Question for Cal LEOs

[Notorious]

The (e) check for loaded status does not "allow" the inspection of the serial number. The serial number, if visible while you are looking at the gun to ascertain loaded status, is plain view, which is not a search under Constitutional Law. However, you cannot specifically look at a gun to look for and run the numbers, without bothering with the loaded status, as then it would be an illegal search as it is not allowed under the law.

There are exceptions, and there are things which just aren't. In practicality, it makes very little difference, but in academia, the fine hairs make the whole argment.

[RedVines]

In practicality, it makes very little difference, but in academia, the fine hairs make the whole argment.

And we have the fun job of connecting the two, which is arguably one of the biggest challenges in law enforcement.

[Ninety]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyS7Qr58wkU

This is how it should be handled.



I couldnt figure out how to embed the video in the post.

you take the part after the = sign and past it between the you tube boxes

and I agree the SanDiego Officer was pretty cool about it..

In my previous post I had that video of the OR officer.. pretty relaxed as well...

The (e) check for loaded status does not "allow" the inspection of the serial number. The serial number, if visible while you are looking at the gun to ascertain loaded status, is plain view, which is not a search under Constitutional Law. However, you cannot specifically look at a gun to look for and run the numbers, without bothering with the loaded status, as then it would be an illegal search as it is not allowed under the law.

There are exceptions, and there are things which just aren't. In practicality, it makes very little difference, but in academia, the fine hairs make the whole argment.

Interesting.. So during an echeck it is ok to write down the serial number and run it b/c its in plain view once you have taken it out of a case or holster? Alarming..

So should everyone start placing tape on their serial numbers now ? or is that a crime too?

[Socaliente]

you take the part after the = sign and past it between the you tube boxes

and I agree the SanDiego Officer was pretty cool about it..

In my previous post I had that video of the OR officer.. pretty relaxed as well...



Interesting.. So during an echeck it is ok to write down the serial number and run it b/c its in plain view once you have taken it out of a case or holster? Alarming..

So should everyone start placing tape on their serial numbers now ? or is that a crime too?

Sweet thanx.

And to answer your question I dont see how it would be a crime. As long as you dont scratch it off or alter it. But youre crossing into the realm of doing something that will cause suspicion just because you know its not illegal.

[Ocguy31]

True. But assuming it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Maine, how does an officer distinguish between a citizen legally open carrying and a felon illegally possessing without making contact?

Well, it is illegal for anyone to drive over .07% BAC in all states, how does an officer distinguish between a citizen legally driving and one illegally driving without making contact?

I promise you the swerving drunks who any ride-along could spot are the minority of "drunk" drivers. Yet other than the hideous 4th amendment violation that is Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz, you still have to either witness a VC violation, "discover" one after stopping and determining you do indeed have a drunkard on your hands, or use the old "turned wide" stand-by.

What saddens me about that infamous video is not so much the guy who went out looking for the confrontation, but:

A. The public is so sheltered that just the sight of a gun on someone other than a uniformed LEO who is not doing anything suspicious, predictably leads to a 911 call

and

B. The officer was not well-trained. He doesn't need to know every SCOTUS ruling, that isn't a patrol officer's job. His job is to respond, assess, and get home to his wife and kids. However, there should be an equal amount of required hours qualifying to be a peace officer studying firearms PC as there is hitting a piece of clipped up paper.

I just hate the current climate. Your average law-abiding citizen appreciates and respects law enforcement. Using the example above, each time an officer makes a legitimate DUI arrest, he possibly saves the lives of a family of 6 on the highway, or the life of a state road-worker.

But now due to urbanization and the reliance that people have on an officer to stop a crime in progress instead of investigate afterwards, legally carried weapons cause 911 calls. Now people who ordinarily just want to say "thank you" and or smile, mutter something stupid about "the man" and shake their head.

It is a just a bad situation all around. The Public keeps losing 2nd amendmen rights because they aren't exercised enough, and the average LEO just wants to make sure he doesn't let the next John Allen Mouhammed go during a traffic stop.

