Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:42 PM
Ryan in SD Ryan in SD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default Search / Illegal Search while shooting on legal BLM

Plainly put, I dont know my rights when shooting on BLM land.

To what extent can a law enforcement investigate myself or my belongings while shooting on BLM?

Do they still need probably cause to:
-go through my stuff outside my car?
-check my guns?
-ask for ID?

etc etc

Thanks in advance, I need to know this. I prefer not to surrender personal information to the next captain america I meet out there.
Also, they waste the hell out of my time and burn up sun light.
__________________
Check out my HUGE list of for sale items
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:17 PM
ar15robert ar15robert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,738
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quickly if its in the open it may get looked at.If you dont want it looked at keep it in the trunk or out of sight.

I got a RAW i take with me.Its all legal but while i shoot on BLM land i will bring it out shoot it then put back in my camper.The rest of guns they will be laying on my table during the day.

I have not had my guns checked out yet for the past 17 years of shooting in the deserts.Have had blm stop by twice but it was more of how are you doing today and see if shooting safely.Guns were in sight but they didnt bother to look them over.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:41 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Your rights while shooting on BLM land are not particularly different from those you have in any similar public area.

This is good start for what rights you have (and should exercise): https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:48 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

I don't play search your chit game. i only leave one weapon out at a time. As soon as those fools roll up I discretly put everything away.

I'm not committing any crimes, and I'm not driving, so there is no need for me to show ID. This isn't 1938 Germany, I don't need to show my papers.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:52 AM
saki302's Avatar
saki302 saki302 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,676
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Out of habit, I only take out one rifle at a time. The spread on the table sure looks cool, but I like to have much more direct control over my weapons- safety, who touches what, etc.
Works double duty if someone nosy wants to see what I've got.

-Dave
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:05 AM
mound mound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillaFunk View Post
I don't play search your chit game. i only leave one weapon out at a time. As soon as those fools roll up I discretly put everything away.

I'm not committing any crimes, and I'm not driving, so there is no need for me to show ID. This isn't 1938 Germany, I don't need to show my papers.
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:28 AM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,674
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mound View Post
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.
What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity.. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.

--via yahoo answers.
__________________
=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-06-2013, 3:06 AM
mound mound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI View Post
What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity.. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.

--via yahoo answers.
I wouldn't really trust Yahoo Answers, but I did make a mistake in typing a hasty response:

In this situation, where you are shooting on BLM land, you would have to carry ID unless you walked there I guess...the fact that you drove a vehicle over there would necessitate you to have ID on you.

Again, technically, you wouldn't have to. But in practice, an officer could come up with a million reasons why they decided to detain you after that and it would likely hold up in court.

In my experience, it is always better to be friendly with the officer--I assume you have nothing to hide. That is not a reason to give up your rights, so I always refuse consent to searches even if there is nothing illegal on me.


Additionally, I looked up the Hiibel case on Lexis and read it through real quick. Whoever wrote the yahoo answers has slightly but fatally misinterpreted the case. In Hiibel, SCOTUS held that the Nevada "stop and identify" law was constitutional as long as the officer had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (not probable cause, as the yahoo answers author said). Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of suspicion that an officer needs.

But you are correct, California does not have a Stop and Identify statute like Nevada and other states. I remember off the top of my head that DC has a pretty strict one.


Anyway, in a nutshell, there's no real advantage to NOT identify yourself to a police officer or other law enforcement. But you do have a right to privacy and right against illegal search and seizures.

Last edited by mound; 09-06-2013 at 3:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-06-2013, 4:02 AM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,674
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mound View Post
I wouldn't really trust Yahoo Answers, but I did make a mistake in typing a hasty response:

In this situation, where you are shooting on BLM land, you would have to carry ID unless you walked there I guess...the fact that you drove a vehicle over there would necessitate you to have ID on you.

Again, technically, you wouldn't have to. But in practice, an officer could come up with a million reasons why they decided to detain you after that and it would likely hold up in court.

