PDA

View Full Version : Do you have the right to video tape an LEO?


mecam
11-12-2007, 8:32 PM
Do you have the right to video tape an LEO when he's inspecting your firearms or can he take away your camera?

SemiAutoSam
11-12-2007, 8:41 PM
Depending on where this inspection is happening maybe.

Is it out on the street in public then yes you can video tape all you want.

There is no expectation of privacy in public and LEO's over all others know this or at least should know this.

Do you have the right to video tape an LEO when he's inspecting your firearms or can he take away your camera?

5150-417
11-12-2007, 8:45 PM
I'm not 100% sure but i think you need permission from the department and city. I was talking to a torrance cop about just filming leo activity and he said while your in uniform your considered property of the city and would require a permit if your gonna film leo at work.

mecam
11-12-2007, 8:46 PM
Lets say a traffic stop and he wants to see the firearms (OLL), I would like to vid him. BTW, can he ask to see the firearms even if it's in the case locked?

5150-417
11-12-2007, 8:48 PM
Your required by law to let the officer check the weapons and make sure their legal and not loaded. 1st rule, officer safety! Oh and he won't ask, he'll command you.

CavTrooper
11-12-2007, 8:49 PM
I'm not 100% sure but i think you need permission from the department and city. I was talking to a torrance cop about just filming leo activity and he said while your in uniform your considered property of the city and would require a permit if your gonna film leo at work.

Property of the city would mean property of the people. Police are public servants, police have cameras mounted in thier vehicles, they have surrendered thier right to privacy.
A police officer that doesnt want to be filmed is a police officer that is doing something criminal.

mecam
11-12-2007, 8:51 PM
Your required by law to let the officer check the weapons and make sure their legal and not loaded. 1st rule, officer safety! Oh and he won't ask, he'll command you.

That's fine but I would like to vid him so he can't set me up. All it takes is some LEO who's having a bad day to **** with you and he can frame you for AW charges.

5150-417
11-12-2007, 8:58 PM
That's fine but I would like to vid him so he can't set me up. All it takes is some LEO who's having a bad day to **** with you and he can frame you for AW charges.

That's true, but all i know about filming leo is what i told you. What i would advice you to do if your a little paranoid about leo leave a tape recorder in your car and press record the minute you get pulled over.

Experimentalist
11-12-2007, 8:58 PM
I wonder about the validity of video evidence given advances in the state of video editing art.

It's common for sporting events to have information or advertisements placed where they do not exist in reality. And anyone who's been to a movie in the last few years has likely seen Luke Skywalker do flips in midair while cleaving the bad guys with a light-saber, etc.

How long until video editing can be done and not be caught through forensic analysis?

Wyatt
11-12-2007, 9:01 PM
I'm not 100% sure but i think you need permission from the department and city. I was talking to a torrance cop about just filming leo activity and he said while your in uniform your considered property of the city and would require a permit if your gonna film leo at work.

BS.
Anybody can be filmed, video taped, recorded in public. Period. They film you.

5150-417
11-12-2007, 9:04 PM
BS.
Anybody can be filmed, video taped, recorded in public. Period. They film you.

Okay well do us all a favor and film all leo activity in your city and show us what you filmed. Don't film from a distance where nobody can see you, make yourself visible. I would love to see how this ends

mecam
11-12-2007, 9:06 PM
What i would advice you to do if your a little paranoid about leo leave a tape recorder in your car and press record the minute you get pulled over.

That's the beauty of the Blackjack phone. It can do video, photo, and voice recording. :)

Bizcuits
11-12-2007, 9:06 PM
film leo at work.

Was referring to their tactics and ops, as they don't want the bad guys knowing what they do. It's why you can't take a video camera on a ride along. The show "COPS" they have permits to bring their cameras on ride alongs.

Wyatt
11-12-2007, 9:09 PM
Look, I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy, simply saying what the cop told you was wrong as I see it.
There are cameras on the the streets, you can go online and watch video of many many public places where people are driving, walking, etc.
You can video anything or anybody in public all you want.

kermit315
11-12-2007, 9:10 PM
just guessing it doesnt take a permit to film the outside of city hall. it is city property. if they are relegating themselves to city property, should be the same thing. if they are filming you i dont see how that can be a one way street, especially after that kid in missouri, and the officers tape coming up missing. if you tape each other, and his tape comes up missing, that is mighty suspicious, and if the tapes dont match, that would lead to a deeper investigation, i am sure.

bottom line, i am sure somebody will be along to post PC on the subject if their is any, however i would still try until you know otherwise if this is the route you want to take. getting to your camera without getting shot might be tricky though ( I thought he was going for a gun)


jamie

wilit
11-12-2007, 9:39 PM
My wife (works for the newspaper) says that in public, ANYONE can be filmed without required permission, even LEO's. This came up not too long ago at her work when on of their photographers was cuffed and detained by OPD while photographing an accident scene on 880. The legal department assured her the photographer was in the right, and no laws were broken by his conduct.

Now filming a movie is another story. That requires permits.

Wyatt
11-12-2007, 9:41 PM
Well, after some quick research it seems the answer is not so cut and dry and there is a lot of confusion on the subject. Perhaps someone who understand legal gibberish more than I can make some sense of all this?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638

632.(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Piper
11-12-2007, 9:51 PM
I'm not 100% sure but i think you need permission from the department and city. I was talking to a torrance cop about just filming leo activity and he said while your in uniform your considered property of the city and would require a permit if your gonna film leo at work.

Two words.....Bravo Sierra!

kermit315
11-12-2007, 9:57 PM
see, thats just the thing, if they are looking at you, talking to you and searching your vehicle, you are at that point a party to what is going on, right? so even with that PC cite, it would tell me that you could still film, especially in that case, because he has no expectation of privacy while he is searching your car and belongings. he is already (presumably) being recorded by his dash cam, so he doesnt really have the expectation that he will not be recorded anymore, that nullifies that argument.

