that were made against him correct?

hitnrun
10-25-2007, 4:24 PM
I want to know if personal knowledge of me being a 03ffl and gun collector constitutes PC for a search of my vehicle

No. That alone would not give reasonable suspicion for a terry search of your vehicle.

To meet criteria for a terry search, there would have to be some sort of risk to officer safety. Being a licensed gun collector isn't an officer safety threat.

MudCamper
10-25-2007, 4:44 PM
I've asked this question at least 2 times in this thread already, but I'll ask it again, and I'll try to narrow it down. Maybe nobody knows the answer, but, I'd appreciate it if the LEOs here would offer their opinion:

If a LEO asks, "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" and you do not answer, or answer a different question, is that probable cause for search?

Now for this comment:

If you don't want your car searched for weapons keep the drugs, gun parts, and your parolee identification out of sight. Drive with a license, keep your car registered, stay sober, make your court dates, pay your parking tickets

Well. Don't do drugs. Not a parolee. Have my license. Vehicle's registered. Always sober when driving. Always pay my parking tickets. BUT. I have several pro-gun stickers on my truck. I very well might be transporting firearms. It's these last 2 items that I worry about. Not all the insulting fiction you mentioned.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 4:50 PM
No. That alone would not give reasonable suspicion for a terry search of your vehicle.

To meet criteria for a terry search, there would have to be some sort of risk to officer safety. Being a licensed gun collector isn't an officer safety threat.

I do not want to give a LEO a hard time, it is just that in light of what BWO as been through and the ongoing dispute I have had with the pot dealer up stairs from me (I get the distinct impression thet SOME of the local LEOs would arrest either of us just to put an end to being called out) I am just not interested in being a test case as i have a family that depends on my incom to feed them


as for BWO, none of us know for sure that he was 100% legal, IIRC all but 2 of the charges were eventialy droped, I think the DA has to convict on somthing or it leaves the city wide open for a big lawsuit

I can tell you this, BWO was always one of the first to jump all over anyone who was "pushing the envelope" on legalitys, he was the poster boy for "do whatever you want, JUST MAKE SURE IT IS LEGAL" my gut tells me that everyting he had was legal

Rob P.
10-25-2007, 4:51 PM
Honestly you are reading way too much into People v. Green if that is the case you are basing this on. It has to be obvious to the officer that it is a gun case. The evidence from your example would be suppressed.

As the court said, the probable contents must be able to be inferred from its outward appearance. (i.e. shaped like a gun.)


Hahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!! I LIKE it. The "We'll arrest you now, confiscate everything you posess, lock you up for months, and then (If the trial court judge believes you instead of us) you get to be let free to pay your legal bills and pay even more money to get back the things we took from you when we arrested you (if we haven't "lost" them)" suppression of evidence scenario.

Tell it to BWO. I'll bet he laughs at you too.

LEO don't know PC. They say they do but they do not. Nor do they care mostly (some do - most don't). The courts support them because the 'system' protects itself and LEO are part of the 'system'.

There are so many things wrong with our justice systerm you have no idea what and where your comments are wrong. Unfortunately I do.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 5:02 PM
[SIZE="7"] The "We'll arrest you now, confiscate everything you posess, lock you up for months, and then (If the trial court judge believes you instead of us) you get to be let free to pay your legal bills and pay even more money to get back the things we took from you when we arrested you (if we haven't "lost" them)" suppression of evidence scenario.

Tell it to BWO. I'll bet he laughs at you too.

LEO don't know PC. They say they do but they do not. Nor do they care mostly (some do - most don't). The courts support them because the 'system' protects itself and LEO are part of the 'system'.

There are so many things wrong with our justice systerm you have no idea what and where your comments are wrong. Unfortunately I do.

1) What you don't think evidence ever gets tossed?

2)That's what civil lawsuits are for.

3) Green has been the law of the land since 1981 and I'm not aware that it is generally accepted for LEOs to go look in backpacks using Green as justification. Are you?

4) Re BWO - I believe they had a WARRANT, so I don't know why is name was even brought up in this thread about warrantless searches.

drdanno84
10-25-2007, 5:04 PM
Everyone transporting handguns or rifles needs to be really careful, years ago I had stopped by my office late in evening after visiting the local shooting range. I had placed my handgun (no mag in well) inside of a pistol rug, zipped and a loaded mag was left in the side pocket. In my pick-up truck, the gun was placed behind the seat, concealed under a blanket. I was stopped for rolling a stop sign, the sheriff's deputies asked me to exit the vehicle and proceeded to search the truck. I was not given a reason for the search, and after a lengthy search, they found my pistol rug and proceeded to arrest me because of the loaded mag that was in the side pocket. I as a result of the arrest, consulted my attorney and he could not see any "probable cause" for the search. When he obtained a copy of the arrest report, the officer perjured himself by stating that he had "clearly seen" the pistol rug and thus gave him probable cause to search my vehicle. I was never asked if I had any weapons or for my permission to search the truck. A complaint was filed with the internal affairs divison of the los angeles sheriff's dept, both deputies were interviewed and they each corroborated the facts in their report. I at the advice of my attorney plead no contest, forfeited my weapon which was allegedly distroyed and agreed to probation. The bottom line is the police can indiscrimminately search your vehicle if they wish, especially if you are stopped in a high crime area which was in my case, and lie about the circumstances if they find anything that is questionable in your vehicle. I have several friends who have had similiar experiences with the local police, LAPD, and Sheriff's deputies. Is this right? of course not, but it is a reallity that we need to acknowledge and the word of law enforcement officers will always prevail over ours if we are put in this situation. So be careful because who needs all the aggravation and expense in resolving an arrest

Piper
10-25-2007, 5:11 PM
I am not exactly sure what you mean here. According to Belton, an officer may search the vehicle and any containers (closed or open) incident to arrest.

You should probably read Peo. v. Williams then. It spells it all out.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2007, 5:13 PM
Everyone transporting handguns or rifles needs to be really careful, years ago I had stopped by my office late in evening after visiting the local shooting range. I had placed my handgun (no mag in well) inside of a pistol rug, zipped and a loaded mag was left in the side pocket. In my pick-up truck, the gun was placed behind the seat, concealed under a blanket. I was stopped for rolling a stop sign, the sheriff's deputies asked me to exit the vehicle and proceeded to search the truck. I was not given a reason for the search, and after a lengthy search, they found my pistol rug and proceeded to arrest me because of the loaded mag that was in the side pocket. I as a result of the arrest, consulted my attorney and he could not see any "probable cause" for the search. When he obtained a copy of the arrest report, the officer perjured himself by stating that he had "clearly seen" the pistol rug and thus gave him probable cause to search my vehicle. I was never asked if I had any weapons or for my permission to search the truck. A complaint was filed with the internal affairs divison of the los angeles sheriff's dept, both deputies were interviewed and they each corroborated the facts in their report. I at the advice of my attorney plead no contest, forfeited my weapon which was allegedly distroyed and agreed to probation. The bottom line is the police can indiscrimminately search your vehicle if they wish, especially if you are stopped in a high crime area which was in my case, and lie about the circumstances if they find anything that is questionable in your vehicle. I have several friends who have had similiar experiences with the local police, LAPD, and Sheriff's deputies. Is this right? of course not, but it is a reallity that we need to acknowledge and the word of law enforcement officers will always prevail over ours if we are put in this situation. So be careful because who needs all the aggravation and expense in resolving an arrest

I'm not clear on what you were charged with. Was it possession of a concealed firearm or was it loaded weapon because of the loaded mags? Either way, sorry to hear your paid legal representation recommended you take a plea.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 5:26 PM
I'm not clear on what you were charged with. Was it possession of a concealed firearm or was it loaded weapon because of the loaded mags? Either way, sorry to hear your paid legal representation recommended you take a plea.

if you have a family to feed, it is probably the best thing to do...sadly... some LEO, not all will lie to protect theyere ars, I have seen it happen

eta34
10-25-2007, 5:29 PM
You should probably read Peo. v. Williams then. It spells it all out.

