Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

[TheKlawMan]

This concerns a situation in Bee Canyon in which many persons wish to sue the officer for violating civil rights during an incident involving at least one Assault Weapon and several persons taking target practice.

I would like to know from persons with professional experience, maeaning LEOs and crim law attorneys, their take on the officer's lifiting of the cloth placed over the AW and turning it over to look at the serial number on the side laid face down.

First, does the episode at Bee Canyon even rise to the level of a "detention"?

I do not believe anything at BC constituted an "arrest". Do you agree?

If the Registrant had been arrested, would the officer have a right to search his bags and possesions as in the case that a vehicle may be searched without a warrant if the driver is arrested?


Was there reasonable suspicion to beleive that a crime was committed so as to permit a brief detention to investigate? I believe that would sometimes be called a "Terry stop."


If this was a valild Terry Stop, did the officer have a right to search the bags, without consent, in order to secure her safety? This might be considered similar to the situation where a reasonable non intrusive search, a pat down, is permitted if the officer has a right to detain and believes their safety be jeapordized should the detainee have a weapon.


If not for the officer's safety, would a search of the bags been valid without consent to prevent the destruction of evidence?

Is it true that a state may require that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stopTerry Stop? I do not know if California has such a law.

It is my understanding that the 4th amendment does not apply in some instances where a person has no expectation of privacy, such as when they display their property in plain view. Here, I assume that the owner of the RAW had been firing it in public and in doing so the serial number was arguably displayed. The contra is no one was ever close enough to read the number except for his buddies, but not the gerneral public or the LEO.

If the serial number was in plain view, does it make any difference that when the LEO arrived the registrant laid the weapon serial number down and covered the receiver or had he lost any expeciation of privacy needed to assert the 4th?

Could the manner in which the shooter laid the RAW down and covered it over not have raised the officer's reasonable suspicions warranting the detention and/or search?

Lastly, there has been a lot of comments about the burden of proof and it being on the State to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it essentially correct that this is the proof needed to convict but only probable cause is needed to issue a warrant and reasonable suspicion is all that is needed for a detntion and investigation of this nature?

The thread is a monster to wade through, but their is some video of the incident on the first page of it. One of the points that some Calgunners claim is that even if the assault weapon was in plain view, AWs in CA are not per se illegal. Hence, the officer had no grounds for either RS of PC.

TIA for your thoughts.

Edit: I forgot to include a link to the thread that my questions are based on and it appears immediatley aftet the following post by retired.

[retired]

You might want to edit your OP and provide a link to the thread you are referring to in case members want to read it. Just a suggestion.

[TheKlawMan]

You might want to edit your OP and provide a link to the thread you are referring to in case members want to read it. Just a suggestion.

My bad. Clicking cindynles at the top of the folling post will take you to to page one of that thread. Here is a direct link to the beggining of that thread. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...83#post5758783

The officer seized it for inspection (without my consent) and then returned it.

She wanted to seize my AB-10 because it was an illegal configuration, I told her it was a California RAW and that I was not required to carry proof of registration. To prevent the hassel of trying to recover it if she took it I provied her with a copy of my letter from the AG. She then demaned ID, I refused and we went through the same argument. Again I provied her with my ID to prevent seizure. At this point I got the camera rolling.

You can see how she paws through everyones stuff with out asking. She gets to my bags at about 4:40 I tell her I do not consent to search and she still pokes around without touching and then makes the comment "there not illegal anyway"

[Samuelx]

Is the officer's side of the story documented anywhere in the video or the discussion thread?

[fullrearview]

Has he posted any additional video of their conversation, or just the search?

[TheKlawMan]

Is the officer's side of the story documented anywhere in the video or the discussion thread?

No. Here again is the link to that thread. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...83#post5758783 Knowing just what her reasons for things would help in analyzing whether or not she had good reason/cause for the search.

[TheKlawMan]

Has he posted any additional video of their conversation, or just the search?

No. All I know is what is posted on that thread and I wonder why the video stops where it does. Is that all there is or has it been edited? I don't know. Does a ranger have a windshield video camera that may fill in some info? I have no idea. Afain, a link to that thread. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...83#post5758783

[BigDogatPlay]

That entire thread is a minefield, for lack of a better description. Lots of emotion and lots of FUD. Without knowing more of the encounter, and noting that at least some of what the ranger did was strictly plain sight (no PC or RS required), I doubt that there is much opinion you're going to generate in this thread.

My $0.02.

[TheKlawMan]

That entire thread is a minefield, for lack of a better description. Lots of emotion and lots of FUD. Without knowing more of the encounter, and noting that at least some of what the ranger did was strictly plain sight (no PC or RS required), I doubt that there is much opinion you're going to generate in this thread.

My $0.02.

I think your $.02 is on the money BigDog. That is pretty much what I was thinking, but the little I know (I should say I knew decades ago) of crim law is really ancient and I suspect that LEOs who deal with it know much better than I possibly could, which is why I wanted to try to get LEO insight focusing on not just what I thought may be important, but things I wasn't paying mind to that a LEO well knows to be very relevant.

[Falconis]

Here's my problem with the original thread. The audio was real low so I could not hear everything going on and the OP wrote it in a certain way that I felt left out certain details. The audio, when someone else posted a transcribed form of it, changed the tone of the encounter from what was posted. Granted the OP of that post started filming after the initial contact occurred and the video ran out of disc space when it did, so that's even more information that's left out.

Either way I think it's a tough fight for both sides in that and from what was seen on the video, it doesn't look like anything wrong was done from what little was on the video. Everyone who consented did, and it looks like she passed over everything that wasn't consented to. As far as the initial encounter who knows.

I am reserving judgement on this entirely. You do have to admit, there is hostility towards law enforcement on this site so getting a fair evaluation is tough at best. I'm also waiting for Gene and co. to update everyone on the incident.

[cacop]

I have more questions than answers. The information provided is not enough for me.

To start with what are the rules of this range? Are there any rules to this range? Are there rules to the usage of the land? What was said before the video began? What happend before the video began? How did the rifles come to be laying on the ground in plain sight?

[cindynles]

I have more questions than answers. The information provided is not enough for me.

To start with what are the rules of this range? Are there any rules to this range? Are there rules to the usage of the land? What was said before the video began? What happend before the video began? How did the rifles come to be laying on the ground in plain sight?

It was at Bee Canyon - National Forest Land, not a range.

Before the Video began - LEO drove up, ordered all weapons down and out for inspection.

The video began because the LEO wanted to seize my "illegally configured AW" (Legal RAW).

The video stopped because I ran out of memory.

[SVT-40]

What is not known is whether the LEO had a call for service or other reason unknown to the O/P for the contact.

In addition the term "search" gets used far to much. If something is in plain sight there is no "search" when a LEO picks it up and examines it.

If only one inch of a barrel is exposed the entire item can be examined without there being any "search".

I watched the video and I heard no one except for the O/P refuse any request to search. And even with that there was very little actual "searching".



A search is where something which is not in plain sight is discovered after a LEO looks in closed containers, vehicles ect.

[Tripper]

Did I hear someone suggest an LEO can more or less suggest it s not a search to rummage through a bag which is there, is that the gist of this?

[SVT-40]

Did I hear someone suggest an LEO can more or less suggest it s not a search to rummage through a bag which is there, is that the gist of this?

You did not "hear" anything of the sort.

A search is a search.

"Rummage" is not a term used related to search and seizure laws.

Examining something which is in plain sight is not a search.

Asking for permission to search, and receiving consent gives the LEO permission to search through closed containers, vehicles ect.