• 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.

OCing at a public place of business

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

I was pretty sure the 12031 applied to my firearm even when locked up. Thank you for clarifying that. As far as making the arguement that there's no proof of the location of the firearm, there are camaras that watched me walking to the car and placingit into the car. They could also make the arguement that I was obstructing justice or an ongoing investigation by not telling them where the firearm was.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

wolfetundra wrote:
I was pretty sure the 12031 applied to my firearm even when locked up. Thank you for clarifying that. As far as making the arguement that there's no proof of the location of the firearm, there are camaras that watched me walking to the car and placingit into the car. They could also make the arguement that I was obstructing justice or an ongoing investigation by not telling them where the firearm was.
There may have been no proof as far as the police encounter goes. Normally during a detention police officers must get probably cause on you within a reasonable time period (usually 20-40 minutes), or they have to let you go. You can't be detained forever, and it is my understanding that after a certain period of time a detention becomes an arrest.

This is where my knowledge of the law gets sketchy. Since the 12031(e) check is an "inspection" and not a detainment, how long can a police officer investigate to see if you even have a weapon that he can inspect?

Say wolfetundra is carrying in the mall and I call the police and give a description of him and say he is carrying a gun. They respond and encounter a man matching the description in the parking lot with a holster and no gun. Now under Florida v. JL they cannot conduct a search for a concealed weapon based on an anonymous report. There is no weapon visible to them, but there is evidence that a handgun exists somewhere (the holster gives this away).

Delong came out way before Florida v. JL, but they don't touch on the exact same topic, but in this case I'd argue that Florida v. JL is the guiding case since there is no readily apparent firearm to inspect. Outside of wolfetundra saying he has a firearm, the police should be stuck with the task of trying to trick wolfetundra into saying he has a firearm. Other than that I think they have to go on their way.

One thing I'm reasonably sure about though, remaining silent cannot be construed as obstructing justice.

I'd love to hear arguments against my reasoning.
 

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

Therein lies the problem. As the officer approached, I made the following mistake; "I am no longer in possession of the firearm. It's in a lockbox in my trunk." I initially made this response so the officer knew I was unarmed and there was no reasonable way to quickly arm myself.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
I hope you didn't say anything and you didn't open your trunk. You just stood there silently until they left, right? You certainly didn't say you had a firearm, and if you did then you certainly didn't open the trunk, or let them handle your firearm. Please say you didn't.
LE have the 'right' to 'examine' the firearm under 12031(e). Even if the firearm is locked in the trunk. Remember that refusal to permit the examination is grounds for arrest.

There is case law where a college employee reported seeing guns in the trunk of the car, and police were justified in searching for the weapons in order to perform the 12031(e) examination since they had reasonable suspicion the guns were there.

(Sorry for not including a citation at this time. I'm drawing a blank on the case name, and the OCDO website search function is out of service right now. As soon as I can find/remember it, I'll post it here, unless someone helps me out and posts it for me first.)

Are you sure? I seem to recall the case quoted said the opposite. The man got drug evidence thrown out because the judge said they still needed a warrant.

And the police will, as in my case, sometimes remove your ID and then deny it later. This is why you should sterile carry.

As for the trespassing, they have to ask you to leave. No policy matters, posted or otherwise. Based on your report of the event, it is quite possible that both you and the security guards were not on the same page.

They asked you to put the gun in your car. You said that was OK with you. Then you asked if you could get the policy before you leave. They likely though you were going to put the gun in your car and then come back in for a copy of the policy.

It could go either way. This was a pretty clear miss-communication that may have saved you from a trespass charge.

I won't otherwise critique your first detention, as almost all are flustered and accommodating. . . With each detention you get better and better at standing tall with your mouth shut. Oh, and lieing to a cop is not illegal unless they are investigating an actual crime. . . Lie away. . .

Cop "Where are you going to this hour of night?"
Me "Well, it is time for an oil change in my truck so I was going to Wal-Mart to get some oil and a filter. Why? Is there something illegal about that officer?" - When I was really on my way to the strip club .

Of course the better response is "I am sorry, I don't see how that is relevant."
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Say wolfetundra is carrying in the mall and I call the police and give a description of him and say he is carrying a gun. They respond and encounter a man matching the description in the parking lot with a holster and no gun. Now under Florida v. JL they cannot conduct a search for a concealed weapon based on an anonymous report. There is no weapon visible to them, but there is evidence that a handgun exists somewhere (the holster gives this away).

I'd love to hear arguments against my reasoning.
the empty holstercouldnt possibly be evidence of a gun. if he had kept quiet!
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Theseus wrote:
Are you sure? I seem to recall the case quoted said the opposite. The man got drug evidence thrown out because the judge said they still needed a warrant.
From DeLong:
On the other hand, if the officers had the right to make the inspection permitted by sections 171e and 12031, subdivision (c), of any firearm which had been brought on the college grounds or in a vehicle in a public place, appellant would not be entitled to prevent such inspection when it was known to the officers that the guns were in the vehicle, simply by closing the trunk. This does not mean that officers are entitled to open trunks of vehicles on the grounds of state institutions simply because there may be guns therein. It means that if the statutes which are to be discussed are valid, their objectives may not be frustrated simply by depositing firearms which have been exposed to view or which are otherwise known to the officers to be present in such part of the vehicle or in such container as obscures them from view.

This makes it seem like if the officers didn't know that his firearm was in the trunk (if he didn't say anything) then they'd have little recourse. There might be another case out there that says suspicion of the existence is enough to compel wolfetundra to open his trunk, but I don't know of any such case.

Oh, and lieing to a cop is not illegal unless they are investigating an actual crime. . . Lie away. . .