I was referring to your post. Were you referring to a search incident to arrest or an inventory search? I have read your case as well as Belton. Incident to arrest, LEO may search the passenger compartment and any containers within, closed or not.

From the CA Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook:

The federal "bright line" rule, which governs the admissibility of evidence in California, is relatively straightforward. When you make a custodial arrest of the occupant of a vehicle, you may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including the glove compartment, and including any containers you find, whether open or closed. (Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454; Banks (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1358, 1364.)

Belton itself stated that a search incident to arrest may properly encompass "any containers found within the passenger compartment," including "closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing and the like."
In other words, no matter what the arrest is for, as long as you are physically taking the driver or occupant into custody, you may search the passenger compartment and everything and anything in it. It makes no difference that the arrestee is already out of the car and is, as a practical matter, not able to reach inside anymore. (Mitchell (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 672, 674; Stoffle (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1671; Lorenzo (9th Cir. 1989) 867 F.2d 561; Banks (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1358; Hunt (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 498, 507.)

drdanno84
10-25-2007, 5:38 PM
I was charged with: transporting a loaded firearm, having a loaded firearm in public, and of course running a stop sign! I could have contested the charges, but my attorney advised me against it because it would have been extremely expensive, and the officers undoudedly would have perjured themselves in court to justify their arrest, and I would have been convicted of the charges. The assistant district attorney agreed to drop all of the charges for the exception of "transporting a loaded firearm in a vehicle", which was eventually expunged from my record after completing unsupervised probation.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2007, 5:38 PM
if you have a family to feed, it is probably the best thing to do...sadly... some LEO, not all will lie to protect theyere ars, I have seen it happen

I understand where you are coming from, but if he was charged with possession of a loaded firearm, that is settled law. A loaded magazine outside the gun is NOT considered loaded. A simple demurrer by the attorney should take care of that.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2007, 5:39 PM
I was charged with: transporting a loaded firearm, having a loaded firearm in public, and of course running a stop sign! I could have contested the charges, but my attorney advised me against it because it would have been extremely expensive, and the officers undoudedly would have perjured themselves in court to justify their arrest, and I would have been convicted of the charges. The assistant district attorney agreed to drop all of the charges for the exception of "transporting a loaded firearm in a vehicle", which was eventually expunged from my record after completing unsupervised probation.

Did the police report say the magazine was IN the gun or not?

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2007, 5:42 PM
I was referring to your post. Were you referring to a search incident to arrest or an inventory search? I have read your case as well as Belton. Incident to arrest, LEO may search the passenger compartment and any containers within, closed or not.

From the CA Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook:

The federal "bright line" rule, which governs the admissibility of evidence in California, is relatively straightforward. When you make a custodial arrest of the occupant of a vehicle, you may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including the glove compartment, and including any containers you find, whether open or closed. (Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454; Banks (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1358, 1364.)

Belton itself stated that a search incident to arrest may properly encompass "any containers found within the passenger compartment," including "closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing and the like."
In other words, no matter what the arrest is for, as long as you are physically taking the driver or occupant into custody, you may search the passenger compartment and everything and anything in it. It makes no difference that the arrestee is already out of the car and is, as a practical matter, not able to reach inside anymore. (Mitchell (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 672, 674; Stoffle (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1671; Lorenzo (9th Cir. 1989) 867 F.2d 561; Banks (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1358; Hunt (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 498, 507.)

ETA....I believe there is an exception to the subsequent search after arrest when dealing with reckless driving.

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 5:47 PM
Honestly you are reading way too much into People v. Green if that is the case you are basing this on. It has to be obvious to the officer that it is a gun case. The evidence from your example would be suppressed.

As the court said, the probable contents must be able to be inferred from its outward appearance. (i.e. shaped like a gun.)It would be suppressed after the arrest had already been made and the "suspect" had spent time in custody.

And I honestly don't think it would be suppressed. Read the notes that the judge specifically said about the officers personal experience.

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 5:50 PM
Did the police report say the magazine was IN the gun or not?Probably. Remember the officers were perjuring themselves.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 5:52 PM
It would be suppressed after the arrest had already been made and the "suspect" had spent time in custody.

And I honestly don't think it would be suppressed. Read the notes that the judge specifically said about the officers personal experience.

Wow, then I would guess since 1981 any bag is now searchable because the LEO has at one time seen a gun in a like container? Come on?! Remember any warrantless search is presumed unreasonable.

No. As I posted when we discussed this last time it goes like this:

Any good defense attorney is going to ask one question, "Officer, in your experience, how many times when you have searched a backpack have you found a gun?" Answer: Ummm. Not very often." Court: "Evidence suppressed."

Ask him the same question about a gun case and he is going to say, "Every time." If he says every time with a backpack, the lawyer should be able to make him look like an idiot fairly easily.

Most people on this forum know what a gun case looks like. They sell them at Big 5. Soft-sided, Doskocills, etc.

No judge in his right mind is going to allow a backpack search as a Green gun case search.

drdanno84
10-25-2007, 5:56 PM
The police report indicated that the "firearm was loaded and that the butt of the gun was visible to them, which is what gave them probable cause to search my truck and confiscate the gun". The gun, and the loaded mag were entered into evidence. The deputies asserted that the gun was "loaded" which is why the charges were filed against me.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 5:58 PM
Most people on this forum know what a gun case looks like. They sell them at Big 5. Soft-sided, Doskocills, etc.

No judge in his right mind is going to allow a backpack search as a Green gun case search.


note to self: keep pistol in diaper bag :)

now, that is a great idea, lots of compartments, water resistant, pleanty of room, smells like diapers, cheep ~$8.00 at walmart :D

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 6:23 PM
Wow, then I would guess since 1981 any bag is now searchable because the LEO has at one time seen a gun in a like container? Come on?! Remember any warrantless search is presumed unreasonable.

No. As I posted when we discussed this last time it goes like this:


Most people on this forum know what a gun case looks like. They sell them at Big 5. Soft-sided, Doskocills, etc.

No judge in his right mind is going to allow a backpack search as a Green gun case search.
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/115/259.html

[1] The gun case here involved was a closed opaque container observed by Officer Burns in plain sight in defendant's automobile. Burns, on the basis of his own personal familiarity with gun cases, identified the case immediately in his mind as being what it was. In any event, a gun case, generally speaking, by its very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance. (SeeArkansas v. Sanders (1979) [115 Cal.App.3d 263] 442 U.S. 753, 764-765, fn. 13 [61 L.Ed.2d 235, 245, 99 S.Ct. 2586].) It is not entitled to the full protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (id) and presumably likewise not to that degree of protection from its California constitutional counterpart, article I, section 13, either. This being the case, we hold that under the circumstances here presented Officer Burns was constitutionally privileged to seize and open the gun case without a search warrant authorizing him to do so.

