Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: People vs DeLong (1970)

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Thanks to Theseus for informing me of this one. It's a bad decision IMO but it does spell out very clearly that loaded checks are limited to that purpose ONLY and are not for "fishing expeditions".

    The statues involved have been changed over the years so keep that in mind if it conflicts a little with our current understanding of those laws. And once again we can thank the "war" on drugs for helping to destroythe constitutional rights of all (as this was a marijuana possession case and therefor not the best poster boy to fight for our Rights):

    http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...3d/11/786.html
    We hold that the examination permitted by Penal Code section 171e and section 12031, subdivision (c) is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In the first place, the examination of the weapon [11 Cal.App.3d 792] may hardly be deemed to be a search at all. The chamber of a gun is not the proper or usual receptacle for anything but a bullet or a shell. The loading of a gun simply affects the condition of the weapon by making it immediately useful for firing. The ammunition becomes, as it were, part of the gun. There is nothing private or special or secret about a bullet. The use of the word "examine" in the statutes instead of the word "search" is not at all a devious one. In examining the weapon, the officers are not attempting to find some kind of contraband which is unrelated to the gun itself.

    But if the examination may be called a search, it is not an unreasonable one; and only unreasonable searches are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868].) It is, as we have said, limited to a single purpose. It does not have about it any except the slightest element of embarrassment or annoyance, elements overbalanced by far by the purpose of preventing violence or threats of violence. The minimal intrusion does not begin to approach the indignity of the frisk, as graphically described in Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 17, fn. 13 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 903]. It is true that the frisk, as sustained in the Terry case, requires as justification something different than mere possession of a firearm in a proscribed place, but it requires a good deal less than cause for arrest.

    What is "probable" in the case of a weapon must be tested by different standards from those which apply to other objects. When a gun is pointed at a bank teller, he might indeed reason to himself that it is just as probable that the gun is unloaded as that it is loaded, and that unless there were some particular indication to the contrary, he might act with assurance in refusing the demands of the person exhibiting the gun. But the nature of weapons is such that one does not measure probabilities by the standards that apply to other objects. It is true, of course, that in this case there was no such threat as exists in the case of the bank teller, but on the other hand, the carrying of weapons, particularly if it were done in large numbers on a college campus or in the other places mentioned by the statutes, would produce a show of force even though the weapons, or some of them, were unloaded.

    Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

    [4] In the brief filed by amicus curiae. American Civil Liberties Union, it is stated that the Legislature can, if it wishes, prohibit the carrying of firearms on campus, but cannot permit unloaded firearms to be so carried, modifying the permission with a power to inspect the weapons. It is argued that the legislative purpose is discriminatory because the wish of the Legislature is to give the police power to inspect firearms of persons whom they regard as suspicious and those whom they disfavor. Of course, legislation which is passed "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 [30 L.Ed. 220, 227, 6 S.Ct. 1064]), the legislative purpose being discriminatory enforcement, must be struck down. But there is not a shred of evidence in the record before us that the statutes in question have been enforced unequally. fn. 1

    The exceedingly limited inspection permitted by the statutes in question, applied only to persons who do choose to carry firearms where loaded firearms are forbidden, comes well within the orbit of reasonable inspection or search.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    Rattigan, J., and Christian, J., concurred.


    Let's hope that the federal judiciary is more honest when they get to handle 12031 and all it's infringements.



  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    It should be noted that they dismiss the fourth amendment claim without a single mention of the word "seizure" (outside of the Warren quote). They seem to conveniently forgot that the search part was only half of the fourth amendment.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    This is the main reason I see 12031(e) being overturned. The opinion in DeLong makes a decent point that checking a gun's chamber isn't going to reveal anything but the loaded status of the gun. I don't believe that check constitutes a reasonable search though, and the e check certainly isn't a reasonable seizure.

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Not only does it violate your 4th, but it violates your 5th, as you will be self incriminating yourself.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    "Comply with an unconstitutional order or we will arrest you." Sounds about right.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    SO what is peoples issue with us legally carrying guns in the open??

  6. #6
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    "Comply with an unconstitutional order or we will arrest you." Sounds about right.
    Theseus!!!! Update on your situation??? please, please, please tell us what you can.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Hey Theseus! your attorney pointed me to Don KIlmer in San Jose wanted to thank you Im just glad he charges a flat fee for criminal cases and discounts for members of various organizations whew!!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    It is, as we have said, limited to a single purpose. It does not have about it any except the slightest element of embarrassment or annoyance, elements overbalanced by far by the purpose of preventing violence or threats of violence. The minimal intrusion does not begin to approach the indignity of the frisk, as graphically described in Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 17, fn. 13 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 903]. It is true that the frisk, as sustained in the Terry case, requires as justification something different than mere possession of a firearm in a proscribed place, but it requires a good deal less than cause for arrest.


    Has he ever been stopped to see if his weapon was loaded????? Id submit video evidence to the contrary especially when they interrupt you while eating you dinner at Pita pit HECK ya its embarrassing .... Crowed streets getting drawn down on ... Gorgeous girls staring wondering what you did... There goes your chance of getting in their pants( unless they dig the bad boy type>>??)

    And since when did they prevent violence I demand a drug test for that judge cuz he is obviously under the infuence of something if all it be is stupidity

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    bbt

  10. #10
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    bbt
    UHhh this what does thi mean^^^^^

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    bbt
    BBW=big beautiful woman
    BBT=big beautiful... transsexual?

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    btt: bump to (the) top
    bbt: bump somethin top

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •