CA_Libertarian unlawfully detained by Turlock PD for open carry

[spsellars]

Officers are allowed to search all areas of the car which could reasonably conceal a weapon.

From what I read, he wasn't in or near his vehicle, so why (outside of an inventory before tow, which didn't happen) would they be allowed to search his vehicle?

[Glock22Fan]

You hit on an interesting point. What was reported to the officers was a person open carrying.

The police here in AZ get a lot of calls mostly from out of state visitors reporting a man with a gun. Most often, the dispatchers first question is "What is he doing with it?, simply carrying a gun is not illegal. If he starts shooting or waving it around, call us back." Maybe educational efforts should be toward 911 dispatchers as well as the police officers.

My friends in Utah asked me why I had bothered with a Utah CCW permit when I could carry openly. They reckoned that their police would either respond like this to a "man with gun" call, or just outright laugh and say "So what?"

We Californians must be SO dangerous by comparison.

[CA_Libertarian]

I am interested, we all agree he was armed, in open carry, which is legal. Of what is he a suspect of?

Exactly. While investigating a CRIME they may detain, disarm, and restrain a SUSPECT. The reporting party, dispatcher, and all 5 responding officers assumed this was illegal because it is unusual.

My understanding is that a false arrest is excusable for an officer when there is a reasonable mistake of fact. This is a good thing, but how far does it go? If the officer gets a call about a guy matching my description robbing the liquor store down the street and then he detains me until he figures out I'm not the robber, that is acceptable. Being ignorant of the law (and too damn lazy to look it up first) when there is no apparent danger is not accaptable IMO.

"Ignorance of the law is no defense." These are the words us subjects would hear if we told a judge that we were mistaken about the definition of 'loaded' or 'concealed.' LEOs should be held to at least the same standard.

[CA_Libertarian]

From what I read, he wasn't in or near his vehicle, so why (outside of an inventory before tow, which didn't happen) would they be allowed to search his vehicle?

I was in my vehicle. The only time I was out of my vehicle was for a couple smoke breaks (my wife doesn't want me ruining the new car smell yet).

My guess is that when they realized they had made a mistake they wanted to see if there was anything they could get me on.

[eaglemike]

You may; however, it's the opinion of the courts.

Even though there is/was no crime being committed........... So now would you say or agree this practice is accepted by you, even though there was no crime or criminal intent evident? Since the courts have held this, and you have offered no dissent, then you agree?

Do you find it acceptable that the "law enforcement personnel" are ignorant of the law they are taking money to enforce - it is their chosen profession? If so, then it should be even more acceptable for the ordinary decent citizen to be ignorant of the law - since it is not their job, and they are not paid to know the law. After all, they are paying the LEO to do this......

all the best,

Mike

[CA_Libertarian]

And CA_Lib was detained. You can call it overzealous to handcuff him and put him in the back of the squad if you want to - but officer safety is a high priority.

Officer safety is a bull**** excuse, IMO. It's a dangerous job and they know this when they sign up. That's what they get paid for. It is a slippery slope when we allow 'officer safety' to trump individual rights, especially when the LEOs have this 'detain first, justify it later' attitude.

The "it's unusual to see someone with a gun" argument doesn't fly with me either. It's also unusual to see someone with a fixed blade knife on their belt (I've seen it one time in my 15+ years in the central valley). Would LE respond the same to a fixed blade knife?

I'm sure one of the officers believed there was a P.C. section prohibiting carrying a gun and ammo at the same time (there is - 171c & 171d but it applies to gov't facilities). This may be one reason it took some time.

They told me I was in violation of 12025 - concealing a firearm. Other than asking me if I ever carried the gun loaded there was no mention of violation of 12031.

[/quote]Since they searched your car, CA-Lib, I'd be interested in knowing if they found other flyers, similar to those handed out earlier and their reaction to them.
[/QUOTE]

I did have one of the fliers in my console. They may have seen it, but as far as I know they didn't look at it in detail. The search of my car took them less than 5 minutes; reading that flier would take at least that long.

I wish I would have thought to hand that to the officers as I left...

[tyrist]

I am interested, we all agree he was armed, in open carry, which is legal. Of what is he a suspect of?

Would depend on what the PR reported. Is it reasonable he "could" have unloaded the firearm prior to Officers arrival? Is it possible he "could" have brandished it? I have to ask these question because I don't have the ability to see what appeared on the Officers screen or what the RTO read during the radio broadcast. Alot depends on what the PR stated whether accurate or not. What we can agree to is the fact CA liberatarian was finally released after the investigation.

[leelaw]

all the best,

Mike

Point is this:

-Call came in - "Man with a gun"

-Officers responded, found man with a gun.

-Officers disarmed the man and secured him while they investigated the incident.

-Officers released the man when it was discovered that no crime was committed.

-They acted reasonably in the eyes of the court.

When there is a call of "men with guns" at a bank, would you prefer that the responding LEOs assume that there isn't a crime about to be committed, and let the men just stand around at their own free will while the officers figure out if they were about to go in and rob the bank or not?

Officer and public safety necessitate disarming a person with a gun while the responding officers determine if a crime was or is about to be committed. Hindsight is 20/20, so you know better after the fact and will condemn the officers for their actions, but imagine being the officer responding to a call of a man with a gun in a public place, whom you don't know from Adam.

[spsellars]

I was in my vehicle. The only time I was out of my vehicle was for a couple smoke breaks (my wife doesn't want me ruining the new car smell yet).

My guess is that when they realized they had made a mistake they wanted to see if there was anything they could get me on.

Ah, I misunderstood the "under a shade tree" part while visualizing the situation.