Once Officer Burns had the revolver before him in plain sight, he could by visually examining only its exterior see that it was loaded and, therefore, that it was contraband under the aforementioned Penal Code section 12031. Under this circumstance of plain sight his immediate arrest then of appellant and his companion for violation of this section was lawful because any prior request for inspection of the firearm, as mandated by subdivision (e) of the section, to determine whether it was loaded, had become unnecessary. (Cf. People v. Kern (1979) 93 Cal. App.3d 779, 781-782 [155 Cal.Rptr. 877].) Thus the police seizure of the loaded revolver and of the bullets therefrom under this circumstance was likewise constitutionally and legally privileged. Accordingly the suppression motion was properly denied.

Disposition

The denial of the suppression motion is affirmed.

Allport, J., and Potter, J., concurred.

All an officer has to do is identify it as such, in his mind as a gun case and it is a de-facto gun case.


*ETA*
A "closed opaque container" can be anything.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 6:29 PM
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/115/259.html

All an officer has to do is identify it as such, in his mind as a gun case and it is a de-facto gun case.

...Keep reading..."because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance." Not true with a backpack.

Look, an LEO can do an illegal search anytime he wants, but he is eventually going to have to back it up in court and explain why he thinks that backpacks are guncases. I'd put good money on the outcome that a "backpack is a gun case" ain't gonna fly in any court I've ever been in.

I guess we'll agree to disagree and let the CalGuns jury decide until there is a good test case.

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 6:35 PM
...Keep reading..."because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance." Not true with a backpack.

Look, an LEO can do an illegal search anytime he wants, but he is eventually going to have to back it up in court and explain why he thinks that backpacks are guncases. I'd put good money on the outcome that a "backpack is a gun case" ain't gonna fly in any court I've ever been in.

I guess we'll agree to disagree and let the CalGuns jury decide until there is a good test case.

You are quoting out of context. The item of discussion has changed from the sentence I quoted to the one you are referring to.

"In any event, a gun case, generally speaking, by its very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance."


The basic statement is:

If the officer thinks it is a gun case, in his mind it is a gun case.

Since it is now labeled a gun case, it has no expectation of privacy and we can search it because "gun cases" infer guns inside.


What DEFINES SOMETHING as a "gun case" is open to officer discretions:
Burns, on the basis of his own personal familiarity with gun cases, identified the case immediately in his mind as being what it was.

Once it is a guns case all sorts of other things apply, such as:
In any event, a gun case, generally speaking, by its very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 6:39 PM
so am I safe with a diaper bag?... cuite lil teddi bare on it and says "diaper bag"?

JawBone
10-25-2007, 6:45 PM
You are quoting out of context. The item of discussion has changed from the sentence I quoted to the one you are referring to.

ORLY? I believe the "item" we are discussing is still the gun case.

You heard it here people. Henceforth no expectation of privacy in any opaque containers!! Wahoo. The LEOs will be happy to hear it - it only took them 26 years to interpret this case to their advantage. :rolleyes:

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 7:05 PM
ORLY? I believe the "item" we are discussing is still the gun case.

You heard it here people. Henceforth no expectation of privacy in any opaque containers!! Wahoo. The LEOs will be happy to hear it - it only took them 26 years to interpret this case to their advantage. :rolleyes:
The line you are quoting is specifically what things you can do to an item that is classified as a gun case.

The part that I am focusing on says who, when and what can set the definition of a gun case.

Apparently this distinction is being lost or ignored by you to make your point.



Now clearly you disagree with me. I would suggest that mocking my position, making generalized "that is not possible!" statements and taking the "no I am right you are wrong" authoritative stance be avoided since they do nothing to add credence to your argument without supporting facts.

Pointing out how an officers arbitrary opinion cannot possibly be used (as cited under people v. green) to construe a non-firearm case (as defined by us educated gun enthusiast) as a de-facto "fire arm case" would be the first step in proving me wrong; and I would GREATLY appreciate being proven wrong.


The part you are emphasizing:
In any event, a gun case, generally speaking, by its very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its probable contents can be inferred from its outward appearance.is entirely irrelevant.

This only becomes an issue, IF an item is "deemed" a "firearm case".


The question then becomes "Who / what defines an object as a 'firearm case'?"

It is then my assertion, supported by People v. Green, that an officer may use his own opinion/experience/discretion to decide whether a case/bag/opaque container is in fact a gun case.
Burns, on the basis of his own personal familiarity with gun cases, identified the case immediately in his mind as being what it was.

Piper
10-25-2007, 7:18 PM
eta 34

It would seem that Belton and Williams are at odds. However there is this opinion as well that states from Belton "had it not been for The Court's opinion in Chimel emphasized the principle that, as the Court had said in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , "[t]he scope of [a] search must be `strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible."

So, my take on Belton is that the search of the immediate area needs to be related to the observed crime. Possession of bullet brass and fixed ammunition are not in and of themselves illegal unless the person is in the catagory of people prohibited from possessing firearms. In fact Williams addresses Belton in the opinion. But I think we're getting off track on this thread.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 7:27 PM
It is then my assertion, supported by People v. Green, that an officer may use his own opinion/experience/discretion to decide whether a case/bag/opaque container is in fact a gun case.

Sir, I really cannot explain myself any further other than to say that the entire basis for Green is Arkansas v. Sanders. SCOTUS said that, essentially, a gun case equals a gun in plain sight because the object betrays its contents.

I cannot in my wildest imagination look at a backpack and guess what is inside. If I, as a reasonable person, see someone with a gun case, I would in my experience, just like an LEO, suspect that a gun is inside. I may be wrong, but that would be my suspicion. That is not what comes to mind when I see a backpack. Again, I wouldn't know where to start assessing what is inside a backpack - except for maybe books.

Any judge/defense atty is going to require that same analysis of an LEO on the stand and I would love to see the, ahem, big brass ones, on any LEO who is going to get up there and say that, in his experience or judgment he finds that "backpacks" are guncases. It may be his experience but he still has to explain it, he still has to have a reasonable basis for his belief and I cannot fathom such an explanation. Can you? And then the Judge has to buy that explanation.

I honestly believe that your interpretation is absurd because it would essentially do away with any 4th Amendment protection in any opaque container in this state as long as the LEO testified that he believes any such container to be a gun case. It just does not make sense in practice.

So, that is my position. I believe neither of us will be satisfied until there is some test case on this (although I note there has not been any such case in 26 years, so I assume no LEO in that time has had those brass ones) and since we are probably the last two reading this thread, I will read your response, but I have pretty much said all I have to say.

Thank you for the discussion.

eta34
10-25-2007, 7:42 PM
eta 34

It would seem that Belton and Williams are at odds. However there is this opinion as well that states from Belton "had it not been for The Court's opinion in Chimel emphasized the principle that, as the Court had said in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , "[t]he scope of [a] search must be `strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible."

So, my take on Belton is that the search of the immediate area needs to be related to the observed crime. Possession of bullet brass and fixed ammunition are not in and of themselves illegal unless the person is in the catagory of people prohibited from possessing firearms. In fact Williams addresses Belton in the opinion. But I think we're getting off track on this thread.

I pretty much agree. Brass and ammo are not illegal, so there would be no reason to arrest. If the arrest was valid, the search of the passenger compartment is legal. If I arrest the suspect for drugs, I can search the passenger compartment for ANY contraband, drugs or not.

JawBone
10-25-2007, 7:44 PM
I pretty much agree. Brass and ammo are not illegal, so there would be no reason to arrest. If the arrest was valid, the search of the passenger compartment is legal. If I arrest the suspect for drugs, I can search the passenger compartment for ANY contraband, drugs or not.

