Finally Called on for OC

[Liberty1]

...stated basically that yes, the officers are expected to run the serial # during any encounter where a firearm is found or discovered on a person, or in his possession. So where's the disconnect with this rule? What is the statute that covers this? There must be a training break-down somewhere.

What we are talking about is basic 4th Amendment search and siezure principals and prohibitions against government action.

In our example an individual has been stopped for no other reason then the officer can see a lawful openly carried firearm.

In our example there is no resonable suspicion to detain for a "Terry investigation" and no probable cause to believe a crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed which would allow a peace officers to lawfully stop that individual.

Setting aside the constitutionality of 12031 (e), which in and of itself is likely a 4th A. violation, once the loaded check is done, which should only take seconds and if the firearm is found unloaded, there is no further lawful reason for a prolonged detention or additional searches (of serial #s, name DOB, Terry "pat down", digging into pockets, etc...) unless further searches and record checks are consensual or the officer found RS/PC.

Although I don't believe this is binding on CA, it is based on sound 4th A. principles: Arizona v. Hicks

Additionally, this was recently published by the Cal. Police Officer Assoc. attorney concerning UOC and PC 12031(e): http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...t-12042008.pdf

If the firearm is unloaded, it should be returned and the subject released to go about his/her lawful business.

[AaronHorrocks]

This has been covered so many times.

A loaded magazine in the pocket, btw, is a no-no.

What about a loaded magazine in a magazine pocket?
Example: 5.11 Tactical pants's Magazine pocket. When loaded with a mag, it's obvious that there's a mag in there.

[Liberty1]

To sum up, there is there a specific statute, or case law that prohibits police from running the serial # to find out if it's stolen, or just 12031 that does not specifically permit it in wording? Educate me.

Is there a specific statute which allows you to stop all persons carrying a Rolex to see if it is in the stolen property system?

No, rather it is prohibited by the 4th A and such searches are allowed only by the exceptions of RS/PC to detain and search if not consensual.

Oh, my father would really like his watch back if you could find it please.

[7x57]

I've read this statement several times on different threads on this forum and others. I must confess ignorance. I've been retired 2 years now, but I always ran the serial # when checking a firearm to see if it was stolen. I can't see where it's any different than running a vehicle license plate during a traffic stop to find out if it's a stolen vehicle. If a cop stopped someone that had a firearm stolen from me, I'd want the cop to run the serial # in addition to checking it's status. I called the training Sgt's on my local PD, SO, and CHP this week to find out what this law was. Likewise with my Fish and Game Warden next door. They had never heard of it, and stated basically that yes, the officers are expected to run the serial # during any encounter where a firearm is found or discovered on a person, or in his possession. So where's the disconnect with this rule? What is the statute that covers this? There must be a training break-down somewhere.

Apparently not *every* contact with a gun ends up with a serial number check. Over Thanksgiving weekend we were shooting out in the desert near Barstow and someone called the Sheriff because they heard shots. The deputy that responded checked our ID's (no doubt to see if we had any felonies or something) but did *not* run the serial numbers on the guns. Granted, there would have been quite a few to run. There were no dreaded evil black rifles to cause fear and loathing, but there were handguns.

On the whole I thought he did quite a good job, very respectful and no hassles--so much so that it didn't even occur to me at the time that perhaps a nice letter to to the SD thanking them for his courteous and professional stop might have been appropriate. To be honest I suspect he'd have been happy to shoot a few rounds if he'd been off-duty.

Should I have written the letter in the interests of goodwill? I guess I still could. It didn't occur to me to write down his name or anything, but I could still give the date and approximate time and location.

7x57

[Liberty1]

What about a loaded magazine in a magazine pocket?
Example: 5.11 Tactical pants's Magazine pocket. When loaded with a mag, it's obvious that there's a mag in there.

I don't see concealed mag = concealed gun as settled law. Rather we advise people to avoid the issue by OCing the mag in a mag pouch. And it allows for easier access in case of need.

[Fire in the Hole]

Liberty1, thanks for the detailed information and the links. They were helpful. I see that it all comes down to a 4th amendment issue, and the case law of Hicks. Not a specific prohibitative statue in the PC.

Unfortunately due to budget cuts, most depts. can no longer afford to subscribe to the CAPOA updates, as they charge for them. Local depts. rely on the DA to come in once a year to discuss any major changes in the law. And this only happens around Feb of each year for about 3 hours. Reserve officers are at even more of a disadvantage.

My personal opinion based upon my own personal experience is that Police Managers want you to just go out there and use common sense, and not worry about specifics of the ever changing laws. They feel that recovering stolen property is more of a priority. Who cares if the search is squashed on discovery, or thrown out. The important thing is that the victim got his property back, the BG can not get it returned to him. Although I've personally worked briefly as the evidence tech., when I was out on temp. disability, and had BG's as the owner of the Meth come right into the station house to get their drugs back that were unlawfully seized based upon a 4th amendment search.

[Liberty1]

Apparently not *every* contact with a gun ends up with a serial number check. Over Thanksgiving weekend we were shooting out in the desert near Barstow and someone called the Sheriff because they heard shots. The deputy that responded checked our ID's (no doubt to see if we had any felonies or something) but did *not* run the serial numbers on the guns. Granted, there would have been quite a few to run. There were no dreaded evil black rifles to cause fear and loathing, but there were handguns.