In my experience, it is always better to be friendly with the officer--I assume you have nothing to hide. That is not a reason to give up your rights, so I always refuse consent to searches even if there is nothing illegal on me.


Additionally, I looked up the Hiibel case on Lexis and read it through real quick. Whoever wrote the yahoo answers has slightly but fatally misinterpreted the case. In Hiibel, SCOTUS held that the Nevada "stop and identify" law was constitutional as long as the officer had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (not probable cause, as the yahoo answers author said). Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of suspicion that an officer needs.

But you are correct, California does not have a Stop and Identify statute like Nevada and other states. I remember off the top of my head that DC has a pretty strict one.


Anyway, in a nutshell, there's no real advantage to NOT identify yourself to a police officer or other law enforcement. But you do have a right to privacy and right against illegal search and seizures.
I don't really trust a lot of stuff on the Internet. However, a simple google of the referenced decision should clear up any doubt. Plus, I didn't say not to be friendly or polite. My point is this (which happened to come up in another thread about not having anything to hide), I have nothing to hide, I make all attempts to follow the letter of the law and obey the BS that our unconstitutional overlords spew from their overpaid, overindulged minds. I do not, however, relinquish my constitutional rights just because I have nothing to hide.

I do not, nor would I ever consent to a search of my person or property. Yes, if a LEO chose to, he/she could come up with a lot of reasons to "claim" probable cause, and jam me up, but, on video, would be hard pressed to support said PC in court. Yes, I know lots of money/time/effort out on my end, hopefully it won't come to that.

__________________
=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:11 AM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied Commiefornia
Posts: 6,941
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:02 AM
mofojoe mofojoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:53 AM
twinfin twinfin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In regards to the question of having an identity document, it is clear that California does not have a stop and identify law so you can not be compelled to produce an ID with only a few and very limited exceptions. If you are driving a car, you are required by law to produce a drivers license when asked by a peace officer. If you are to be charged with a crime, you must then truthfully state your name and you may be taken to jail briefly until your identity can be verified. This is where having an ID can result in being cited at the scene and released (to appear in court later) instead of being carted of to jail temporarily until your identity can be verified.

One of the missing parts of this common conversation about interacting with law enforcement officers is tact, style and diplomacy. Once you know your rights under the law, you need to be able to assert those rights in a tactful and diplomatic manner that keeps your interaction with the police from becoming and emotion charged event.

By keeping calm but assertive, you can diplomatically stand your ground without overly ruffling the feathers the law enforcement folks asking you questions. In short, don't be a jerk about standing your ground, be a diplomat.

Diplomacy takes practice and the best way to practice is during all the little confrontations in life. For example, when asked at the doctor's office during routine history taking if you have any guns; this is an opportunity to politely stand up for yourself and decline to answer the question and even remind the doctor that if he wants to talk about gun safety, it's not necessary to know whether or not you own a gun.

When you make it a habit of politely engaging people when they ask you to do things you do not have to do, it becomes easier and less stressful to assert your rights calmly to the police and doing it with style and tact.

The ultimate goal should be your stand up for yourself and the cops go away feeling like everyone's still friends. That's where style, tact and diplomacy pays off.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-06-2013, 8:15 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

My understanding to this question is thus;

One has driven to BLM land to legally shoot in an area deemed an area for shooting. One has one or more rifles out. LEO arrives on site and begins asking questions and wanting to see your stuff.

He doesn't need to see my ID because parking a car on BLM land is not illegal. Me being on BLM land is not illegal. Unless he detains me for something (such as investigating a crime) I do not need to tell him who I am.

I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.


"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

"You want me to identify myself? Am I being detained? Then no thank you"

"You want to search my property without at warrant? No thank you"

"You want me to answer your questions? No thank you"

I'm not committing any crimes so I have no reason to talk to them or help them find evidence to arrest me.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-06-2013, 8:15 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

My understanding to this question is thus;

One has driven to BLM land to legally shoot in an area deemed an area for shooting. One has one or more rifles out. LEO arrives on site and begins asking questions and wanting to see your stuff.

