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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old 10-14-2019, 10:14 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
I think that a cop who has no probable cause to be searching the car, also has no probable cause to be asking me questions about what is in the car; it’s a fishing expedition. If they could reasonably search, they would be doing so, so there’s no reason for me to volunteer information.

But, like I said, no one has ever asked me.

Garand
Garand,

Please keep in mind that the officer only needs a source of legal standing to search the vehicle. Having "Probable Cause" is the most common form of legal standing, but it's not the only one. There are many legal avenues by which an officer can properly conduct a search without having "Probable Cause."

There is no requirement that an officer have "Probable Cause" to ask questions. The First Amendment is a marvelous thing, and it applies to the officer as well.

You speak of a "Fishing Expedition" as being something bad. It's not. LEO's get paid to "Fish." It's how we identify criminals. The key point is that it's necessary to have the required form of "Fishing License" before doing so.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 10-14-2019, 10:38 AM
Garand Garand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Garand,

Please keep in mind that the officer only needs a source of legal standing to search the vehicle. Having "Probable Cause" is the most common form of legal standing, but it's not the only one. There are many legal avenues by which an officer can properly conduct a search without having "Probable Cause."

There is no requirement that an officer have "Probable Cause" to ask questions. The First Amendment is a marvelous thing, and it applies to the officer as well.

You speak of a "Fishing Expedition" as being something bad. It's not. LEO's get paid to "Fish." It's how we identify criminals. The key point is that it's necessary to have the required form of "Fishing License" before doing so.
So, you believe that I should tell them that I indeed have gun(s) in the car, even though they are in no danger from those guns, and I do not support the current infringements of our 2A rights?

Why?

They can fish, it’s true, but I don’t have to bite the hook. Am I wrong?

Thanks for all your input here.

Garand.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:21 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
So, you believe that I should tell them that I indeed have gun(s) in the car, even though they are in no danger from those guns, and I do not support the current infringements of our 2A rights?

Why?

They can fish, it’s true, but I don’t have to bite the hook. Am I wrong?

Thanks for all your input here.

Garand.
Garand,

You're not wrong. To continue the use of the "Fishing Expedition" analogy, the officer get's to go fishing (that's what he/she gets paid to do) just so long as they have a fishing license and follow the rules of fishing. There's no requirement for you to "bite the hook." You get to decide that one for yourself.

Please check out my comments in Post #15 of this thread. That's the long version of my answer to your question. The short version is that, yes I would respond factually to the question. Here's how I see the events playing out (assuming that you have lawfully carried weapons in your vehicle):

1) If you answer "Yes" - Now the officer has standing to inspect those weapons to determine if they are loaded (if you are in a city, or unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited). I agree that may be offensive to your sense of personal rights, but that's what the law provides. I have to think that PC 25850(b) authorizing such checks would not withstand a constitutional challenge in an objective court, but that ain't happened yet. If you disclose the location of the weapons, and the officer has no source of PC to believe other weapons are present, then (IMHO) there is no standing to search the entire vehicle.

2) If you answer "No" - If the officer believes you, and has no other source of standing to search the vehicle, then you win. If the officer develops standing to search the vehicle and finds the weapon(s), then you lose, and can lose big. Assuming that the officer was involved in the enforcement of the Vehicle Code at the time of the traffic stop, then any lie told to the officer is punishable as a misdemeanor (refer to Vehicle Code section 31). There is no requirement that the lie relate to any Vehicle Code violation. The only requirement is that the officer be involved in Vehicle Code enforcement. The penalty is a year in jail and plan on the affected weapons being destroyed.

3) If you quibble or obfuscate (including the "I don't have anything illegal in the vehicle" line) - Then you've likely given the officer a "Fishing License" to search the vehicle (please see Post #15 for a description of that works).
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:40 AM
Garand Garand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Garand,

You're not wrong. To continue the use of the "Fishing Expedition" analogy, the officer get's to go fishing (that's what he/she gets paid to do) just so long as they have a fishing license and follow the rules of fishing. There's no requirement for you to "bite the hook." You get to decide that one for yourself.

Please check out my comments in Post #15 of this thread. That's the long version of my answer to your question. The short version is that, yes I would respond factually to the question. Here's how I see the events playing out (assuming that you have lawfully carried weapons in your vehicle):

1) If you answer "Yes" - Now the officer has standing to inspect those weapons to determine if they are loaded (if you are in a city, or unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited). I agree that may be offensive to your sense of personal rights, but that's what the law provides. I have to think that PC 25850(b) authorizing such checks would not withstand a constitutional challenge in an objective court, but that ain't happened yet. If you disclose the location of the weapons, and the officer has no source of PC to believe other weapons are present, then (IMHO) there is no standing to search the entire vehicle.