On the whole I thought he did quite a good job, very respectful and no hassles--so much so that it didn't even occur to me at the time that perhaps a nice letter to to the SD thanking them for his courteous and professional stop might have been appropriate. To be honest I suspect he'd have been happy to shoot a few rounds if he'd been off-duty.

Should I have written the letter in the interests of goodwill? I guess I still could. It didn't occur to me to write down his name or anything, but I could still give the date and approximate time and location.

7x57

California has no Stop and ID statute. Hopefully the ID records checks were consensual? or were you in a no shooting area?

[Liberty1]

My personal opinion based upon my own personal experience is that Police Managers want you to just go out there and use common sense, and not worry about specifics of the ever changing laws. They feel that recovering stolen property is more of a priority. Who cares if the search is squashed on discovery, or thrown out.

They will care when US Code title 42,1983 is brought to bear. Personal damages are a beeach when you should have known better.

[Fire in the Hole]

Liberty1 I tried your link, but all I get is a page to the Cornell School of Law asking for a donation. I'm not arguing that your are right, but as you say "Should have known better." If a cop isn't trained to know federal statutes, and relys on his dept. to keep him abreast of these and other vicarious liability issues etc, then the "test of reasonableness" comes into play. I've seen it happen before once when the City Attorney, Chief, and bureau of professional standards had never heard nor seen of a particular case law, then how is the lonely cop on the beat with a HS education, working as a reserve suppose to know? But anyway, thanks again for the information. It was useful in filling in my gap.

[Liberty1]

Liberty1 I tried your link, but all I get is a page to the Cornell School of Law asking for a donation.

Hit the "no" thanks option. Also do some "open carry" searches on this site and check out californiaopencarry.org for more fun reading.

and welcome to calguns!

have you bought an OLL yet?

[AaronHorrocks]

I don't see concealed mag = concealed gun as settled law. Rather we advise people to avoid the issue by OCing the mag in a mag pouch. And it allows for easier access in case of need.

It sounds likt you haven't worn 5.11 pants.
The "magazine" pocket on 5.11 pants are specifically designed for a magazine. The baseplate partcially sticks out, allowing for a quick frim grab. The velcro lid allows for one motion to remove the mag. It's designed "for easier access in case of need"

[Decoligny]

Thanks, but if the3 police already have you "detained" to inspect the gun to find out if it's loaded, what's another 1 minute to run it through NCIC to find out if it's stolen? This seems like a reasonable time. Besides recovering stolen property and returning itg to its rightgful owner is a basic fundamental job of the police. It's one of the things my tax dolars pay for. I can see bad PR for police who only check to determine if a gun is loaded, then return it back to the crook. I can see a theft victim coming unglued if he found this out. But perhaps I'm just adressing this due to my apparentg lack of knowlege on the subject. To sum up, there is there a specific statute, or case law that prohibits police from running the serial # to find out if it's stolen, or just 12031 that does not specifically permit it in wording? Educate me.

Rephrase it this way: Thanks, but if the police already have you "detained" to inspect the gun to find out if it's loaded, what's another 1 minute to have you turn out your pockets to see if you are carrying drugs?

Or this way: Thanks, but if the police already have you "detained" to inspect the gun to find out if it's loaded, what's another 1 minute to have them run your I.D. to find out if you have wants and warrents?

If there is no PROBABLE CAUSE for this search, then it violates your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure and to be secure in your papers and effects (property).

[Liberty1]

It sounds likt you haven't worn 5.11 pants.
The "magazine" pocket on 5.11 pants are specifically designed for a magazine. The baseplate partcially sticks out, allowing for a quick frim grab. The velcro lid allows for one motion to remove the mag. It's designed "for easier access in case of need"

I keep my mags in belt pouches. My cell phone goes in my 5.11 pants "mag pouch".

Carry on!

But along this line of thinking, if a gun is concealed in a "gun case" it should be considered openly carried and not a violation of 12025. Keep in mind I support Vermont carry.

[Fire in the Hole]

I will follow your advice. But as I allude to to in the "Should have known better" test of reasonableness. It seems that the only way most of this information can be gleened is through the internet. Not all cops own computers, nor care to do legal research on their own time. By the end of the day, they have had it. Supervisors hate to see cops just Googleing in the office when they want them out showing the black and white in the neighborhood. Furthermore, most agencies disallow internet log in permission on on Dept computers, for fear that the cops might be visiting places they shouldn't be. No easy fix I guess, but lack of training has always been a bone of contention for me personally. It's expensive and time consuming. This is why lots of Depts. limit range time to the bare minimum, due to the cost of ammo and targets. Our local SO deputies have to take a furlough day once a month to make the depts. pay day.


I have not bought an OLL yet. I've just learned of them this past year. I plan to move to ID in a couple of years any way so, no rush. Right now I'm saving for a Socom II. I bought a nice used Remington Tac Storm digital camoed pistol grip shotgun yesterday for $400.00. It's in mint condition, so I'm happy today. On my way to the range to put some Hornady TAP buck shot through it.

[The SoCal Gunner]

then how is the lonely cop on the beat with a HS education, working as a reserve suppose to know?

Ain't it grand that when citizens don't know the law it can put them in jail but when a cop on the beat with a HS education doesn't know the law they just get a slap on the wrist after violating a citizen's rights.