What about US v. Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross)? :D

eta34
10-25-2007, 7:48 PM
That case applies specifically to the trunk of a vehicle, which is not subject to search incident to arrest.

Piper
10-25-2007, 7:52 PM
I pretty much agree. Brass and ammo are not illegal, so there would be no reason to arrest. If the arrest was valid, the search of the passenger compartment is legal. If I arrest the suspect for drugs, I can search the passenger compartment for ANY contraband, drugs or not.

If I were searching a vehicle of a suspect I arrested for drugs, drugs are what I would look for. If I found something else that was illegal, it's fair game. But I wouldn't put in my report that I was looking for something beyond the original contraband. I would put down that as I was looking for additional said contraband, I found this illegal item. That's called CYA.

pnkssbtz
10-25-2007, 8:03 PM
Sir, I really cannot explain myself any further other than to say that the entire basis for Green is Arkansas v. Sanders. SCOTUS said that, essentially, a gun case equals a gun in plain sight because the object betrays its contents.
Again, your point is irrelevant. Your entire point of contention hinges around what can and cannot be done with regard to a "firearm case".

My point of contention is what and who defines what a "firearm case" is.


The distinctions between my assertion and yours are completely irrelevant to each other, EXCEPT that my assertion defines whether or not your assertion is applicable.


I cannot in my wildest imagination look at a backpack and guess what is inside.Yes, because you are rational. But no one thought you could arrest someone, hold them in jail without charging them so they can't get their free phonecall, and then trump up charges and set an insane bail, all on based upon un corroborated evidence from a myspace profile and an anonymous tip; but it happened. So making logical arguments based upon what is "rational and reasonable" despite evidence showing that the scope of "rational and reasonable" is anything but, is disingenuous.


If I, as a reasonable person, see someone with a gun case, I would in my experience, just like an LEO, suspect that a gun is inside. I may be wrong, but that would be my suspicion. That is not what comes to mind when I see a backpack. Again, I wouldn't know where to start assessing what is inside a backpack - except for maybe books.Again I agree with you. What you and *I* deem a firearms case to be is what "we" deem as "reasonable". But the ability for abuse is still there. I am not saying that it has been, or will be; but that it CAN be abused.

Any judge/defense atty is going to require that same analysis of an LEO on the stand and I would love to see the, ahem, big brass ones, on any LEO who is going to get up there and say that, in his experience or judgment he finds that "backpacks" are guncases. It may be his experience but he still has to explain it, he still has to have a reasonable basis for his belief and I cannot fathom such an explanation. Can you? And then the Judge has to buy that explanation.All an officer has to do is articulate how he has experience or knowledge of firearms being stored in such a container and he satisfies the precedent set by People v. Green.

This is NO DIFFERENT than an officer claiming "I smelled weed".


I honestly believe that your interpretation is absurd because it would essentially do away with any 4th Amendment protection in any opaque container in this state as long as the LEO testified that he believes any such container to be a gun case. It just does not make sense in practice. Again I agree with you that this interpretation IS absurd. But I do not see any limitations set upon it. Just as claiming to "smell weed" is grounds for searching a vehicle for controlled substance, so is this. LEO's testify all the time that they "smelled weed" as justification for searching a vehicle. Again, how is this any different?

So, that is my position. I believe neither of us will be satisfied until there is some test case on this (although I note there has not been any such case in 26 years, so I assume no LEO in that time has had those brass ones) and since we are probably the last two reading this thread, I will read your response, but I have pretty much said all I have to say.

Thank you for the discussion.Unfortunately that is a fallacious argument. Just because something has never happened, does not mean something can not happen.

Should I then remove my spare tire from my car? After all I have never had a blow out.


Again, I totally agree that this is absurd. And I also agree I do not think it is right. But unfortunately I see no limitations except "discretion" and "ethics" to limit its abuse. And I will not put any trust in the "discretion" and "ethics" of the general populace when there is so much evidence of the violation of such trust.

Rob P.
10-25-2007, 10:45 PM
1) What you don't think evidence ever gets tossed?

2)That's what civil lawsuits are for.

3) Green has been the law of the land since 1981 and I'm not aware that it is generally accepted for LEOs to go look in backpacks using Green as justification. Are you?

4) Re BWO - I believe they had a WARRANT, so I don't know why is name was even brought up in this thread about warrantless searches.

1) It's MY JOB to read all about how evidence almost NEVER gets tossed and when it does it's usually after the poor slob spends a couple months in jail and a few thousand on legal fees (tip: never use the Pub Defender unless you have no other choice). I do criminal appeals for fun and profit - I know what I'm saying here and you do not know what you think you do. The system is broken. It's functioning but that doesn't mean it's not broken or that it is functioning correctly.

2) Civil liability won't reach to a peace officer who is performing his duties even if his performance is illegal so long as HE REASONABLY BELIEVES he is within the law. He is statutorily immune. You have to prove his belief is unreasonable in a system geared to believe a cop over anything you say even if his words are ridiculous and unbelievable. Go to traffic court and listen to a few of the descriptions and reasons for the stops while the defendant gets shafted by the court and then tell me I'm wrong.

3) Green may be the "law" but it is a wee bit distant from a midnight stop in the wrong part of town on saturday night. And in a dark alley on gang turf, LEO doesn't care if the search is good or not. If they find something they can AND WILL cover their butts on how they got PC. And if the court does (for some strange reason) believe the 3 time felon that he wasn't carrying that gun with his fingerpints and DNA all over it LEO still gets the prestige of taking a gun off the street as well as knowing that they rousted another gangbanger. They think "good job" to themselves and believe they're hero's no matter how badly they trash this country and our Constitution by their actions.

And if you don't think that's what happens, perhaps you need to read a few more legal cases and sit in on a few trials where you can discover that it happens all too often. Even when people and LEO protest long and loud that it doesn't.

But you won't believe me. After all I"m one of those dam lawyers who twist words and get bad guys off on "tecnicalities". Much more reasonable to believe your aunt edna's former college roommate's 5th new boyfriend this week.

Liberty1
10-25-2007, 10:51 PM
An officer seeing a conventional "firearm" case, the kind we get when we buy a new gun, and then "knowing" through training and experience that there is a firearm within which he then demands to 12031 inspect and seeing a backpack, luggage case, or simple cardboard box and saying there is a firearm contained within are different. One is reasonable and the other is not by almost any level of judicial practice.

Rob P.
10-25-2007, 11:05 PM
Liberty,

My point (as well as proffered by others) is that even if it's unreasonable, YOU have to prove such. That takes money you won't get back. It also usually results in time spent with the wrong kind of friends in close qtrs. And the trial courts tend to bend over backwards to support LEO and the DA even when it's patently obvious that the evidence is fruit so that you don't get it tossed until you get to the appellate level. And even then the courts work to uphold the lower decision.

JawBone
10-26-2007, 12:03 AM
1) It's MY JOB to read all about how evidence almost NEVER gets tossed ...

2) Civil liability won't reach to a peace officer who is performing his duties even if his performance is illegal so long as HE REASONABLY BELIEVES he is within the law...

3) Green may be the "law" but it is a wee bit distant from a midnight stop in the wrong part of town on saturday night...

And if you don't think that's what happens, perhaps you need to read a few more legal cases and sit in on a few trials where you can discover that it happens all too often. Even when people and LEO protest long and loud that it doesn't.

