• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Well, I pissed off a cop

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I was referring to the law enforcement practice of removing citizens' guns from their persons or vehicles during investigatory stops or traffic violations and "checking the serial numbers to see whether it's been stolen". Nothing whatsoever to do with dealers or background checks. And that's just a suspicion, you know, no evidence to back it up. Clearly you don't get stopped by the cops much, which is to your credit.

So, let me get this straight. I go to BUY a (used) gun from a dealer, and they use the excuse of checking MY background, in a records check I PAY FOR, to see if the gun the dealer previously bought or received in trade from someone else, is STOLEN or not? What kind of trick is that?

If the law wants to know if the gun is stolen or not, WHY don't they require the dealer to check the serial number on the gun when he agrees to buy it, while the potential thief or fencer is still standing right there? This current process makes no sense to me. (I'm quoting here from User's previous post which outlines this expressed "logic" by the LEAs.)
 

Old Virginia Joe

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
365
Location
SE Va., , Occupied CSA
I was referring to the law enforcement practice of removing citizens' guns from their persons or vehicles during investigatory stops or traffic violations and "checking the serial numbers to see whether it's been stolen". Nothing whatsoever to do with dealers or background checks. And that's just a suspicion, you know, no evidence to back it up. Clearly you don't get stopped by the cops much, which is to your credit.

OK, I was blending this thread with TFred's current post about Form 4473, and how they (Feds) 'are' "taking the make, model, and serial numbers of the guns purchased." See below:

Form 4473: Serial Numbers (by TFred)
This may end up moved, but I'll start it here. The big news lately is universal background checks. On the face of it, they don't sound too bad, until you learn that the feds have been taking the make, model and serial numbers of the guns purchased. If there is ANYone stupid enough to believe that they follow the law and do not keep this information, well, that's why they invented Velcro. Here's my question: If one were to not fill in the serial number on the Form 4473, what would happen? Would a dealer (I realize some would not, but would any?) submit the form without the number? I assume if it were submitted, would the submission be rejected as incomplete? That is my suspicion. Is there a basis in the law that justifies the serial number be a required element of the background check? I wouldn't lobby for it, but a background check that was truly just that, with no identifying gun information, would not be as bad as what they are pushing for now. Of course, without tying the background check to a specific gun, there is no way to prove that the check was done for any gun you have in your possession, so it becomes rather useless for the government with regard to enforcement. Thoughts?
TFred ETA: I think I have just outlined the proof that a universal background check is indeed actually a universal gun registration!

So, are you saying Virginia form does not do what TFred says it (the Feds) does? I don't know, as I haven't bought anything lately. Maybe the Fed form is different from the state form? Anyone, please clear this up? Thanks.
 

JesterP99

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
172
Location
Richmond, Va
I was referring to the law enforcement practice of removing citizens' guns from their persons or vehicles during investigatory stops or traffic violations and "checking the serial numbers to see whether it's been stolen". Nothing whatsoever to do with dealers or background checks. And that's just a suspicion, you know, no evidence to back it up. Clearly you don't get stopped by the cops much, which is to your credit.

So a police officer taking my gun and "securing it" in his vehicle/running the serial is not legal? If you get arrested for having a concealed weapon in your vehicle and the officer searches your vehicle without your consent (and the officer has reasonable suspicion based on the "concealed weapon") and finds something illegal in your car, does that search and that charge for whatever they find get thrown out?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
So a police officer taking my gun and "securing it" in his vehicle/running the serial is not legal? If you get arrested for having a concealed weapon in your vehicle and the officer searches your vehicle without your consent (and the officer has reasonable suspicion based on the "concealed weapon") and finds something illegal in your car, does that search and that charge for whatever they find get thrown out?
You can't be arrested for "having a concealed weapon" where your possession of a "concealed weapon" is the basis for "reasonable suspicion". The cop needs something else to establish a "reasonable suspicion" which would cause him to conduct a search and discover the "(illegally) concealed weapon" (Terry v Ohio).

Stolen firearms, like anything else, can only be identified if they've been reported stolen by their owners.