IANAL, but seems pretty much like a gray area to me.

dfletcher
11-12-2007, 10:39 PM
I've been on the streets during many demonstrations in downtown SF as PD helped out at a few of our buildings. During virtually all these protests there are folks from the group video recording the police as they hook them up or move them out. I've never seen PD object or detain anyone as a result, they're used to it and I doubt it's illegal by itself.

Grouch
11-12-2007, 10:44 PM
anyone remember that kid who hooked up a camera in his car and filmed the cop going crazy and saying he would make up charges against him. Of course it's legal if it in on or in your property.

eta34
11-12-2007, 11:22 PM
Lets say a traffic stop and he wants to see the firearms (OLL), I would like to vid him. BTW, can he ask to see the firearms even if it's in the case locked?

Yes, we have discussed this before. If it is a gun case, locked or not, the officer is legally allowed to inspect the case and its contents without consent or warrant.

sholling
11-12-2007, 11:23 PM
I'm no lawyer but I've been around a tad. What I've seen here is a bit of good information and a lot of bad information. If you are in public you can film him or her. He/she might not like it but you have that right. Best to do it with a camera that's fixed to the inside of the car so that the officer cannot claim you were actively interfering with his/her duty. By shoving a camera in the officer's face you may provoke that claim. Just a few weeks a go there was a case (Chicago area?) where a kid video taped a sargent making a complete fool of himself at a checkpoint via a fixed video camera. I believe it led to disciplinary action.

As far as opening a locked case goes, you have a constitutional right to deny him/her permission to do anything but a weapons pat down on your person. That does not mean that he or she will not violate your rights and the law by breaking into your properly stored and locked gun case without probable cause or a warrant. It does mean that your lawyer will be able to make him look like the village idiot on the witness stand if they find anything. The important thing is to make sure that you are in compliance with the law and have that locked case inaccessible from the drivers compartment. It's also best to keep things respectful but limited to name rank and serial number and lovely weather we're having today officer.

Crazed_SS
11-12-2007, 11:26 PM
Where does the law say that the locked a case must be inaccessible to the driver's compartment? I throw handguns in a locked hardcase and sit the case on floor on the passenger side.

:confused:

EDIT: Also, I believe eta34 is correct on the gun case issue.

sholling
11-12-2007, 11:37 PM
Where does the law say that the locked a case must be inaccessible to the driver's compartment?

:confused:


It actually does not, but AFAIK that's how it's generally been enforced. The idea being that it's way too easy to slip a firearm into a gun case on the passenger seat if pulled over. But you are technically correct.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php

EDIT: Also, I believe eta34 is correct on the gun case issue.And I believe that the constitution trumps urban legend. As long as it is not readily accessible it is not a threat to the officer and not subject to search. A pistol in your trunk is not readily accessible. As a fine judge once said he was always amazed at the number of citations written for offenses that never existed in law outside of the officer's imagination.

eviioiive
11-12-2007, 11:37 PM
If you're the person being detained good luck whipping out a camera and filming...

Crazed_SS
11-12-2007, 11:53 PM
It actually does not, but AFAIK that's how it's generally been enforced. The idea being that it's way too easy to slip a firearm into a gun case on the passenger seat if pulled over. But you are technically correct.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php

And I believe that the constitution trumps urban legend. As long as it is not readily accessible it is not a threat to the officer and not subject to search. A pistol in your trunk is not readily accessible. As a fine judge once said he was always amazed at the number of citations written for offenses that never existed in law outside of the officer's imagination.

eta34 is a LEO. He knows his stuff.. i dont think he's just making stuff up.

LEOs can legally inspect firearms to make sure they're safe and unloaded. So, if you a cop peeks in the car and sees you have a gun case on the back seat or passenger floor, it's reasonable to believe their might be a gun in that gun case. In that case, the cop gets to look and inspect the gun.


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.

sholling
11-13-2007, 12:22 AM
eta34 is a LEO. He knows his stuff.. i dont think he's just making stuff up.

LEOs can legally inspect firearms to make sure they're safe and unloaded. So, if you a cop peeks in the car and sees you have a gun case on the back seat or passenger floor, it's reasonable to believe their might be a gun in that gun case. In that case, the cop gets to look and inspect the gun.


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.

In Terry v. Ohio the supreme court carved out a very narrow exception to the 4th amendment for pat down searches. If it is in a locked case outside of the passenger compartment they have zero right to search without probable cause. If it is accessible to the driver or passengers then yes they may check it. State law does not trump the constitution. What you just supplied is a direct violation of the 4th amendment accept where the weapon is readily accessible.

Edit: Please supply where "Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section" has withstood a federal challenge. This is like saying that refusal to grant an officer the right to do door to door inspections of all homes with internet connections for pornography gives them probable cause to arrest you as a child pornographer.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 12:45 AM
If you're the person being detained good luck whipping out a camera and filming...


That was my thought; if it aint already out and filming as he comes up to the car-- you're asking to get shot....or a quick facedown on the pavement....lettme know how pavement tastes m'kay???

But FWIW, I've always thought it was essential to both liberty and a free press (albeit they are stooooopid sometimes) to be able to film anything in public. But in reaching for ANYTHING while you're getting pulled over is just one more reason for the cops to think you're bein' hostile or evasive.

:pHEck, why not get out the CAMERA phone and snap a pick with the flash ON in the dead of night in the officer's direction....if you live through it, lettme know where to send the "Sux to be you" flowers and card.:cool:

Can Vs. Should........... a concept that always needs reattention.

eta34
11-13-2007, 4:34 AM
In Terry v. Ohio the supreme court carved out a very narrow exception to the 4th amendment for pat down searches. If it is in a locked case outside of the passenger compartment they have zero right to search without probable cause. If it is accessible to the driver or passengers then yes they may check it. State law does not trump the constitution. What you just supplied is a direct violation of the 4th amendment accept where the weapon is readily accessible.

Edit: Please supply where "Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section" has withstood a federal challenge. This is like saying that refusal to grant an officer the right to do door to door inspections of all homes with internet connections for pornography gives them probable cause to arrest you as a child pornographer.