But you won't believe me. After all I"m one of those dam lawyers who twist words and get bad guys off on "tecnicalities". Much more reasonable to believe your aunt edna's former college roommate's 5th new boyfriend this week.

1) EEK an appellate attorney, that means the only cases you see are the ones that don't get tossed -- I think you need to sit in on a few more suppression hearings where the evidence IS tossed.

2) BS - Search of a backpack without a warrant and in the suppression hearing using Green as your basis?? "A backpack, your honor, in my experience is a gun case." Please. That's the definition of unreasonable.

3) OMG you are saying that a cop may violate the law?? No Sh- Sherlock. Duh. Why is that worth discussing? The topic is whether it is constitutional search for a guy coming from the range on a Saturday. Not midnight in Compton. I don't need a "law-yur" to tell me that bad cops can screw you.

And...well, "Edna's former college roommate's 5th new boyfriend this week" did tell me it isn't a legal search and that's what I based all my posts on, but golly gee you are a real papered up law-yur type so I should be intimidated into believing you.....BUT...oops then I remember I spent those three years in law school and ten years as a trial attorney, and if this one got through me, I'd quit on the spot.

Even a first year public defender could get the evidence suppressed in this one.:rolleyes:

Or instead of typing messages in 25 point "Ha Ha Ha" and telling me "how it is on da streets with the evil cops, man" go act like an appellate attorney and log onto Westlaw and find me a case, any case, where the warrantless search of backpack was upheld because the LEO says it is a gun case? Or any case that backs you up. I'll be waiting...

pnkssbtz
10-26-2007, 1:44 AM
Even a first year public defender could get the evidence suppressed in this one.:rolleyes:
Yes. I agree. Evidence would be very easy to suppress...

IN COURT AFTER YOU'VE SPENT TIME IN JAIL AND SHELLED OUT CASH FOR THE ATTORNEY.

By that point its too late, you are already losing. Your only recourse would be to minimize your loss (felony conviction) by spending money.

eta34
10-26-2007, 4:32 AM
If I were searching a vehicle of a suspect I arrested for drugs, drugs are what I would look for. If I found something else that was illegal, it's fair game. But I wouldn't put in my report that I was looking for something beyond the original contraband. I would put down that as I was looking for additional said contraband, I found this illegal item. That's called CYA.

I agree Piper.

Piper
10-26-2007, 2:47 PM
I agree Piper.

I'm glad we could agree on something. Having said that, Belton also means that if a person is arrested (i.e. for a warrant) a search is not permissable unless a peace officer is searching the immediate area for "officer safety" reasons, something Williams also pointed out. What that means, is unless a peace officer can justify the search in the immediate area for officer safety, the search is not permissable. The Ca Sup Ct addressed that issue in the foot notes of Peo v. Williams.

phish
10-26-2007, 2:52 PM
don't speed

make sure your registration tags are current

make sure your vehicle complies with the CVC

problem solved...no need for 14 pages...

five.five-six
10-26-2007, 3:11 PM
don't speed

make sure your registration tags are current

make sure your vehicle complies with the CVC

problem solved...no need for 14 pages...

I am not saying your point does not carry validity, it is just not always the case

here we have chris rock saying basicly the same thing, depending on where you wotk, this may not be exactly work safe (http://youtube.com/watch?v=USlwdCtzljY)

Glock22Fan
10-26-2007, 3:27 PM
I don't know what you mean by a competition bag, as I am not a competitive shooter. I can only tell you that if the officer sees an articulable gun case, he can search it without warrant or consent (the gun case and NOT the entire car).

My gun case has an orange sticker on it, provided courtesy of Chuck Michel, saying

"NOTICE TO POLICE
The contents of this container are private
Voluntary consent to search is NOT granted.
A search warrent is required for access
Owner/suspect invokes his/her right to remain silent
Before proceding, contact attorney."

Let's see them get past that on a whim.

five.five-six
10-26-2007, 3:30 PM
unfortunatly, driveing is a privilage, and SCOTUS has upheld LEO's right to inspect any gun in your vehicle,

Glock22Fan
10-26-2007, 3:33 PM
unfortunatly, driveing is a privilage, and SCOTUS has upheld LEO's right to inspect any gun in your vehicle,

first, they have to find/see the gun.

If they can open what appears to be a gun case (but may not be), just in case there's a gun, they can open anything - suitcases, laptop bags, cool boxes, briefcases etc etc.. This is clearly not right.

packnrat
10-26-2007, 3:33 PM
i have not read all the postings, but one does need to play it carefull, sure the fish and game code says one thing,
loaded gun nothing in the chamber.

chp use another book,
no bullets in gun at all.

city cops use a deffernt book,
have a gun go to jail.

sheriffs another book again.
pending county:eek:

then how many deffernt fed's are there?:eek:

when i go fishing/hunting i all ways have a pistol on me.
going to the range, - in a locked box (range's have a problem some times).

how many of you out there can afford to be "detaned" for a day or two?

play it safe and be nice to the cop and just maybe you will have a good laugh with him.

be a a** and you get some free lodging and food,

win or loose in court you loose.

know the law, read it many times over and have copy with you.

MudCamper
10-26-2007, 3:54 PM
know the law

That's why we have these discussions.

pnkssbtz
10-26-2007, 4:02 PM
first, they have to find/see the gun.

If they can open what appears to be a gun case (but may not be), just in case there's a gun, they can open anything - suitcases, laptop bags, cool boxes, briefcases etc etc.. This is clearly not right.

I see someone else gets the point I am trying to make.

1911su16b870
10-26-2007, 4:40 PM
My gun case has an orange sticker on it, provided courtesy of Chuck Michel, saying

"NOTICE TO POLICE
The contents of this container are private
Voluntary consent to search is NOT granted.
A search warrent is required for access
Owner/suspect invokes his/her right to remain silent
Before proceding, contact attorney."

Let's see them get past that on a whim.

Just a few musings on this sticker:

Exactly! He won't search you, your vehicle or case on a whim!

If the officer who stopped you has enough PC (i.e. you and your vehicle fit the descriptions of a crime that was committed etc.) he would detain you, write up that PC, the case as the area to be searched and the items looked for on the search warrant, get a judge to sign it, all from the field, and then search the container. IMO that sticker will just make sure his PC is presented in writting before he goes into the case. You will be detained the whole time and will not be able to contact anyone because you're simply being detained pending an investigation (you aren't under arrest). The warrant will come through, he'll break your case open, unless you are lucky and he asks you for the keys/combo, and then after running your firearms on AFS, he'll find everything is OK, and hopefully explain why they needed to detain you (there's a violent felon who matches your description and vehicle etc. and we really needed to check the case for evidence) and finally release you. Yes you exercised your rights, and yes your detention was really long because of exercising your rights, which is something we're all prepared to do.

Again it all comes down to the written PC that the officer presents in the warrant, report etc.

I understand the notion of CYA and that there may be officers who are "bad apples" (to date in my career I have not found one), but most importantly it's the mutual respect that is shown to the citizen and to the cop who's job it is to protect and serve.

Glock22Fan
10-26-2007, 4:48 PM
there's a violent felon who matches your description and vehicle.

Sounds like profiling to me. I've heard a lot of police radios around here (usually from the front seat of official radio cars) and I've never heard a call with a suspect looking anything like me. I'm the wrong color, the wrong race and the wrong age group. I'll stick with my sticker - your mileage may vary.