He doesn't need to see my ID because parking a car on BLM land is not illegal. Me being on BLM land is not illegal. Unless he detains me for something (such as investigating a crime) I do not need to tell him who I am.

I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.


"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

"You want me to identify myself? Am I being detained? Then no thank you"

"You want to search my property without at warrant? No thank you"

"You want me to answer your questions without my lawyer present? No thank you"

I'm not committing any crimes so I have no reason to talk to them or help them find evidence to arrest me. Im not going to make their job easier by giving them reasons to feck with me.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 09-06-2013 at 8:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:34 AM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied Commiefornia
Posts: 6,941
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillaFunk View Post
...
I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.
This seems to be the consensus of dealing with them, so I would not consent to any searches, unless they could give me a specific P.C. to search my belongings, and I agreed that I did something wrong, which I NEVER do.

I was once pulled over and detained while a dog searched my car, and the dog PISSED all over said car, after the "Officer" put a bag of what appeared to be white power(/crystals?) in my glove box, and then said "look what we have here..." I was guilty of nothing, I assume he was just power-tripping, and playing games. NEVER AGAIN! I assume he was using my car as a training-aid, at the expense of canine-urine and slobber all over my property...

This was in Temecula, CA.
"I DO 'NOT' CONSENT TO 'ANY' SEARCHES..."
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds

Last edited by the86d; 09-06-2013 at 9:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:46 PM
Ryan in SD Ryan in SD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Thanks guys, this is useful stuff.

I think out there on BLM land the law enforcement is use to overstepping their bounds by people that arent aware of the rights we have.

I figured before it was no big deal. But they are such a pain in the *** to deal with. Its like I have to prove my innocence everytime I see them, which is what I imagine anne frank felt like. That is not a good way to live. Does not feel like free america to me.

-edit

So, here is a situation that I think may be difference as far as their reason to want to search.

If I have a russian firearm that is commonly known to have steel core OR bimetal jacket ammo. Or the officer sees steel case ammo near me that matches the caliber of my firearm. DOES THAT give them the right to search my stuff to check for illegal ammo usage.
Some of you may not know this, but in my area it is illegal to shoot steel core OR EVEN bi-metal jacket ammo on BLM land due to fire concerns.
(total crap law imo, I think that responsibility is up to the shooters good judgement and not to be shooting at or in close proximity to dry brush)
__________________
Check out my HUGE list of for sale items

Last edited by Ryan in SD; 09-06-2013 at 6:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-08-2013, 9:13 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,622
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mound View Post
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.
Wrong! Not in this state! Please refrain from spewing FUD!

You DL is only required to be shown if you are in fact in the act of driving. Other than that, there is no requirement to carry ID or to show ID.

You really shouldn't use the word "dick" unless you are sure of what you spew.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-08-2013, 9:22 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wylie, TEXAS
Posts: 18,115
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the86d View Post
"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"
Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:47 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,881
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You really shouldn't use the word "dick" unless you are sure of what you spew.
You really shouldn't use dick and spew in the same sentence...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:06 PM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied Commiefornia
Posts: 6,941
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.
If you request his P.C, you can still refuse an unconstitutional search.

I have done this a few times, and they got even MORE polite... but I wasn't an azz about it.
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:34 PM
robcoe's Avatar
robcoe robcoe is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 8,666
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofojoe View Post
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.
"you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

For a more complete answer as to why not show them, because, stupid as it sounds, cops are not required to know the law. They can, will and HAVE arrested people for things that are perfectly legal.

Example 1

Example 2
__________________
Yes, I am an electrical engineer.
No, I will not fix your computer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:58 PM
Stepanian Stepanian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twinfin View Post

One of the missing parts of this common conversation about interacting with law enforcement officers is tact, style and diplomacy. Once you know your rights under the law, you need to be able to assert those rights in a tactful and diplomatic manner that keeps your interaction with the police from becoming and emotion charged event.