Sorry Sholling, but you are dead wrong here. There is recent case law that has been discussed here regarding this issue. Basically, if a LEO observes what he sees as an articulable gun case, he may search the case without warrant and without your consent. This search does not apply to the vehicle, the driver, or any of the occupants. It simply applies to the gun case itself. Do a search and you will find the discussion of this issue.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 4:55 AM
Edit: Please supply where "Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section" has withstood a federal challenge. This is like saying that refusal to grant an officer the right to do door to door inspections of all homes with internet connections for pornography gives them probable cause to arrest you as a child pornographer.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=783737&postcount=13

from this thread

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=71391&highlight=Refusal

Federal challenge notwithstanding-You refuse champ...tell us how you like cafeteria style eatin' m'kay...........

pnkssbtz
11-13-2007, 9:45 AM
Well, after some quick research it seems the answer is not so cut and dry and there is a lot of confusion on the subject. Perhaps someone who understand legal gibberish more than I can make some sense of all this?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638\
PENAL CODE SECTION 630-638
632.(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

I can't figure out what the point of your quote is. It is clearly not what you think it means.


Wiretapping is not filming in public.

You've cited a wiretapping penal code. Any interaction IN PUBLIC between two people face to face is not a "confidential communication".

In order for the wiretapping effect to be made the officer must have a reasonable expectation of privacy AND you must be attempting to intercept the conversation without the consent/knowledge of the parties involved.


WIRE TAPPING IS NOT TAPING IN PUBLIC.


Geeze every time I see this topic come up someone cites wiretapping laws or DMCA protections for emails.

Gryff
11-13-2007, 9:55 AM
I studied Journalism, and what we were taught was that you can photograph without permission people on public property. What you can't do is photograph children in a way that makes them readily identifiable, and you may not be allowed to readily film in public for commercial purposes without a permit.

But as in anything else, the police can arrest you for whatever they feel like. They just can't charge and convict you.

-Jim

JawBone
11-13-2007, 9:55 AM
If you are filming for "profit" (movie, commercial, etc.) you will need a permit and each individuals' permission, even in public.

Here, filming in public for personal use or evidence, presumably on a city street, there is no expectation of privacy and you can film away.

This all assumes you are not sitting on the curb in handcuffs, which depending on the reason for the stop and your demeanor might be the likely result of your "whipping out a video camera."

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 11:10 AM
Lots of misinformation here from both sides.

A recent case (I forget the citation) has stated that you have the right to film or photograph persons in public because there is no expectation of privacy in public places (This was an "upskirt" case IIRC). People film and photograph LEO all the time and this activity is 100% LEGAL because LEO have no expectation of privacy while in uniform/on the job. The requirement to not film children's faces is bogus. You may not be allowed to film people for commercial or monetary purposes without their permission but photographing or filming children's faces is not illegal unless in connection with a court order or other legal proceeding involving a minor where state law prohibits the identification of the minor.

You do not have to have your handguns in locked cases in the trunk to be legal. One or the other is fine but the requirement for both is a myth. I regularly and legally transport firearms in my truck. There's no trunk in my truck so how do I get away with it? Simple, I put them in locked containers and either place them in the bed or in the cab with me. Both legal. You don't have to do either for long guns (except in school zones) just be positive sure that they're unloaded in either case. Since I travel through school zones, I have to have everything locked up. (BTW, this doesn't apply to ammo, just firearms.) Unresolved question is when the school is next to the interstate and someone just passes by with a truck gun in the rack - is this a violation of the school zone restriction? 50/50 on this particular issue.

LEO can stop you to verify that your firearms are unloaded IF HE SEES OR KNOWS ABOUT THEM. Besides visible weapons, this also includes firearms that are in locked cases which are CLEARLY VISIBLE and DISCERNIBLE as a firearm in a case. They cannot order you to open your trunk and then order you to open locked containers in the trunk even if the container is labeled "gun inside". This would constitute a "search" and would require a warrant (absent exigent circumstances or another exception). (You want to test this: carry an EMPTY and locked gun case which is clearly a gun case in downtown SF or LA. IF you're stopped, deny you've got a firearm in the case. LEO will still open the case which is a violation of your 4th amendment rights and you can sue him for it. You won't win much, if anything, but you can test the constitutionality of the statute this way.)

Terry v. Ohio only applies to your person and immediate and accessible surroundings. It is limited to a surface pat check for weapons and the officer is required to be able to articulate how anything he discovers is/or could be a "weapon" (ie: 'soft' nondescript items cannot be "weapons"). Terry by itself does NOT allow an officer to search your car's trunk or open locked containers inside the trunk.

Anyone is entitled to dispute what I've written here. However, the courts tend to write opinions which I've followed in the outline above. If you're doing the above and LEO arrests you for it, find a good lawyer and prepare to retire to the tropics on the damages you'll be paid afterwards.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 11:57 AM
(You want to test this: carry an EMPTY and locked gun case which is clearly a gun case in downtown SF or LA. IF you're stopped, deny you've got a firearm in the case. LEO will still open the case which is a violation of your 4th amendment rights and you can sue him for it. You won't win much, if anything, but you can test the constitutionality of the statute this way.)

I disagree with you on this point. The Supreme Court in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 764 held that there is no Fourth Amendment protection in an obvious gun case, so opening one cannot be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Also see People v. Green, 115 Cal.App.3d 359:


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. (citations omitted) It is not entitled to the full protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.


Anyone is entitled to dispute what I've written here. However, the courts tend to write opinions which I've followed in the outline above.

The above is how they have written cases. If they tend to write otherwise, I would welcome the relevant caselaw or citations.

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 1:29 PM
I said "if you want to test this . . . " in my post.

Posit this: IF you're carrying an EMPTY Ruger 10/22 cardboard rifle box down the sidewalk does LEO have the right to demand you open it? Even if you say there's nothing in the box? What if there are only roses in the box? Or an inflatable love doll because you're too embarrassed to carry the love doll without a concealing container?

