My first LEO encounter

imported post

My first encounter with a LEO while OCing. I spent an hour in bestbuy then went to the mall. I was at the mall for right around 10 minutes when the LEO stopped me. We then went to the security office where he removed my firearm. He didn't run the serial but he did run my DL# to see if I was a prohibited person. Total time in the security office was around 20 minutes. The officer who stopped me was very friendly and pro gun/CCW. He said he wishes every citizen was allowed to carry. I wish that was a majority opinion. It was a little time consuming but as said they were very polite. I did have to leave the mall due to their no weapon policy but was told I could come back in if I left my firearm in the car.

imported post

Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....

imported post

Despite his friendliness, I'm fairly certain he has no right to run you or your handgun, only to confirm that it is unloaded.

imported post

Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.

imported post

TheWarrior wrote:

Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....

Click to expand...

It's sad that this is our measuring stick... kinda like the way we choose the politicians.

We should be outraged at EVERY violation of our rights, no matter how much worse it could have been. Polite oppression is still oppression.

Please get documentation of your stop from this department so that we can start building a case. The habitual, systematic deprivation of our rights must not go unanswered!

imported post

Although I would normally agree...doesn't California allow for a LEO to pull you over in your car to determine if you have valid insurance?

I know that in VA they had a law that stated they could do so, and CA being the kind of state it is....I would not be surprised if they had such.

Decoligny wrote:

Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.

Click to expand...

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Although I would normally agree...doesn't California allow for a LEO to pull you over in your car to determine if you have valid insurance?

I know that in VA they had a law that stated they could do so, and CA being the kind of state it is....I would not be surprised if they had such.

Decoligny wrote:

Absolutely correct on that one. You have no legal obligation to provide I.D. if you are not suspected of committing a crime. His detention was illegal. He had no legal basis under California lawto check if you were a prohibited person. Just as a cop has no right to pull you over just to check if you have a license and insurance.

I would submit a complaint to the officers precinct, IN WRITING.

As long as we keep letting them walk over our rights, just because we don't want to be inconvenienced, the longer they will keep walking all over our rights.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge. I do believe however that they can and do use the "checkpoint" method for checking license, registration, and insurance. Since it has to be advertised in advance, they supposedly consider it "voluntary" due to the fact that you didn't decide to avoid driving in the area of the "advertised" checkpoint.

But a cop cannot just decide to turn on his blue lights and pull you over just to see if you have a license and insurance.

He can run your license PLATE, and if it comes back as lapsed registration then hecan pull you over and check license and insurance. Or he can say you were driving erratically, or failed to use a turn signal while changing lanes. Pretty easy to make up a simple reason for a stop.

But back on topic. A cop has no legal justification for running an I.D. of a person when he doesn't have Reasonable Articulable Suspiscion that a crime has been commited, or is about to be commited. And LEGALLY carrying a firearm is NOT RAS that a crime is about to occur.

imported post

When you are driving, you do have a statutory obligation to provide your permission slip. This is supposedly to establish that you're a competent driver. Of course, they use this to ID you. On foot, you have no obligation to carry ID, as there is no 'pedestrian license.'

Carrying without your ID is often referred to 'sterile carry.' I do this whenever possible, but in modern society it's hard to get much done without driving somewhere or using a bank card that requires ID.

If you're ever stopped outside of your vehicle, feel free to refuse to surrender your ID. Your only obligations are to provide your full name and residential address. If they take your wallet, make it loud and clear that you don't consent to the search/seizure.

As always, have your recording device present and running.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

SNIP If you're ever stopped outside of your vehicle, feel free to refuse to surrender your ID. Your only obligations are to provide your full name and residential address. If they take your wallet, make it loud and clear that you don't consent to the search/seizure.

As always, have your recording device present and running.

Click to expand...

Just a few clarifications requested, since I'm not a California resident.

1. Are you required to give name and address even if the officer has no RAS for the stop? I was under the impression an LEO may only demand name and address if he has RAS, and only in states that have stop-and-identify statutes. Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court (?)

2. In Decoligny's post above, it would seem that in CA, legally carrying a firearm is RAS. Is this true or just a typo?

3. Cites help.

imported post

Typo on my part, fixed it.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

TheWarrior wrote:

Well, I'm sure it could've been worse....

Click to expand...

It's sad that this is our measuring stick... kinda like the way we choose the politicians.

We should be outraged at EVERY violation of our rights, no matter how much worse it could have been. Polite oppression is still oppression.

Click to expand...

Agreed...of course I'm outraged. I just don't always show it...if I did...well...I'd never be smilin' in Cali. :cuss:

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Just a few clarifications requested, since I'm not a California resident.

1. Are you required to give name and address even if the officer has no RAS for the stop? I was under the impression an LEO may only demand name and address if he has RAS, and only in states that have stop-and-identify statutes. Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court (?)