2) If you answer "No" - If the officer believes you, and has no other source of standing to search the vehicle, then you win. If the officer develops standing to search the vehicle and finds the weapon(s), then you lose, and can lose big. Assuming that the officer was involved in the enforcement of the Vehicle Code at the time of the traffic stop, then any lie told to the officer is punishable as a misdemeanor (refer to Vehicle Code section 31). There is no requirement that the lie relate to any Vehicle Code violation. The only requirement is that the officer be involved in Vehicle Code enforcement. The penalty is a year in jail and plan on the affected weapons being destroyed.

3) If you quibble or obfuscate (including the "I don't have anything illegal in the vehicle" line) - Then you've likely given the officer a "Fishing License" to search the vehicle (please see Post #15 for a description of that works).
I agree strongly on point #3, but if the guns are carried legally, or if you have a CCW, then why in the world would you play along with a fishing expedition? How would he develop standing to search, if no gun is visible and I have said there are not guns here and refused a search?

I am ambivalent about lying to LE, because I very much like and respect LE, but haven't we reached the limit of compliance with the laws in this benighted state yet?

Have you checked the compliance rate with the new "assault weapons" bill? What is it, 3%? Is there no time where we simply no longer cooperate with these gun laws? Seems like there should be.

Garand
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:19 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
I agree strongly on point #3, but if the guns are carried legally, or if you have a CCW, then why in the world would you play along with a fishing expedition? How would he develop standing to search, if no gun is visible and I have said there are not guns here and refused a search?

I am ambivalent about lying to LE, because I very much like and respect LE, but haven't we reached the limit of compliance with the laws in this benighted state yet?

Have you checked the compliance rate with the new "assault weapons" bill? What is it, 3%? Is there no time where we simply no longer cooperate with these gun laws? Seems like there should be.

Garand
IMO it does not matter what you say if the officer is bent on giving you a hard time they will and if no gun is visible and they search without your consent they are most likely looking to give you a hard time. I thought the law protects us from self incrimination so why would we admit to something that could cause a problem for us? IMO you having a gun in your car is none of the officers business especially if you are not known be wanted for a crime in connection with having a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:21 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
I agree strongly on point #3, but if the guns are carried legally, or if you have a CCW, then why in the world would you play along with a fishing expedition? How would he develop standing to search, if no gun is visible and I have said there are not guns here and refused a search?

I am ambivalent about lying to LE, because I very much like and respect LE, but haven't we reached the limit of compliance with the laws in this benighted state yet?

Have you checked the compliance rate with the new "assault weapons" bill? What is it, 3%? Is there no time where we simply no longer cooperate with these gun laws? Seems like there should be.

Garand
There are a lot of ways to develop legal standing. One of my most frequently used was the "Vehicle Inventory Search." Where I worked, a lot of drivers were unlicensed and/or were driving vehicles without the owner's consent. Either condition permitted the towing of the vehicle, and that permitted the warrantless and suspicionless search of the vehicle (the idea being that the officer becomes responsible for the contents and has a right to know what they are becoming responsible for). The key advantage to this one is that it was pretty much unlimited in scope.

Another is where "Probable Cause" exists to search for evidence of a crime. There is no requirement that the crime be a serious one, or that the crime involve firearms. If you're driving a car with a B/O taillight (which is a "crime" - remember that California defines infractions as being "crimes'), the officer would have PC to search the taillight housing, associated wiring and light controls to gather evidence of that "crime." The scope of any such search is limited in scope, but any contraband or evidence discovered within the scope of such a search is admissible and any observations made during such a search can provide support for the finding of additional probable cause.

I've always believed that laws should be enacted as the final step to execute a well-defined, and properly supported, strategy to accomplish a purpose. Laws by themselves accomplish nothing (as you've pointed out). But then, in the grand scheme of things, my personal opinion don't count for much.

I should also point out that the possession of a CCW license does not affect the application of Penal Code section 25850(b). It may seem nonsensical that an officer would be able to inspect a CCW holders weapon to determine if it were loaded, since the CCW holder is permitted to have it loaded, but that's what the law provides (and we have quite a few other nonsensical laws on the books).
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 10-14-2019 at 12:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:29 PM
Garand Garand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for all the input guys. This has been sobering and enlightening.