So, LEO gets to open the box based on what? The printing on the box and Green? As soon as you say that there's no firearm in the box, then PC and the statutory authority disappear because they cannot open a case/box to inspect a firearm which doesn't exist.

The statute says that they can inspect the FIREARM. It doesn't give authority to open a locked case or cardboard box.

Sanders doesn't help because the definition is too vague as to what constitutes a "gun case." The fact that people use different containers as "gun cases" defies a definite description. Therefore the only basis for the demand to open the box is that it has printing on it which reflects it original contents and which may, or may not, still be inside. Thus the general holding of no expectation of privacy is insufficient as a general rule because unless the box is actually being USED as a gun case then it is NOT a gun case and a warrant is required to open it exterior labels/printing notwithstanding.

"If you want to test this" still applies because there is some arguable point that ANYTHING can be a gun case and the printing on it's surface is no indication of it's contents. Even if it says "gun case" on it, unless it's being used as one it NOT a "gun case" and LEO have no authority to demand you open it without a warrant.

Case in point - People carry guns in briefcases all the time. Does that make them "gun cases" and if so can LEO just arbitrarily demand you open it to inspect the firearm? It's an open question and neither Green nor Sanders answers it.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 1:56 PM
The way I read Green is that you have no expectation of privacy in a gun case. In other words, an obvious gun case equals a gun in plain sight. If an LEO sees a gun in plain sight he can check it to see if it is loaded? Yes.

So then, what is an obvious gun case? Good question. In my mind what qualifies are those cases sold in your average Big-5 gun case section. (examples: Doskocills, Camo cases shaped like rifles, those with "Colt" printed on the side, those with magazine pouches on the outside, and triangular leather zippered handgun cases as in Green). Honestly, I, as a reasonable gun owner know a gun case when I see it. When my neighbor loads up his trunk with gun cases, I'm pretty sure what he is putting in there. So, I think if one is carrying an "obvious gun case" Green says LEO can open it.

The "Test" case I would like to see...and the one I would fight...is the opening of a Pelican Case (which often hold firearms, but also very often holds camera, electronic equipment, etc.). I don't think a Pelican qualifies under the Green test. Also, I think Green is pretty clear that a backpack/briefcase is not a guncase.

Gryff
11-13-2007, 2:16 PM
Posit this: IF you're carrying an EMPTY Ruger 10/22 cardboard rifle box down the sidewalk does LEO have the right to demand you open it? Even if you say there's nothing in the box? What if there are only roses in the box? Or an inflatable love doll because you're too embarrassed to carry the love doll without a concealing container?

So, LEO gets to open the box based on what? The printing on the box and Green? As soon as you say that there's no firearm in the box, then PC and the statutory authority disappear because they cannot open a case/box to inspect a firearm which doesn't exist.

The statute says that they can inspect the FIREARM. It doesn't give authority to open a locked case or cardboard box.

So, my question is whether the judge will or will not visibly laugh out loud when you explain that a Ruger 10/22 box is no different than a backpack, and therefore not subject to the "articulation" criteria.

I believe that articulation should not be allowed to cover gym bags, backpacks, briefcases, etc. But I think that a retail firearm box isn't even close to being the same thing, and I wouldn't blame a cop for wanting to check it if you were walking down the street in my town.

And, as I understand it, once the LEO does articulate that a gun might be present, he/she DOES have the authority to open your locked container or cardboard box.

-Jim

4 Brigada
11-13-2007, 2:28 PM
So, my question is whether the judge will or will not visibly laugh out loud when you explain that a Ruger 10/22 box is no different than a backpack, and therefore not subject to the "articulation" criteria.


My question is does the box look like a 10/22 or is it a rectangular shipping box. Cause Im not a lawyer. How does the officer know there is a gun in there, even if the box says Ruger.Because of CA law, a handgun has to be transported in a approved lockable box. So by requiring this, by default the officer can search?

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 2:44 PM
And, as I understand it, once the LEO does articulate that a gun might be present, he/she DOES have the authority to open your locked container or cardboard box.-Jim

The issue isn't whether they have the apparent authority to open the container. The issue is whether they can open ANY container on the premise that it could contain a firearm and that this is permissible under Sanders/Green/et al irrespective of the 4th amendment.

Based on your statement, if the officer can articulate "It looks like a gun case to me" then he can open even an opaque Pelican case (as in the previous post), or guitar case, or cardboard "moving box", gym bag, purse, or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter so long as he utters the secret/magic words. The shape, size, printing, etc is irrelevant just as long as the officer says "it looks like a gun case".

So, the REAL issue is whether the officer can prove in court that he had an honest & good faith belief that the case in question was a gun case based on the particular facts and circumstances of the stop/search. Which is totally vague and unconstitutional as well as being bad law. It places the decision as to what is and what isn't a 'gun case' in the hands of the police instead of the legislature/courts. It doesn't provide any guidance to the gen pop as to what is/is not illegal. It also doesn't provide any guidance to LEO as to what they can/cannot do in this regard. So the result is that LEO "wings it" and the people pay for it in lost rights and freedoms.

This is what happens the the court decides cases based on 2 rules of thumb. (Follow the money and protect the status quo). In civil cases, money trumps everything including an adverse judgment (called "remittitur" or a reduction in the judgment award). In criminal cases, defendants go to and stay in jail even if they committed no crime because it's better to be safe than sorry.

Carrying an empty Ruger box is not a crime and should not result in a heightened scrutiny and loss of freedoms.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 3:01 PM
Rob P.
So, the REAL issue is whether the officer can prove in court that he had an honest & good faith belief that the case in question was a gun case based on the particular facts and circumstances of the stop/search. Which is totally vague and unconstitutional as well as being bad law.

I read the Green case to say that the officer must objectively believe it to be a gun case. Not only must the officer believe it but he must reasonably believe it. Any test is going to apply that standard.

The Court isn't going to take an officer at his word just because he can describe "an honest and good faith belief..." "I believed that the Watermelon contained a gun because in my experience Watermelons always contain guns, so I hacked it open and therein I found..." Not going to fly.

There will be some external analysis. A backpack/briefcase is not even close. A Pelican case is closer, but not good enough. It has to be a gun case.

Gryff
11-13-2007, 3:01 PM
The issue isn't whether they have the apparent authority to open the container. The issue is whether they can open ANY container on the premise that it could contain a firearm and that this is permissible under Sanders/Green/et al irrespective of the 4th amendment.

Based on your statement, if the officer can articulate "It looks like a gun case to me" then he can open even an opaque Pelican case (as in the previous post), or guitar case, or cardboard "moving box", gym bag, purse, or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter so long as he utters the secret/magic words. The shape, size, printing, etc is irrelevant just as long as the officer says "it looks like a gun case".

.......

Carrying an empty Ruger box is not a crime and should not result in a heightened scrutiny and loss of freedoms.

Nope, that's not at all what I said. What I DID say was that what is obviously the retail box for a firearm could lead just about ANYBODY to believe that a gun was inside, thus giving the LEO the valid right to articulate a firearm's presence.

I also specifically said that such a container is not a backpack. The fact that a container is big enough to hold a gun does not (and rightfully so) articulate that a firearm is present. I believe that the retail box for a firearm does (and should) articulate a weapon's presence. And remember, if you decide to try to prove me wrong, don't bother asking me to contribute to your legal defense fund.

Carrying a Ruger retail box is not a crime. But if the courts say the cop had the right to suspect you had a gun present, then telling the LEO "No" to their request to inspect the container is a crime.

Now, if you want to move away from the ridiculous, I wonder what protections we have if seen carrying a gym bag or messenger bag that says "Ruger" or "Smith & Wesson" on it. In that situation, than I am in full agreement that LEOs should not have the right to assume a weapon is present.

-Jim

pnkssbtz
11-13-2007, 3:18 PM
I read the Green case to say that the officer must objectively believe it to be a gun case. Not only must the officer believe it but he must reasonably believe it. Any test is going to apply that standard.

The Court isn't going to take an officer at his word just because he can describe "an honest and good faith belief..." "I believed that the Watermelon contained a gun because in my experience Watermelons always contain guns, so I hacked it open and therein I found..." Not going to fly.

There will be some external analysis. A backpack/briefcase is not even close. A Pelican case is closer, but not good enough. It has to be a gun case.
Please show me where it says "objectively believe" in the green case. You and I have had discussions over this issue before. And it is not quite "cut and dry" as alluded too. Morever there are no constraints whatsoever placed upon what can and cannot be construed as a "gun case" in the Green case.

The sole basis for the officers belief that a firearm was contained in the case was "on the basis of his own personal familiarity with gun cases, identified the case immediately in his mind as being what it was."


The premises you have used in contrary with me in the past on this issue has been that an of what is most likely and probable. However I always pointed out that this ruling and interpretation as it stands allows for unmitigated ambiguity and complete lack of definition.

We both agree that in most cases an officer will act prudently as you or I would agree on what is and is not a "gun case". That is not the issue. All it takes is one zealous individual and they can abuse the loophole allowed for bypassing Search and Seizure law.

4 Brigada
11-13-2007, 3:18 PM
Well, after reading this, a plain cardboard box big enough to carry a gun is grounds for any LEO to search it. So if that box is in my vehicle, can my vehicle can be subject to search? If this is so yesterday was the last time my guns went anywere in a gun case. Funny anybody have violin case :laugh:

G17GUY
11-13-2007, 4:10 PM
Okay well do us all a favor and film all leo activity in your city and show us what you filmed. Don't film from a distance where nobody can see you, make yourself visible. I would love to see how this ends

This guy does it, and it is not aginst the law.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyJustice4753

Shotgun Man
11-13-2007, 4:19 PM
Carrying a Ruger retail box is not a crime. But if the courts say the cop had the right to suspect you had a gun present, then telling the LEO "No" to their request to inspect the container is a crime.

-Jim

Is it is a crime per se to tell the LEO "no"? Saying "no" gives rise to the probable cause to arrest you for a violation of P.C. 12031. After you say no, the officer arrests you, searches the box, and then lets you go.

Once it's determined that your gun isn't loaded, they can't charge you with a crime, can they?

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.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 4:29 PM
Please show me where it says "objectively believe" in the green case. You and I have had discussions over this issue before. And it is not quite "cut and dry" as alluded too. Morever there are no constraints whatsoever placed upon what can and cannot be construed as a "gun case" in the Green case.

I am sure we will agree to disagree again,:) and I respect your opinion but I just don't read Green that way.
My reasoning is based upon the Court's reasoning - it is a gun case because it's outward appearance advertises the contents. If you do not have that, then you do not have a gun case. Is it cut and dry? No. Make your own judgments - I do. If my guns are in what I consider gun cases they are in the trunk. If they are in an SUV, then they are covered with a blanket. And they are all being transported legally, I just don't like to be searched anymore than necessary.

Practically speaking is this whole discussion academic? Yes. Can the rare bad LEO search through your backpack/car/house illegally and without cause for any reason at any time? Of course.

Here is how this affects me in the real world:

If I get pulled over and some LEO tells me "I need to search your briefcase/backpack on your passenger seat because I believe it is a gun case, Even if my gun is in the backpack, I will tell him, "No I do not consent to your search, I refuse to cooperate with any search. If you proceed you are about to conduct an illegal search of my property in violation of my fourth amendment rights. Am I free to go?"

If I get pulled over and for some reason the blanket has fallen off of my Colt Gun Case with the external magazine pockets and the LEO says, "Sir I need to look at the gun in your gun case to ensure that it it not loaded." Then I will comply and *hopefully* be on my merry way.

