PDA

View Full Version : Officer Friendly wants to check if my firearm is loaded


falawful
11-13-2007, 10:49 PM
I find it completely repugnant that somehow excercising your 2nd amendment rights somehow diminishes your 4th amendment rights.

Something I've been thinking about in the few threads of late that have referenced the police's "right" (or rather, power) to do a "safety" inspection of FIREARMS to make sure FIREARMS are not being transported loaded is... if there is a way to "not ever go there".

The way that I am thinking about this is that there was some PCxxxx code that defined a firearm. Furthermore that a firearm in its disassembled state was NOT A FIREARM (if memory serves). So if you disassemble it, you are no longer transporting a FIREARM and none of the BS inspection laws apply, right?

Furthermore, lying to the police is unwise. Wouldn't this approach allow one to honestly answer 'No' to the "are there any guns in the car" question? Which would further avoid any more probing in that area...

dondo
11-13-2007, 10:54 PM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?

Bobula
11-13-2007, 10:57 PM
I have been, during hunting season, while in camo. And once coming home from the range with long rifles cases in plain sight.

falawful
11-13-2007, 11:10 PM
I've been asked many times, but not in this state. Haven't been pulled over (knock wood).

Last time was I was in a car that was pulled over it was kind of funny. I was with a few friends in MI. When the guy asked if we had any firearms in the car you should have seen him pause when we said "Oh yes! We have some rifles, some pistols, some shotguns, some more rifles, and some more pistols!" He was a bit suprised and asked what are you guys doing with all that?! We are assassinating watermelons, sir. Cop chuckles, ok, getoutta here, and SLOW DOWN!

I've never previously had a predisposition to be anything less than totally truthful with a cop on a traffic stop, but this whole 'safety' inspection thing, and what happened to that Cowin fella has made me reconsider.

Rob P.
11-14-2007, 9:59 AM
Under the Penal Code, a firearm is the 'receiver' portion of the weapon which is the portion of the weapon that bears the serial number. If you disassembled the weapon to it's component parts (detail strip) the officer STILL has the right to demand that he inspect the receiver to check that it's unloaded if you have the weapon in public.

edbon9
11-14-2007, 10:00 AM
I've been asked if I have firearms on several occasions, but didn't have any in the car. So a no was sufficient. I have been checked by F&G while hunting, once at the end of the trip I had to take a lot of the stuff out so he could check that a sidearm was unloaded ( it was locked in a case, but he still wanted to see it)

N6ATF
11-14-2007, 12:43 PM
What pisses me off is the Montclair mall incident, where the safety inspection wasn't done IMMEDIATELY. If they don't immediately do this, what should you say?

"Sir/ma'am, I'm not sure if I unloaded my gun. Can you please check before there is an accidental discharge?"

AJAX22
11-14-2007, 2:14 PM
"Sir/ma'am, I'm not sure if I unloaded my gun. Can you please check before there is an accidental discharge?"

"but be carefull, its got a hair trigger, I only shoot hot loaded ammunition and there's a squib stuck in the barrel" ;)

metalhead357
11-14-2007, 5:32 PM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?


HA! BTDT tooooooooo many times....and NOT counting the F&G guys.

From the other thread


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=834120&postcount=52

artherd
11-14-2007, 11:11 PM
I absolutely have been asked, and I always respond, truthfully: "There is no contraband of any sort in this vehicle".

WolfMansDad
11-15-2007, 9:56 AM
Welcome to calguns, falawful! Great post.

I have not been asked in California, but I find this law offensive as well. Somebody ought to try and challenge it on fourth (or fifth) amendment grounds, but it would have to be done very carefully. The California RKBA movement has a bad history of "cowbody" court cases challenging bad firearms laws.

4 Brigada
11-15-2007, 10:12 AM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?


By a LEO, in a traffic stop never, guess I dont look scary enough:laugh:. I have been asked by F&G to check the gun and my license, as its their right by the issue of a hunting permit or license.

StukaJr
11-15-2007, 11:39 AM
What's the difference between friendly and unfriendly on-duty cops again? Aren't both still doing their job?

IF LEO asks you to inspect your transported firearms - you have already been talking about and consenting to things you shouldn't have been, so if you are that deep... Stop digging? :) Some vehicles are harder to keep such matters private - open bed of a truck, missing hatchback trunk covers etc... But even with that - a traffic stop should not entail details of your activities unless it's clearly visible and too obvious to the officer making the stop.

You are consenting to a search of the vehicle without a warrant - not sure of the definition, but it's the more detail search than a "frisk" but less thorough than a detailed vehicle search... How you got there, would probably be a better start to avoiding unnecessary attention...

That said, make sure your firearms are always legal for transport - there are too many private and government facilities where your vehicle is subject to search, now a days...

falawful
11-15-2007, 5:46 PM
No difference b/t friendly and unfriendly. Just slang for cops.

The post was not to have an excuse to blab to any policemen about anything during a traffic stop. My first instinct when they ask what's in the car is "None of your damn buisness!". Realistically though, that approach has the potential to make one's day rather long, and any traffic citation quite encompassing. To boil the post down to the question originally posed:
Is according to California law, a disassembled firearm still a firearm?

This would be analogous to the AW thing where a disassembled AW is not an AW, because in its disassembled state it is not semi-automatic. Or in the case where the chamber is separate from the serial numbered part, centerfire. For any of you getting ready to reply that the serialized part is the firearm, no not exactly. For purposes of TRANSFER or PURCHASE, yes it is, but the serialized part is not a firearm. Ever tried to make a receiver by itself go 'bang'?

I realize that this is a narrow definition, and this may strike some of you as word games or semantics, but if the disassembled firearm is not technically a firearm ACCORDING TO CA LAW... when the police ask me if there are any firearms in the car I can truthfully answer no thus avoiding any further attention ala the 'safety check'.

So, again, is a disassembled firearm technically, according to CA law, a firearm?

tom_92673
11-15-2007, 10:00 PM
I absolutely have been asked, and I always respond, truthfully: "There is no contraband of any sort in this vehicle".

I was wondering specifically about this response. My thought is to say "There is nothing illegal in my vehicle", but I'm thinking that this sort of response will just give the officer a reason to be suspicious. Right or wrong, he may say, that was a suspicious answer and caused him to ask further questions. I think it's a bad situation, but in my experience when I told a cop they had no right to search my vehicle, they simply made up a reason to search it. This is just the way it is, unless you are taping.

N6ATF
11-15-2007, 11:21 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/mar2003/mar03lebx27x1.jpg

Maybe make a car magnet like that and stick it on your door?

odysseus
11-15-2007, 11:25 PM
I was wondering specifically about this response. My thought is to say "There is nothing illegal in my vehicle", but I'm thinking that this sort of response will just give the officer a reason to be suspicious.

I absolutely have been asked, and I always respond, truthfully: "There is no contraband of any sort in this vehicle".


If I were the officer, I think I would say "I'll be the judge of that." and continue on asking you again.

tom_92673
11-16-2007, 12:22 AM
I honestly think if I were the officer, I'd say the same thing, but then again, I'm crazy with self importance which is why I sell software and don't wear a badge.:)

artherd
11-16-2007, 12:24 AM
I think it's a bad situation, but in my experience when I told a cop they had no right to search my vehicle, they simply made up a reason to search it. This is just the way it is, unless you are taping.

I would threaten them with a 1983 civil rights action against them personally if they did any such thing.

artherd
11-16-2007, 12:25 AM
If I were the officer, I think I would say "I'll be the judge of that." and continue on asking you again.

If you mouthed off to me like that, I would say "Actually I belive the Honorable A**n D. H********* would likely be the JUDGE of that. He's a pretty good JUDGE of this sort of thing, infact, would you like me to ring him up right now? I'm sure he would LOVE to hear your grounds for continuing this line of questioning? (at this point I pull out my cell phone.)


As mentioned, I have used the above line ("no contraband of any sort") before, the effect is always to cease any furthur questioning along those lines quite fast. I've actually had occation to use a paraphrase of the JUDGE line above as well. A good cop will never have cause to hear me say either.

artherd
11-16-2007, 12:28 AM
Welcome to calguns, falawful! Great post.

I have not been asked in California, but I find this law offensive as well. Somebody ought to try and challenge it on fourth (or fifth) amendment grounds, but it would have to be done very carefully. The California RKBA movement has a bad history of "cowbody" court cases challenging bad firearms laws.

This one will be quite difficult, falling under the guise of 'officer safety' and there is extensive federal case law for that. At best we could hope for case law limiting these sorts of questions and inspections to firearms not secured in cases. Not a big win honestly.

pnkssbtz
11-16-2007, 2:48 AM
This one will be quite difficult, falling under the guise of 'officer safety' and there is extensive federal case law for that. At best we could hope for case law limiting these sorts of questions and inspections to firearms not secured in cases. Not a big win honestly.

Terry Frisk/Search is quite different than a inspection of proper transportation.


In the former the concern is officer safety, in the latter it is no different than an officer performing a roadside safety inspection of your vehicle / house / heavy equipment / SCUBA Gear, etc.