Garand
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 10-14-2019, 1:07 PM
Spaffo's Avatar
Spaffo Spaffo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,126
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Rick, thanks for the clear explanations of all these difficult legal issues. You do a much better job at it than I do.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 10-26-2019, 5:20 PM
pauliedweasel's Avatar
pauliedweasel pauliedweasel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 424
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

I love your quote at the bottom of the page Rick, I almost peed myself reading it!
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:12 AM
lmcc0072 lmcc0072 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: NorCal
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Gun Lock

Would having a gun lock on the firearm (trigger lock or cable lock going up the handle and through an open slide) be equivalent to being in a locked container? Most lockable gun carrying cases can be easily broken open with a screw driver or crowbar. Or since the law says “locking container” that’s what we have to do even though locking the firearm would be more effective?
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:27 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lmcc0072 View Post
Would having a gun lock on the firearm (trigger lock or cable lock going up the handle and through an open slide) be equivalent to being in a locked container? Most lockable gun carrying cases can be easily broken open with a screw driver or crowbar. Or since the law says “locking container” that’s what we have to do even though locking the firearm would be more effective?
It would most likely be prudent to follow what the law says. If you have the gun in the car with only a trigger or cable lock, you will be open to prosecution. “I think this is more effective,” probably won’t help.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:29 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It would most likely be prudent to follow what the law says. If you have the gun in the car with only a trigger or cable lock, you will be open to prosecution. “I think this is more effective,” probably won’t help.
^^^THIS^^^

The requires a "Container" not a disabling device.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:51 AM
lmcc0072 lmcc0072 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: NorCal
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It would most likely be prudent to follow what the law says. If you have the gun in the car with only a trigger or cable lock, you will be open to prosecution. “I think this is more effective,” probably won’t help.

Thanks! I’ve actually been doing both locking case and gun lock when transporting and I generally don’t stop to/from the range. I also transport ammo in a different part of the car. I was just wondering if I was being overcautious.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:11 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmcc0072 View Post
Thanks! I’ve actually been doing both locking case and gun lock when transporting. Not necessary. The secure, locked container is sufficient.
and I generally don’t stop to/from the range. In a vehicle, there are no point-to-point destination restrictions. Outside the vehicle, you must go directly to and from legal-use locations.
I also transport ammo in a different part of the car. Prudent, but not necessary. Ammo can be in the same locked container as the gun, but can’t be in or attached to, the gun.
I was just wondering if I was being overcautious. Better to be overly cautious, than to find out you were “underly”-cautious.
You have to manage the risk to your own level of comfort.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 12-14-2019, 1:02 PM
tackdriver tackdriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 695
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Wow, I've learned a lot just in reading the last page of this thread.
So it's illegal to lie to an LEO even if you're not under oath, but they can lie to you?
If I understand correctly, if you're driving say an SUV you have to have ALL firearms in a locked container? Even if they aren't an AR?
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 12-14-2019, 1:33 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,417
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackdriver View Post
Wow, I've learned a lot just in reading the last page of this thread.
1) So it's illegal to lie to an LEO even if you're not under oath, but they can lie to you?

2) If I understand correctly, if you're driving say an SUV you have to have ALL firearms in a locked container? Even if they aren't an AR?
1) yes

2) not quite - handguns and RAW (Registered Assault Weapons, and machine guns, if you have any) yes. Other long guns, locked case is not required in the vehicle, but it's likely that at least a gun case would be required to move the long gun(s) to and from the vehicle, so it might result in those also being in locked cases.

And then there is the Federal Gun Free School Zone law, that requires locks or locked case or locked gun rack... (California's version of GFSZ does not cover long guns for traveling in the 1000 foot zones.)
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 12-14-2019, 3:34 PM
tackdriver tackdriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 695
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the clarification Librarian! I try to keep up with Califs convoluted gun laws but if you recall from my AR experience I keep falling behind...
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 12-16-2019, 11:13 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 12,508
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
1) yes
Not always true.. In CA a "general lie" to a Peace Officer isn't a crime.

It's illegal lie about your name and identifying information during a traffic stop or investigation 31 CVC

The text of 31 CVC
No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

(Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1264.)



It's illegal to lie about your name to avoid prosecution. 148.9 PC

The text of 148.9 PC
(a) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any other peace officer defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, upon lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the arresting officer is guilty of a misdemeanor if (1) the false information is given while the peace officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties as a peace officer and (2) the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is a peace officer.