DIG
11-13-2007, 4:42 PM
LEOs can legally inspect firearms to make sure they're safe and unloaded. So, if you a cop peeks in the car and sees you have a gun case on the back seat or passenger floor, it's reasonable to believe their might be a gun in that gun case. In that case, the cop gets to look and inspect the gun.

I don't like to complicate things. For me, everything goes in the "trunk". It's covered and out of site. This gives the officer NO excuse to search, period. My vehicle is spotless inside. Nothing on the seats, on the floor, etc... That's just my preference. I don't worry about searches because of this.

Wyatt
11-13-2007, 4:45 PM
Although most interesting and educational, this thread has gone way off track as the OP wanted to know if LEO can be video taped.

This guy does it, and it is not aginst the law.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyJustice4753

pnkssbtz
11-13-2007, 5:07 PM
I am sure we will agree to disagree again,:) and I respect your opinion but I just don't read Green that way.
My reasoning is based upon the Court's reasoning - it is a gun case because it's outward appearance advertises the contents. If you do not have that, then you do not have a gun case. Is it cut and dry? No. Make your own judgments - I do. If my guns are in what I consider gun cases they are in the trunk. If they are in an SUV, then they are covered with a blanket. And they are all being transported legally, I just don't like to be searched anymore than necessary.
My contention is that the conclusion you are stating "is a gun case because it's outward appearance advertises the contents" (Which I will go on the record of saying I agree with this statement isolated from the discussion at hand) is not a conclusion that I can find in the Green case.

The ruling and statement by the justice on the inferred contents of the gun case is irrespective of defining the item as a gun case for purposes of allowing for inspection under the PC code for safe transporting.

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.This is not stating that it is a gun case because of the probable contents, but that IF it's probable contents are that of a firearm, then it has no reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.

No where does the ruling say that because its contents are inferred from its outward appearance, any such container thusly falls under the definition of a "Gun Case".


Ergo, if an officer can articulate that he has reason to believe the probable contents of a case, SAID CASE LOSES ANY PRIVACY PROTECTIONS, thus no warrant is needed to search.

This is dangerous logic and is ripe with the potential of abuse if applied to non-firearm areas... such as searching "crusty backpacks" for drugs and paraphernalia.


Practically speaking is this whole discussion academic? Yes. Can the rare bad LEO search through your backpack/car/house illegally and without cause for any reason at any time? Of course.Except that this ruling allows for a legal loophole so they can do this, which should be illegal, LEGALLY.

Here is how this affects me in the real world:

If I get pulled over and some LEO tells me "I need to search your briefcase/backpack on your passenger seat because I believe it is a gun case, Even if my gun is in the backpack, I will tell him, "No I do not consent to your search, I refuse to cooperate with any search. If you proceed you are about to conduct an illegal search of my property in violation of my fourth amendment rights. Am I free to go?"

If I get pulled over and for some reason the blanket has fallen off of my Colt Gun Case with the external magazine pockets and the LEO says, "Sir I need to look at the gun in your gun case to ensure that it it not loaded." Then I will comply and *hopefully* be on my merry way.Proof by example = flawed. This is one of many possibilities, and the most likely, but by no means the totality of what is possible. Laws should not be passed and discussed based upon what is most likely to be the case of their application, but the extremes that can be derived from the impractical use and application in extreme cases.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 5:09 PM
I don't like to complicate things. For me, everything goes in the "trunk". It's covered and out of site. This gives the officer NO excuse to search, period. My vehicle is spotless inside. Nothing on the seats, on the floor, etc... That's just my preference. I don't worry about searches because of this.


As I said pretty much with the other fella'...you go with that; When he asks if there's anything in the car, keep quiet or deny the whole thing...and then WHEN//IF he does find probably cause to search your vehicle and discovers you were lying (and omission IS lying)............. You let us know how it is talking to mom and the SO through plate glass and recorded conversations m'kay?

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much sidewalk semantics goin' on here.

I will be amongst the first to say I've got nothing to hide but plenty to protect. Feel free to play sidewalk attorny with them semantics about a cop being "reasonable" in his suspecion about you hiding something from him..he will sniff it out; its his job to do so & unless he's a n00b or you're a professional liar he'll catch you at it....

If you're LEGALLY carrying a gun...dont hide it, dont monkey with the established process. And for God-sakes be a PRO-gun person. I've said it here and on other boards...I aint EVER been hassled by cops about my guns when I've been 100% up front and honest that they are in the vehicle; and for a verrrrrrry few exceptions- they will ASK if its unloaded...then ASK if they may check; and the majority of the time they will NOT check if you just gave them permission to do so. I dont care if you're dressed nice (BTDT), dressed in camo (BTDT), or dressed like some long haired thug (BTDT X 1000). Life got a WHOLE lot easier with a CCW and you speak up about THAT when the conversation(s) turn towards you exiting the vehicle (for whatever reason) or when asked about guns/weapons (for whatever reason). The times that the officer HAS actually gone to check I asked them SPECIFICALLY what would make them more comfy--with me staying put or putting me into the back of thier car WHILE they checked. One asked if I MINDED being cuffed while he searched:eek: but I said heck no, he started to cuff me with hands in the rear and then decided the front (I guess) was more appropriate. He checked and immediately relased me. I DONT FAULT the cop .0000001% for being....reasonable-- it WAS a dark place in the middle of nowhere; he didn't know me and I sure as heck didn't know him. You can argue ALL you want about the legality of the stop...I had one headlight DIMMER than the other:cool: but getting "Cute" with the cop during the stop aint gonna win you brownie points with playing Know it all..........

Save the jockeyin' and semantics for a courtroom if it ever comes to that; the cop already has a dangerous enough job without you playing rights-acivists whilst he pulled you over for something.....

Plain and simple; if you are carrying LEGALLY you aint got nothing to fear save your own actions and your own mouth about you own actions. If you aint carrying legal....then I cant help you & really dont want much to do with you here on this forum or in person.

I provided the link back to the previous thread about this; it IS the law to allow an officer to check your firearm whether he can see the weapon or not. You just keep thinking you can play hide& seek with the cops...pretty sure you'll be playing a different version of it with your cell mates awaiting your trial 'cause you couldn't just man up to what you were carrying or what you were doin'.

