Text Book (e) Check in Santa Clara County

imported post

Had my second run in with the Santa Clara county sheriffs department today.
It went very smoothly.

I passed the deputy while walking the dog. He was outside of his cruiser on the side of the road questioning some rough looking 20 year old on a BMX bike (thought I heard something about dope). As I passed he noticed my sidearm and walked up to me. Conversation went like this.

Deputy: Excuse me sir, I need to take a quick second of your time.
Me: (healing dog and having him sit)
Deputy: Hi how ya' doin' names Kevin. (firm handshake)
Me: (gave name)
Deputy: Nice to meet you. Unloaded right?
Me: Yes sir.
Deputy: OK mind if I check real quick?
Me: Sure sure.
Deputy: Pull it out for me.
Me: You want me to do it?
Deputy: Yeah go ahead...
Me: ( I unholster my Beretta 92FS, open the slide and tilt the open action toward him)
Right on. (when he saw the empty chamber)
Me: No brass?
Deputy: No brass. Can you flip it over so I can see the backside? Pull that mag out for me. Alright.
( I holster my sidearm )
<small talk starts>

Total time of 'e' check: 20 seconds. I maintained control of my property the entire time. I wasn't asked for ID and no serial number check. I call this a win for UOC in Santa Clara county (Cupertino).

You can find the audio here http://truelibertypodcast.com/audio/e_check_may_25_2009.mp3

imported post

That was AWESOME! Well done on the part of everyone! (Your mp3 should be stickied, as it would serve all concerned)

Fantastic encounter!

:celebrate

imported post

Well done.

I havent reviewed the audio, but the transcript of the (e) check is as painless as i think we have seen. You might want to posta letter thanking the SO for knowing the law and appropriate brevity of the loaded check.

imported post

I understand what you all are dealing with in CA, and that you're making the best of it. But once in awhile the absurdity of it all hits me. Can you imagine this with another constitutionally-protected right?

"Sir, may I see that pen, please?"

"There's no ink left in the tip either, right?"

"Okay, you're good to go. You can fill it up when you get back home. But, remember, only black ink is allowed, and you can't have any cushioned caps on your person at the same time."

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

Well done.

I havent reviewed the audio, but the transcript of the (e) check is as painless as i think we have seen. You might want to posta letter thanking the SO for knowing the law and appropriate brevity of the loaded check.

Click to expand...

+1. Should be commended for his attitude.

imported post

Maybe you should write a letter of commendation for the officer in question.

We may not like the (e) checks, but for now they do remain legal. This officer acted within the confines of the law, and professionally to boot.

If every cop were like him, this would be a fine country.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Maybe you should write a letter of commendation for the officer in question.

We may not like the (e) checks, but for now they do remain legal. This officer acted within the confines of the law, and professionally to boot.

If every cop were like him, this would be a fine country.

Click to expand...

I'll likely do that. It all happened so fast and so professionally that I failed to get his last name. I'll have to check the blotter.

imported post

You'll probably get him in trouble.:lol: BWIESE over at calguns.net reports intel. out of the Santa Clara SD that they are encouraging deputies to use "felony stops" on UOCers.



artwork by oleg volk:

imported post

What an excellent UOC experience in CA :celebrate ~
I look forward to having a nice UOC myself in the not too distant future :monkey

I must say that due to the ingrained nature of guns in the culture in SD, it is such a non-issue to carry in SD, openly or concealed (with a permit) ~

Some day the people in CA will have equal treatment with the people of other states like SD - ~ almost like as contemplated in the Equal Protection Clause, but I digress

Bad Ace, glad you had a positive experience :dude: ~ After all, you DO live in America ~

Happy Memorial Day

imported post

cato wrote:

You'll probably get him in trouble.:lol: BWIESE over at calguns.net reports intel. out of the Santa Clara SD that they are encouraging deputies to use "felony stops" on UOCers.



artwork by oleg volk:

Click to expand...

Fark, are you serious? That is unbelievable!

imported post

This is a sign of progress. The officer involved was very polite and brief. It is very encouraging to hear that we're making headway. However, it's also sad at the same time, as we've still got a long way to go in the fight for liberty.

On the one hand I'm inclined to commend him for being above average. On the other I want to chastise him for not respecting/protecting our rights. The hard fact is that this situation was an abuse of power and a violation of your rights - even if to a lesser degree than we're accustomed to here in CA.

In this situation, I think I would take the middle ground. I would write a letter commending the officer for behaving in a way that didn't endanger public safety (such as a "felony stop"). However, I would ask that the department take steps to further train their officers to obey the US Constitution and the interpretations of the US Supreme Court.

The 4th Amendment protects us from warrantless and unreasonable searches or seizures. SCOTUS has interpreted this to apply rather strictly to the seizure of the person. In Terry v Ohio, the court clearly states that an investigatory stop is a seizure, and that it is unreasonable unless some very strict criteria are met. In the above situation, the officer has no reason to believe criminal activity is afoot. Since the state legislature cannot write SCOTUS opinions out of existance, 12031(e) is no excuse for ignoring the Terry Doctrine.

Let's imagine for a moment the legislature created a new statute making it a crime for blacks to use restrooms designated for whites. Would we not be outraged if an officer actually enforced the law? Of course we would! The fact that they're "just following orders" would be a laughable excuse. Now, let's say the law was passed in Georgia 50 years ago, does it become excusable behavior for LE to enforce the law? I say no. Perhaps less surprising, but no less acceptable.

Each individual officer is morally/ethically responsible for the laws (s)he enforces. This lack of responsibility is not only lacking among LE, but in our culture as a whole. From the "poor, troubled kid" that shoots a cop, to the businessman that takes advantage of his clients, to the cop that "just follows orders." The biggest task we face as a culture is to regain our sense of honor.

imported post

Looks like great progress to me. While I agree with everything you are saying, CA_Libertarian, I prefer to focus on the positive here. The officer stayed withing the confines of the law (didn't violate any additional rights besides the ones 12031 does), and had a good attitude.

imported post

cato wrote:

You'll probably get him in trouble.:lol: BWIESE over at calguns.net reports intel. out of the Santa Clara SD that they are encouraging deputies to use "felony stops" on UOCers.



artwork by oleg volk:

Click to expand...

I just off the phone with the Sgt in chg of public affairs at Santa Clara Sheriff's Office - he says:

1) there is no memo encouraging deputies to use 'felony stops' on UOCers
2) there is no policy to that effect according to his discussion today with the Under Sheriff in charge of this issue
3) he was pleased to hear of the positive interactions recently - he had heard about Bad Ace going into to talk to the deputy somewhere at a substation and the deputy was taken aback but they apparently are now up to speed
4) he says that they asked for the ID in order to confirm that the weapon was not stolen - maybe that explains why they did not ask for ID on the second (e) check -
5) wanna bet they stop (e) checking Bad Ace -?

NO FUD:dude:

imported post

Man, I have a lump in my throat and my eyes are tearing up.

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

Man, I have a lump in my throat and my eyes are tearing up. 

Click to expand...

Mike Tyson gets the same way during S3X... its the pepper spray!

Sorry, couldn't resist...