Some believe that a gun so checked ends up recorded in a list of "traced guns", but I have no basis to support that.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
So a police officer taking my gun and "securing it" in his vehicle/running the serial is not legal? If you get arrested for having a concealed weapon in your vehicle and the officer searches your vehicle without your consent (and the officer has reasonable suspicion based on the "concealed weapon") and finds something illegal in your car, does that search and that charge for whatever they find get thrown out?

He didn't say it wasn't legal. See a case called Arizona vs Hicks. That opinion references a number of relevant points.

If you're arrested, and the vehicle needs to be towed, your vehicle is gonna get searched under the vehicle inventory search exception to the warrant clause. I've only read maybe two cases where the contraband discovered during the inventory was thrown out--mainly because the evidence that the inventory search was a pretext was judicially unavoidable. For example, in one case the cop claimed he was inventorying the cars contents, yet his dashcam video showed him doing it without writing down even one item in the car.

Also, there is a relatively recent US Supreme Court case, Gant, that addresses car searches done incident to arrest. The short story is that a search of the person and the immediate area at the time of his arrest seems to be sanctioned by the courts under a recognized exception to the warrant clause. You'll see this type of search referred to as a search incident. Short for search incident to arrest. Gant placed restrictions on vehicle searches incident to arrest.

Now, lets say the cop arrests you in your car for having a concealed handgun in violation of a statute. Then, for example, he searches your car and plants drugs. If he's dumb enough to tell the judge he was searching for drugs, the drugs may very well be suppressed. But, if he's smart and tells the judge he was searching for another concealed handgun--evidence related to the first offense--the judge might let the drug evidence stand. Gant has many of the details.

Now, if you really did have drugs in the car, and the cop didn't search for another concealed handgun, the drugs will likely be found later when the car's contents are inventoried. Drugs found that way are pretty much guaranteed to be admitted as evidence.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
So a police officer taking my gun and "securing it" in his vehicle/running the serial is not legal? If you get arrested for having a concealed weapon in your vehicle and the officer searches your vehicle without your consent (and the officer has reasonable suspicion based on the "concealed weapon") and finds something illegal in your car, does that search and that charge for whatever they find get thrown out?
That's quite a series of questions all asked as one, but I'll take a stab at it.

Seizing someone's firearm and running the serial number is just as legal as seizing their cellphone and running the serial number on it, running the serial number on the mini-PC/iPad/iPod/portable CD player or anything else in someone's possession. Do the police get a free pass to run the serial number on someone's cell phone if they happen to spot it while detaining someone for a traffic infraction?

IF one is 'arrested for having a concealed weapon in your vehicle' in a place/state/venue where it is legal to have a concealed weapon in a vehicle then it is quite likely that anything found as a result of a search and 'not in plain sight' would be suppressed at the first hearing. Contraband found as a result of an illegal search is considered 'fruit of the poisoned tree.'

IF, however an arrest is made for having a concealed weapon where it is illegal to conceal, then it matters not if consent for a search is given or not. Officers have the authority to conduct a 'protective search' for easily reached weapons that may be used against them and items found during such a protective search are admissible.

However... If as happened in at least one court case, the arrested individual is handcuffed and sitting in the back of a locked police car several car lengths away from his own car, then items that are found which he could have no immediate control over nor access to could, IF Found, also be suppressed and excluded as evidence.
(One way many departments are attempting to circumvent this ruling is to initiate a policy of impounding any automobile that cannot be driven away by a third party. To 'protect' the arrested party the department will conduct a 'custodial inventory' of all items in the car (purely for the arrestee's safety and interests of course, the police just don't want any items to come up ""missing"" when the car is towed.) The police aren't 'looking for contraband, they're just insuring nothing comes up missing and it just happens that occasionally, purely by happenstance that contraband is discovered while they are innocently inventorying and logging all items found in the car to be towed.
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
So, it would behoove one when "asked" to step out of the vehicle by a LEO, that you do in fact step out of the vehicle with all the windows up, and doors closed and locked, with the keys INSIDE the vehicle.