I.E. The latter is just a conformity check. It has NOTHING TO DO with officer safety except in the most tenuous and drawn out of circumstances.




Here is another question though: If an officer performs a transportation safety check on your firearms, can they legally run the serial numbers to see if they are stolen / etc ?

Can'thavenuthingood
11-16-2007, 5:26 AM
AW is not an AW, because in its disassembled state it is not semi-automatic

I thought AW meant automatic rather than semi-auto?

There must be some sort of intent involved regarding the LEO and onsite decision of pursuing the firearm question. He/she just needs an excuse to catch you up in a legal mess where you'll have to prove your innocence. No real sweat off him if you display defiance or reluctance to answer questions with a sense of honesty, it can be settled in court.

As to whats a firearm. If I have a flat and plan to build an AK type rifle is that a firearm?
When does it become a firearm or AW?
At the first or final bend?
As it is it cannot fire or even chamber a round.
Do I have to put a serial number on it to make it legal?
I scratch 'canthavenuthingood' on it as a serno and it becomes a firearm?
So now I'm transporting a piece of sheet metal bent in the shape of whats going to be a rifle and have no other parts in the vehicle, whats the offense?
Did I lie when I said no firearms in the vehicle?

My attitude will I think be the deciding factor in a search. As stated earlier, how did I get to the point of having to answer the request for search?
Word games and semantics are setteled in court, the judge decides or more than likely it will be plea bargained and you lose anyway.

It seems to me we have to go out of our way to insure everything is well inside the legal arena, which appears to be a hassle with no room for error, zero tolerance from the state.

Stop it before it begins, sell your guns and take up Tiddly Winks, wear eye protection for your safety though.

And if the receiver is in the trunk, how is officer safety imapcted?

I like the no contraband response, don't know any judges.

Vick

Charliegone
11-16-2007, 12:50 PM
What pisses me off is the Montclair mall incident, where the safety inspection wasn't done IMMEDIATELY. If they don't immediately do this, what should you say?

"Sir/ma'am, I'm not sure if I unloaded my gun. Can you please check before there is an accidental discharge?"

What was that about?

N6ATF
11-17-2007, 12:00 AM
What was that about?

I can't be arsed to search for a link for you.

bubejunkie
02-27-2008, 4:53 PM
I've been reading many of the posts concerning transporting. Still, I feel very uncomfortable giving a LEO that "Nothing illegal in my car" line. As a cop I would immediately think: "this guy is hiding something". Right? I guess I would just be honest and say "Yes, i have a secured firearm in the back". I'm all for protecting my 4th amendment rights but growing up in Los Angeles, brown (asian), and generally being fearful of cops, I would rather be honest w/ them than be Mr. Penal code expert and refuse a search. I'd just do it! Why create more hassle for yourself? OKay so. With that said: What happens next? I show him my locked pistol, everything is in order. Ammo separate, okay good. Then what?
Do they check to see if it's registered and that I'm the owner? Should I carry copies of receipts and other relevant paperwork?
I ask not for simple range trips. But for those times I drive down to SD for the weekend to go shoot w/ my buddies. What can I expect to happen If i get searched and they inspect my weapon?

Thanks in advance guys!

Shotgun Man
02-27-2008, 5:00 PM
With that said: What happens next? I show him my locked pistol, everything is in order. Ammo separate, okay good. Then what?


This has been covered before on this forum, but I think it bears repeating because we don't want to perpetuate myths. There is no requirement that the ammo be in a seperate container. You can have full magazines in your locked pistol case as long as they are removed from the gun.

Liberty1
02-27-2008, 5:43 PM
Under the Penal Code, a firearm is the 'receiver' portion of the weapon which is the portion of the weapon that bears the serial number. If you disassembled the weapon to it's component parts (detail strip) the officer STILL has the right to demand that he inspect the receiver to check that it's unloaded if you have the weapon in public.

And those you could just place on the dash or passenger seat! "Ok officer inspect my receivers"!:p

Liberty1
02-27-2008, 5:47 PM
the last two times i got pulled over i was asked if i had any guns.of course i do.were they loaded.damn right.did i get arrested no.they checked them and went on their merry little way.one gave me a 260 dollar ticket for going 71 in a 55.don't do this if you don't have a permit.you'll go to jail.ya it kinda irritated me that i was even asked but will aswer truthfully everytime they ask.

CHP or Sheriffs? I think most PDs would have arrested, but depends on the part of the state.

If your doing this concealed why not OC in the vehicle with mag nearby? No crime.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 5:48 PM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?


I've been asked ALMOST EVERY time I've been stopped...and I get stopped a LOT..and have been in 25+ years of driving a big ol' truck. If I had to guess--- Just for traffic related stops (usually registration delays) I've been asked probably 35 outta 50 times.

Add in hunting and the DFG...... I get asked about weapons about 5 times per year EVERY year.

Piper
02-27-2008, 5:55 PM
If a "peace officer" asks if you have a gun in your car and you know s/he's just fishing, your answer should be a resounding NO! If you say yes, s/he WILL demand to see it and s/he WILL run it every possible way they can.

Cops are trained in California to dislike guns in possession of citizens. I can tell you from personal experience that practical excercises at academies condition cops to be afraid of anyone with a firearm who is not a cop. During practicals, and even during advaned officer safety training, everyone who role plays as a citizen has a gun and tries to shoot the cop. This by its very nature conditions cops to be afraid of a citizen with a gun. Like it or not, that is the truth.

Liberty1
02-27-2008, 6:26 PM
Here is another question though: If an officer performs a transportation safety check on your firearms, can they legally run the serial numbers to see if they are stolen / etc ?

Although I believe a 12031(e) (loaded) check is a 4th ammendment violation it stands until challenged.

The statute doesn't authorize anything more then a loaded check. A prolonged seizure of the firearm beyond the scope of 12031(e) for a CLETS serial number check without your consent would be IMO an unlawful detention and search.

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.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 6:46 PM
If a "peace officer" asks if you have a gun in your car and you know s/he's just fishing, your answer should be a resounding NO! If you say yes, s/he WILL demand to see it and s/he WILL run it every possible way they can. .


But then you're back to one of the OP's original questions and a potentially MUCh bigger problem. You say no when in fact you DO have weapons in the car~~ if for some unforseen reason the cop finds probable cause to search your car and discovers the weapons you're definitely in for a much harder time.....probably & not excluding "interfering with an investigation" and/or either a trip for you AND the weapon(s) to the station to clear things up or at least your weapon. Either say nothing or tell the truth-- the lies only dig ya' in deeper & more fodder for the prosecution if something (weapons or otherwise) comes of it.

I am NOT a lawyer & did NOT stay in a Holiday Inn express last night:p YMMV. Coupons not redeamable for cash. Teller holds no cash. Family members are ineligible in this sweapstakes, void where prohibited by law & batteries not includeded.

mymonkeyman
02-27-2008, 7:13 PM
Although I believe a 12031(e) (loaded) check is a 4th ammendment violation it stands until challenged.

The statute doesn't authorize anything more then a loaded check. A prolonged seizure of the firearm beyond the scope of 12031(e) for a CLETS serial number check without your consent would be IMO an unlawful detention and search.

Yea, that is a gross 4th amendment violation. Refusal to consent to a search is NEVER PC under the 4th amendment, and they can't make it that way by statute. They can criminalize refusals to consent to seraph in the context of driving as a separate crime (i.e. refusal to submit to safety inspection of car, refusal to submit to DUI test), but only for searches which are legally related to road safety, not general law enforcement. This is why roadblock checks for DUI are legal, but roadblock checks for drug possession are not. Improper loaded firearms possession has nothing to do with roadway safety (at least no more than drug possession), so it cannot be okay.

The cops cannot search your person for firearms, except if they have reasonable suspicion under Terry. Then they can pat you down, and if they feel a gun, take it and make it safe (unloaded). They cannot keep it unless you violated the law in possessing it (e.g. loaded / concealed carry not subject to an exception of the statue).

I don't think that it is in the statute is all that relevant. A cop could do it with or without the statute, that's largely irrelevant with respect to the 4th amendment question at trial.

mymonkeyman
02-27-2008, 7:16 PM
But then you're back to one of the OP's original questions and a potentially MUCh bigger problem. You say no when in fact you DO have weapons in the car~~ if for some unforseen reason the cop finds probable cause to search your car and discovers the weapons you're definitely in for a much harder time.....probably & not excluding "interfering with an investigation" and/or either a trip for you AND the weapon(s) to the station to clear things up or at least your weapon. Either say nothing or tell the truth-- the lies only dig ya' in deeper & more fodder for the prosecution if something (weapons or otherwise) comes of it.

I am NOT a lawyer & did NOT stay in a Holiday Inn express last night:p YMMV. Coupons not redeamable for cash. Teller holds no cash. Family members are ineligible in this sweapstakes, void where prohibited by law & batteries not includeded.

You are right. Do not lie to police officers. You can tell them "I'm not doing anything illegal." "I don't have anything illegal," etc. if you believe it to be true. If they press, you can say, "I'm not answering your questions" or "I refuse to answer" or even "I plead the 5th."

