PC 537e(a) Question

[Fire in the Hole]

I understand that. Now lets get away from the covered serial number for just a moment.....

What I am unable to understand is, that if an officer checks the weapon for an 12031 (e) and it is found to be unloaded, why does he/she feel the need to "step up another rung" and continue with a serial number check. If the weapon is found to be unloaded during the (e) check, what probable cause does the officer have for any other crime?

Again, during the 12031(e) check, the officer observes in plain view that the serial number is covered. PC is now handed to him on a silver platter. Thus an entirely new crime of 537(e) surfaces, and new rules attach.

The officer may "feel the need" to step it up another rung because this is one of the thousands of responsibilities he has to do. Peace Officers are not expected to "turn a blind eye" to situations or events that come to their attention that appear suspicious on the surface. Rather, they are required to "take the ball and run with it".

[camsoup]

Again, during the 12031(e) check, the officer observes in plain view that the serial number is covered. PC is now handed to him on a silver platter. Thus an entirely new crime of 537(e) surfaces, and new rules attach.

The officer may "feel the need" to step it up another rung because this is one of the thousands of responsibilities he has to do. Peace Officers are not expected to "turn a blind eye" to situations or events that come to their attention that appear suspicious on the surface. Rather, they are required to "take the ball and run with it".

Fire,

In this instance I was asking the question with the assumption that the firearms serial number was not covered.

If the serial number is not covered and the weapon is empty per the 12031(e) check, why do officers feel they have the right/need to run the serial number, if the weapon is empty there is no further probable cause for any additional detainment.


Earlier it was asked why an honest law abiding person would fell they had to cover the serial number. Now I am asking why an LEO would feel they need investigate further and run the serial number of a law abiding citizen.

[camsoup]

camsoup, I'll let Ron-Solo respond to the majority of your comments, but I will address those above. Knock off the sarcasm.

Retired,

I apologize if it came off has me being sarcastic....I was not meaning to.

I was attempting to use two analogies that follow along with someone walking down the street with a holstered pistol.

Walking down the street with a stroller is not a crime, walking down the street with a bag of groceries is not a crime, walking down the street with an unloaded holstered pistol is not a crime (assuming we are not within 1000' of a school).

With the pistol in a holster we do run into 12031 PC, and the fact that an LEO can perform an 12031(e) check if they desire. If the pistol is found to be unloaded, why cant the LEO leave it at that and let the citizen be about there lawful business?

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen that way some of the time, but more often than not the stories we here are about officers doing an (e) check, demanding ID, trying to run the serial number, keeping the citizen detained for an unnecessary amount of time etc etc, when no crime as been committed.

I apologize to everyone for side tracking this thread on 537(e)PC.

[Fire in the Hole]

Fire,

In this instance I was asking the question with the assumption that the firearms serial number was not covered.

If the serial number is not covered and the weapon is empty per the 12031(e) check, why do officers feel they have the right/need to run the serial number, if the weapon is empty there is no further probable cause for any additional detainment.


Earlier it was asked why an honest law abiding person would fell they had to cover the serial number. Now I am asking why an LEO would feel they need investigate further and run the serial number of a law abiding citizen.

I know that there is a lot of debate and discussion on this subject as to LE only checking to verify if a gun is loaded or not, and whether or not running the serial # goes beyond that. Numerous case law, is freequently copied and pasted from one forum to another. Here's the deal. LEO's await specific rule changes from the AG's Office, which goes down through POST, then to the various LE Agencies. The Training Bureau's review it, then disseminate it down to the field. The LEO's are then briefed on any law changes that affect the way they conduct business.

Minus any law that states specifically something like this for example: Effective January 1, 2010, whenever a Peace Officer conducts an inspection of a firearm pursuant to section 12031(e) P.C., or anytime a Peace Officer encounters a person in possession of a firearm in a public place, that Peace Officer shall not check the serial number of said firearm, nor cause the serial number to be run through the AFS to ascertain its owner, or to verify if said firearm has been entered into the stolen property database.