By keeping calm but assertive, you can diplomatically stand your ground without overly ruffling the feathers the law enforcement folks asking you questions. In short, don't be a jerk about standing your ground, be a diplomat.

Diplomacy takes practice and the best way to practice is during all the little confrontations in life. For example, when asked at the doctor's office during routine history taking if you have any guns; this is an opportunity to politely stand up for yourself and decline to answer the question and even remind the doctor that if he wants to talk about gun safety, it's not necessary to know whether or not you own a gun.

When you make it a habit of politely engaging people when they ask you to do things you do not have to do, it becomes easier and less stressful to assert your rights calmly to the police and doing it with style and tact.

The ultimate goal should be your stand up for yourself and the cops go away feeling like everyone's still friends. That's where style, tact and diplomacy pays off.
I have to agree with this completely. I don't have the negative run-ins with LEO that others do, and I interact with them fairly frequently.

I can't see a reason to not tell them my identity; if they're going to arrest me, that little tidbit is going to come out eventually. I'm only making that part hard on myself. Ditto for the ticket vs. custody thing...if you're that adamant that you'd like to take a ride down until they can verify your identity, you go for it. Some people try this route, and when not arrested, they use it as proof that it's the law. It's not...the LEO just didn't want to bother the hassle you're causing vs. the payoff.

For not consenting to a search, it's pretty easy to be tactful, even funny when asked: "Mind if I take a look in your trunk real quick?" "Oh man...I would, but that thing is like my underwear hamper; you have no idea how bad that smells, so let's not do that today. " Said with a smile, this type of banter will often get you a chuckle. If they push, you can just get professional and say "I'm not confortable with you searching so I'm not giving consent."

I've been asked to search my truck, my trailer, etc and all have been casually deflected.

Also keep in mind that "Mind if I take a look..." is about as normal/automatic for them as us saying "How have you been/What have you been up to?" after we say hello to someone. It's a way that they use to get a look for safety reasons, but also to find violations to correct.

<shrugs> I can only speak from my own experience.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-10-2013, 1:36 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

I have a good number of city police, sheriff, fish and game, US marshal buddies. I know they are all excelling officers and do what is right. I feel those turd LEO's brought this upon themselves. Don't sweet talk me because the ONLY reason you are talking to me is to arrest me or someone else, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

"No thank you"

The best part about it is, when they get PISSSED, after all that effort because they cant actually find you breaking any laws.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-10-2013, 1:41 PM
Whiterabbit Whiterabbit is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 6,933
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofojoe View Post
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.
This. That's why I don't object to body cavity searches at the TSA every time I want to fly for an hour. I have nothing up my arse, so they are free to strip me naked in public and look up there with a flashlight.

I have nothing to hide!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-11-2013, 2:07 AM
johnny1290 johnny1290 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,581
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

The game is rigged in favor of the house. Play accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-11-2013, 3:26 AM
kel-tec-innovations's Avatar
kel-tec-innovations kel-tec-innovations is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I.E. San Bernardino/Riverside, California
Posts: 4,086
iTrader: 131 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofojoe View Post
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.
Even though you've done nothing wrong they can try to incriminate or confiscate something of your illegally.

I had an encounter with the rangers that claims my AK74 featureless was illegal and a felony and that I will go to prison and will take away the rifle etc. Sure I DID NOTHING WRONG but I spent the next two hours explaining why its legal and my BLM trip was cut very short to sun set.

Everything I explained he tried to find other things to incriminate me and try to intimidate me. The only way I was finally left alone after two hours was citing and reading and explaining every code in the law and defining every part of the gun.

*the ranger was reported for his behavior and lack of knowledge of laws*

So JUST BECAUSE YOU DONE NOTHING WRONG doesn't do you any good.

Worse advice to give someone just cause you done nothing wrong that there is nothing to worry.