General lying such as "I don't have guns in the car" Or "i don't have drugs". are not a violation of CA law.

Lying to a Federal Officer is however unlawful.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 12-16-2019, 12:33 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Not always true.. In CA a "general lie" to a Peace Officer isn't a crime.

It's illegal lie about your name and identifying information during a traffic stop or investigation 31 CVC

The text of 31 CVC
No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

(Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1264.)



It's illegal to lie about your name to avoid prosecution. 148.9 PC

The text of 148.9 PC
(a) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any other peace officer defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, upon lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the arresting officer is guilty of a misdemeanor if (1) the false information is given while the peace officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties as a peace officer and (2) the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is a peace officer.


General lying such as "I don't have guns in the car" Or "i don't have drugs". are not a violation of CA law.

Lying to a Federal Officer is however unlawful.
SVT-40,

Good points above, particularly with regard to the difference between state and federal officers. But I would note a couple of additional points.

1) With regard to Vehicle Code section 31, I once shared your view that a statement false statement "I don't have any guns in the car" would not violate section 31 since there was no Vehicle Code matter that would be violated by having guns in the car (same issue with "I don't have any drugs in the car"). I also have made early postings in this forum to that effect.

But things changed following the California Court or Appeals decision in People v Morera-Munoz. He was arrested in a parked vehicle while being drunk. He told the arresting officer that he had nothing to drink and that he was travelling directly home from work. He was charged with DUI (CVC 23152) and with Lying to an Officer (CVC 31) . The trial court acquitted him on the DUI charge (presumably because they were not convinced that he "operated" the parked vehicle) but he was convicted of the lying charge.

Morera-Munoz appealed his misdemeanor conviction to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court which held that CVC 31 was unconstitutional since it contained no provision that the lie told must be "Material" to offense. (Like many others, I had previously assumed that a CVC 31 lie must have been material to a CVC offense). The people subsequently appealed to the CCA.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. As to the issue of materiality, it held that there was no requirement for materiality to be contained in the text of the statute, but that materiality was required as a matter of construction of the statute, and that that requirement was met though the use of the standard jury instruction concerning section 31. The decision further explained that a question is material if the answer would direct the investigating officer to a particular course of action, or lead him/her away from a particular course of action.

CVC section 31 contains no requirement that he lie told be relevant to a CVC matter. It only requires that the lie told relate to the officer's performance of duty. Morera-Munoz further requires that the lie told be material to the performance of the officers duty.

A lie told in response to "Do you have any guns in the car" is material for a number of reasons. The answer will direct the officer safety actions taken by the LEO during the course of the stop. It will also determine if the officer will perform the weapon(s) inspection under Penal Code section 25850(b).

A lie told in response to "Do you have any drugs in the car" is also material. The answer will affect the LEO's quantification of "Probable Cause" to believe that illegal drugs are in the car, and the lawfulness of a vehicle search under U.S. v Ross)(and also opening up Pandora's box of legal issues beyond the scope of this thread). It also affects the LEOs evaluation of whether there is a requirement to perform public safety HAZMAT duties (as is the case with PCP and Fentanyl substances).

2) Where false evidence of identity is offered, and the identity provided is that of another person, Penal Code section 529(a)(3) is a preferred charge over 148.9. It provides a felony penalty reflecting the more serious nature of the violation.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 12-16-2019, 12:44 PM
Usmc0844spare's Avatar
Usmc0844spare Usmc0844spare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post

2) not quite - handguns and RAW (Registered Assault Weapons, and machine guns, if you have any) yes. Other long guns, locked case is not required in the vehicle, but it's likely that at least a gun case would be required to move the long gun(s) to and from the vehicle, so it might result in those also being in locked cases.
OK, sorry to play "Are you double triple super duper sure?" but I was reading through the rest of this thread and getting more and more confused...

So, if I transport my unloaded Ruger 10/22, to and from the range, in a standard zip-up soft-sided gun-case* that does not have a locking provision, and is therefore not locked, in the back of my Prius hatchback.... I am good, correct?


*https://www.cabelas.com/product/Ruge...ase/734686.uts
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 12-16-2019, 1:39 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Garand,

You're not wrong. To continue the use of the "Fishing Expedition" analogy, the officer get's to go fishing (that's what he/she gets paid to do) just so long as they have a fishing license and follow the rules of fishing. There's no requirement for you to "bite the hook." You get to decide that one for yourself.

