• 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.

Orange County Sheriff Department Internal Memo

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

Interesting, it say's in the memo that they are allowed to check your id to see whether you are of age to legally carry a firearm. They also site a case.



Can any forum veterans comment on this please?
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

Interesting, it say's in the memo that they are allowed to check your id to see whether you are of age to legally carry a firearm. They also site a case.



Can any forum veterans comment on this please?
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

There is nothing in Arizona V. Hicks (1987) that gives Law Enforcement the authority to demand [physical] ID from a pedestrian who is in possession of a firearm.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=480&invol=321

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District upheld that states' "Stop and Identify" laws are not unconstitutional. California currently does not have a "Stop and Identify" statute.

AFAIK you're only required to identify yourself if you are suspect in a criminal investigation, but I cannot find a law requiring so.

The only thing applicable is Terry v. Ohio. From Wikipedia:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations”. The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1

Of course, this is only applies when "the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."
 
Top