Absent the minor exception for stop and identify statutes (statutes that make you tell the officer your name, address, etc), cops can't require you to answer any question.

RAD-CDPII
02-27-2008, 7:24 PM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?

Me either under normal circumstances in 40+ years. The only time I have been asked was while driving up to British Columbia at the boarder check point.

pnkssbtz
02-27-2008, 7:26 PM
Although I believe a 12031(e) (loaded) check is a 4th ammendment violation it stands until challenged.

The statute doesn't authorize anything more then a loaded check. A prolonged seizure of the firearm beyond the scope of 12031(e) for a CLETS serial number check without your consent would be IMO an unlawful detention and search.

But the proverbial camel's nose would already be in the tent, so to speak, as they already have possession of the firearms and you are refrained from interfering. All you can do is plead to them that you do not consent but they have the firearms in their hand and you cannot hinder them in any way from walking over to their car and running a check.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 7:31 PM
Me either under normal circumstances in 40+ years. The only time I have been asked was while driving up to British Columbia at the boarder check point.


LOL! God I wish I had your guys' luck.............

Shotgun Man
02-27-2008, 7:33 PM
But then you're back to one of the OP's original questions and a potentially MUCh bigger problem. You say no when in fact you DO have weapons in the car~~ if for some unforseen reason the cop finds probable cause to search your car and discovers the weapons you're definitely in for a much harder time.....probably & not excluding "interfering with an investigation" and/or either a trip for you AND the weapon(s) to the station to clear things up or at least your weapon. Either say nothing or tell the truth-- the lies only dig ya' in deeper & more fodder for the prosecution if something (weapons or otherwise) comes of it.


Thanks for redirecting us to the OP's question of whether lying to the police is a crime.

If one is pulled over by the police and asked if he has any firearms in the vehicle, one naturally would be reluctant to answer in the affirmative because it is human nature to eschew LEO scrutiny.

I did a little research and have concluded that the government would be hard pressed to launch a prosecution for "lying to the police" under the aforesaid circumstances-- not to say it couldn't happen.

Here is my research:

[...]"California does not recognize “lying to the police” as a crime. A possible violation of Penal Code section 148.5 was mentioned in the pre-trial proceedings but section 148.5 applies to the false reporting of a crime, not false statements to the police in the course of their investigation of a crime. Penal Code section 148.9 makes it a crime to give a false identity to a police officer but there is no indication in the record Jonathan may have committed this offense. Obstruction [**830] of a police officer in the discharge of his duty is a crime under Penal Code section 148 but our research has disclosed no case in which a person was prosecuted under this section for making false statements to an officer investigating a crime. In any event we need not decide the scope of section 148 in this case. [...]" People v. Seijas, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1301.

Okay, now the above case was overturned by the CASC, but it did not say the lower court was wrong in stating that California does not recognize "lying to the police" as a crime. The CASC merely said that they did not have to decide the question:


"The second reason the Court of Appeal gave that Jonathan would not incriminate himself is that “California does not recognize ‘lying to the police’ as a crime.” It concluded that Penal Code section 148.5 (section 148.5) “applies to the false reporting of a crime, not false statements to the police in [*306] the course of their investigation of a crime,” and it found that Jonathan had not violated any other criminal provision, including Penal Code section 148 (section 148). We do not have to decide definitively whether Jonathan committed a crime in his original lie to the police. The issue is not whether the testimony does incriminate but whether it tends to [**752] do so, or, as the high court phrased it, whether Jonathan had reasonable cause to apprehend danger from the testimony. (Hoffman v. United States, supra, 341 U.S. at p. 486.) Under the unusual circumstances of this case, including the fact that all parties—the prosecution, Jonathan's own attorney, and defense counsel—believed that Jonathan's testimony might be self-incriminating, the court correctly concluded that he reasonably apprehended danger if he testified." People v. Seijas, 36 Cal. 4th 291

The bottom line is that you might be better off denying your guns in some circumstances, and if the cop finds them and asks how come you lied, you can say how come you asked me if you weren't going to believe me anyway?

ETA: This is not legal advice, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm merely musing as a layman.

Piper
02-27-2008, 7:40 PM
But then you're back to one of the OP's original questions and a potentially MUCh bigger problem. You say no when in fact you DO have weapons in the car~~ if for some unforseen reason the cop finds probable cause to search your car and discovers the weapons you're definitely in for a much harder time.....probably & not excluding "interfering with an investigation" and/or either a trip for you AND the weapon(s) to the station to clear things up or at least your weapon. Either say nothing or tell the truth-- the lies only dig ya' in deeper & more fodder for the prosecution if something (weapons or otherwise) comes of it.

I am NOT a lawyer & did NOT stay in a Holiday Inn express last night:p YMMV. Coupons not redeamable for cash. Teller holds no cash. Family members are ineligible in this sweapstakes, void where prohibited by law & batteries not includeded.

If you are pulled over because of perceived or contrived PC and your firearm is in the trunk, they will still need a warrant to enter the trunk. Sure, they can check any part of the vehicle that is visible, but they can't check the trunk without a warrant.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 7:45 PM
If you are pulled over because of perceived or contrived PC and your firearm is in the trunk, they will still need a warrant to enter the trunk. Sure, they can check any part of the vehicle that is visible, but they can't check the trunk without a warrant.

Actually they dont. A custodial search when they take you into custody may be performed...but as you yourself said-- if they have PC/Probable cause-- then they DONT need your consent to search ANY part of the car.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 7:48 PM
Shotgun.

Thank you for that post; I missed that update when the pages rolled over for me: excellent bit & I freely admit I sometimes cross/blur the lines between state and Fed matters......as if/when you gotta play by both-- better to error on the side of caution. But you are correct to the best of my knowlege about STATE and interferring/lying. The same cannot be said for the Feds though. Dont lie.........

Piper
02-27-2008, 7:55 PM
Actually they dont. A custodial search when they take you into custody may be performed...but as you yourself said-- if they have PC/Probable cause-- then they DONT need your consent to search ANY part of the car.

The car is almost a castle on wheels. The trunk and enclosed containers do require search warrants to check them. The most recent case is People V. Williams. In a nut shell, Williams was stopped and subsquently arrested on a warrant. Per 22651 (h1) Williams car was towed andan invenory search was done and a gun was found in a bag in the back seat. It eventually went to the California Supreme court andthe gun was thrown out as evidence becaus (1) the cop had no authority to tow the car and (2) the court said that the container was closed and a warrant was required to search the container. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

metalhead357
02-27-2008, 8:10 PM
The car is almost a castle on wheels. The trunk and enclosed containers do require search warrants to check them. The most recent case is People V. Williams. In a nut shell, Williams was stopped and subsquently arrested on a warrant. Per 22651 (h1) Williams car was towed andan invenory search was done and a gun was found in a bag in the back seat. It eventually went to the California Supreme court andthe gun was thrown out as evidence becaus (1) the cop had no authority to tow the car and (2) the court said that the container was closed and a warrant was required to search the container. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

interesting. Would like to see/research the disenting opinion. As I mean you ARE right as I agree with you in that a car is mini-castle on wheels, but our opinions dont keep peeps out of jail;) Time for bed for me just yet...but tell please-- was the DISallowance of the gun specific to the stop, the tow, or the custodial search from the tow? Or absence of a warrent after they opened the trunk?:confused:

swhatb
02-27-2008, 9:09 PM
bump...

Liberty1
02-27-2008, 10:10 PM
But the proverbial camel's nose would already be in the tent, so to speak, as they already have possession of the firearms and you are refrained from interfering. All you can do is plead to them that you do not consent but they have the firearms in their hand and you cannot hinder them in any way from walking over to their car and running a check.

Once it is known you possess a firearm and a 12031 check is going to happen notify the officer that you do not consent to the loaded check but will comply with his orders and the law as written and that you also do not consent to any searches beyond the loaded check. Now that's a mouthful when dealing with the police but you get that on tape (and have a bankroll backing you up) and the police exceed their authority you now have standing and evidence to challenge both 12031 and the additional detention and seizure.

Piper
02-28-2008, 7:12 AM
interesting. Would like to see/research the disenting opinion. As I mean you ARE right as I agree with you in that a car is mini-castle on wheels, but our opinions dont keep peeps out of jail;) Time for bed for me just yet...but tell please-- was the DISallowance of the gun specific to the stop, the tow, or the custodial search from the tow? Or absence of a warrent after they opened the trunk?:confused:

After having read the opinion of the California Supreme Court, it was a combination of the tow and the subsequent search. The court in substance said that just because 22651h gives LE authority to tow a vehicle if the owner or driver has been arrested, that in and of itself was not justification to tow the vehicle. So, in essence, that was the first mistake and the list of mistakes snowballed from there.

eta34
02-28-2008, 8:16 AM
I agree with Piper. We have discussed this case at work. The first mistake was his belief that he could tow the vehicle. The tow was invalid, invalidating the search. Fruit of the poisonous tree.....

magsnubby
02-28-2008, 1:49 PM
Who has really been asked?