Please check out my comments in Post #15 of this thread. That's the long version of my answer to your question. The short version is that, yes I would respond factually to the question. Here's how I see the events playing out (assuming that you have lawfully carried weapons in your vehicle):

1) If you answer "Yes" - Now the officer has standing to inspect those weapons to determine if they are loaded (if you are in a city, or unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited). I agree that may be offensive to your sense of personal rights, but that's what the law provides. I have to think that PC 25850(b) authorizing such checks would not withstand a constitutional challenge in an objective court, but that ain't happened yet. If you disclose the location of the weapons, and the officer has no source of PC to believe other weapons are present, then (IMHO) there is no standing to search the entire vehicle.

2) If you answer "No" - If the officer believes you, and has no other source of standing to search the vehicle, then you win. If the officer develops standing to search the vehicle and finds the weapon(s), then you lose, and can lose big. Assuming that the officer was involved in the enforcement of the Vehicle Code at the time of the traffic stop, then any lie told to the officer is punishable as a misdemeanor (refer to Vehicle Code section 31). There is no requirement that the lie relate to any Vehicle Code violation. The only requirement is that the officer be involved in Vehicle Code enforcement. The penalty is a year in jail and plan on the affected weapons being destroyed.

3) If you quibble or obfuscate (including the "I don't have anything illegal in the vehicle" line) - Then you've likely given the officer a "Fishing License" to search the vehicle (please see Post #15 for a description of that works).
Regarding lying, I remember you posted somewhere else that if no other crime has occurred these tend to not result in convictions? I think you told a story once about how you did once recommend charges on a person who was lying about either their address or license and the judge threw it out.

This started a cost analysis for me wherein I determined that for most people it was probably worth the risk since 99% of the time the officer will move on if you say no. In the 1% chance they do find a way to look you have the defense that you hadn't consented and (again, assuming no other crime was committed), you will likely not be prosecuted just for lying.
__________________
For you to believe globalization can continue, you have to believe it doesn't require increased consumption and that the Americans will continue to bleed and die so that the Chinese can access energy. - Peter Zeihan

Last edited by Sousuke; 12-16-2019 at 1:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 12-16-2019, 1:59 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 12,508
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
SVT-40,

Good points above, particularly with regard to the difference between state and federal officers. But I would note a couple of additional points.

1) With regard to Vehicle Code section 31, I once shared your view that a statement false statement "I don't have any guns in the car" would not violate section 31 since there was no Vehicle Code matter that would be violated by having guns in the car (same issue with "I don't have any drugs in the car"). I also have made early postings in this forum to that effect.

But things changed following the California Court or Appeals decision in People v Morera-Munoz. He was arrested in a parked vehicle while being drunk. He told the arresting officer that he had nothing to drink and that he was travelling directly home from work. He was charged with DUI (CVC 23152) and with Lying to an Officer (CVC 31) . The trial court acquitted him on the DUI charge (presumably because they were not convinced that he "operated" the parked vehicle) but he was convicted of the lying charge.

Morera-Munoz appealed his misdemeanor conviction to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court which held that CVC 31 was unconstitutional since it contained no provision that the lie told must be "Material" to offense. (Like many others, I had previously assumed that a CVC 31 lie must have been material to a CVC offense). The people subsequently appealed to the CCA.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. As to the issue of materiality, it held that there was no requirement for materiality to be contained in the text of the statute, but that materiality was required as a matter of construction of the statute, and that that requirement was met though the use of the standard jury instruction concerning section 31. The decision further explained that a question is material if the answer would direct the investigating officer to a particular course of action, or lead him/her away from a particular course of action.

CVC section 31 contains no requirement that he lie told be relevant to a CVC matter. It only requires that the lie told relate to the officer's performance of duty. Morera-Munoz further requires that the lie told be material to the performance of the officers duty.

A lie told in response to "Do you have any guns in the car" is material for a number of reasons. The answer will direct the officer safety actions taken by the LEO during the course of the stop. It will also determine if the officer will perform the weapon(s) inspection under Penal Code section 25850(b).

A lie told in response to "Do you have any drugs in the car" is also material. The answer will affect the LEO's quantification of "Probable Cause" to believe that illegal drugs are in the car, and the lawfulness of a vehicle search under U.S. v Ross)(and also opening up Pandora's box of legal issues beyond the scope of this thread). It also affects the LEOs evaluation of whether there is a requirement to perform public safety HAZMAT duties (as is the case with PCP and Fentanyl substances).