Education on all sides is the key. *steps off pedastal made of paper*

[RedVines]

Well, it is illegal for anyone to drive over .07% BAC in all states, how does an officer distinguish between a citizen legally driving and one illegally driving without making contact?

I promise you the swerving drunks who any ride-along could spot are the minority of "drunk" drivers. Yet other than the hideous 4th amendment violation that is Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz, you still have to either witness a VC violation, "discover" one after stopping and determining you do indeed have a drunkard on your hands, or use the old "turned wide" stand-by.

What saddens me about that infamous video is not so much the guy who went out looking for the confrontation, but:

A. The public is so sheltered that just the sight of a gun on someone other than a uniformed LEO who is not doing anything suspicious, predictably leads to a 911 call

and

B. The officer was not well-trained. He doesn't need to know every SCOTUS ruling, that isn't a patrol officer's job. His job is to respond, assess, and get home to his wife and kids. However, there should be an equal amount of required hours qualifying to be a peace officer studying firearms PC as there is hitting a piece of clipped up paper.

I just hate the current climate. Your average law-abiding citizen appreciates and respects law enforcement. Using the example above, each time an officer makes a legitimate DUI arrest, he possibly saves the lives of a family of 6 on the highway, or the life of a state road-worker.

But now due to urbanization and the reliance that people have on an officer to stop a crime in progress instead of investigate afterwards, legally carried weapons cause 911 calls. Now people who ordinarily just want to say "thank you" and or smile, mutter something stupid about "the man" and shake their head.

It is a just a bad situation all around. The Public keeps losing 2nd amendmen rights because they aren't exercised enough, and the average LEO just wants to make sure he doesn't let the next John Allen Mouhammed go during a traffic stop.

Education on all sides is the key. *steps off pedastal made of paper*

I see your point, and I am also surprised with the Michigan state police v sitz decision. But the SC did provide one exception for violating 4th amendment guarantees without individual reasonable suspicion - it wouldn't be a stretch to speculate they might provide for another for terry stops involving firearms. OP asked about the legality of the detention and I offered my best lawyer-esque argument supporting it. Its a gray area that has yet to be ruled on yet as far as I know. Will it fly in court? Who knows. I guess it depends on which court. But I definitely do agree that training is the key.

[hitman13]

You and I obviously disagree on what constitutes reasonable suspicion. I'll only add that i formed reasonable suspicion on previous points 1,2 and 3, not anything else that the officer may or may not have observed that wasn't evident in the video. Not sure what kind of remedial training you mean. I'm pretty confident in my working knowledge of the fourth amendment and relevant case laws.

Well I'm not all upset, even if I appear that way online

I formed my lack of reasonable suspicion based on my experiences of living and working in an open carry state. I will admit that in California, a LEO would be a fool to not detain them, based on the laws of that state. In an open carry state though, I wouldn't, as it's simply legal when no other factors are present.

We can agree to disagree though, we're all grown men.

[Notorious]

Interesting.. So during an echeck it is ok to write down the serial number and run it b/c its in plain view once you have taken it out of a case or holster? Alarming..

So should everyone start placing tape on their serial numbers now ? or is that a crime too?

You can use tape on the serial number. It is not illegal to do that. I've heard of it being done exactly for that purpose.

Writing down a serial number is not prohibited because it is not mentioned at all in the e check provision. It is not mentioned anywhere in that section.

However, the purpose of the e check is simple and straight forward. Is it loaded? That's all it is. However, anything in plain view, and this applies to more than just guns, is always fair game. Same as for license plates and VIN plates on cars which cops run all the time for no reason, just to check for registration and warrants.

If a cop starts writing down serial numbers, as a standard practice for him, then it might be articulable that he is going beyond a chamber check, but if you are just holding the gun while doing the check and you see the serial and you note it and run it later, that's just police work.

But that's all hypothetical, since the OC'ers successfully lobbied to have it all banned by their unabashed activities they proudly post for the world to see.

[Bucks n Ducks]

They are legally carrying, it's not their fault that old ladies are sheep...