This is just an example of how specific and "to the point" such a law would have to be presented to LE.

Since at the present time there is no such specifically worded prohibition, LE Chiefs still have it in their official department policy for their LEO's to run the checks. If it is policy, then the LEO has no choice but to obey policy, or face diciplinary action. Why would they investigate further? Because their the DA, and their supervisors expect or demand that they do. Likewise with the victims of stolen firearms, who expect LEO's to proactively attempt to identify, retrieve, and return their stolen property as part fo their sworn duty.

[Ron-Solo]

Fire in the Hole has summed up up quite nicely, so I'm done. My posts were based on a recent law enforcement restricted training memo by a large district attorney's office. This memo was based on several recent court cases, including Hicks v. Arizona. I am prohibited by law from postinng that memo, so I will not.

I'm done. If what I've posted hasn't convinced you, nothing will, so there is no sense in beating a dead horse.

Aloha,

Ron

[SoCalDep]

Fire,

In this instance I was asking the question with the assumption that the firearms serial number was not covered.

If the serial number is not covered and the weapon is empty per the 12031(e) check, why do officers feel they have the right/need to run the serial number, if the weapon is empty there is no further probable cause for any additional detainment.


Earlier it was asked why an honest law abiding person would fell they had to cover the serial number. Now I am asking why an LEO would feel they need investigate further and run the serial number of a law abiding citizen.

Is this a rhetorical question? I would submit that it doesn't really matter why an officer would feel a need to run the number. The question is whether they are allowed to do so under the law. I say this because when one is in front of a judge it won't matter why a cop felt the need to run the number any more than it would matter in a civil suit why a person who was illegally arrested for UOC felt the need to carry an unloaded gun. It goes both ways.

[retired]

Retired,

I apologize if it came off has me being sarcastic....I was not meaning to.

I was attempting to use two analogies that follow along with someone walking down the street with a holstered pistol.

Walking down the street with a stroller is not a crime, walking down the street with a bag of groceries is not a crime, walking down the street with an unloaded holstered pistol is not a crime (assuming we are not within 1000' of a school).

With the pistol in a holster we do run into 12031 PC, and the fact that an LEO can perform an 12031(e) check if they desire. If the pistol is found to be unloaded, why cant the LEO leave it at that and let the citizen be about there lawful business?

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen that way some of the time, but more often than not the stories we here are about officers doing an (e) check, demanding ID, trying to run the serial number, keeping the citizen detained for an unnecessary amount of time etc etc, when no crime as been committed.

I apologize to everyone for side tracking this thread on 537(e)PC.

I knew exactly what you were trying to do and the analogy was apples and oranges.

In addition, everyone knows the vagaries of the net; often a point someone is attempting to make gets interpreted in a way not meant by the poster. Perhaps the use of a smilie might assist in making your point or at least the reader will not interpret it in the wrong way.

[1911su16b870]

This thread section is in the LEO area of calguns and requests a LEO(s) response to the questions posted. I'll take a try at what LEOs are up against with UOC.

We as LEOs are supposed to investigate crime(s). We have a report of a man with a gun call, we see a man with a gun, we are obligated to investigate: do the 12031e check and verify that the person with an UOC firearm is not a prohibited person. During our investigation, non-compliance with our lawfull order(s) is a crime. If the person we have contacted is not a prohibited person, the firearm is unloaded, the firearm is not stolen, the serial number is not altered etc., there is no evidence that the person was on his way to commit a crime, not within 1000 feet of a school etc., then no crime has been committed, then we thank that person for his time and compliance and bid him a good day. Our radio response back is simply "assignment completed, no crime".

The detainment is legal during our investigation. At this time, to expect another outcome without the proper UOC cultural shift/ground work being laid is folly.

[NuGunner]

keep reading, there's a section in there that says something to refer to the 120*** section for firearms

[jamesob]

no, i would just peel it back and run it.

[J_B]

no, i would just peel it back and run it.

Beat me to it. Same thing. Not gonna get excited over it. Just run it and return it to that citizen.