CA_Libertarian unlawfully detained by Turlock PD for open carry

[CA_Libertarian]

Read all about it here http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/13128.html

The short story is they threatened and scolded, but in the end set me loose and returned my firearm.

[M. Sage]

"You're just doing this to get attention"... yeah, no kidding. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

Glad they let you go!

[Hopi]

Read all about it here http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/13128.html

The short story is they threatened and scolded, but in the end set me loose and returned my firearm.

Well done and I'm glad everything turned out ok!

[tombinghamthegreat]

The cops must not like the fact they could not charge you for a crime and it seems it was good you could site the penal code.

[Guntech]

The LEO's should know the law since they are supposed to "enforce" it, not wrongfully detain law abiding citizens

[tombinghamthegreat]

The LEO's should know the law since they are supposed to "enforce" it, not wrongfully detain law abiding citizens

I am sure they know the law but they want to harass the people involved in OC movement.

[Spelunker]

When one of them gets sued for unlawful detention then things will change. I look forward to the day. Fight on.

[nobody_special]

Did you get an audio recording of the incident?

[M. Sage]

I am sure they know the law but they want to harass the people involved in OC movement.

I doubt it. Nobody can keep track of all the laws we have on the books. The system has become way to huge to be able to understand it that easily.

[G17GUY]

I doubt it. Nobody can keep track of all the laws we have on the books. The system has become way to huge to be able to understand it that easily.

However; they DO get paid to know and enforce the laws.

Im wondering if the guy at the corner store called him in for carrying a gun; and how much that bill is going to be,lol.

[CA_Libertarian]

Well done and I'm glad everything turned out ok!

I wouldn't say everything turned out OK... more than 8 hours after the incident I'm still in a lot of pain. I was in a car wreck in '99, and have had chronic neck and back pain since then. Being left in the cramped back seat for roughly 45 minutes was agony for my back. This is not to mention they cuffed me inappropriately, causing abrasions and contusions. Both my wrists are still covered with red streaks and my left forearm above the wrist has a pretty large, tender goose egg on it.

Furthermore, I was held against my will for an hour when I had committed no crime, my vehicle was searched without my permission, and I was embarrassed and belittled in front of onlookers.

Sure, it could have been worse, but that should not be the standard. None of this harassment should have ever occurred. I was sitting there for a good 2 hours before they arrived; they could have taken 20 minutes to look up the penal code and left me to enjoy the peace and quiet I was enjoying before it was so rudely interrupted.

Again, I am playing by their rules... I did nothing illegal, and certainly nothing immoral or harmful to others. This attitude of 'arrest first ask, justify it later' is unjust and immoral, not to mention illegal.

[CA_Libertarian]

However; they DO get paid to know and enforce the laws.

Exactly, ignorance of the law would not hold up in court for a civilian. This should apply moreso for the people who are paid to apply the law. Do we really want to set the standard that they enforce laws they aren't even aware exist? To enforce statutes without even knowing what they say?

I was told I was 'under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon.' 12025 is not obscure, and very clearly states that a weapon carried openly in a holster is not a violation of said statute! And it took them 45 minutes to figure it out with 5 officers reading the PC handbooks! That's not just a mistake, it is negligence.

Im wondering if the guy at the corner store called him in for carrying a gun; and how much that bill is going to be,lol.

The reporting party was a passerby. I got bored in the car and the officer was kind enough to leave his monitor on, so I got to read the complaint and everything: "RP reports man with a gun in a holster on his right side staring across the street at the park..." I don't smoke in my car so I took a couple smoke break while standing outside leaning against my car (I found it more appropriate to stare across the street at the park than at the windows into the apartments opposite the park.) My guess is one of the many joggers or walkers that passed by noticed I was armed.

[BillCA]

Furthermore, I was held against my will for an hour when I had committed no crime, my vehicle was searched without my permission, and I was embarrassed and belittled in front of onlookers.

The report was "man with a gun". In such situations, since most often reports like this involve someone holding a gun or brandishing, officers are trained to first secure the weapon(s). They have the right to do so for "officer safety" reasons. This includes pocket knives.

Since you had a firearm, it is "reasonable" for officers to restrain you until such time as they determine if you are either a threat or flight risk.

The cuffing officer saying that you were doing it for attention indicates at least one officer may have correctly recognized your purpose.

A court may say it is reasonable for the officers to perform a search of the vehicle in which you were carrying a firearm if they believed you were unlawfully carrying. Of course, searching areas or items that could not contain a[nother] firearm would still be out of bounds.

The officer claiming to arrest you under 12025 was clearly wrong. But this is not unusual. Often an officer will arrest for one charge and prior to booking discover that not all the elements of the offense existed, but a different section applies or can be applied to cover your stay in the Graybar Hotel.

It can take some time to research the exact definition of a violation and determine if all elements of the crime exist. In some cases, even though one section might permit something, another section might further restrict it. That's what usually takes so long.

It probably would have helped if you pointed out that 12025(f) specifically exempts guns carried openly on a belt holster.

[futureExpat]

Exactly, ignorance of the law would not hold up in court for a civilian. This should apply moreso for the people who are paid to apply the law. Do we really want to set the standard that they enforce laws they aren't even aware exist? To enforce statutes without even knowing what they say?

I was told I was 'under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon.' 12025 is not obscure, and very clearly states that a weapon carried openly in a holster is not a violation of said statute! And it took them 45 minutes to figure it out with 5 officers reading the PC handbooks! That's not just a mistake, it is negligence.


The reporting party was a passerby. I got bored in the car and the officer was kind enough to leave his monitor on, so I got to read the complaint and everything: "RP reports man with a gun in a holster on his right side staring across the street at the park..." I don't smoke in my car so I took a couple smoke break while standing outside leaning against my car (I found it more appropriate to stare across the street at the park than at the windows into the apartments opposite the park.) My guess is one of the many joggers or walkers that passed by noticed I was armed.

Good to see your excercising our 2A rights!

Good luck on this case. If you do not file a case at least file a complaint!

[eaglemike]

The report was "man with a gun". In such situations, since most often reports like this involve someone holding a gun or brandishing, officers are trained to first secure the weapon(s). They have the right to do so for "officer safety" reasons. This includes pocket knives.

Since you had a firearm, it is "reasonable" for officers to restrain you until such time as they determine if you are either a threat or flight risk.

The cuffing officer saying that you were doing it for attention indicates at least one officer may have correctly recognized your purpose.

A court may say it is reasonable for the officers to perform a search of the vehicle in which you were carrying a firearm if they believed you were unlawfully carrying. Of course, searching areas or items that could not contain a[nother] firearm would still be out of bounds.

The officer claiming to arrest you under 12025 was clearly wrong. But this is not unusual. Often an officer will arrest for one charge and prior to booking discover that not all the elements of the offense existed, but a different section applies or can be applied to cover your stay in the Graybar Hotel.

It can take some time to research the exact definition of a violation and determine if all elements of the crime exist. In some cases, even though one section might permit something, another section might further restrict it. That's what usually takes so long.

It probably would have helped if you pointed out that 12025(f) specifically exempts guns carried openly on a belt holster.

IMHO he should not have to point out or explain anything to "officers of the law." Their entire job is to uphold and enforce the law. If they do not know the law, how can they do the job?

Say for instance someone called and, made a report that there is "illegal activity" involving you - and you are the one detained and arrested, but innocent. How would you feel? I find it useful to put myself in the other person's place.

all the best,

Mike