I have. By a CHP after he saw a stack of gun magazines on the seat of my truck.

68kaiser
02-28-2008, 2:09 PM
I was pulled over in town around 2000-2001 late one night. I was on my way out of town to go hunting (duck,coyote,rabbit), the back seat of my car was full of guns and ammunition.

The LEO pulled me over and said I was speeding going "40 in a 25''. I was not speeding, then he asked if I had any guns and I told him yes. He asked where I was going and I told him. After that he said watch your speed and have a nice evening.

I dont know if times have changed since then but my experience has been to not lie to LEO's. I have nothing to hide.

Glock22Fan
02-28-2008, 3:39 PM
Still, I feel very uncomfortable giving a LEO that "Nothing illegal in my car" line. As a cop I would immediately think: "this guy is hiding something".

Oh yes, anyone who says that they are a law-abiding citizen is automatically a scumbag. This categorizes people into two classes, criminals who admit it and criminals who lie.

And people who aren't prepared to take Ben's stance are perpetuating this stereotype.

I'm with Ben, and I have used this line on UK Customs Officers (actually it was a yacht, not a car). I just kept repeating it until they gave up.

mikehaas
02-28-2008, 4:07 PM
I have been told by a friend who is very knowledgable is that you never answer questions until you have determined the officer has the right to ask. If the officer doesn't have probable cause to stop you, a good response to any query is "Excuse me officer, are you detaining me?"

If the answer begins with "No", your next response may properly be "Good-bye".

Piper
02-28-2008, 7:33 PM
As I was reading this thread, I was listening to an NRA segment regarding the gun confiscations in New Orleans. Those people were honest with LE when asked if they had firearms. What happened, LE confiscated their firearms.

I can't stress this enough, government, especially in California, doesn't like citizens to have firearms. And LE has told me on this forum and in PM's, if they are ordered to confiscate firearms, they will do it, because if it's a choice between them and me, I lose.

leelaw
02-28-2008, 7:39 PM
As I was reading this thread, I was listening to an NRA segment regarding the gun confiscations in New Orleans. Those people were honest with LE when asked if they had firearms. What happened, LE confiscated their firearms.

I can't stress this enough, government, especially in California, doesn't like citizens to have firearms. And LE has told me on this forum and in PM's, if they are ordered to confiscate firearms, they will do it, because if it's a choice between them and me, I lose.

Talk about a stretch to compare an officer safety question during a traffic stop, to an unconstitutional confiscation during a natural disaster.

anothergunnut
02-28-2008, 7:53 PM
I must be missing something because I have never been asked about firearms in a traffic stop, although it has been over 20 years since I have been stopped. Of course, I'm a middle age, clean cut, white guy, driving a non-descript late model sedan, who is obeying the traffic laws.

Piper
02-28-2008, 7:55 PM
Talk about a stretch to compare an officer safety question during a traffic stop, to an unconstitutional confiscation during a natural disaster.

The catch all term "officer safety" can be a stretch and has been used more times than I can count to justify the unjustifiable, like violating the 4th amendment to satisfy a cops curiosity on a fishing expedition. So, yep my statement may be a stretch, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

bubejunkie
03-12-2008, 9:37 PM
Oh yes, anyone who says that they are a law-abiding citizen is automatically a scumbag. This categorizes people into two classes, criminals who admit it and criminals who lie.

And people who aren't prepared to take Ben's stance are perpetuating this stereotype.

I'm with Ben, and I have used this line on UK Customs Officers (actually it was a yacht, not a car). I just kept repeating it until they gave up.

...Sir, I understand what you're saying. But you and me live by different rules in our respective worlds. I assume you're an older white gentleman. You can afford to be mouthy to cops. I can't. I am an Asian (filipino) 28 yr old w/ spikie hair and I'm fond of hooded sweatshirts and rap music. In my world, I'm careful not to lie to cops. Bottom line. A cop can mistake my bald friend sitting shotgun and me for "thugs" w/ out knowing we're college graduates and working professionals. He's automatically thinking: they have weed, they have this, I need to dig, etc. So, i still stand by my position of: Don't lie to cops or else they'll get you! Be polite always and answer truthfully, that's what I've learned. I'm sorry for feeling this way but this is the reality of growing up in Los Angeles. If you give an LAPD cop an answer that deflects his original question, he will instantly dig deeper.
So again, can anyone answer my question? Once he asks, and i admit to possessing a secured weapon, and give him a reasonable answer for why I have it, what can I expect to happen thereafter? The scenario i describe is me driving to San Diego to meet/shoot w/ friends and getting pulled over on the way. I have my paperwork and proof of ownership. Now what?

Respectfully,

serg.

tyrist
03-12-2008, 9:52 PM
bubejunkie if you say the gun is in the passanger compartment it will probably be removed and checked to be in compliance. You also will probably be pat searched for weapons after being asked to step out of the vehicle. A check of the gun will be performed to verify you are in compliance and a ticket may or maynot be issued. If it takes awhile to locate the gun and as long as you have no other issues (parole, probation, sex offender, narcotics offender etc) probably be let go, unless you raise a big fuss.

If it's in the trunk, some officers may check it but probably hoping that when they open the trunk to verify the firearm there is a big bag of weed/crack/heroine/meth back there as well. You guys would be surprised at how often this happens. Officers will use whatever laws exist against crimminals. If they can check a firearm they will because while not ever firearm will be a felony charge eventually you get one and since the law allows you to do it you do it.

GuyW
03-12-2008, 9:56 PM
....spike hair and I'm fond of hooded sweatshirts and rap music....A cop can mistake my bald friend sitting shotgun and me for "thugs"....


Well, I'll grant that we should have the freedom to dress / look like we wish, etc.

But if someone wants to avoid cops and unfavorable attention, I don't understand dressing like a criminal...

And, since I have a dim view of gang members, thugs, and other low lifes, I think that mimicing their dress/haircuts, music (and maybe lifestyle) is not only a dumb thing, but to be discouraged...especially when one adds guns to the mix.

My free advice (worth every penny you paid) is: adopt a lower profile, and you won't even need to deal with the questions....

532Fastback
03-12-2008, 10:04 PM
This has been covered before on this forum, but I think it bears repeating because we don't want to perpetuate myths. There is no requirement that the ammo be in a seperate container. You can have full magazines in your locked pistol case as long as they are removed from the gun.

what if your rifle/handgun is locked in the trunk and your gun case doesn't lock itself can you still keep ammo in the gun case?

Librarian
03-12-2008, 10:15 PM
The way that I am thinking about this is that there was some PCxxxx code that defined a firearm. Furthermore that a firearm in its disassembled state was NOT A FIREARM (if memory serves). So if you disassemble it, you are no longer transporting a FIREARM and none of the BS inspection laws apply, right?Skimmed this thread for the first time, and didn't see a response to this.

Yes, a disassembled firearm is still a firearm.

People v Hale (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/43/353.html) 353, 356 A firearm disassembled into two or more parts, can nevertheless constitute an operable weapon within the meaning of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (People v. Ekberg, 94 Cal.App.2d 613, 616-617 [211 P.2d 316]; see also, State v. Ware (Fla.App.) 253 So.2d 145.)

mymonkeyman
03-12-2008, 10:36 PM
what if your rifle/handgun is locked in the trunk and your gun case doesn't lock itself can you still keep ammo in the gun case?

You need to think of this in the correct way, there are primarily 2 statues (school zone is also a problem, but is luckily concurrent in limitation) we are trying to avoid: 1) concealed weapon, and 2) loaded.
1) For the concealed weapon statute, there is no requirement that rifles or other longguns be in a locked container. If you have a handgun in a trunk that is locked and separate from the passenger compartment, that is fine. As is a seperately locked box. Any locked container that seperates you from the firearm, other than a glove box or utility box is fine. Where ammo is is irrelevant for the concealed weapon law.
2) For the loaded firearm statute, it applies to any firearm, but you only need to make sure that there is no round in the chamber and that there are no rounds in a magazine or clip that is loaded into the weapon in the ordinary meaning. Loaded in the statute means loaded in the ordinary sense that gun owners use.

The only note I would make is the school zone act is somewhat ambiguous with respect to long arms, you might want to be safer if near a school to put a long arm in a locked trunk or box.

Adonlude
03-12-2008, 10:49 PM
I was stopped in Santa Barbara last year for forgetting to affix my newest registration sticker. The female cop noticed my hearing protection in the back seat and asked what it was for. I answered truthfully that it was for shooting my pistol that is being transported unloaded in a locked container in my trunk. After waiting in my car for a few minutes I was asked to get out of the car and sit down on the curb with my leggs crossed. A motorcycle cop and a higher ranked older cop showed up after a few more minutes and the female cop began searching the inside of my car.