"BAAAAAAAAA" -Old Ladies of Portland, 2012

You gotta see the forest through the trees.

It's not their fault people are sheep, but it is their "fault" when they intentionally flame the citizens. They did nothing wrong by carrying, but the first little turd could have just respectfully cooperated w/ the LEO instead of flaming the situation.

With that said look at the circumstance for what it is not what a film maker is trying to create for an audience.

I see it this way say 20% of population is very pro gun and 20% very anti. That leaves 60% that could go either way. Antics like these videos scaring the 60% in order to look cool for their 20% of supporters will hurt the cause.

It is the 60% in the middle that will decide which way this rush agaisnt guns is going to go.
......and yeah you can go on about voting from the roof tops etc... but I'm not really looking forward to a civil war.

[Armed24-7]

Two questions.

A. Was the officer within his rights to ask for ID?

B. Was the officer within his rights to temporarily hold the guys gun?

Thanks in advance!

In California, the answers would be YES and YES. I cannot speak for Maine, as the laws may be different as many have pointed out.

As far as the guy spouting off case-law.......It is quite common for people like that to spout off case law and not know what they are talking about. So, who knows

[Steveo8]

I am not a LEO but I have watched this thread and I keep seeing that in california you have to provide ID. I believe that this horse has been beat to death in the 5 years that I have been on CALGUNS that california is NOT a stop and ID state. As Notorious stated even when the (E) was performed all that could be done was to verify that the weapon was unloaded, no serial number search or ID request.

[Bucks n Ducks]

I am not a LEO but I have watched this thread and I keep seeing that in california you have to provide ID. I believe that this horse has been beat to death in the 5 years that I have been on CALGUNS that california is NOT a stop and ID state. As Notorious stated even when the (E) was performed all that could be done was to verify that the weapon was unloaded, no serial number search or ID request.

The easy answer to this is reasonable suspicion. Use an example from open carry in Cali when legal.
Four guys drinking coffee at starbucks with cool looking Kimbers and other nifty tactical 1911s on their hip=not suspicious move on
A guy looking for confrontation on a quiet street in a neighborhood of mostly old folks carrying an AR or something "scary" and obvious=suspicious, stop, detain, ID, investigate ( oh you're a wanna be lawyer with a video camera- well here's something to think about)

[Ninety]

You can use tape on the serial number. It is not illegal to do that. I've heard of it being done exactly for that purpose.

Writing down a serial number is not prohibited because it is not mentioned at all in the e check provision. It is not mentioned anywhere in that section.

However, the purpose of the e check is simple and straight forward. Is it loaded? That's all it is. However, anything in plain view, and this applies to more than just guns, is always fair game. Same as for license plates and VIN plates on cars which cops run all the time for no reason, just to check for registration and warrants.

If a cop starts writing down serial numbers, as a standard practice for him, then it might be articulable that he is going beyond a chamber check, but if you are just holding the gun while doing the check and you see the serial and you note it and run it later, that's just police work.

But that's all hypothetical, since the OC'ers successfully lobbied to have it all banned by their unabashed activities they proudly post for the world to see.

Thank you for the reply... I'm not trying to do something on the fringe of the law to raise suspicion .. like you stated I might start doing it just to protect my privacy... And for long guns they aren't registered so it really doesn't matter...

The easy answer to this is reasonable suspicion. Use an example from open carry in Cali when legal.
Four guys drinking coffee at starbucks with cool looking Kimbers and other nifty tactical 1911s on their hip=not suspicious move on
A guy looking for confrontation on a quiet street in a neighborhood of mostly old folks carrying an AR or something "scary" and obvious=suspicious, stop, detain, ID, investigate ( oh you're a wanna be lawyer with a video camera- well here's something to think about)

The only problem here is what you are saying should happen.. repeatedly never did.. many videos on you tube of officers e-checking people at starbucks and other coffee places.. and most officers would admit.. atleast the ones I talk to , that they would do exactly that.. stop e=check , detain , anywhere everytime..