Just as a side note, lying to a federal agent is illegal. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
This makes it seem like if the officers didn't know that his firearm was in the trunk (if he didn't say anything) then they'd have little recourse. There might be another case out there that says suspicion of the existence is enough to compel wolfetundra to open his trunk, but I don't know of any such case.

Oh, and lieing to a cop is not illegal unless they are investigating an actual crime. . . Lie away. . .

Just as a side note, lying to a federal agent is illegal. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001
Through my reading of posts,penal codes, andpamphlets, etc. I can't remember all of it. And because I can't remember every detail, I've taken the position of keeping it simple, don't answer any questions you don't want to, don't lie, and don't assist. If they want to conduct searches tell them to get a warrant. If they don't get a warrant and search anyway, don't obstruct, and if they give you orders to do something (like sit down or put your hands on your head) don't resist. Let them conduct their e-checks (which they have a right to do), and ask to be on your way. I think its a good, basic premise forhandling an LEO encounter.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
This makes it seem like if the officers didn't know that his firearm was in the trunk (if he didn't say anything) then they'd have little recourse. There might be another case out there that says suspicion of the existence is enough to compel wolfetundra to open his trunk, but I don't know of any such case.

Oh, and lieing to a cop is not illegal unless they are investigating an actual crime. . . Lie away. . .

Just as a side note, lying to a federal agent is illegal. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001
Through my reading of posts,penal codes, andpamphlets, etc. I can't remember all of it. And because I can't remember every detail, I've taken the position of keeping it simple, don't answer any questions you don't want to, don't lie, and don't assist. If they want to conduct searches tell them to get a warrant. If they don't get a warrant and search anyway, don't obstruct, and if they give you orders to do something (like sit down or put your hands on your head) don't resist. Let them conduct their e-checks (which they have a right to do), and ask to be on your way. I think its a good, basic premise forhandling an LEO encounter.
Your basically right. . . I will pee in their coffee later. . . he he. . .
 

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

I have a crappy voice recorder now (tape). It really does suck except for my voice, which is somewhat able to be understood. On Thursday, I'm planning on pickingup a digital voice recorder. Until then, and in the future, I NEVER go out alone. I always take someone with me.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

I would also recommend a small clip on microphone. My DVR, which Ikeep next to my holsterpicks up so much noise I could barely understand or even hear what was being said. I've since picked up a mic and its a lot better now.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Having said all that, I'm not exactly sure what I'd do if the security guards came out and IDed me as being the person with the gun. If it was plainly obvious that the car I was next to was my car, then I might comply under duress. If it wasn't I would just claim that I was no longer in possession of the firearm in question.
My guess is they would either review the video, or simply say, "fine, you're free to go; oh, and the management say they don't want you back here." Then they could just watch to see what car you get into, and then stop you and say they got a tip from a bystander that saw you put your gun in your trunk.

Of course, you could just take the bus home, then come pick up your car later... but that seems like a lot of trouble to avoid a 12031(e) check. Plus, if you are trespassed off the property, then returning could be trouble.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
My guess is they would either review the video, or simply say, "fine, you're free to go; oh, and the management say they don't want you back here." Then they could just watch to see what car you get into, and then stop you and say they got a tip from a bystander that saw you put your gun in your trunk.

Of course, you could just take the bus home, then come pick up your car later... but that seems like a lot of trouble to avoid a 12031(e) check. Plus, if you are trespassed off the property, then returning could be trouble.
Great point about the trespassing thing, I didn't think of that.

I'm still not sure about the anonymous report of a gun in your trunk being able to constitute a search. I would think Florida v. JL still is the guiding case here despite the gun in question being in a trunk instead of on a person.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

171b (c) As used in this section, "state or local public building"
means a building that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not
limited to, a building that contains a courtroom.
(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.


Public building is specifically defined in the section- its just at the end. Public building could mean library, city counsel chambers, the DMV, Sheriffs Office, the District Fairgounds... or even a rest stop bathroom. It is not a private business or residence.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

wolfetundra wrote:
I need some clarification on PC 171b

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/171b.html

My understanding is that you cannot OC into a "public building." However, "public building" is not defined. Is a public building like a library? One that is owned by the city? Or is ANY place of business, serving the public, considered a "public building."
It is defined, as any "state or local public building" meaning state or local government.

Code:
any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the
public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section
11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code
I would include a public library in that definition.
 

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

Thank you for clarifying that for me. Libraries are not necessarily included? But it would be wise to steer clear? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Thank you again for responding.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

wolfetundra wrote:
Thank you for clarifying that for me. Libraries are not necessarily included? But it would be wise to steer clear? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Thank you again for responding.

Would a Librarian qualify as a "local public employee"?

Is the building a Library where is housed owned or leased by a "state or local government"?
 

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

ConditionThree has a valid point. The law CLEARLY states what is considered a "public building." Anything that does not meet the criteria, is NOT a "public building," and therefore 171b does not apply.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

wolfetundra wrote:
ConditionThree has a valid point. The law CLEARLY states what is considered a "public building." Anything that does not meet the criteria, is NOT a "public building," and therefore 171b does not apply.

What?

Once more,... slowly...

(1) It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the
state or local government, if state or local public employees are
regularly present for the purposes of performing their official
duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not
limited to, a building that contains a courtroom.

If the library building or a part of the library building is owned or leased by the state or local government (city of Redding or county of Shasta) if state or local public employees (like a librarian) are regularly present performing their official duties ( like issuing library cards, sorting and shelving books) it is a public building.

(2) It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is
referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this
code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.
(3) It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be
used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.

It would NOT be a public building if it is a school, governor's mansion and other locations mentioned in the above PC references...
 
Top