AKman
11-13-2007, 7:19 PM
Sorry Sholling, but you are dead wrong here. There is recent case law that has been discussed here regarding this issue. Basically, if a LEO observes what he sees as an articulable gun case, he may search the case without warrant and without your consent. This search does not apply to the vehicle, the driver, or any of the occupants. It simply applies to the gun case itself. Do a search and you will find the discussion of this issue.

So, throw a blanket over the gun case and there is no issue. If a LEO asks what is under the blanket, well a warrant is required.

eta34
11-13-2007, 8:36 PM
Exactly. If there is not gun case to see, there will be no need to look inside it. By the way, feel free to tape me all you want. It doesn't bother me. It keeps everyone involved honest...I tape all of my stops as well.

cadurand
11-14-2007, 9:03 AM
Taping in public is all up to the cop. I was taping a "Reclaim The Steets" event in Down Town Palo Alto once and a cop told me stop taping and he used the wiretapping law already cited here. He said I could tape the video but not the audio because that was an invasion of privacy.

I stopped taping that particular cop because I didn't feel like arguing with him and having to fight things in court. Right or wrong it wasn't worth the hassle.

pnkssbtz
11-14-2007, 9:41 AM
Taping in public is all up to the cop. I was taping a "Reclaim The Steets" event in Down Town Palo Alto once and a cop told me stop taping and he used the wiretapping law already cited here. He said I could tape the video but not the audio because that was an invasion of privacy.

I stopped taping that particular cop because I didn't feel like arguing with him and having to fight things in court. Right or wrong it wasn't worth the hassle.No. NO. NO!

Taping a public official in public acting in their official capacity IS NOT UP TO THE COP. PERIOD. Q.E.D.

WIRETAPPING LAWS ARE ONLY APPLICABLE IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO RECORD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS.


While on a street filming a cop:

1.) You are not in a location where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy.

2.) An Public Official, acting in an official capacity has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while action in said official capacity in public.

3.) You may photograph, video record or audio record in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy anyone provided you do not use it for commercial purposes.



The Cop citing wiretapping laws is like me threatening a would be robber attempting to steal my computer for copyright theft.

cadurand
11-14-2007, 12:30 PM
No. NO. NO!

Taping a public official in public acting in their official capacity IS NOT UP TO THE COP. PERIOD. Q.E.D.

WIRETAPPING LAWS ARE ONLY APPLICABLE IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO RECORD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS.


While on a street filming a cop:

1.) You are not in a location where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy.

2.) An Public Official, acting in an official capacity has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while action in said official capacity in public.

3.) You may photograph, video record or audio record in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy anyone provided you do not use it for commercial purposes.



The Cop citing wiretapping laws is like me threatening a would be robber attempting to steal my computer for copyright theft.Yeah, well it wasn't something I cared to fight about. The cop seemed serious and I didn't want to find out if he was willing to go as far as arresting me and/or damaging my camera.

My point was/is I knew the cop was wrong at the time but sometimes that doesn't matter. I've yet to see someone change a cop's mind by arguing with the cop. You might prove you were right later but you'll end up in hand cuffs while you're proving your point.

It's like arguing with the umpire. They ain't changing their mind no matter how right you are.

Wyatt
11-14-2007, 1:15 PM
Thank you cadurand for putting this thread back on topic.

No. NO. NO!

Taping a public official in public acting in their official capacity IS NOT UP TO THE COP. PERIOD. Q.E.D.

WIRETAPPING LAWS ARE ONLY APPLICABLE IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO RECORD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS.


While on a street filming a cop:

1.) You are not in a location where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy.

2.) An Public Official, acting in an official capacity has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while action in said official capacity in public.

3.) You may photograph, video record or audio record in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy anyone provided you do not use it for commercial purposes.



The Cop citing wiretapping laws is like me threatening a would be robber attempting to steal my computer for copyright theft.

And thank you pnkssbtz for affirming my understanding of the laws.

Patriot
11-14-2007, 4:59 PM
I'd imagine videotaping police when they don't want to be videotaped could conceivably result in obstruction, interference, or misc. charges... :eek:

pnkssbtz
11-14-2007, 5:54 PM
I'd imagine videotaping police when they don't want to be videotaped could conceivably result in obstruction, interference, or misc. charges... :eek:

Could you explain how recording a situation obstructs it?


Now, if you are getting "In their face" with camera's and microphones yes.


But standing a several yards back with a camera? Not a chance.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(2) Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every
person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes,
or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over
a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Every person who, during the commission of any offense
described in subdivision (a), removes or takes any weapon, other than
a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public
officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.
(c) Every person who, during the commission of any offense
described in subdivision (a), removes or takes a firearm from the
person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace
officer shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding
subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes
without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or
take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public
officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the
performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state
prison.
In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution
shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove
or take the firearm by demonstrating that any of the following
direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:
(1) The officer's holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.
(2) The firearm was partially removed from the officer's holster
by the defendant.
(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(4) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated
that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant
actually touched the firearm.
(5) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant
actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the
firearm away from the officer who was holding it.
(6) The defendant's fingerprint was found on the firearm or
holster.
(7) Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable
procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.
(8) In the course of any struggle, the officer's firearm fell and
the defendant attempted to pick it up.
(e) A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision
(a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b),
(c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the
removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was
committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or
emergency medical technician. A person may be convicted of multiple
violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace
officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.
(f) This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace
officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in
a criminal act.

I fail to see how recording police from a distance interferes with his ability to discharge his duties or delays an officer any different than regular bystanders watching what was going on.

Because one bystander has a camera they are singled out against the other bystanders as some how interfering when the others are not?


"Obstructing an Officer of the Law" is a catch phrase people like to throw out, but not many realize it is limited in its scope.