1911su16b870
10-26-2007, 4:52 PM
When a report comes across the radio to be on the lookout for such and such a person driving such and such vehicle, leos are allowed to profile.

five.five-six
10-26-2007, 6:00 PM
When a report comes across the radio to be on the lookout for such and such a person driving such and such vehicle, leos are allowed to profile.


unless it is a muslum, then they have to check everyone who does not look muslem :(

Crazed_SS
10-26-2007, 6:11 PM
It's spelled Muslim.. Also, you cant tell someone is Muslim just by looking at them.

Did you mean Arab?

hitnrun
10-26-2007, 6:37 PM
Sounds like profiling to me. I've heard a lot of police radios around here (usually from the front seat of official radio cars) and I've never heard a call with a suspect looking anything like me. I'm the wrong color, the wrong race and the wrong age group. I'll stick with my sticker - your mileage may vary.

If you think that a sticker will prevent LEOs from looking inside of a gun case, then you probably also believe that garlic will protect you from vampires!:eek::p

A sticker won't mean jack if the search is lawful...

Sig226
10-26-2007, 6:54 PM
If you think that a sticker will prevent LEOs from looking inside of a gun case, then you probably also believe that garlic will protect you from vampires!:eek::p

A sticker won't mean jack if the search is lawful...


While I'm mostly watching this thread....

The sticker makes me think of the adage: "Keep the honest ones honest..."


Ill have to make up a few of these for myself.... it can't hurt as it doesn't say firearm, or anything else to lead the office to think there could be contraband or a 'safety issue" contained inside.

five.five-six
10-27-2007, 12:09 AM
It's spelled Muslim.. Also, you cant tell someone is Muslim just by looking at them.

Did you mean Arab?

ooooh touchy touchy, sure you can tell...by the bomb belt J/K

hitnrun
10-28-2007, 5:17 AM
ooooh touchy touchy, sure you can tell...by the bomb belt J/K

Oh...SNAP!:eek::cool2:

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 11:13 AM
I wish the members of this board, instead of spending so much time debating the microscopic limits of the law or some kind of logical nuances, would use that energy to push for changes in the gun laws with their legislators. I live in SF so don't have that luxury, but many of you live in parts of the BA or state where you can actually make a difference. Then we could make some real changes and wouldn't have to debate these laws in the first place.

As hitnrun and others have pointed out, the vast majority of cops are not out to get you, they are out to get thugs and law breakers. If you tell me you are coming from the range, and have a gun in the trunk and it's unloaded, I may not check or I may take a peek. (And hint, you are NOT going to get out of the car to fetch your gun case and open it for me... don't even think about reaching for the gun if it's in a case in the back seat.) But I'm not going on a fishing expedition; I am really just looking for the gun to make sure it's not loaded. Unless there is something else I encounter on the way that gives me PC; ie a strong smell of marijuana, etc.

Why do we spend so much time debating the law here? I understand the concept of wanting to secure your civil rights by executing them..but this is a little overboard.

SteveH
10-28-2007, 11:59 AM
Some of you are confusing two seperate issues.

There is the limited terry frisk of a vehicle allowed if the officer has lawfully detained the driver and has a reasonable suspicion the driver has a weapon and is dangerous.

Then there is the cali law that allows police officers to inspect any weapon found in a public place.

Piper
10-28-2007, 12:02 PM
I wish the members of this board, instead of spending so much time debating the microscopic limits of the law or some kind of logical nuances, would use that energy to push for changes in the gun laws with their legislators. I live in SF so don't have that luxury, but many of you live in parts of the BA or state where you can actually make a difference. Then we could make some real changes and wouldn't have to debate these laws in the first place.

As hitnrun and others have pointed out, the vast majority of cops are not out to get you, they are out to get thugs and law breakers. If you tell me you are coming from the range, and have a gun in the trunk and it's unloaded, I may not check or I may take a peek. (And hint, you are NOT going to get out of the car to fetch your gun case and open it for me... don't even think about reaching for the gun if it's in a case in the back seat.) But I'm not going on a fishing expedition; I am really just looking for the gun to make sure it's not loaded. Unless there is something else I encounter on the way that gives me PC; ie a strong smell of marijuana, etc.

Why do we spend so much time debating the law here? I understand the concept of wanting to secure your civil rights by executing them..but this is a little overboard.

I think it's overboard to ask a law abiding citizen to disarm in public. I think it's overboard for police to be an instrument of that disarmament. I think it's totally overboard for government to infringe upon the lawful constitutional bearing of arms and claim that they are following the law.

To the LEO's here, if you want to move beyond debating the law, quit enforcing unconstitutional laws. Until then, I will nit pick the law to my advantage, just as LEO's do, to try and screw law abiding citizens for some Charlie Sierra technicality. You may deny this, but LEO's are indoctrinated from day one to freak if a citizen has a loaded firearm. To state that a citizen can't get out of the car to comply, if they are stupid enough to tell you they have a firearm, is evidence of this indoctrination. They tried to do it to me and I wouldn't buy it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the individual is a REAL CRIMINAL, and s/he is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of the nature of their crimes, arrest them. But if an otherwise law abiding citizen fudged on some insane unconstitutional law, leave them alone, they're not the problem.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with 653k, or all of the 12000 series of laws existing. I have a problem with them being directed at law abiding citizens. And I have a problem with LE enforcing them against law abiding citizens. Until this stops, I will not stop debating the law.

MudCamper
10-28-2007, 12:02 PM
Why do we spend so much time debating the law here?

Because despite all the previous discussion, this subject still contains a lot of gray area. The law is not clear. Everything is subject to the interpretation of the LEO at the time. For you, as a LEO, this is of little consequence. To the rest of us, it is a legitimate and serious concern. We risk losing our money and/or liberty if we make a mistake.

drdanno84
10-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we live in a "police state" are subject to search and seizure by law enforcement. "probable cause" is a joke, a LEO can invent to jusitify his actions. A good friend of mine who is black, was driving in west hollywood and was pulled over by several deputies at gunpoint, thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Their "probable cause" was that a black man had robbed a liquor store earlier in the day and was seen driving a jeep that fit my friend's description. His jeep was ransacked, all of his contents were thrown on the ground and they kept asking him where the "gun" was." He was eventually let go when the deputies realized that he was not the crimminal, did my friend receive an apology? no, where his contents placed back neatly into his jeep, no. He contacted an attorney who is also a friend of ours, to his dissmay, he was told that the police can justify the stop in court because they had "probable cause" because my friend fit the description of the perpetrator. Is this fair and just? of course not, but it is the reallity of living in a police state. Last week, I was stopped by the west covina pd, I was surprised because I knew I had not broken any traffic laws, The officer had a rude attitude and after running my registration and driver's license for warrants, informed me that I was missing my front license plate, I informed him that the truck was new and I had not had a chance to install the bracket that holds the plate which I would do shortly. He insisted on issuing a citation and I subsequently received a courtesy notice in the mail demanding a fine of $142.00! Is this fair? I realize that it is the law to have both plates visible, but a warning or having been issued a "fix it ticket" would have been nice.