I asked the female cop if she was allowed to search my car without my concent and she answered yes and that she needed to make sure that my backpack in the back seat did not contain any weapons. They then searched the trunk and checked my gun before letting me go. I was asked at least 4 seperate times whether or not I had any weapons or drugs. The younger motorcycle cop was cocky and arrogant and made comments such as "this will probably be the last time you see your gun". The older cop was cool and was chating about guns with me, said "at least I got a good gun (Sig), but should have gotten the 226 instead of the 229".

I was very unhappy with this stop, the young arrogant cop was exactly the stereotype that makes me not care for LE. I broke no laws but was treated like a criminal for 20 minutes. I am a clean cut 28yr old white male so I dont think race has much to do with it. Were my rights violated?

11Z50
03-12-2008, 11:11 PM
I was stopped in Santa Barbara last year for forgetting to affix my newest registration sticker. The female cop noticed my hearing protection in the back seat and asked what it was for. I answered truthfully that it was for shooting my pistol that is being transported unloaded in a locked container in my trunk. After waiting in my car for a few minutes I was asked to get out of the car and sit down on the curb with my leggs crossed. A motorcycle cop and a higher ranked older cop showed up after a few more minutes and the female cop began searching the inside of my car.

I asked the female cop if she was allowed to search my car without my concent and she answered yes and that she needed to make sure that my backpack in the back seat did not contain any weapons. They then searched the trunk and checked my gun before letting me go. I was asked at least 4 seperate times whether or not I had any weapons or drugs. The younger motorcycle cop was cocky and arrogant and made comments such as "this will probably be the last time you see your gun". The older cop was cool and was chating about guns with me, said "at least I got a good gun (Sig), but should have gotten the 226 instead of the 229".

I was very unhappy with this stop, the young arrogant cop was exactly the stereotype that makes me not care for LE. I broke no laws but was treated like a criminal for 20 minutes. I am a clean cut 28yr old white male so I dont think race has much to do with it. Were my rights violated?

Yes

mymonkeyman
03-12-2008, 11:34 PM
I was stopped in Santa Barbara last year for forgetting to affix my newest registration sticker. The female cop noticed my hearing protection in the back seat and asked what it was for. I answered truthfully that it was for shooting my pistol that is being transported unloaded in a locked container in my trunk. After waiting in my car for a few minutes I was asked to get out of the car and sit down on the curb with my leggs crossed. A motorcycle cop and a higher ranked older cop showed up after a few more minutes and the female cop began searching the inside of my car.

I asked the female cop if she was allowed to search my car without my concent and she answered yes and that she needed to make sure that my backpack in the back seat did not contain any weapons. They then searched the trunk and checked my gun before letting me go. I was asked at least 4 seperate times whether or not I had any weapons or drugs. The younger motorcycle cop was cocky and arrogant and made comments such as "this will probably be the last time you see your gun". The older cop was cool and was chating about guns with me, said "at least I got a good gun (Sig), but should have gotten the 226 instead of the 229".

I was very unhappy with this stop, the young arrogant cop was exactly the stereotype that makes me not care for LE. I broke no laws but was treated like a criminal for 20 minutes. I am a clean cut 28yr old white male so I dont think race has much to do with it. Were my rights violated?

Yea, that's a pretty gross violation. I hope you got badge numbers, it would help if people got complaints on the record so as to educate such LEOs, especially regarding unlawfully searching your trunk and threatening to steal your gun, and the complete absence of reasonable suspicion that you had a weapon anywhere else in the car other than the one in the trunk.

aplinker
03-13-2008, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty sure he didn't have his rights violated. He offered up information on having firearms and where they were located. An LEO can check to determine if they're loaded.

More imporatantly, be very careful @ carrying rifles unlocked in the passenger compartment. Travelling within a school zone requires even long guns be locked up.

Piper
03-13-2008, 9:28 AM
I was stopped in Santa Barbara last year for forgetting to affix my newest registration sticker. The female cop noticed my hearing protection in the back seat and asked what it was for. I answered truthfully that it was for shooting my pistol that is being transported unloaded in a locked container in my trunk. After waiting in my car for a few minutes I was asked to get out of the car and sit down on the curb with my leggs crossed. A motorcycle cop and a higher ranked older cop showed up after a few more minutes and the female cop began searching the inside of my car.

I asked the female cop if she was allowed to search my car without my concent and she answered yes and that she needed to make sure that my backpack in the back seat did not contain any weapons. They then searched the trunk and checked my gun before letting me go. I was asked at least 4 seperate times whether or not I had any weapons or drugs. The younger motorcycle cop was cocky and arrogant and made comments such as "this will probably be the last time you see your gun". The older cop was cool and was chating about guns with me, said "at least I got a good gun (Sig), but should have gotten the 226 instead of the 229".

I was very unhappy with this stop, the young arrogant cop was exactly the stereotype that makes me not care for LE. I broke no laws but was treated like a criminal for 20 minutes. I am a clean cut 28yr old white male so I dont think race has much to do with it. Were my rights violated?

This is the kind of attitude that angers me and makes me appear so anti-leo. Would this happen in a right to carry state ? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

sloguy
03-13-2008, 10:02 AM
a question, if a officer is doing a firearm inspection, are they allowed to put you in handcuffs while they inspect? when does officer safety come into play? any caselaw on that?

whomper
03-13-2008, 10:53 AM
I have never ever been asked if I had a gun in my car. 37 years and not one time. Who has really been asked?

I have.

Piper
03-13-2008, 11:24 AM
a question, if a officer is doing a firearm inspection, are they allowed to put you in handcuffs while they inspect? when does officer safety come into play? any caselaw on that?

Let me put it this way, If I was handcuffed while they inspected my firearms, once I was released I would obtain names and write a detailed account of the incident and then file a formal complaint with their agency. The agency may find the complaint unfounded, but at least it will be recorded and in their file for the next five years. Citizens need to take this kind of action if they want to see change. If no one complains, nothing will change. Additionally, I would bring this kind of behavior to the attention of the city manager and if possible, the city council.

Cali-V
03-13-2008, 11:34 AM
Skimmed this thread for the first time, and didn't see a response to this.

Yes, a disassembled firearm is still a firearm.

People v Hale (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/43/353.html) 353, 356

+1

On the fed side see
Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18. § 921(a)(3)
Firearm. Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics.
and
Title 27 CFR § 478.11

Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

falawful
03-13-2008, 11:52 AM
Wow. Would I have been PISSED OFF about the Santa Barbara stop described.

Definitely would have done formal complaints on all officers. Probably too late for that though now, but not too late to talk to city council or whoever (if they'll listen). It's easy to say this in hindsight, but I would have expected that the officer's line of questioning regarding the ear muffs was going right to the gun-in-car issue.

Next time a cop asks about your hearing protection, tell her/him it's to protect your ears from loud noises, like :p police sirens!

Is it illegal to lie to police when they ask these type of questions? I know lying to feds is another matter, but the locals/CHP?

I would not have been cordial with the arrogant cop. With regards to the combination of the older guy and the motorcycle cop, you got good cop/bad copped.

This attitude of the popo here is unfortunate. In other places I have lived, when the cops have pulled me over for whatever or just to see what's up, I have not been afraid to discuss firearms. Cops have suggested ranges many times and they've even told me to join the NRA a few times. Never got a ticket.

Adonlude
03-13-2008, 12:41 PM
Wow. Would I have been PISSED OFF about the Santa Barbara stop described.

Definitely would have done formal complaints on all officers. Probably too late for that though now, but not too late to talk to city council or whoever (if they'll listen). It's easy to say this in hindsight, but I would have expected that the officer's line of questioning regarding the ear muffs was going right to the gun-in-car issue.

Next time a cop asks about your hearing protection, tell her/him it's to protect your ears from loud noises, like :p police sirens!

Is it illegal to lie to police when they ask these type of questions? I know lying to feds is another matter, but the locals/CHP?

I would not have been cordial with the arrogant cop. With regards to the combination of the older guy and the motorcycle cop, you got good cop/bad copped.

This attitude of the popo here is unfortunate. In other places I have lived, when the cops have pulled me over for whatever or just to see what's up, I have not been afraid to discuss firearms. Cops have suggested ranges many times and they've even told me to join the NRA a few times. Never got a ticket.

I am upset now but at the time of the stop I was nervous becuase it was the first time I had been stopped with a gun in my car. I had not found Calguns yet and I had not done extensive reading on my rights. At the time of the stop I was headed to a sporting goods store before going to the shooting range and I wasn't sure if I was allowed to make any stops between my house and the shooting range with a gun locked in my trunk.

As I understand it now, I can have an unloaded pistol locked in the trunk or in a seperate locked container in the passenger compartment at all times if I wanted to right? Same with unloaded long guns minus the locked container requirement?

Perhaps having hearing protection (that I said were for shooting) in my back seat next to a closed backpack provided enough probable cause to search the backpack?

Piper
03-13-2008, 2:40 PM
I am upset now but at the time of the stop I was nervous becuase it was the first time I had been stopped with a gun in my car. I had not found Calguns yet and I had not done extensive reading on my rights. At the time of the stop I was headed to a sporting goods store before going to the shooting range and I wasn't sure if I was allowed to make any stops between my house and the shooting range with a gun locked in my trunk.