Shotgun Man
11-14-2007, 5:58 PM
Could you explain how recording a situation obstructs it?


Now, if you are getting "In their face" with camera's and microphones yes.


But standing a several yards back with a camera? Not a chance.



I fail to see how recording police from a distance interferes with his ability to discharge his duties or delays an officer any different than regular bystanders watching what was going on.

Because one bystander has a camera they are singled out against the other bystanders as some how interfering when the others are not?


"Obstructing an Officer of the Law" is a catch phrase people like to throw out, but not many realize it is limited in its scope.

I think it would be unheard of to bring a PC 148(a) prosecution on a camerman unobtrusively videotaping a cop.

newtothis
11-14-2007, 6:01 PM
Saw it happening in Berkeley. LEO didn't mind. Apparently an org (don't remember the name) listens to dispatch and scrambles to any police activity and starts taping. This was just a fender bender.

Patriot
11-14-2007, 6:37 PM
"Obstructing an Officer of the Law" is a catch phrase people like to throw out, but not many realize it is limited in its scope.

It would seem to be a catch phrase LEOs throw out from time to time as well:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/08/pa_1983_win_for.html
http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/may/21/3-at-bar-accused-of-videotaping-officers/
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html

jester
11-14-2007, 6:38 PM
Look, I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy, simply saying what the cop told you was wrong as I see it.
There are cameras on the the streets, you can go online and watch video of many many public places where people are driving, walking, etc.
You can video anything or anybody in public all you want.

Until some jack***** with a little authority doesn't want to be taped.
He'll just charge you with obstructing, and then who are they gonna believe?

It seems I posted too late.

DIG
11-15-2007, 1:53 PM
As I said pretty much with the other fella'...you go with that; When he asks if there's anything in the car, keep quiet or deny the whole thing...and then WHEN//IF he does find probably cause to search your vehicle and discovers you were lying (and omission IS lying)............. You let us know how it is talking to mom and the SO through plate glass and recorded conversations m'kay?

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much sidewalk semantics goin' on here.

I will be amongst the first to say I've got nothing to hide but plenty to protect. Feel free to play sidewalk attorny with them semantics about a cop being "reasonable" in his suspecion about you hiding something from him..he will sniff it out; its his job to do so & unless he's a n00b or you're a professional liar he'll catch you at it....

If you're LEGALLY carrying a gun...dont hide it, dont monkey with the established process. And for God-sakes be a PRO-gun person. I've said it here and on other boards...I aint EVER been hassled by cops about my guns when I've been 100% up front and honest that they are in the vehicle; and for a verrrrrrry few exceptions- they will ASK if its unloaded...then ASK if they may check; and the majority of the time they will NOT check if you just gave them permission to do so. I dont care if you're dressed nice (BTDT), dressed in camo (BTDT), or dressed like some long haired thug (BTDT X 1000). Life got a WHOLE lot easier with a CCW and you speak up about THAT when the conversation(s) turn towards you exiting the vehicle (for whatever reason) or when asked about guns/weapons (for whatever reason). The times that the officer HAS actually gone to check I asked them SPECIFICALLY what would make them more comfy--with me staying put or putting me into the back of thier car WHILE they checked. One asked if I MINDED being cuffed while he searched:eek: but I said heck no, he started to cuff me with hands in the rear and then decided the front (I guess) was more appropriate. He checked and immediately relased me. I DONT FAULT the cop .0000001% for being....reasonable-- it WAS a dark place in the middle of nowhere; he didn't know me and I sure as heck didn't know him. You can argue ALL you want about the legality of the stop...I had one headlight DIMMER than the other:cool: but getting "Cute" with the cop during the stop aint gonna win you brownie points with playing Know it all..........

Save the jockeyin' and semantics for a courtroom if it ever comes to that; the cop already has a dangerous enough job without you playing rights-acivists whilst he pulled you over for something.....

Plain and simple; if you are carrying LEGALLY you aint got nothing to fear save your own actions and your own mouth about you own actions. If you aint carrying legal....then I cant help you & really dont want much to do with you here on this forum or in person.

I provided the link back to the previous thread about this; it IS the law to allow an officer to check your firearm whether he can see the weapon or not. You just keep thinking you can play hide& seek with the cops...pretty sure you'll be playing a different version of it with your cell mates awaiting your trial 'cause you couldn't just man up to what you were carrying or what you were doin'.

Not quite sure where that came from but... :confused:
...it is perfectly legal to transport firearms in the trunk of your vehicle and it does not make someone a dishonest person. No one said anything about keeping quiet or lying to a LEO about transporting firearms.

You missed the point completely. It's simple, if there is nothing laying around the vehicle to warrant a search, why would the LEO even ask to search?
On the flipside, if you have a gun case, or a box of ammo in his line of sight, that would get his attention. Rolling papers on the floor board, again, he is going to ask questions. From the posts that I've read here, no one said to lie or not comply with an officers questions. That's just stupidity IMO.

Though it was unneccesary, I give you bonus points for the passionate and entertaining rant.:D

metalhead357
11-15-2007, 5:16 PM
Not quite sure where that came from but... :confused:

it came from several posts up where it began

Is it is a crime per se to tell the LEO "no"? Saying "no" gives rise to the probable cause to arrest you for a violation of P.C. 12031. After you say no, the officer arrests you, searches the box, and then lets you go.
.

as this issue comes up a lot.

You missed the point completely. It's simple, if there is nothing laying around the vehicle to warrant a search, why would the LEO even ask to search?


Dunno, but BTDT more than a dozen times; part of thier stop-procedure as far as I know; I've been asked EVERY time I've been stopped if there are any weapons, drugs or whatevers in the car....EVERY time, even back in the day with just a learner's permit:eek:


Though it was unneccesary, I give you bonus points for the passionate and entertaining rant.:D

LOL! :)thanks, I do tend to ramble..I thought it was on point ((to at least one issue herein......but then again it wouldn't be the first time I've inadvertantly diverged a thread:cool:)).....but either way- Back ta' threading:)