What is your interpretation of 12028.5

[Calm Down]

, shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present. (k) The law enforcement agency, or the individual law enforcement officer, shall not be liable for any act in the good faith exercise of this section.

[CavTrooper]

Its a shame that the officers are relived of personal responsibility in these situations.

Everyone should be held accountable for thier actions.

[p7m8jg]

It gives the on-scene law enforcement officers discretion to take "any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present. " It's really up to the guys or gals on scene to decide what "as necessary" means.

Your discussion amongst yourselves was absolutely dead-on. You had differing opinions and you talked them out. A decision was made. You did your duty.

In my day, if there was any doubt, we took them all and let the DA sort it out later when the mother and son demand their personal firearms back. But having a rigid policy of taking everything regardless of the situation is not really using your discretion.

You'll never have all the information necessary to make the absolutely perfect call. But if you take all the guns for now, there's no way anyone is going to get shot if there's another confrontation. They called the first time, they'll call again if he gets out and comes back.

Either action taken was still doing the right thing. Good job.

[1911su16b870]

OP nailed it with (b) above: "shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present."

Ownership didn't matter. LEOs found them and are obligated, due to the Domestic, remove them. IMO the other option did not exist.

[proudamerican831]

deleted

[Musclemom]

If I were the victim in this case, I sure wouldn't be calling the police for help the next time. There is no help in disarming her. "As necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present," so I can understand securing ALL firearms until the situation is under control. If in fact she was not the aggressor in any way, she (and her firearms) pose no threat to the officers and her personally owned firearms should be returned to her before officers leave the scene. I'd recommend for her to get an attorney and sue, as it's what I'd do if put in that position. Being the victim of a crime does not strip you of your rights.

[Triad]

Put in a similar situation myself, took all guns including victims. Guns were released to victim at a later date. I was/am of the mind, based on my experience, that he will probably bail, come back...she will take him back in and the cycle will continue. Call it proactive prevention, or whatever else you want but I'd rather explain that in court than why I didn't take them.

[fullrearview]

Its a shame that the officers are relived of personal responsibility in these situations.

Everyone should be held accountable for thier actions.

held accountable for laws that don't make sense????

damned if you do, damned if you don't!!

[tyrist]

You take all the guns out of the residence no matter who they belong to...as well as any billy clubs, knives, and other weapons.

[Musclemom]

Honestly, this thread scares me. This is just one of several reasons why I gave up law enforcement when I moved to this state. It's not just the gun laws that are different than most "other" places.

I'll run along now, as I'm not a LEO. Just wanted to give my two cents as someone who's been in the field. The differences in CA LEO and those from other state never ceases to amaze me. I fully believe most of it results from the laws and politics of this state, but it's still sad.

[El Gato]

This whole section of law needs to be litigated in light of heller...
the sad thing is the victims can't get their guns back by the Sheriff just giving them back... they have to go through with the whole "law enforcement gun release" process which takes, often, many months...

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/legr.pdf

which will cost money to the AG and the Sheriff is entitled to charge a fee... all to exercise the victims 2nd ammendment rights....

Personally, I would be cautious on this one... having had to do an arrest similarly, I left the guns with the female and took the male... having made the determination that the males shotgun was necessary for me to take and her 44 mag handgun was not necessary for me to seize... and how long is temporary... I seize them, unload them for my protection, then leave them for the lawful owners.... In my mind, there is discretion available to the on-scene officer... what is necessary and how long is temporary... the law says 48 hours.... and does involve me taking them from the scene and is taking them from the scene a violation of anyones constitutional rights?

Tough call...

[CaliTheKid]

Call for the watch sergeant and let them make the call. CYA.

[Ron-Solo]

Its a shame that the officers are relived of personal responsibility in these situations.

Everyone should be held accountable for thier actions.

It's obvious you're not working the field. How often do you make life or death decisions? I make them every day, often several times a day, just like THOUSANDS of other cops. We do a good job, so get off our asses! Nothing said we aren't held accountable for our actions if we don't follow the law. It says we are covered if we are acting in GOOD FAITH.

[sac550]

You can't search for guns unless you have consent. You can only take guns in plain view. If you had a suspect tell you has 10 guns in his bedroom closet and refuses to give you consent you can't take them. You have to leave them or face a 4th amend violation. And there is no authority in 1524 to author a search warrant.

[Tillers_Rule]

I spoke with a Deputy DA and she also stated the county might by liable if a firearm was left at the residence but stated the victim could borrow a firearm from a friend if she felt she needed it.

WOW, that's some complete BS. You mentioned the county could be liable if you left guns at the residence. Is the county also liable if the guy comes back and kills the two occupants because they couldn't defend themselves?