Then when you are later "arrested" you are no long within your vehicle and therefore no search of the vehicle incident to arrest!
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
So, it would behoove one when "asked" to step out of the vehicle by a LEO, that you do in fact step out of the vehicle with all the windows up, and doors closed and locked, with the keys INSIDE the vehicle.

Then when you are later "arrested" you are no long within your vehicle and therefore no search of the vehicle incident to arrest!

This is a wonderful idea - until reality shows up and gets involved.

a - is your vehicle legally parked?
b - will your vehicle be legally parked until you (or somebody you have authorized) can get it and move it to where you want it to be?

If the answer to either is "No" then the cops may (and often are required by policy to) impound your vehicle and move it for 1) safekeeping and/or 2) accident prevention. In either case they are going to conduct an inventory search, documenting everything they find in your vehicle so that you can not later come back and ask what they did with the 500 piunds of cocaine or the $3.75 in nickles, dimes and penneys in your ashtray. Inventory searches do not require permission, and anything found during one can be used as evidence.

Knowing basic police procedure really helps avoid those embarassing moments when you realize your clever scheme has just totally and utterly blown up in your face.

stay safe.
 

optiksguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Town of Herndon, VA
If you're arrested, and the vehicle needs to be towed, your vehicle is gonna get searched under the vehicle inventory search exception to the warrant clause.

Hope this is not straying too far from the original topic, but this 'inventory exception' has always seemed like BS to me. Most other 'exceptions' I can understand even if I don't totally agree with them, but this one I don't understand the necessity. If the main reason is to secure the contents of the car, why not just slap evidence stickers on all the doors and windows in your presence so that it will be obvious if the vehicle is entered outside of your presence? Or store the car someplace under constant video surveillance. There seems to me to be viable ways to prevent people from claiming 'I had $500 in the car when I was arrested and now it is gone' without having to [strike]search[/strike], err, sorry, 'inventory' the car without a warrant. What am I missing?
 

SaltH2OHokie

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
416
Location
Bottom of Suffolk, VA
Reality is such a killjoy!
I guess that explains why so many people ignore it:lol:

At the risk of heading off on a tangent..."officer's safety" temporary confiscation...is that something I can refuse? Only happened 1 time out of 4 LEO encounters in my car, while carrying, but that one time didn't feel optional. I politely refused on the grounds that I didn't want to unnecessarily handle a loaded gun and she just repeated her original "I'll need to hold that for the duration of the stop for my safety" to which I replied "sure are trusting, huh?" and proceeded to take my belt off so I could give her gun/holster.

Went downhill from there...me seeing red, wife saying "don't be rude", etc. etc.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Hope this is not straying too far from the original topic, but this 'inventory exception' has always seemed like BS to me. Most other 'exceptions' I can understand even if I don't totally agree with them, but this one I don't understand the necessity. If the main reason is to secure the contents of the car, why not just slap evidence stickers on all the doors and windows in your presence so that it will be obvious if the vehicle is entered outside of your presence? Or store the car someplace under constant video surveillance. There seems to me to be viable ways to prevent people from claiming 'I had $500 in the car when I was arrested and now it is gone' without having to [strike]search[/strike], err, sorry, 'inventory' the car without a warrant. What am I missing?

You've missed that the courts have held (no cite) that such inventories are legal and that the discoveries made of illegal items is w/o taint, chargeable legally - no fruit of the poisoned tree.

The fact or possibility that the vehicle could be secured w/o inventory doesn't serve their goal - they've found a loophole.
 

optiksguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Town of Herndon, VA
You've missed that the courts have held (no cite) that such inventories are legal and that the discoveries made of illegal items is w/o taint, chargeable legally - no fruit of the poisoned tree.

The fact or possibility that the vehicle could be secured w/o inventory doesn't serve their goal - they've found a loophole.

I knew that the courts allowed this exception, I guess my question is why they allowed it. I was hoping there was some reason I wasn't thinking of other than the one you suggest.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
"I pissed off a Cop"

Only one? LOL

I lectured at VSU on the difference between Security and Law Enforcement. Seems there were a number of police officers and deputies in the class.

Having been on both sides of the question, one of the students asked which I liked better.

When I said Security, any day of the week, you should have seen the faces.

