Livermore PD responds to inquiry re UOC stop, provides stop/search/UOC policies

[wildhawker]

All,

After reading here about the recent Livermore PD UOC incident allegedly related to Mr. Walter Stanley, I began an inquiry with the Livermore Police Department to determine their department's policy as relates to UOC response and the search of pedestrians openly carrying unloaded firearms.

As a response to my request, I received the attached correspondence and associated department policies; namely, Livermore PD's policy no. 322 concerning "Search and Seizure" and policy no. 441, "Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) Movement".

Note that I have not yet received the electronic footage responsive to my request but will update this post with a link to the file as soon as it's available. Also, their response has triggered further inquiries with the department which I'll also provide updates to here.

Livermore Police Department 9-1-10 Letter re UOC: City of Livermore re UOC.pdf

-Brandon

[shellyzsweet]

Can u post it?? -im on my phone....
Thx!

[Nessal]

Sounds like they know the law regarding UOC.

[dantodd]

Interestingly they appear to believe that taping over a serial number would be cause to arrest. You'll notice that they mention CPC 537(e) as well as 12090. The only substantial difference where you would be in violation of 537(e) but not 12090 is if the serial number is

12090 makes it illegal if one: "alters removes or obliterates" markings or serial number
537 makes it a crime if a serial number is : " removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed"

[safewaysecurity]

Heh was this a result of me posting the video on the forum? " Some do this solely to provoke a confrontation with law enforcement officers " sheesh what factual evidence do they have of that? Sounds a bit unprofessional to put that in such a document.

[wildhawker]

Without going into too much detail, I find their policy concerning on a number of accounts, such as the judgement of those with a "perception" of a right and how a "movement" gets it's own policy. Not that they'd target expression of political speech and protest...

[safewaysecurity]

Without going into too much detail, I find their policy concerning on a number of accounts, such as the judgement of those with a "perception" of a right and how a "movement" gets it's own policy. Not that they'd target expression of political speech and protest...

Yeh I like how they say they perceive their actions are lawful and shouldn't have to present ID as if it's the contrary...

[dantodd]

Without going into too much detail, I find their policy concerning on a number of accounts, such as the judgement of those with a "perception" of a right and how a "movement" gets it's own policy. Not that they'd target expression of political speech and protest...

Yeah, it was pretty politically loaded, I liked the part about "It is their stance that they are complying with all laws" and then as an afterthought... oh. btw, they actually are complying with all laws.

Or

"Many see this as a constitutional right."


The other question was regarding writing down the serial number. The directive is that the officer must write down the serial number and "if practical, conduct the records check at the conclusion of the contact." I thought the general consensus was that the officer couldn't take any investigatory action, such as writing down the serial number without RAS or PC.

ETA: "Unless there is a crime in progress, the patrol supervisor shall be notified prior to the call being dispatched. The patrol supervisor will evaluate the information received and coordinate the proper level of patrol response." So the "proper level" of response to a known UOC'er calmly going about his business is 3 officers and drawing down on the guy when no crime is in progress? I'd hate to see what their procedure would be if he were jaywalking or some other crime.

[NightOwl]

They are allowed to run a check on the serial number if they come across it in the course of their echeck. If, for example, they echeck it and return it to you, they're not legally able to get the firearm a second time to get the serial number. Not that this stops them, it still happens, but according to the law they're not allowed.

CA gun laws, still retarded after all these years.

[RP1911]

"exert" their constitutional...

[CitaDeL]

Heh was this a result of me posting the video on the forum? " Some do this solely to provoke a confrontation with law enforcement officers " sheesh what factual evidence do they have of that? Sounds a bit unprofessional to put that in such a document.

[sarcasm]Litigation must be the sole purpose these guys carry unloaded guns on their hips. I mean, look at all the lawsuits that these open carriers have filed. The sheer number them is staggering. The judicial system is on the verge of collaspe for all the pending UOC lawsuits.[/sarcasm]

[GrizzlyGuy]

Interestingly they appear to believe that taping over a serial number would be cause to arrest. You'll notice that they mention CPC 537(e) as well as 12090. The only substantial difference where you would be in violation of 537(e) but not 12090 is if the serial number is

12090 makes it illegal if one: "alters removes or obliterates" markings or serial number
537 makes it a crime if a serial number is : " removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed"

From an archived post by edwardm, back when we were helping pullnshoot25 compile his UOC FAQ:

It's debatable if 537e would apply, as the legislature specifically took firearms off the list of examples and moved it to PC 12090, a straight felony (unlike 537e).

I don't know if that is true or not, but if so, it could mean that firearms are not within the scope of "personal property" as defined in 537e. They enumerate a large set of examples but "firearm" is conspicuously absent:

(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property"
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano,
or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
(2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other
household appliance or furnishings.
(3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other
office equipment or furnishings.
(4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or
other part of a computer.
(5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or
scientific equipment.
(6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or
recreational equipment.
(7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material,
or piece of apparatus or equipment.
(8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
(9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.

[Roadrunner]

I found several statements in their policy to be rather provocative.

1. "In addition, we will abide by the law and case decisions in an effort to curtail our exposure to criminal or civil litigation." So they could care less about a persons rights, their only concern is to keep from getting arrested themselves or getting sued.

2. Section 441.1.4 of the policy covering "Purpose". According to the policy, UOC is a "growing trend throughout the United States." So what this is telling me is that other than their own little world, they are clueless about the majority of states that have LOC and Shall Issue, so their statement is factually false. I guess ignorance is bliss.

3. "Many see this as a Constitutional right, while some do this solely to provoke a confrontation with law enforcement officers." What arrogance.

a. I do not consider an unloaded firearm carried according to the Second Amendment because it's not loaded and ready to fire. In fact UOC is an Unconstitutional burden on the bearer.

b. When I see police point Assault Rifles at law abiding citizens, handcuff them, treat them like dangerous criminals and make outrageous comments about shooting law abiding citizens for merely carrying an unloaded firearm, as opposed to a law abiding citizen who merely carries audio and video recording equipment as a precaution to undue harassment, I have to wonder, who is really the one trying to provoke a confrontation ?

4. "The UOC Movement involves citizens exercising their right to carry unloaded firearms in plain view." They just contradicted themselves. So what is it ? They know and don't care, beyond covering their collective assses. Or, they're not sure, even though Heller and McDonald have clearly defined that it is our Constitutional right to bear arms.

5. 441.2.1 Operational Considerations. "These followers perceive themselves as law abiding people exercising their rights.

a. Followers ? Do they view law abiding citizens, exercising a constitutional right, as some kind of cult ?

b. Do the police "perceive" UOCers as not being law abiding people ?

Again, the arrogance of the policy is very telling.

6. Their policy is an attempt to provoke an incident by accusing UOCers of provoking an incident and claiming that "Tactics of this group consists of video recorders, audio recorders, and cameras and in some cases, having their attorney present during encounters with law enforcement."

So, the question is, how is it that having the same resources that police have access to, an attempt to provoke an incident ?

7. About the only thing useful about that policy is that dispatchers are at least asking questions about whether or not there is actually a crime occurring. Other than that, the Livermore Police Departments policy sucks.

[Liberty1]

Thanks for doing that W.

Drawing guns IS a use of force*. I'm sure this will be addressed in the future. Kinda looks like Livermore wants to encourage litigation with this 'hot' 'no RAS/no crime' detention despite policy statements otherwise. This stop was not keeping within 'People v DeLong's dictates that an 'e' check is an unobtrusive 'inspection' only (IMO).

Might also PRAR for 'use of force'.


*

http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_questions/4-feb10.shtml

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1664029-Use-of-force-law-and-its-impact-on-muzzle-position/

[anthonyca]

They are allowed to run a check on the serial number if they come across it in the course of their echeck. If, for example, they echeck it and return it to you, they're not legally able to get the firearm a second time to get the serial number. Not that this stops them, it still happens, but according to the law they're not allowed.

CA gun laws, still retarded after all these years.

LEOs are not above the law. They should be prosecuted for breaking the law. If someone sues for this, will they loose qualified immunity? So they have qualified immunity now, or do they just feel they can break the law?