2. In Decoligny's post above, it would seem that in CA, legally carrying a firearm is RAS. Is this true or just a typo?

3. Cites help.

Click to expand...

I've been searching for an hour for a citation, and I'm coming up blank. I remember researching this about a year ago. I think we even had a discussion on this forum... maybe someone else can help me out.

IIRC, the court determined that you could not be arrested under the statute if you provide your full name and address. I think it was a CA court of appeals case, so it would only be binding on CA residents. Also, it only applies when the officer is investigating a crime or suspious activity.

So, the real question is: does 12031(e) count as a Terry Stop? I think it does (though unconstitutionally so). The only defensible position for the proponents of this statute would be that carry a firearm is suspicious activity. So, it is presumed you are committing this crime until proven inoccent. So, 12031(e) checks could easily be consrued as criminal investigations of a sort that inokes the investigative rights granted by Terry v Ohio. (Otherwise, they would have no right to stop you at all.)

So, I suspect that LEOs are within their current legal boundaries if they make a cursory pat-down for concealed weapons and require you to identify yourself.

I apologize for failing to provide a citation. However, I'm about 90% sure I got the facts of the case right. (I even remember specific details, but nothing to help identify the case.) I'll look some more tomorrow if nobody jumps in to help me out.

imported post

Decoligny…

I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.

Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.

Please refrain from making the rest of us look bad by posting bad information. The information you provide is read by many people who will be faced with criminal charges when contacted by LEO’s based on your inaccurate information. I would recommend reading the penal code, which can be found on the Internet, before attempting to state facts.



Officers may rely upon §12031(e), which provides that:



In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for

the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized

to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a

vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an

incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to

this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of

this section (California Penal Code, 2008)



148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or

obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical

technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)

of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to

discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other

punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding

one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail

not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment (California Penal Code, 2008)

imported post

Apallo,

Welcome to the forums! We're always glad to see new faces here.

I do think your first post is out of line. Decoligny was expressing his opinion... that's what the "I believe" at the beginning of the post means.

And the fact that he mistook the color of the light you have to stop for is of little importance. It is my understanding that forward-facing blue lights cannot be put on anything but emergency vehicles. I also believe you have to pull over and yeild to any vehicle with forward facing blue lights.

Decoligny is one of the major contributors for this state's forum. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, and he does get facts wrong at times. However, I don't think he makes any of us look bad by any stretch of the imagination. I think he is an asset to the forum and a patriot deserving of our respect.

Even if he was a gibbering moron, I don't see how that refelcts on any of us... this is a public forum and anybody can claim to be an "open carry advocate" and then say stupid things.

Again, welcome to the forums. I suggest you stay positive and keep your criticism polite and productive. Coming in and bashing the 'regulars' in your first post won't earn you any respect.

imported post

In Deco's defense, IIRC only law enforcement uses blue lights. Emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance etc) use red, amber, and white strobe.

imported post

Another Drive by poster

I occasionally make mistakes, and when I am corrected using actual Penal Code citation and Vehicle Code citation I am the first to admit that I was wrong. apollo hasn't shown me that I am wrong.


apollo wrote:

I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.

Click to expand...

As there is no legal requirement in California to always carry Identification papers with you, they would be hard pressed to arrest you for obstruction for failing to provide I.D.

You will note, however,I did not say that you should notidentify yourself. That can be done by just simply providing your name and city of residence. When I opencarry, I do however carry one piece of Government issued I.D., my VA card. It has only my picture and my name on it,no other personal information atall on it.

apollo wrote:

Decoligny…

Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.

Click to expand...

From my limited experience with being pulled over (twice in the past 15 years) the primary color that I have seen in my raerview is FLASHING BLUE. They do have amber lights as well. Red I cannot attest to.

You say that BY LAW the police have to use "red lights" to stop vehicles, please provide the citation to exactly which part of THE LAW states that requirement.

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE

25252. Every authorized emergency vehicle shall be equipped with at
least one steady burning red warning lamp visible from at least
1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle to be used as provided in this
code.
In addition, authorized emergency vehicles may display revolving,
flashing, or steady red warning lights to the front, sides or rear of
the vehicles.

I see nowhere a requirement to use that red lamp to stop vehicles.

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE

25258. (a) An authorized emergency vehicle operating under the
conditions specified in Section 21055 may display a flashing white
light from a gaseous discharge lamp designed and used for the purpose
of controlling official traffic control signals.
(b) An authorized emergency vehicle used by a peace officer, as
defined in Section 830.1 of, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), or (i) of Section 830.2 of, subdivision (b) of Section
830.31 of, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.32 of, Section
830.33 of, subdivision (a) of Section 830.36 of, subdivision (a) of
Section 830.4 of, or Section 830.6 of, the Penal Code, in the
performance of the peace officer's duties, may, in addition, display
a steady or flashing blue warning light visible from the front,
sides, or rear of the vehicle.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (a), a vehicle shall not be
equipped with a device that emits any illumination or radiation that
is designed or used for the purpose of controlling official traffic
control signals.