Piper
10-28-2007, 12:47 PM
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we live in a "police state" are subject to search and seizure by law enforcement. "probable cause" is a joke, a LEO can invent to jusitify his actions. A good friend of mine who is black, was driving in west hollywood and was pulled over by several deputies at gunpoint, thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Their "probable cause" was that a black man had robbed a liquor store earlier in the day and was seen driving a jeep that fit my friend's description. His jeep was ransacked, all of his contents were thrown on the ground and they kept asking him where the "gun" was." He was eventually let go when the deputies realized that he was not the crimminal, did my friend receive an apology? no, where his contents placed back neatly into his jeep, no. He contacted an attorney who is also a friend of ours, to his dissmay, he was told that the police can justify the stop in court because they had "probable cause" because my friend fit the description of the perpetrator. Is this fair and just? of course not, but it is the reallity of living in a police state. Last week, I was stopped by the west covina pd, I was surprised because I knew I had not broken any traffic laws, The officer had a rude attitude and after running my registration and driver's license for warrants, informed me that I was missing my front license plate, I informed him that the truck was new and I had not had a chance to install the bracket that holds the plate which I would do shortly. He insisted on issuing a citation and I subsequently received a courtesy notice in the mail demanding a fine of $142.00! Is this fair? I realize that it is the law to have both plates visible, but a warning or having been issued a "fix it ticket" would have been nice.

I might add...and could care less until you file a citizens complaint against them for their bad behavior. And they stand there dumb founded and whine and cry about being persecuted for "just doing their job." Of course the unintended conseqences of "it was legal for me to do" is the courts step in and rein in LE because they abuse their authority. And when LE attends a DOJ Legal Update Seminar, you hear the whining and crying from LE because the "phuqueing courts are handcuffing us and keeping us from doing our jobs." I've seen this movie before. But hey, those are just my observations.

hitnrun
10-28-2007, 1:09 PM
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we live in a "police state" are subject to search and seizure by law enforcement. "probable cause" is a joke, a LEO can invent to jusitify his actions. A good friend of mine who is black, was driving in west hollywood and was pulled over by several deputies at gunpoint, thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Their "probable cause" was that a black man had robbed a liquor store earlier in the day and was seen driving a jeep that fit my friend's description. His jeep was ransacked, all of his contents were thrown on the ground and they kept asking him where the "gun" was." He was eventually let go when the deputies realized that he was not the crimminal, did my friend receive an apology? no, where his contents placed back neatly into his jeep, no. He contacted an attorney who is also a friend of ours, to his dissmay, he was told that the police can justify the stop in court because they had "probable cause" because my friend fit the description of the perpetrator. Is this fair and just? of course not, but it is the reallity of living in a police state. Last week, I was stopped by the west covina pd, I was surprised because I knew I had not broken any traffic laws, The officer had a rude attitude and after running my registration and driver's license for warrants, informed me that I was missing my front license plate, I informed him that the truck was new and I had not had a chance to install the bracket that holds the plate which I would do shortly. He insisted on issuing a citation and I subsequently received a courtesy notice in the mail demanding a fine of $142.00! Is this fair? I realize that it is the law to have both plates visible, but a warning or having been issued a "fix it ticket" would have been nice.

Let me get this straight...you are pissed because LE can use PC to do their job? FYI, probable cause is outlined in the constitution (4th amen). You can hate the constitution all you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

Then you complain about getting a ticket for breaking the law which you admit you did.

I don't think we have a police state, I think we have a perpetuating cycle of the me generation whining about things they never tried to understand and then refusing to man up and accept responsibility. Pretty common really...especially around here. :rolleyes:

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 1:10 PM
Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with 653k, or all of the 12000 series of laws existing. I have a problem with them being directed at law abiding citizens. And I have a problem with LE enforcing them against law abiding citizens. Until this stops, I will not stop debating the law.

Right.. this gets to my point. We all agree (I think) that bad guys shouldn't be toting around guns and switchblades with which to apply their craft. If you believe law abiding citizens should have the right to tote those things around, why not direct your energy towards the people that can actually make those changes, the legislators? Trying to slip in that right by playing on the knife-edge of the law in terms of your dealings with law enforcement, and then the courts, is much less satisfying than actually making a change so that it's LEGAL for otherwise law-abiding people to do those things.

As far as LEOs' discretion, I as a citizen would much rather rely on clearly written laws than an LEO's discretion, or using the citizen complaint process after the fact. Yes we do live in a state with restrictive laws (which, by the way, you are aware of when you live here), and they are laws that so far the courts have upheld. Therefore, the executive branch enforces those laws. Expecting a LEO to disregard the laws and presume that he can interpret conflicts between state and federal laws better than the courts is nothing more than wishful thinking. In terms of personal liberties, do you think SF cops are going to start arresting people with medical marijuana cards and a couple ounces of pot on them for marijuana possession? You bet your *** NOT.. until the courts tell them to.

Piper
10-28-2007, 1:32 PM
Right.. this gets to my point. We all agree (I think) that bad guys shouldn't be toting around guns and switchblades with which to apply their craft. If you believe law abiding citizens should have the right to tote those things around, why not direct your energy towards the people that can actually make those changes, the legislators? Trying to slip in that right by playing on the knife-edge of the law in terms of your dealings with law enforcement, and then the courts, is much less satisfying than actually making a change so that it's LEGAL for otherwise law-abiding people to do those things.

As far as LEOs' discretion, I as a citizen would much rather rely on clearly written laws than an LEO's discretion, or using the citizen complaint process after the fact. Yes we do live in a state with restrictive laws (which, by the way, you are aware of when you live here), and they are laws that so far the courts have upheld. Therefore, the executive branch enforces those laws. Expecting a LEO to disregard the laws and presume that he can interpret conflicts between state and federal laws better than the courts is nothing more than wishful thinking. In terms of personal liberties, do you think SF cops are going to start arresting people with medical marijuana cards and a couple ounces of pot on them for marijuana possession? You bet your *** NOT.. until the courts tell them to.

Well, I as a cop used my discretion and ignored law abiding citizens with "illegal" weapons they could use to defend themselves. The turning point was the Chief of Police of the Department I worked for. He was a major hypocrit who issued a CCW to his wife, but everyone else was S.O.L. It was at that point I decided that I will choose who I allow to carry weapons and who I arrest. My criteria was based on their criminal background. Since alot of these "violations" are misdemeanors, I had that discretion and warned those that I let slide to be more careful because the next cop they run into may not be so understanding.

Piper
10-28-2007, 1:48 PM
Let me get this straight...you are pissed because LE can use PC to do their job? FYI, probable cause is outlined in the constitution (4th amen). You can hate the constitution all you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

Then you complain about getting a ticket for breaking the law which you admit you did.

I don't think we have a police state, I think we have a perpetuating cycle of the me generation whining about things they never tried to understand and then refusing to man up and accept responsibility. Pretty common really...especially around here. :rolleyes:

No, I think he's pissed about the way LE goes about it. You might be able to justify proning the guy out, but treating him the way they did after they established he wasn't the guy is a crock and you know it. As for the license plate, give me a break. 5200 is a Charlie Sierra law, and a number of states only issue one plate. Are you going to cite them too because they're in California? I prefered to use my time for more constructive things like looking for real bad guys. If you want to write cites, maybe you should become a Chippie.

pnkssbtz
10-28-2007, 1:53 PM
This thread is dead. The totalitarian authoritative attitude taken precludes any sort of meaningful dialog that may be derived from this discussion.

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 1:59 PM
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we live in a "police state" are subject to search and seizure by law enforcement.

There is a big difference between living in a police state, and living in a state that enforces laws based on PC.

Their "probable cause" was that a black man had robbed a liquor store earlier in the day and was seen driving a jeep that fit my friend's description.

I bet if you were the one who was robbed, you'd have quite a different perspective on who should be pulled over on a felony stop (matching the robber's description), than in this case where the guy was your friend.