As I understand it now, I can have an unloaded pistol locked in the trunk or in a seperate locked container in the passenger compartment at all times if I wanted to right? Same with unloaded long guns minus the locked container requirement?

Perhaps having hearing protection (that I said were for shooting) in my back seat next to a closed backpack provided enough probable cause to search the backpack?

Actually, having the hearing protection in your car isn't PC to search for a gun because they can be used for more than just shooting. Also, your backpack is a s much of an enclosed container as any hard case. So, if they searched your backpack without your consent, it's an unlawful search. That would also apply to a backpack that you have while just walking down the street.

aplinker
03-13-2008, 6:13 PM
He gave them PC when he said he had a pistol. He's not required to answer in the affirmative, but I wouldn't lie.

"To the best of my knowledge I have nothing illegal."

Hearing protection is for protecting your hearing.

It may sound rude, but there are a small % of LEO who want a chance to catch anyone for anything - even the good people. At a traffic stop they have no idea if you're a gangbanger/dope dealer or a proud, american papa.



Actually, having the hearing protection in your car isn't PC to search for a gun because they can be used for more than just shooting. Also, your backpack is a s much of an enclosed container as any hard case. So, if they searched your backpack without your consent, it's an unlawful search. That would also apply to a backpack that you have while just walking down the street.

Adonlude
03-13-2008, 6:50 PM
He gave them PC when he said he had a pistol. He's not required to answer in the affirmative, but I wouldn't lie.

I am reading mixed opinions in this thread. Some are saying that admitting to a pistol locked in my trunk only gives them the right to check my pistol in the trunk and nothing else. You are saying that having my pistol in the trunk gives them PC to check any closed container in my car. Which is it?

tyrist
03-13-2008, 7:06 PM
Officers are allowed to search all areas where they are reasonably going to expect to find a weapon. So basically everywhere, they just cant start removing door panels, upholster, dash boards, etc

Once again I am surprised any of you are being search, I could understand somebody on parole or probation, somebody who has certain gang affiliation indicators, somebody who is stupid and leaves a loaded magazine in plain sight, etc.

P.W.
03-13-2008, 7:17 PM
I am reading mixed opinions in this thread. Some are saying that admitting to a pistol locked in my trunk only gives them the right to check my pistol in the trunk and nothing else. You are saying that having my pistol in the trunk gives them PC to check any closed container in my car. Which is it?

I'm a criminal justice major at SBCC so I have been up on this PC **** for some time now...
When the officer asked what the hearing protection was for and you said they were for when you go shooting and you admitting that you have a pistol in a locked container in the vehicle that gave the officer enough Probable Cause to do a safety check of the weapon (Check if its unloaded, run the serial# ect.)

The officer should have stated to you that they intended to do a safety check of the weapon and ask you where it was located. As far as them placing you in cuff, they can legally put you in cuffs/Detain you which may be as long as is reasonably or necessary to accomplish purpose of the stop without placing you under arrest.

I know its to late now to get the names and badge numbers but if it ever happens again, do so and if you can obtain a mini recorder and tape the whole conversation. Officers can tape you w/o your consent while talking to you, so why not have one on you as well(just a little more assurance). Also when the officer asked what the hearing protection were for you could have just said
"they are for when I go shooting up at the range" it is the Officer's responsibility to ask if you have any weapons/firearms in the vehicle, basically you opened yourself once you admitted freely that you had just gotten back from shooting your pistol and its in the vehicle unloaded in a locked container.

Liberty1
03-13-2008, 7:25 PM
My understanding of a no warrant car search for weapons only is that it is similar to the "Terry" search rules;

1: the officer must have reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, and

2: possesses a danger to the officers if that individual is allowed to access/re-access the interior passenger compartment (trunk searches under this 4th Amend. exception are not allowed).

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/courts_decisions_privacy.shtml

MICHIGAN v. LONG (463 U.S. 1032) : July 6, 1983 (6-3)
The court allowed a 'weapons search' of a vehicle to as a means of 'protecting' the officers who had detained a man who had driven into a ditch and appeared intoxicated. The man's car contained a pouch of cannabis and he was arrested. The Supreme Court ruled "The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them."

KNOWLES v. IOWA (000 U.S. 97-7597) : December 8, 1998 (9-0)
The Court cancelled an Iowa state law that gives "officers authority to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest." In this case a man was pulled over for speeding and without his consent his car and person were fully searched. The court ruled this to be an unacceptable breach of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.


and "Terry" is always a good read:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=392&invol=1

Liberty1
03-13-2008, 7:32 PM
(...run the serial# ect.)

How does an unwarrented PC 12031e "loaded check" (which I consider to be a 4th A violation in and of itself) or an "officer safety" passenger compartment weapon search create PC to do a serial# check absent further information indicating it is possibly stollen or illegally possessed?

P.W.
03-13-2008, 7:59 PM
Once he admitted that he had a Firearm in the vehicle I believe that was enough PC for the officer to do a Safety check... Also CA law does permit any officer encountering a firearm to inspect it and run a check to verify the weapon is not stolen. Since he did not have his updated tags on his plates, the traffic stop could have been enough PC for the officer to do a search...

The problem with alot of officers is that they are as up to date on the OLL stuff as they are on their Penal codes... So if they want to search a vehicle, even if they are violating your 4th amendment rights they could just be clueless or they make up some type of PC... (it happens more than you think)

tyrist
03-13-2008, 8:10 PM
Officers are not up to date on the OLL stuff because there are litterally millions of laws. Government code, fish and game, business and professions, welfare and institutions, vehicle, penal, etc etc. It is impossible to know all of them and they must be researched sometimes.

the business and professions code we have at the station is litterally older than me and missing TONS of new laws, I usually don't even bother and use a government webpage for legal info. As far as I know nobody from the gun unit has ever given any updated training on firearms law changes nor has their been a training bulletin posted updating us. As far as the average Officer is concerned the AK/AR series membership still applies for assault weapons.

Some of you will breath a sigh of relief that we get frequent updates on fourth amendment rulings however.

P.W.
03-13-2008, 8:26 PM
Officers are not up to date on the OLL stuff because there are litterally millions of laws. Government code, fish and game, business and professions, welfare and institutions, vehicle, penal, etc etc. It is impossible to know all of them and they must be researched sometimes.

the business and professions code we have at the station is litterally older than me and missing TONS of new laws, I usually don't even bother and use a government webpage for legal info. As far as I know nobody from the gun unit has ever given any updated training on firearms law changes nor has their been a training bulletin posted updating us. As far as the average Officer is concerned the AK/AR series membership still applies for assault weapons.

Some of you will breath a sigh of relief that we get frequent updates on fourth amendment rulings however.

I agree w/ you completely, its just some officers are just clueless on the OLL thing. There are tons of laws but there are many officers still think even if you have an AK/AR which is a Fixed mag build or featureless its still an illegal AW (but not all of them)
I know for a fact from family and friends that it would take forever to try to learn all the penal codes and if the state wanted every officer to be a mobile lawyer:43: and learn them they probably would have made you learn all of it while you were in P.O.S.T... I do appreciate that you guys get those updates:rockon:

Piper
03-13-2008, 8:35 PM
Officers are not up to date on the OLL stuff because there are litterally millions of laws. Government code, fish and game, business and professions, welfare and institutions, vehicle, penal, etc etc. It is impossible to know all of them and they must be researched sometimes.

the business and professions code we have at the station is litterally older than me and missing TONS of new laws, I usually don't even bother and use a government webpage for legal info. As far as I know nobody from the gun unit has ever given any updated training on firearms law changes nor has their been a training bulletin posted updating us. As far as the average Officer is concerned the AK/AR series membership still applies for assault weapons.

Some of you will breath a sigh of relief that we get frequent updates on fourth amendment rulings however.

Doesn't your agency send you to yearly legal update seminars ? Mine did. It's true that no one can know all of the laws that a cop could come across, but you should at least know the commonly used laws that the normal street cop would run across that are usually in the condensed cheater books that I always carried. As for the laws that cover firearms, if you're going to arrest for it, you damn well better know it or face civil litigation if you arrest the wrong person. The old saying that "ignorance is no excuse" cuts both ways and claiming ignorance won't get you out of a law suit if the victim of your ignorance pushes the issue.

tyrist
03-13-2008, 8:43 PM
No update seminars. Rollcall training as well as online interactive training programs followed by a test.

Liberty1
03-13-2008, 8:43 PM
Also CA law does permit any officer encountering a firearm to...run a check to verify the weapon is not stolen.

Which law?

P.W.
03-13-2008, 8:55 PM
Which law?

I can't remember the penal code off the top of my head, I'll look it up later and post it here.

Sawdust
03-14-2008, 8:25 AM
Inspection of a firearm by a LEO is authorized in Section 12031a, subsection (e) of The California Penal Code:

"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."

blah, blah, blah...

"(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."

I can find nothing that authorizes the LEO to:

1) Run a check to determine whether or not the firearm is stolen - IF IT IS UNLOADED. However, if the firearm is loaded, then the LEO may investigate whether or not the firearm is stolen (see 12031a (2) and (3)).