If I didn't know all the law and carried all sorts of paper I'd be sitting in cuffs in a jail holding cell with other inmates until its all sorted out, pictures taken, finger printed, gun abused and molested and getting the rifle back would be a pain.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-11-2013, 8:43 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kel-tec-innovations View Post
Even though you've done nothing wrong they can try to incriminate or confiscate something of your illegally.

I had an encounter with the rangers that claims my AK74 featureless was illegal and a felony and that I will go to prison and will take away the rifle etc. Sure I DID NOTHING WRONG but I spent the next two hours explaining why its legal and my BLM trip was cut very short to sun set.
These days, you NEED TO KNOW THE LAW. Next time some LEO who doesn't gives me ****, I'll response 'Go ahead. Arrest me. Once this gets to court the charges will be dropped, you and your department will face a lawsuit for unjustifiably arresting me, and harassing me, a law abiding citizen. I will then use thesettlement money to buy a few more rifles. Meanwhile, you waste time here over a totally legal firearm, where somewhere else a citizen is out there who needs your help, or a real criminal is committing a real crime. I will not answer any more of your questions without a lawyer present." Meanwhile, the whole interaction has been recorded because I have a camera and recorder documenting everything.

If you don't know the law, don't try to 'enforce it'.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-11-2013, 9:22 AM
AKEVERYDAY310's Avatar
AKEVERYDAY310 AKEVERYDAY310 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hawthorne
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Nice Example 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by robcoe View Post
"you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

For a more complete answer as to why not show them, because, stupid as it sounds, cops are not required to know the law. They can, will and HAVE arrested people for things that are perfectly legal.

Example 1

Example 2
Not only that, they like to make up a lot of crap. My brother, Example 2, got pulled over more recently with the same locked container/ loaded mags setup. One Hawthorne P.D. officer tried to say he seen the mag inside the gun.
Don't forget to donate to the Calguns Foundation!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-11-2013, 9:49 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

I have the california code that identifies what a loaded wepon is, as well as regulation about transporting weapons taped to my black box.

Want to verify why chit is not loaded....'No Thank you'. better have a warrant in your pocket. Am I under arrest? No? Then see ya.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-11-2013, 12:48 PM
tackdriver tackdriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 577
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.
If you are asked this question, be sure to ask if it is ok if you come over to his house and go thru his closet and dresser drawers. After all,,, IF he has nothing to "hide"......
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-11-2013, 9:44 PM
The Geologist's Avatar
The Geologist The Geologist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mound View Post
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.
Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-12-2013, 9:32 AM
twinfin twinfin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Geologist View Post
Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.
Allow me to correct your mistake. Nevada does not have a law requiring you to carry an identity document. Their law only requires you to state your name when asked and nothing more.

Nevada was the source of the Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada where the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Nevada's stop and identify law could be satisfied by the person being detained simply stating their name. The Court did not rule that an identification document must be carried or produced on demand of a peace officer.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-17-2013, 7:21 PM
huntercf's Avatar
huntercf huntercf is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fontana, PRK
Posts: 3,114
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofojoe View Post
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.
I hope that is sarcasm.

There was a thread on here just a few days ago where someone was shooting on private land and some LEO's pulled up and did a search. They confiscated his legal AR pistol because it didn't have a S/N and they didn't know the law.

Be nice and calm, if they ask for your name give it to them. If they ask to search your vehicle tell them politely "I don't consent to a search but thank you for the offer".
__________________
Gun control is a 1" group at 500 yds!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-17-2013, 7:32 PM
USMC0621 USMC0621 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: so cal
Posts: 351
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

wow. op my best advice is not to listen to any of these clowns posting on ur thread for starters. your better off asking a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-17-2013, 7:33 PM
USMC0621 USMC0621 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: so cal
Posts: 351
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default plus one!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Geologist View Post
Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.
yup. you don't need to have ID but you need to identify yourself. if not, the police may take you in to custody until you can be identified.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:54 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.