Last week, I was stopped by the west covina pd, I was surprised because I knew I had not broken any traffic laws, The officer had a rude attitude and after running my registration and driver's license for warrants, informed me that I was missing my front license plate, I informed him that the truck was new and I had not had a chance to install the bracket that holds the plate which I would do shortly. He insisted on issuing a citation and I subsequently received a courtesy notice in the mail demanding a fine of $142.00! Is this fair? I realize that it is the law to have both plates visible, but a warning or having been issued a "fix it ticket" would have been nice.

In the time it took you to write this paragraph, you could have screwed the front license plate onto your truck as required by law. Then you could have gotten the ticket signed off, and mailed it in with a $10 payment. It's a fix-it ticket, for crying out loud.

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 2:01 PM
Well, I as a cop used my discretion and ignored law abiding citizens with "illegal" weapons they could use to defend themselves. The turning point was the Chief of Police of the Department I worked for. He was a major hypocrit who issued a CCW to his wife, but everyone else was S.O.L. It was at that point I decided that I will choose who I allow to carry weapons and who I arrest. My criteria was based on their criminal background. Since alot of these "violations" are misdemeanors, I had that discretion and warned those that I let slide to be more careful because the next cop they run into may not be so understanding.

Maybe you don't see it, but to me it's ironic that you wanted to be able to do the same thing that you compained about your former chief doing: selectively allow certain people to carry, and not allow others. So what is your moral argument here?

Piper
10-28-2007, 2:02 PM
This thread is dead. The totalitarian authoritative attitude taken precludes any sort of meaningful dialog that may be derived from this discussion.

You're right ! So long as LE wants to remain in denial, we will always end up at an empass.

Gryff
10-28-2007, 2:07 PM
Why do we spend so much time debating the law here? I understand the concept of wanting to secure your civil rights by executing them..but this is a little overboard.

Because the United States Constitution is a brilliant concept, but we live in an age when "public safety" is regularly used as an attempt to circumvent it.

If we aren't willing to discuss the Constitution, they we are definitely not willing to defend it.

Discussions such as this help the principle of America far more than those about whether Britney should have visitation rights with her kids. And while this thread has jumped around a bit (it was originally about what constitutes Probable Cause), it is still an immeasurably healthy thing to take place.

-Jim

Piper
10-28-2007, 2:11 PM
Maybe you don't see it, but to me it's ironic that you wanted to be able to do the same thing that you compained about your former chief doing: selectively allow certain people to carry, and not allow others. So what is your moral argument here?

The ones that I arrested for weapons charges were chronic drunks, drug addicts, drug dealers, burglars, people with violent pasts and felons. The Chief denied law abiding citizens their rights while granting that right to his wife. As for me wanting to, you're wrong, I did it and had no conflict with it. If you want to condemn me for that, I will wear that condemnation as a badge of honor.

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 2:14 PM
Because the United States Constitution is a brilliant concept, but we live in an age when "public safety" is regularly used as an attempt to circumvent it.

If we aren't willing to discuss the Constitution, they we are definitely not willing to defend it.


I totally agree, although I don't really see this thread as having much to do with the Constitution. Just my view.

On the other hand, I fully support Parker et al. in their fight at the USSC, and my whole point was that if more people would do what Parker is doing, instead of the endless hair splitting, we'd be better off in this state.

hitnrun
10-28-2007, 2:39 PM
No, I think he's pissed about the way LE goes about it. You might be able to justify proning the guy out, but treating him the way they did after they established he wasn't the guy is a crock and you know it. As for the license plate, give me a break. 5200 is a Charlie Sierra law, and a number of states only issue one plate. Are you going to cite them too because they're in California? I prefered to use my time for more constructive things like looking for real bad guys. If you want to write cites, maybe you should become a Chippie.

As for the way his friend was treated, I'm sure Dr. Phil would be more than happy to address those issues regarding the third party characterization of his treatment by the big bad poweece. Why are you condemning LE actions based on biased 3rd party rhetoric? Why not keep an eye out for the other side of the story before judging.



As for the 5200 vc, you mean to tell me all that time as a cop and you never wrote a single fix it ticket??

As for the officer who wrote the cite, are you considering him to be less of a cop because he was doing his job? Or are you getting down on him because you don't FEEL the cite was legit? Either way, does it really make a difference? Until you legislate officer discretion away or do away with VC, it doesn't really matter.


Why would my comments regarding a legit citation somehow imply I should have been a chippie?

IBTL before you try and make this another personal attack/anti LE rant.

pnkssbtz
10-28-2007, 2:59 PM
Why are you condemning LE actions based on biased 3rd party rhetoric?

And why are you defending the actions of someone based upon 3rd party rhetoric?

hitnrun
10-28-2007, 6:35 PM
And why are you defending the actions of someone based upon 3rd party rhetoric?

Who am I defending? I said to keep an open mind and look out for the other side of the story? How was that defending someone? I think it's pretty much the opposite actually.

Or are you referring to the guy who said that he was at fault and was whining about getting a fix it ticket? In the second case, I think the OP made it pretty clear that he was upset about getting a ticket. Piper made some snide remarks about the illegitimacy of the vehicle code, and I questioned them. What exactly are you talking about?


You guys really try to exploit the meaning of the words "semantics" and "minutiae" around here.:rolleyes: The common tactic here seems to be diversion. If you can't fight the facts head on with facts, you simply make crap up, deflect, argue irrelevancies, etc! It should be memorialized on a web banner somewhere. Every thread like this gets so far off topic, it's a miracle they can survive as long as they do. I guess you subscribe to the theory of it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I am confident that one day, logic and rational thinking will prevail here...or at least make an appearance or two.

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 7:22 PM
I am confident that one day, logic and rational thinking will prevail here...or at least make an appearance or two.

It's kind of like a meteor shower. You have to stare for a really long time, and then you might see it shoot by.

Piper
10-28-2007, 10:47 PM
As for the way his friend was treated, I'm sure Dr. Phil would be more than happy to address those issues regarding the third party characterization of his treatment by the big bad poweece. Why are you condemning LE actions based on biased 3rd party rhetoric? Why not keep an eye out for the other side of the story before judging.



As for the 5200 vc, you mean to tell me all that time as a cop and you never wrote a single fix it ticket??

As for the officer who wrote the cite, are you considering him to be less of a cop because he was doing his job? Or are you getting down on him because you don't FEEL the cite was legit? Either way, does it really make a difference? Until you legislate officer discretion away or do away with VC, it doesn't really matter.


Why would my comments regarding a legit citation somehow imply I should have been a chippie?

IBTL before you try and make this another personal attack/anti LE rant.

Actually, I preferred to write cites for violations that posed a real danger to the public and left the fix it's like 5200 CVC to those that thought writing cites was somehow good police work.

As for the second hand information, when I was a kid and I was out with my friends in Hacienda Heights, we were T stopped by LASD, removed from the car we were in and the contents of the car was removed from the car and tossed on the ground. The given reason for the stop was the deputy thought that the tread on my friends car was worn too far down (they were new tires). The excuse for removing the contents from the car was they were looking for beer. None of us drank anything but sodas. When they didn't find anything, they just walked away without so much as an apology. LASD is contracted to West Hollywood, so it would seem that my personal accounts coroborate with with this second hand information.

As for the Chippie comment, yeah I think you would make an outstanding Chippie.

Kestryll
10-29-2007, 12:14 AM
We're done here.
I am sick of this crap always popping up in these threads.

The next thread that turns into a *****-fest or sniping fight will be the last thread posted in by those involved.