I explained that most street cops don't know squat about security and are not much better informed about the laws they are supposed to enforce. I asked how many of the LEO in the class carried around a quick reference for stare code.

I also brought up open carry law and asked them where in the Code of Virginia it was. None of them knew. I wonder why?????

The Professor asked me to come back the next semester and challenge the next class as I had that time.
Cops do NOT know all !!!!!

;>)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Next time, just disassemble and give him the barrel ...

I'd love to hear user's response to this bit of "advice."

These leavings are all over OCDO. I am really afraid that somebody is gonna take one of these drive-bys seriously, follow that "advice," and end up in jail--or worse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'd love to hear user's response to this bit of "advice."

These leavings are all over OCDO. I am really afraid that somebody is gonna take one of these drive-bys seriously, follow that "advice," and end up in jail--or worse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I understand. I kinda suspect the number of people who would take such at face value and use it are very few in number. And, while I would hate to see it happen, we gotta remember they are responsible for accepting and applying the advice.

Inasmuch as censorship is an undesirable alternative, the best solution is to just offer better advice. If there is a thread full of better advice, and somebody implements the bad advice, well...
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't do it so much, if he would cite actual law, if he related stories of his actually attempting the crap he advocates, if it didn't smack of being legal advice, and if it weren't so freakin' bad.

OCDO is better than that. We don't just make pronouncements as to the law. We discuss it and cite it. We have genuine disagreements as to what it means sometimes, but we don't just drive-by with dangerous "advice."

I really wish someone in authority on OCDO would have a heart-to-heart with this kid before someone gets arrested or killed acting on the stuff this kid posts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

CoryB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
15
Location
Chesterfield
I work in a store in Virginia and sell guns. I cannot speak to the Federal background check system as my only experience is with the Virginia system. Virginia buyers must fill out both the Federal 4473 and the Virginia form.

The make/model/serial number are written on the 4473 but that information is not entered into the Virginia background check system, either online or via telephone.

Also, the information about the gun is not entered anywhere on the Virginia form at all. The only information on the Virginia form about the firearm being purchased is whether it is a pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun and the quantities of each.

Hope this helps clear things up.

OK, I was blending this thread with TFred's current post about Form 4473, and how they (Feds) 'are' "taking the make, model, and serial numbers of the guns purchased." See below:

Form 4473: Serial Numbers (by TFred)
This may end up moved, but I'll start it here. The big news lately is universal background checks. On the face of it, they don't sound too bad, until you learn that the feds have been taking the make, model and serial numbers of the guns purchased. If there is ANYone stupid enough to believe that they follow the law and do not keep this information, well, that's why they invented Velcro. Here's my question: If one were to not fill in the serial number on the Form 4473, what would happen? Would a dealer (I realize some would not, but would any?) submit the form without the number? I assume if it were submitted, would the submission be rejected as incomplete? That is my suspicion. Is there a basis in the law that justifies the serial number be a required element of the background check? I wouldn't lobby for it, but a background check that was truly just that, with no identifying gun information, would not be as bad as what they are pushing for now. Of course, without tying the background check to a specific gun, there is no way to prove that the check was done for any gun you have in your possession, so it becomes rather useless for the government with regard to enforcement. Thoughts?
TFred ETA: I think I have just outlined the proof that a universal background check is indeed actually a universal gun registration!

So, are you saying Virginia form does not do what TFred says it (the Feds) does? I don't know, as I haven't bought anything lately. Maybe the Fed form is different from the state form? Anyone, please clear this up? Thanks.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
A vast majority of the user/members here take the wisdom and council quite seriously IMO. Do they occassionally foray into the humor-zone - every now and then.

A very small minority are cute, attempt to be funny or sarcastic with many of their posts. They earn a reputation quickly enough. It helps to know the history of a poster.

Whether newbie or ol' hand on this forum, all have been cautioned that they are responsible for their own decisions.

"All advice posted on this forum should be considered nothing more than hearsay. Even if a poster identifies themselves as an attorney, law enforcement official or expert in a given field, there is no way to verify that fact or that they are correct. Therefore, any and all advice you glean from this forum should be independently verified!"
 
Top