2) Where false evidence of identity is offered, and the identity provided is that of another person, Penal Code section 529(a)(3) is a preferred charge over 148.9. It provides a felony penalty reflecting the more serious nature of the violation.
Thanks! The courts have a real affinity to complicate what apperars to be a simple issue!!!
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 12-16-2019, 4:31 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Thanks! The courts have a real affinity to complicate what apperars to be a simple issue!!!
You are so very right on this. I'll bet we both have some really good stories to tell.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 12-16-2019, 5:02 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Regarding lying, I remember you posted somewhere else that if no other crime has occurred these tend to not result in convictions? I think you told a story once about how you did once recommend charges on a person who was lying about either their address or license and the judge threw it out.

This started a cost analysis for me wherein I determined that for most people it was probably worth the risk since 99% of the time the officer will move on if you say no. In the 1% chance they do find a way to look you have the defense that you hadn't consented and (again, assuming no other crime was committed), you will likely not be prosecuted just for lying.
Sousuke,

I have often described CVC 31 (Lying) and PC 148(a) (Obstructing an Officer) as being charges that are often abused and that are commonly regarded by LEO's as indicating an "attitude arrest." There are a lot of valid arrests being made on these charges, but they're worth being looked at closely. My prior agency had an special review process for 148(a) arrests because of this.

During my 37 years of active service, I made exactly one arrest for 148(a) PC and exactly one (not a physical arrest, it was an amended citation) for 31 CVC.

I didn't see a lot of CVC 31 cases. I can tell you that a lot of cases where 148(a) PC was the sole charge did not survive filing review by the District Attorney's Office (meaning that it got thrown out before even getting to the judge).

My CVC 31 case was one where I stopped an Aerospace Engineer for speeding. He requested that I cite him into the "County Seat" rather than the local court. This occurred right after the law concerning "County Seat" citations had changed. Previously, anyone had the right to be cited into the "County Seat" upon demand. After the change, only folks who lived or worked closer to the "County Seat" were entitled to the change. The defendant in my case did not qualify for the "County Seat" cite based on his residence and I asked him for his work address. He replied that it was "Classified Information" and that he would not divulge it. County Seat citations are no big deal. All I have to do is change the address on the cite, and then the station secretary puts a cover letter on it and mails it to court. It was also easier for me to appear the downtown court than it was to appear in the Inglewood branch court. I gave him the County Seat cite as requested. My sergeant figured out that he was lying (not that there was any doubt) and amended the citation to include the CVC 31 charge. He also arranged for the Aerospace firms Security Manager and Personnel Manager to be issued "Subpoena Duces Tecum" to appear with documents showing his work address and the type of security clearance held and the content of his security briefing relative to that clearance. The trial proved to be a classic circus. We had a really good judge, but it was still a circus. The defendant was found guilty on the CVC 31 charge. He got no jail time due to a pre-trial agreement that allowed the traffic court judge to hear the case, but the fine was quite substantial.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 12-16-2019, 10:40 PM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 670
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Thanks! The courts have a real affinity to complicate what apperars to be a simple issue!!!
Yep, this right here. And including the legislators in this as well. The fact that LE can legally inspect a CCW holders weapon to see if it is loaded is prima facie evidence of legislative ineptitude and/or insanity.
__________________
"You fickers are all cray cray in my opinion. Non of you have an iQ over 80." - SandyCrotchSurfer aka SandyEggoSurf

"News stories and the truth are a bit like fraternal twins. They are related but only vaguely resemble each other."

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 12-17-2019, 7:28 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
Yep, this right here. And including the legislators in this as well. The fact that LE can legally inspect a CCW holders weapon to see if it is loaded is prima facie evidence of legislative ineptitude and/or insanity.

The #1 on my hit list is having a CCW, carrying a concealed, loaded gun into a gun store, using the CCW as ID to purchase another gun, then leaving without my new gun, but with my loaded, concealed weapon so I can “cool off” for 10 days.

And the court said, “That makes sense.”
/
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 12-17-2019 at 7:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 12-17-2019, 9:48 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Thanks! The courts have a real affinity to complicate what apperars to be a simple issue!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
Yep, this right here. And including the legislators in this as well. The fact that LE can legally inspect a CCW holders weapon to see if it is loaded is prima facie evidence of legislative ineptitude and/or insanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post

The #1 on my hit list is having a CCW, carrying a concealed, loaded gun into a gun store, using the CCW as ID to purchase another gun, then leaving without my new gun, but with my loaded, concealed weapon so I can “cool off” for 10 days.