Well I'm not all upset, even if I appear that way online

I formed my lack of reasonable suspicion based on my experiences of living and working in an open carry state. I will admit that in California, a LEO would be a fool to not detain them, based on the laws of that state. In an open carry state though, I wouldn't, as it's simply legal when no other factors are present.

We can agree to disagree though, we're all grown men.

My mom just sent me a text the other day about driving home from work and a guy walking down the highway with his rifle on his back , his handgun on his hip and his dog by his side... No cause for alarm, no 911 calls , no e checks no worries... Now this wasn't inside the big city but was on a main highway in a city not the boonies..

oh to live in a free state...

[RedVines]

The only problem here is what you are saying should happen.. repeatedly never did.. many videos on you tube of officers e-checking people at starbucks and other coffee places.. and most officers would admit.. atleast the ones I talk to , that they would do exactly that.. stop e=check , detain , anywhere everytime..

Let me elaborate on Bucks n Ducks point. He (i'm assuming) is distinguishing between two different scenarios that allow for two different types of detention.

Scenario 1 with people standing at starbucks drinking coffee open carrying. CA LEOs are allowed to stop and conduct a check of the weapon to ensure it is unloaded WITHOUT forming any reasonable suspicion and the open carrier must allow the officer to do so because it is codified in 12031(e)PC. The scope of this type detention is limited to checking the status of the weapon to see if its loaded. If the officer happens to see the serial number while checking the weapon it is considered in plain view with no reasonable expectation of privacy and not considered a separate search. However, once the officer is satisfied that the weapon is unloaded the detention must now end. HOWEVER, if during the course of checking the weapon the officer establishes further cause to extend the detention beyond its original scope he may do so. Now the detention has transformed from a limited 12031(e) "inspection" to a full on Terry Stop.

Scenario 2 with a guy looking for confrontation on a quiet street in a neighborhood of mostly old folks carrying an AR. CA LEOs are allowed to stop this guy based on the reasonable suspicion that they form in with case law. I can think a multitude of objective manifestations in said scenario to factor into my reasonable suspicion, pretty sure most of the LEOs here can also. This would be considered a full on Terry stop and its scope is much larger than simply checking the status of the weapon. An officer can employ a wide variety of investigative techniques and officer safety tactics during a Terry stop as long as it would considered reasonable by a court of law. "Reasonable" is outlined by many different court cases.

So this also goes back to Steveo8's point about not having to furnish ID during a 12031(e) "inspection". While correct, I would caution that refusing to provide ID during a Terry stop to California police officer MAY constitute a violation of 148(a)(1)PC. I stress may because it is a huge grey area that is for the most part untested in court. So maybe one day if we find a citizen,an officer and a DA eager enough to test this out in court we will have a definitive answer. Until then, this is all speculation and opinion.

Hope this helps.

[P5Ret]

The video shows as far as I can tell a complete lack of common sense on the part of the kid looking for a payday at the expense of the city. Is he not smart enough to know that someone is going to be calling the cops because he is walking around with a gun on his hip? Of course not that is exactly what he is hoping is going to happen. Maybe things would go much easier in promoting change to gun laws if kids like this ran around armed with common sense instead of case law, but then again I don't think he is out to change anything but his financial situation. At some point in time people who legally open carry have to realize that not everyone in society is going to agree with them being armed, and who do those folks call when they have a problem, or see something they don't like? The police or sheriff, who either by law or policy has to respond to calls assigned to him/her. I never worked for a department that had a policy that allowed me or anyone else to not respond to calls, no matter how stupid that call was. I can't even begin to calculate the amount of time wasted on 911 hang-ups from pay phones.

As far as the officer taking the gun when he contacted him, I don't see a problem. How often have any of us temporarily taken a knife from someone we contacted? I've been contacted twice by fish and game while dove hunting. Both times one of the first things the warden did was ask for my shotgun. I was in legal possession of it, doing a legal activity. I surrendered it willingly, and was on my way in no time. Why did the sergeant kick this kid loose within seconds of getting on scene? My bet is that this is not the kids first attempt and was probably recognized, and or he just didn't want to deal with the obvious set up and bull excrement.