And I bet you're right, as they certainly wouldn't be searching for officer safety if you were already secured.

If nothing else, I hope you are able to raise enough fuss that the whole department (if not the whole county) gets educated on OC legality.

[tyrist]

Point is this:

-Call came in - "Man with a gun"

-Officers responded, found man with a gun.

-Officers disarmed the man and secured him while they investigated the incident.

-Officers released the man when it was discovered that no crime was committed.

-They acted reasonably in the eyes of the court.

When there is a call of "men with guns" at a bank, would you prefer that the responding LEOs assume that there isn't a crime about to be committed, and let the men just stand around at their own free will while the officers figure out if they were about to go in and rob the bank or not?

Officer and public safety necessitate disarming a person with a gun while the responding officers determine if a crime was or is about to be committed. Hindsight is 20/20, so you know better after the fact and will condemn the officers for their actions, but imagine being the officer responding to a call of a man with a gun in a public place, whom you don't know from Adam.

+1. Sometimes it takes awhile to figure out what is going on.

[eaglemike]

Point is this:

-Call came in - "Man with a gun"

-Officers responded, found man with a gun.

-Officers disarmed the man and secured him while they investigated the incident.

-Officers released the man when it was discovered that no crime was committed.

-They acted reasonably in the eyes of the court.

These were not the circumstances, so why bring them up? Edit: this refers to the quote below, referring to a bank situation - that's what I meant.

When there is a call of "men with guns" at a bank, would you prefer that the responding LEOs assume that there isn't a crime about to be committed, and let the men just stand around at their own free will while the officers figure out if they were about to go in and rob the bank or not?

Officer and public safety necessitate disarming a person with a gun while the responding officers determine if a crime was or is about to be committed. Hindsight is 20/20, so you know better after the fact and will condemn the officers for their actions, but imagine being the officer responding to a call of a man with a gun in a public place, whom you don't know from Adam.

I notice you don't respond to the question. I Heard you the first time - "the court" has accepted this practice. To be honest, I give some credence to what the court has decided is acceptable. However, don't you agree that some courts decisions are quite simply wrong? I'm not going to play the lawyer game to and try to bring is case cites. I'm sure you'd recognize the reality of this.

Now - do you agree the whole thing was necessary? Also - don't the circumstances and environment help decide the LEO activity? He wasn't in a bank, and wasn't brandishing.

So - is ignorance of the law by the LEO acceptable to you, given the OP was told by the LEO that the OP was being arrested for violating a specific PC?

I offer no condemnation.... and you offer no dissent... so I will agree to disagree

[Jpach]

By any chance is there a link or something where i can get a hold of these open carry fliers that you have CA_Libertarian? thanks

[CitaDeL]

By any chance is there a link or something where i can get a hold of these open carry fliers that you have CA_Libertarian? thanks

See californiaopencarry.org

[leelaw]

These were not the circumstances, so why bring them up?

Um, maybe you're reading the wrong story, but the one I read, linked in the first post, was exactly the scenario I wrote above.

I notice you don't respond to the question. I Heard you the first time - "the court" has accepted this practice. To be honest, I give some credence to what the court has decided is acceptable. However, don't you agree that some courts decisions are quite simply wrong? I'm not going to play the lawyer game to and try to bring is case cites. I'm sure you'd recognize the reality of this.

I'll answer a valid question you have. I think your question is baited to try to paint me as someone who thinks that woeful ignorance of the law is acceptable. That's a different scenario that is at play here.

Now - do you agree the whole thing was necessary? Also - don't the circumstances and environment help decide the LEO activity? He wasn't in a bank, and wasn't brandishing.

Like I said - it's a call of a "man with a gun" - From the OP's own post: "RP reports man with a gun..." and it's in a public place. So, someone called in and voiced a concern of an armed man. The police respond to these calls because of the concern of public safety.

So what part do you think was not necessary? That the officers actually responded to the call? That the officers contacted the man with a gun? That the officers disarmed the man with a gun? That the officers detained the man with a gun during their subsequent investigation into what was going on? They they released him when they determined that nothing wrong was happening?

What would you rather they do? Not respond to man with a gun calls? Not disarm men with guns when they've been called to respond to them, due to conern of another citizen? How about letting unknown, armed men just stand around while the police figure out if he's doing or about to do something illegal?

So - is ignorance of the law by the LEO acceptable to you, given the OP was told by the LEO that the OP was being arrested for violating a specific PC?

Your question is baited, and biased. Answer "yes" and I'm for gross ignorance of LEOs. Answer "no" and then it's validation that the cops are woefully ignorant.

I offer no condemnation.... and you offer no dissent... so I will agree to disagree

Statements like "ignorance of the law" and implying that the court on this case is simply wrong, are not condemnations?

It's easy to pick a side when only one side of the story is given. It's easier to pick the side of a person who you supposedly know because of some relatoinship you have with them from posting on the same web forum. This argument looks like it's devolved into personal feelings vs. public safety. Even the OP has shook off the concept of public and officer safety just because it doesn't agree with his argument. No logical basis, just feelings, and poof, the other side of the argument goes away.

[ljg17]

I salute everyone involved in the OC movement, I think that OC should be done in counties with restrictive CCW issuance (which in CA is all except possibly Fresno) I also think that we should be coordinating efforts and traveling in groups with video cameras and pop into these little hamlets of tyranny and giving the local PD an all day lesson in gun owners civil rights. In addition we need to make CCW reform the stated goal. IMO if we do not have a goal we risk having new legislation passed to "close the OC loophole" We also need to have an education wing that will train law enforcement departments about our civil rights and offer gun owner sensitivity training for several thousand dollars.