And the court said, “That makes sense.”
/
You gents are so very correct here, there are a lot of such egregious examples where the law has gone sideways. One that continues to trouble me greatly is the omission of "lawful self-defese" from California's Domestic Violence statute (PC 273.5). As a young deputy, I responded to a "Family Fight" call where the husband had charged at his wife with a knife in hand, and where several family witnesses explained that he was going to stab her. She responded by throwing the contents of a "Stir Fry" pan, along with the pan, at him causing him to cease his attack, and also resulting in some serious burns.

It was quite clear that her infliction of injuries on him was the result of lawful self-defense.

I arrested the husband for an Assault with a Deadly Weapon charge.

The problem was what to do with the wife. Her infliction of the injuries was clearly self defense. She had not violated California's assault statute and had not violated California's battery statutes because both contain an exemption for self-defense (by reason that the force must be "Unlawful").

But she had violated California's Domestic Violence statute. It made the infliction of a "Traumatic Condition" on a spouse a felony and it contained no source of exemption for injuries that were the result of lawful self-defense (and to this day still does not contain such an exemption). To make matters worse, my agency had adopted a policy that arrests be made under this section if the elements of a violation were present.

As a young deputy, I was overly inclined to follow the rules, but this one seemed wrong in the present application. The guidance of Penal Code section 4 about reasonable application should have prevailed over the policy. Rather than just "doing that" and taken the risk of getting yelled at later, I phoned my watch commander and made my "PC 4" argument for disregarding the arrest policy.

The wife went to jail, and with a much larger bail than her husband. Fortunately, the DDA read my report closely (and between the lines) and did not file charges

That put me on the warpath about stupid laws. It happened more than 30 years ago, but I'm still on the warpath. It also taught me to do the right thing and accept getting yelled at, something that I only recall happening once in the following years.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 12-17-2019 at 5:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 12-20-2019, 4:26 AM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_k_lopez View Post
When stopped by the police, immediately roll up your window and leave a one inch gap. Demand to speak to a supervisor and keep repeating you don't consent to any searches of your vehicle, and that whatever he is accusing you of doing is legal under the constitution.

Here is some real advice:

1) Make sure you are compliant with the laws regarding the proper storage and transportation of firearms - that means know what the laws are and follow them

2) Don't drive around in your illegal "look at me" lowered/raised, loud stereo bumping, tinted windows, broken tail light vehicle speeding or making illegal lane changes when transporting firearms.

I've been shooting for close to 40 years, I shoot every other Friday (for the last 4 years) and I have never been pulled over going to or from the range and Angeles is a 50 mile trip from my house.

there's a first time for everything.
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 02-17-2020, 12:36 AM
DiogiDoc DiogiDoc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 175
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

My friend was pulled over in California for expired registration. The sheriff asked to search the car and he/she refused. The sheriff informed him/her that he is towing the car and inventorying the car thus searching it and did he need to be informed about anything he might find. Out of courtesy for the officer he/she informed the officer that a registered legal unloaded handgun was in the trunk of the car. The gun was confiscated for not being in a locked container and the owner was cited. The officer did not impound the car or inventory the car.

My question is - is this a legal search and seizure since the officer lied to my friend in order to obtain information to search the car?

A request for search was denied, my friend stated nothing illegal was present in the car, the officer stated the car was going to be searched, the officer did not search the car (just for the handgun). My friend informed the officer of the handgun only after being informed of the impending search in an act of courtesy and cooperation. No receipt or evidence information was given to my friend for the handgun.

I would appreciate responses to the question and would also appreciate forgoing the "why wasnt the car registration current" or "follow the vehicle code and he/she couldve avoided this" or "shouldve had it stored more appropriately". I know you all mean well, but I think my friend (and yes it is my friend) has already ask him/herself those question repeatedly, so thank you in advance.

Last edited by DiogiDoc; 02-17-2020 at 12:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 02-17-2020, 7:22 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You don’t state the nature of the citation...was it for unregistered vehicle or was it for carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle? Regardless,