25259. (a) Any authorized emergency vehicle may display flashing
amber warning lights to the front, sides, or rear.
(b) A vehicle operated by a police or traffic officer while in the
actual performance of his or her duties may display steady burning
or flashing white lights to either side mounted above the roofline of
the vehicle.
(c) Any authorized emergency vehicle may display not more than two
flashing white warning lights to the front mounted above the
roofline of the vehicle and not more than two flashing white warning
lights to the front mounted below the roofline of the vehicle. These
lamps may be in addition to the flashing headlamps permitted under
Section 25252.5.

imported post

Yes, apollo, welcome to the forums.

I hope that you can be more productive on the forums before coming so confrontational against a respected member of the forums.

And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon. You still can't be charged with 12031 if you are not loaded, even if you refuse to allow the inspection.

(e) – In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

It has been established that pursuant to 12031(e) if the firearm is determined to be in compliance with 12031 (i.e. not loaded) the officer is to immediately return the firearm to the person and send them on their way. Open carrying of an unloaded pistol is not in of itself PC to search, detain, or arrest a person. This doesn't give them the authority to investigate anything, run the serial number on your gun, or even ask for proof of ID.

apollo wrote:

Decoligny…

I would check your facts before posting to a community bulletin! PC 12031(e) of the California Penal Code allows police officers to detain a person in possession of a firearm to determine if the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Therefore this is a legal and lawful detention. Failure to provide identification after being contacted by the police for a lawful detention can and probably will result in your arrest 148(a)(1) PC, delaying and obstructing.

Furthermore in another of your post you mentioned the police use “Blue” lights to stop vehicles. This is incorrect as well. The blue and amber lights are for visibility. By law the police use a “red light” visible for 1000 feet to stop vehicles.

Please refrain from making the rest of us look bad by posting bad information. The information you provide is read by many people who will be faced with criminal charges when contacted by LEO’s based on your inaccurate information. I would recommend reading the penal code, which can be found on the Internet, before attempting to state facts.



Officers may rely upon §12031(e), which provides that:



In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for

the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized

to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a

vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an

incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to

this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of

this section (California Penal Code, 2008)



148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or

obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical

technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)

of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to

discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other

punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding

one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail

not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment (California Penal Code, 2008)

Click to expand...

imported post

Theseus wrote:

And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this...

A 12031(e) check is a detention. It is no different than any other Terry Stop.

All the elements are there:

• LEO suspects crime has occurred, or is about to occur. (12031e establishes that that the presence of a firearm is grounds for this suspicion)
• LEO detains you to investigate suspected crime
• LEO determines you did or did not commit a crime
• Officer releases you or arrests you

Interaction falls into three categories: voluntary, detention, or arrest. 12031(e), like all other Terry Stops, gives the suspect two choices: cooperate or face arrest. Coerced cooperation is not the same as voluntary cooperation. So, since 12031(e) is not voluntary, it must fall into one of the two latter categories.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Theseus wrote:

And as you pointed out yourself, it is not a detention! It is merely an inspection. Only by not allowing an officer to to inspect gives them PC to arrest you for violation and then under the law inspect your weapon.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this...

A 12031(e) check is a detention. It is no different than any other Terry Stop.

All the elements are there:

• LEO suspects crime has occurred, or is about to occur. (12031e establishes that that the presence of a firearm is grounds for this suspicion)
• LEO detains you to investigate suspected crime
• LEO determines you did or did not commit a crime
• Officer releases you or arrests you

Interaction falls into three categories: voluntary, detention, or arrest. 12031(e), like all other Terry Stops, gives the suspect two choices: cooperate or face arrest. Coerced cooperation is not the same as voluntary cooperation. So, since 12031(e) is not voluntary, it must fall into one of the two latter categories.

Click to expand...

Interesting point.

I wonder, does that make game warden checks on shotgun plugs, hunting licenses, and fishing licenses detentions underTerry law? Or is there another legal rationale/theory?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I wonder, does that make game warden checks on shotgun plugs, hunting licenses, and fishing licenses detentions underTerry law? Or is there another legal rationale/theory?

Click to expand...

Like a driving permit, a hunting permit probably has certain requirments. I'm not familiar with hunting law at all, but I'd bet money it is similar to the CVC requirement that a driver submit to DUI tests.

That's the problem with society considering these activities to be privileges granted by the state, as opposed to rights. Don't like state policy? Fine... just don't hunt or drive.