2) Allows the LEO to search anything or anywhere else in the motor vehicle based solely on the fact that one is in possession of an unloaded firearm being legally transported.

I am not a lawyer, and I may have very well missed some other section of the penal code that impacts the conclusions stated above.

I am keenly interested in the truth here, so if you have facts to add, please do so (with references to the salient sections of the penal code).

Sawdust

MudCamper
03-14-2008, 8:54 AM
I can find nothing that authorizes the LEO to:

1) Run a check to determine whether or not the firearm is stolen - IF IT IS UNLOADED. However, if the firearm is loaded, then the LEO may investigate whether or not the firearm is stolen (see 12031a (2) and (3)).

2) Allows the LEO to search anything or anywhere else in the motor vehicle based solely on the fact that one is in possession of an unloaded firearm being legally transported.

They are overstepping their authority when they do this. Allow them to inspect to be sure they are unloaded, and ask for them back.

Piper
03-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Of course, if a LEO asks, you could give'em a wierd look and say something Bradyish like "only criminals have guns" and see if they don't move on.

Rob P.
03-14-2008, 10:14 AM
Of course, if a LEO asks, you could give'em a wierd look and say something Bradyish like "only criminals have guns" and see if they don't move on.

Better to say something stupid like "Did you know that I can walk and chew gum at the same time?"

Or start quoting Jabberwocky at them. :eek:

Selective hearing is your best friend. Don't answer questions because you don't hear them.

falawful
03-14-2008, 11:22 AM
How is having expired tags PC to search the car? I mean it's right there, they're expired, or in the event of a lost sticker the officer could look up plate status on the computer, right? Only considering the original observed offense of expired tags, how would a search or PC to do one ever come?

I would think it's a write ticket and move on deal.

Similar to getting stopped for speeding. What would PC be for, finding another 5 MPH in the glove compartment?

Yankee Clipper
03-27-2008, 9:02 PM
I had never (and that’s going back to the days of the flintlock) gotten asked about firearms at traffic stop or accident before this week either. But earlier this week a CHP motor officer asked me if I had a rifle in locked container in my trunk. He must have seen the bull’s-eye on the partially rolled up target on the rear seat and ear muffs on the front passenger seat, of my totaled vehicle, and put 2 and 2 together. I volunteered (stupid me) that “It’s a single shot locked in the trunk” and we both let the conversation drift another direction. I’m not sure what I would have blurted out had I had my OLL or long range rifles.
The ‘rifle in a looked container’ question might have been asked if that section of the freeway was next to a school zone or maybe the officer believes the new laws mandate all rifles be in a LOCKED container, in a LOCKED trunk no matter where your are.
Keep the shooting paraphernalia out of sight to avoid the unnecessary hassles and BE CAREFUL OUT HERE.

Liberty1
03-27-2008, 9:14 PM
I usually push open carriers to carry an audio recorder (maybe even 2 - one to leave in the car). But really everyone should have the ability to tape LE during any kind of encounter. Practice saying "I have nothing illegal in the car". He can't do a 12031e check of your rifle in the trunk if he doesn't know it's there. If you'd had your OLL and he wanted to look at it and he didn't accept your "Matt Corwin" story you'd be spending $$$$$ on Messrs. T and M LLP. Officer vs you in court you loose if he lies. Got him on tape and you've got a fighting chance.:cool2:

Decoligny
03-28-2008, 10:58 AM
But the proverbial camel's nose would already be in the tent, so to speak, as they already have possession of the firearms and you are refrained from interfering. All you can do is plead to them that you do not consent but they have the firearms in their hand and you cannot hinder them in any way from walking over to their car and running a check.

You can however file a complaint and bring civil and possibly criminal charges for violation of civil rights.

Diablo
03-28-2008, 11:25 AM
I usually push open carriers to carry an audio recorder (maybe even 2 - one to leave in the car). But really everyone should have the ability to tape LE during any kind of encounter. Practice saying "I have nothing illegal in the car". He can't do a 12031e check of your rifle in the trunk if he doesn't know it's there. If you'd had your OLL and he wanted to look at it and he did't accept your "Matt Corwin" story you'd be spending $$$$$ on Messrs. T and M LLP. Officer vs you in court you loose if he lies. Got him on tape and you've got a fighting chance.:cool2:

Can you actually tell an officer that you will be recording the conversation without the officer getting bent out of shape?

Liberty1
03-28-2008, 11:39 AM
Why not? As to his reaction who knows. If I was the officer, I'd start being very cautious as to what I was saying and doing and would not be inclined to arrest unless required to based on good evidence. If the officer wanted to trump up charges to arrest you and make the recording disappear he could likely get away with it absent witnesses or another recording.

I've though a good idea for an OCer (or anyone wanting to prove there side of the story) would be to have a number set on their cell phone emergency button (usually #1) which would call a voice mail with unlimited recording ability. Then if time allowed, upon noticing an upcoming encounter, one could call the VM and place the phone on speaker. Thereby preserving the recording from interference. This is an extreme example but is a way to protect against a worst case false arrest.

I do believe the vast majority of officers will act lawfully but it doesn't hurt to hedge ones odds.

Several officers have lost their jobs when acting illegally or out side of policy based on videos released on youtube. Video is best but audio is good too.

mymonkeyman
03-28-2008, 12:16 PM
I usually push open carriers to carry an audio recorder (maybe even 2 - one to leave in the car). But really everyone should have the ability to tape LE during any kind of encounter. Practice saying "I have nothing illegal in the car". He can't do a 12031e check of your rifle in the trunk if he doesn't know it's there. If you'd had your OLL and he wanted to look at it and he didn't accept your "Matt Corwin" story you'd be spending $$$$$ on Messrs. T and M LLP. Officer vs you in court you loose if he lies. Got him on tape and you've got a fighting chance.:cool2:

Don't record audio of anyone in California without them knowing / having reason to know, it can be a crime.

Decoligny
03-28-2008, 12:52 PM
Don't record audio of anyone in California without them knowing / having reason to know, it can be a crime.

What Crime? Cite the applicable Penal Code violation. I doubt you can find one. PC 632 is the only one that even comes close, and that deals with "confidential communications".

PC 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.

The Police have no expectation of privacy while talking to someone in any public setting.

E Pluribus Unum
03-28-2008, 3:33 PM
Under the Penal Code, a firearm is the 'receiver' portion of the weapon which is the portion of the weapon that bears the serial number. If you disassembled the weapon to it's component parts (detail strip) the officer STILL has the right to demand that he inspect the receiver to check that it's unloaded if you have the weapon in public.

True... however its only illegal to lie to an officer when he is investigating a crime. If he asks you "do you have any firearms in the vehicle" without any probable cause that there is, you can legally lie and say "No sir".

E Pluribus Unum
03-28-2008, 3:37 PM
Don't record audio of anyone in California without them knowing / having reason to know, it can be a crime.

Spreading ignorance and speaking out one's anus is a crime; you sir, are guilty as charged.

Recording is only illegal when there is an expectation of privacy; like in a restroom, or a bedroom. In public there is no expectation of privacy; you are in PUBLIC. Recording is completely legal without notification.

wolfmann
03-28-2008, 5:19 PM
Personal experience here,yes its illegal to record someone either public or private.While you may not be charged for recording, it will be thrown out in court.And of course if you are notified that you are being recorded you can say NO,it then cannot be used against you.

pnkssbtz
03-28-2008, 5:59 PM
Don't record audio of anyone in California without them knowing / having reason to know, it can be a crime.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!.[1] Citation Needed.

The wiretapping laws specifically revolve around:


1.) Privacy
2.) Interception of electronic communication

CA PENAL CODE 630-638 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638)
636. (a) Every person who, without permission from all parties to
the conversation, eavesdrops on or records, by means of an electronic
device, a conversation, or any portion thereof, between a person who
is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
public officer, or who is on the property of a law enforcement agency
or other public agency, and that person's attorney, religious
adviser, or licensed physician, is guilty of a felony.
(b) Every person who, intentionally and without permission from
all parties to the conversation, nonelectronically eavesdrops upon a
conversation, or any portion thereof, that occurs between a person
who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
public officer and that person's attorney, religious adviser, or
licensed physician, is guilty of a public offense. This subdivision
applies to conversations that occur in a place, and under
circumstances, where there exists a reasonable expectation of
privacy, including a custody holding area, holding area, or anteroom.
This subdivision does not apply to conversations that are
inadvertently overheard or that take place in a courtroom or other
room used for adjudicatory proceedings. A person who is convicted of
violating this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison, or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one
year, or by a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section shall not apply to any employee of a public
utility engaged in the business of providing service and facilities
for telephone or telegraph communications while engaged in the
construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the service or
facilities of that public utility who listens in to conversations for
the limited purpose of testing or servicing equipment.

eta34
03-28-2008, 6:44 PM
Don't record audio of anyone in California without them knowing / having reason to know, it can be a crime.

WRONG! Record me all you want on a traffic stop. I always record mine. It is a great defense when I am falsely accused of abuse or racism. It protects us all.