1. Cops can lie.
2. Cops can change their minds.
3. Cops can say things to induce a response. In this case, the officer probably had no intention of towing the car, but leveraged the potential delay, inconvenience and cost of impoundment to get the driver to agree to the search or otherwise create an opportunity. Your friend obliged.
4. As soon as the driver stated there was a firearm present, as a matter of law, the officer had the right to search without a warrant to locate the firearm and determine if it was loaded.
Quote:
CA PEN 25850.
(a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the 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.
(b) 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 the 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.
5. If the firearm was unloaded and locked in the trunk, then it met the conditions for lawful transport. CA PEN 25610.
Quote:
25610.
(a) Section 25400 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.
6. When confiscating a firearm, except for domestic violence or other prohibited actions, the officer doesn’t appear to be required to provide a receipt.
7. Your friend may be able to contest the citation, depending upon what the officer observed and recorded in his/her notes. But, unless the officer testifies the gun was appropriately secured, (see PC, above), your friend won’t win. A skilled gun law attorney may be able to have a productive conversation with LEO, but that will cost $$$.
8. Your friend has to file a LEGR to get the gun back.
9. Your friend also has to register the car (a judge will ask about it.)
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 02-17-2020 at 1:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 02-18-2020, 7:26 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,122
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If there ever was a thread to follow on Calguns, it is this one.
Simple things can turn into major headaches, mostly due to folks for whatever reason lacking proper caution. I have said before that equipment issues, traffic maneuvers/courtesies/driving, and current licensing status have likely been the starting point of 99% of interactions with LE, so if one can be up on those, very likely you won't be having those conversations to begin with. Let the millions of other drivers be the focal point instead.
And as unbalanced as the playing field is, lying to the police never goes well.
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 02-18-2020, 7:44 AM
Rakso's Avatar
Rakso Rakso is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: IE
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Ok, I won't read 15 pages. When asked if firearms in the vehicle:

If all firearms are lawfully transported, why not just say yes?
Got no illegal firearms, why not say yes?
If law abiding citizen, why not say yes?

Please educate me on why to respond with a different answer other than yes or no.

Yes don't do anything to make yourself a target for a traffic stop or whatever type of action to make yourself a target.
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 02-18-2020, 9:17 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakso View Post
Ok, I won't read 15 pages. When asked if firearms in the vehicle:

If all firearms are lawfully transported, why not just say yes?
Got no illegal firearms, why not say yes?
If law abiding citizen, why not say yes?

Please educate me on why to respond with a different answer other than yes or no.

Yes don't do anything to make yourself a target for a traffic stop or whatever type of action to make yourself a target.
Read RickD427’s synopsis on Page 1.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 02-18-2020 at 9:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 02-27-2020, 5:01 AM
Sniper3142's Avatar
Sniper3142 Sniper3142 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 2,576
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakso View Post
Ok, I won't read 15 pages. When asked if firearms in the vehicle:

If all firearms are lawfully transported, why not just say yes?
Got no illegal firearms, why not say yes?
If law abiding citizen, why not say yes?

Please educate me on why to respond with a different answer other than yes or no.

Yes don't do anything to make yourself a target for a traffic stop or whatever type of action to make yourself a target.
Post # 594 a few above yours answers that question. If accurate, that firearm WAS being transported legally, and yet the officer confiscated it.
__________________
Internet Talk is Cheap

Man Up, Show Up, or Shut the @#$! Up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74HgbjSCLM
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 04-28-2021, 3:30 PM
Hayduke Lives's Avatar
Hayduke Lives Hayduke Lives is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 91
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Most probably don't want to see this thread get bumped again. But how do you know the officer doesn't already know you have guns in your vehicle? Not too long ago we got pulled over. Trailer hitch was blocking full view of the license plate. Asked if we had firearms in the truck we said yes. Told him they were all legally registered unloaded and in locked containers. He said good. Because he saw us out shooting on the other side of the canyon earlier in the morning. He didn't even ask to inspect them. Gave us the opportunity to remove trailer hitch and not get a fix it ticket. I know the whole thing would have ended real bad for lying. Since he already knew we had guns.
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 04-28-2021, 5:43 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke Lives View Post
Most probably don't want to see this thread get bumped again. But how do you know the officer doesn't already know you have guns in your vehicle? Not too long ago we got pulled over. Trailer hitch was blocking full view of the license plate. Asked if we had firearms in the truck we said yes. Told him they were all legally registered unloaded and in locked containers. He said good. Because he saw us out shooting on the other side of the canyon earlier in the morning. He didn't even ask to inspect them. Gave us the opportunity to remove trailer hitch and not get a fix it ticket. I know the whole thing would have ended real bad for lying. Since he already knew we had guns.
Cliff’s Notes:
-Stopped by Cops for nuisance
-Answered truthfully
-Went on way

Lessons:
-Cops can find a reason to pull you over
-Have your stuff together and tight before that happens
-Tell the truth
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
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 1:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy