Got pulled over last night

[CAL.BAR]

There is no way a license plate leads to gun ownership knowledge.

The DL does.

Doesn't the License plate get you the CDL? I would think it does.

[velvitt]

Doesn't the License plate get you the CDL? I would think it does.

Not in California. The license plate only shows the registered owner (no personal identifiers (DL#, height, weight, etc.)

You can register a vehicle to a company in California, like what rental car companies and some limo services do.

Can't get firearms info from running a license plate.

[velvitt]

The officer ran the license plate number thru his on board computer and got a readout from the National data base which lists firearms registered to the driver. The Officer will know everything there is about you from his readout. And I mean everything. Trust me, I know these things!

You're joking, right?

[Spaffo]

Ricochet was joking. I don't think he's delusional!

[VMCJ-3]

I had a medical issue a few years ago. The lovely MrsVMCJ-3 called 911 on the landline for fire/paramedics to respond.

RSO dispatch called her back on the landline and wanted to know if "ALL" of the firearms were secure.

I always thought it was kinda creepy that they did that.

[IVC]

He didnt ask about it, he told him he knew he owned one.

He didnt need PC to tell him that.

He also doesnt need probable cause to ask about it, either.

Brush up on what PC is and is not needed for.

True and correct, but the point is that asking about "military style rifles" and "consensual search" when lacking PC is an unwelcome fishing. It's in no way connected to the inoperative license plate light that the OP got pulled over for.

It's like telling a cop "my salary pays your taxes" or completely refusing to have any type of conversation by citing the "right to remain silent" - a DB move. People are getting tired of it, much like people got tired of being pulled over for "driving while black."

Polices can change and they have changed in the past when a group of people decided that fishing expeditions are in fact violations of rights when used systematically against the group.

[Jimi Jah]

Military style? Yes, just like the one in your police car. Or the M&P on your belt.

[Bill Bored]

Yes, don't drive through New Mexico without at least a few hundred in cash. If you're from out of state, they take you right to the judge. Of course there's a 105% chance you lose the "trial" and have to pay the fine, no checks or credit cards accepted. It may have changed since it happened to people I know several years ago. Luckily they were just a smidge short of what most people would call "wealthy" and had plenty of cash with them.

but if you have a wad of cash on you then they say you a drug dealer and take the money so how can you win?

[SVT-40]

What about firearms with the more detailed 'registration' under schemes of Roberti-Roos, SB23 "AW Features", AB50/.50BMG, or the latest "Bullet-Button AW" farce?

Do you know if those come up differently or have a different protocol for release/reporting through a dispatcher outside of general info by way of common DROS data in AFS?

ALL firearms records are held in AFS including AW's. However dispatchers are prohibited from broadcasting AW return info over the radio. That info would usually be communicated via MDT or cell phone.

One additional way a dispatcher may be privy to AW info is from local records. I believe CA DOJ sends AW registration to the agency where a registrant lives. So that information could be available if a name search was done by a dispatcher through local records.

The same restrictions on broadcasting that info over a radio would still apply.

I hope that answers your questions.

[The Gleam]

ALL firearms records are held in AFS including AW's. However dispatchers are prohibited from broadcasting AW return info over the radio. That info would usually be communicated via MDT or cell phone.

One additional way a dispatcher may be privy to AW info is from local records. I believe CA DOJ sends AW registration to the agency where a registrant lives. So that information could be available if a name search was done by a dispatcher through local records.

The same restrictions on broadcasting that info over a radio would still apply.

I hope that answers your questions.

Thanks; was always curious about just how they handle the information on that point.

[IVC]

AHowever dispatchers are prohibited from broadcasting AW return info over the radio.
...
The same restrictions on broadcasting that info over a radio would still apply.

When you say "prohibited" do you mean there is a department policy (if so, are there any departments that are different?), or do you mean that there is a law that prohibits transmission of such information due to privacy (or other) concerns?

[mrdd]

California Penal Code

31105.
(a) No peace officer or dispatcher shall broadcast over a police radio that an individual has registered, or has obtained a permit to possess, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to this chapter, unless there exists a reason to believe in good faith that one of the following conditions exist:

(1) The individual has engaged, or may be engaged, in criminal conduct.

(2) The police are responding to a call in which the person allegedly committing a criminal violation may gain access to the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.

(3) The victim, witness, or person who reported the alleged criminal violation may be using the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle to hold the person allegedly committing the criminal violation, or may be using the weapon in defense of self or another person.

(b) This section shall not prohibit a peace officer or dispatcher from broadcasting over a police radio that an individual has not registered, or has not obtained a permit to possess, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to this chapter.

(c) This section does not limit the transmission of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle ownership status via law enforcement computers or any other medium that is legally accessible only to peace officers or other authorized personnel.

[SVT-40]

As above!!

[TrailerparkTrash]

what probable cause did the officer have to ask you about a military type weapon? It is reasonable to ask if you have any weapons (not specifically guns) in the car but that question was a little specific. also there was no probable cause to search the car from what you have said so i assume you said nothing to provoke "probable" cause for a search did you. Sounds very fishy to me.

You’re totally incorrect.

1). A cop doesn’t need “probable cause” to ask any question to someone that’s NOT under arrest. He can ask anything he wants.

2). Probable cause is NOT required when the OP said he CONSENTED to a search.

This story is slim and shady. Facts have been left out of the story.

[J_BomBer]

Either way, military style firearm? Which one? Pistol? Rifle? Shotgun? ��