Yankee Clipper
03-28-2008, 8:52 PM
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!.[1] Citation Needed.

The wiretapping laws specifically revolve around:


1.) Privacy
2.) Interception of electronic communication

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

Would 'CA PENAL CODE 630-638' be apropos if a cell phone is used and that cell phone is provided by a carrier regulated primarily by the FCC?

pnkssbtz
03-28-2008, 9:25 PM
Would 'CA PENAL CODE 630-638' be apropos if a cell phone is used and that cell phone is provided by a carrier regulated primarily by the FCC?

First, IANAL =)

Second, are you asking about the wiretapping laws in regards to a FCC regulated Wireless provider company?

If so, look here: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm

and from the horses mouth, so to speak: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm

M. Sage
03-28-2008, 10:06 PM
Can you actually tell an officer that you will be recording the conversation without the officer getting bent out of shape?

You don't have to, especially in public, in your own car or in your own home.

Personal experience here,yes its illegal to record someone either public or private.While you may not be charged for recording, it will be thrown out in court.And of course if you are notified that you are being recorded you can say NO,it then cannot be used against you.

Then why are police putting dash cams on cruisers? I haven't heard of them warning people that they're being recorded during a traffic stop.

In public places, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. SFPD's "crime cameras" would be ten times more useless if any evidence they picked up was inadmissible.

It is not illegal or inadmissible to record someone in your own home, in public, or in your vehicle (probably more places) without their knowledge. It is illegal to record a phone conversation without the other party's knowledge though. Is that what happened?

leelaw
03-28-2008, 10:12 PM
Personal experience here,yes its illegal to record someone either public or private.While you may not be charged for recording, it will be thrown out in court.And of course if you are notified that you are being recorded you can say NO,it then cannot be used against you.

Wow.

So wrong...

...on ALL counts.

eta34
03-28-2008, 10:30 PM
Wow.

So wrong...

...on ALL counts.

+1...........Stop the insanity!

E Pluribus Unum
03-29-2008, 12:36 AM
Wow.

So wrong...

...on ALL counts.

But.... but.... he has personal experience......



He must be very experienced at being ignorant and is willing to share his experience with others.

battleship
03-29-2008, 12:55 AM
I have been asked every time i have been pulled over, even when i had my wife in the car. - SIR do you have any weapons, or drugs. so im surprised to here that some of you have not.

DedEye
03-29-2008, 4:47 AM
Getting back on topic...

Adon, wow, I'm with everyone else that would have responded that the hearing protection was "for protecting my hearing" and leave it at that. I know from personal experience (hardy har har, now that wolfmann has said that I suspect "personal experience" is gonna be a running joke here), that in at least some occasions when a citizen has interacted with Santa Barbara law enforcement of the Sheriff's Dept variety, responding to the question of whether you have firearms with the statement "I have nothing illegal" works.

Interestingly enough, the only time I was pulled over (this was in Utah), I was wearing some camouflage clothing, and wasn't asked whether I had any weapons in the car.

I've got a question of my own now.

Pursuant to P.C.12031(e), if I'm carrying an unloaded firearm in a holster and loaded mags in open pouches on my belt as well, what is an officer allowed to do in execution of the "loaded firearm check?" How long and in what manner can I be detained if I'm walking down the street, eating a sandwich at a restaurant, or the like, where no motor vehicle is involved and I'm very definitely outside of the radius of a school zone?

M. Sage
03-29-2008, 7:36 AM
AFAIK, there are no limits currently to the scope and length of time the "safety check" takes. Someone would probably have to challenge the investigation that's going to follow where your personal info and handgun's serial number get put through the system (maybe a couple of times) in court.

They didn't ask in Utah because they pretty much don't care if you have legally-owned, possessed and transported firearms with you. It's considered "normal" there.

falawful
03-29-2008, 12:44 PM
Ok, it isn't illegal to lie to an officer unless they're investigating a crime.

What about the reason they pulled you over? Isn't that a crime? Or is it (traffic violations and the like) only an 'infraction' or whatever? I would suppose that misdeameanor level wreckless driving is an actual crime (thus the misdemeanor level)?

I would think that you can fib your @ss off if they are investigating YOU (feds excluded) but not someone else.

Correct or close?

I would think that there is a 'reasonable' time limit to stops, isn't there a CA case that defines that as ~20 min somewhere?

Oh, and public officials doing their duty, and most everyone else in PUBLIC don't have an expectation of privacy and thus can be recorded.

Surveillance camera much?

falawful
03-29-2008, 12:50 PM
Another question, for those of you that are policemen/women, when someone says at a traffic stop "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that kind of in indicator that they know the rules and are generally law abiding?

Or does that just egg on further questioning?

pnkssbtz
03-29-2008, 12:59 PM
Ok, it isn't illegal to lie to an officer unless they're investigating a crime.

What about the reason they pulled you over? Isn't that a crime? Or is it (traffic violations and the like) only an 'infraction' or whatever? I would suppose that misdeameanor level wreckless driving is an actual crime (thus the misdemeanor level)?

Stating that you have NOTHING ILLEGAL would not be a lie. It would not be the answer the officer wants.

I would think that there is a 'reasonable' time limit to stops, isn't there a CA case that defines that as ~20 min somewhere?
Reasonable is reasonable. It's a huge gray area that should never of been put into law.

Oh, and public officials doing their duty, and most everyone else in PUBLIC don't have an expectation of privacy and thus can be recorded.

Surveillance camera much?
Good point. If it was so illegal to record things, then every business with surveillance camera's would be violating the wiretapping laws!

wolfmann
03-29-2008, 7:45 PM
I was recorded by a person who was trying to get information from me for a incident that happened with some employees of mine.
I was not aware of the recording.
This person took it to court,the judge asked the person if I was aware of the recording,he said no.
The judge said that since I was not aware of the recording it could not be used,and was unlawfull that I was recorded without my knowledge.
The case was dismissed and plaintiff and Lawyer were basically chewed out for bringing such a poor case forward.
This happened many years ago,about 15 or so.
All I can say is this is what the Judge stated,hence my previous post.

If the laws have changed since then I stand corrected.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-29-2008, 11:52 PM
I was recorded by a person who was trying to get information from me for a incident that happened with some employees of mine.
I was not aware of the recording.
This person took it to court,the judge asked the person if I was aware of the recording,he said no.
The judge said that since I was not aware of the recording it could not be used,and was unlawfull that I was recorded without my knowledge.
The case was dismissed and plaintiff and Lawyer were basically chewed out for bringing such a poor case forward.
This happened many years ago,about 15 or so.
All I can say is this is what the Judge stated,hence my previous post.

If the laws have changed since then I stand corrected.

Where was the recording done? At work on private property or in public on public property? If your issue was work related I'm thinking perhaps the recording happened while you were at work and there could have been some expectation of privacy...thats the issue...expectation of privacy.

yallknowho
03-30-2008, 11:05 AM
some knowledgeable lawyer needs to write a pamphlet about traffic stops, police rights and our rights.

M. Sage
03-30-2008, 11:18 AM
Where was the recording done? At work on private property or in public on public property? If your issue was work related I'm thinking perhaps the recording happened while you were at work and there could have been some expectation of privacy...thats the issue...expectation of privacy.

Also, AFAIK, recording someone to get a statement without their consent to use in court might be a no-no. Recording for CYA is different.

mousegun
03-30-2008, 12:43 PM
I was recorded by a person who was trying to get information from me for a incident that happened with some employees of mine.
I was not aware of the recording.
This person took it to court,the judge asked the person if I was aware of the recording,he said no.
The judge said that since I was not aware of the recording it could not be used,and was unlawfull that I was recorded without my knowledge.
The case was dismissed and plaintiff and Lawyer were basically chewed out for bringing such a poor case forward.
This happened many years ago,about 15 or so.
All I can say is this is what the Judge stated,hence my previous post.

If the laws have changed since then I stand corrected.Seems to me if the recording was taken on private property between two parties in relative seclusion with one of the parties unaware of the recording and the other using any subterfuge or misdirection about the intent of the conversation, there is a reasonable if not compelling expectation of privacy on the part of the one unaware of the recording.

On the other hand, if one is stopped on a public highway by an officer driving a unit with flashing gumballs and a video/audio recording unit humming in the trunk in order to interrogate, detain or cite one at the side of the road with the probability of passing pedestrians observing, the expectation of privacy is totally missing.

Don't think that's changed much in 15 years.

Creative Muvo MP3 players make great recorders.

wolfmann
03-30-2008, 8:10 PM
I was in a shopping store parking lot when approached.

BLACKWATER
03-30-2008, 8:14 PM
I was asked by CHP if I had any firearms in the vehicle. First time ever and the only time.

mousegun
03-31-2008, 10:05 AM
I was in a shopping store parking lot when approached.
Sounds like the judge took a broad interpretation of the law to cover a narrow circumstance. Judge probably felt it lent a prejudicial flavor to what may have been borderline evidentiary rule hearsay.

Or he was just ornery.

Happens.