Santa Clara County 'e' Check

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

bad_ace: You have the most respectful leos ever. I would say I'm jealous but I honestly think you've both reached across the divide and have come to a mutually beneficial relationship. I hope you're sending out letters of commendation for all of these outstanding Sheriffs.

Click to expand...

I always treat LEO with respect, and I think that goes a long way with the relationship. I also find myself being extra polite to others while carrying (being an ambassador maybe?)

I agree, this deputy did not overstep his bounds here. I had a commendation letter written and ready to go for another "e" check by Santa Clara County Sheriffs that only took 20 seconds. That letter was never mailed. Two things changed my mind.

1. The day before the letter was to be dropped in the mail box I was confronted by another deputy from the same department, he made attempts to be friendly in his conversation only to get me to incriminate myself. He also threatened that I was "under investigation and that they were trying to get a warrant (for what I never found out). As advised by my attorney I posted nothing about the encounter. Instead the Sheriff got a letter from my lawyer.

2. Any contact I have with bureaucrats is a waste of my productive time. Compliance is very important to them, they're willing to kill over it. I feel like writing a letter praising them for "not jacking me up too bad" is just validating their position and is compliance on my part for participating.

I will not support any "service" provided at the point of a gun. Where, when, why and how did these armed men/women dress in costumes, doing-business-as Santa Clara Sheriff's deputies gain jurisdiction over me? Can they produce a contract that I entered into with them where I relinquish my rights? I don't think they can, so they only exist through coercion, threats of violence, actual violence visited on people, and our participation in the entire scam.

(not leo bashing here) I support Police that investigate crimes with real victims (the "state" of California can not be a victim) and prosecute criminals that victimize. My activities have no victim, and so I will not praise them for only harassing me a little bit.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

You did a great job when you asserted your right to refuse unreasonable searches. However [ ]

I recommend:

"I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person or property. Am I free to go?" If the officer insists on further detaining you and seizing your firearm (even for just 10 seconds); "I will not physically resist your search or seizure, but I have not consented. Let me know as soon as I am free to go about my business." Then say nothing else, except ask every couple minutes if you're free to go. Answer every question with silence, or a request for an end to the detention.

Click to expand...

I get closer to this tactic each time I have an encounter. Trust me this is very hard to do, I'm a social creature and when someone talks to me I want to respond and start a dialog. My brain is also telling me that "if the cop just knew these pieces of information (what ever they are), he'd understand" It takes lots of practice to just keep your mouth shut. At one point I try and thank him for his time and leave but he continues.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

...However, when he declared, "I have a right to check that it's unloaded, and that's all I'm going to do," you replied, "that's fine."

...I recommend:

"I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person or property. Am I free to go?"...

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but I have found myself wondering what is that fine line of "refusal".

PC 12031e "...Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section."

I feel that somehow the answer to the request should start with a clear concise statement that "I am not refusing your request for inspection." Just so my words will not be misinterpreted to be a 12031e refusal. And, then, finish with a statement of not consenting to warantless searches.

I imagine that if he is having "one of those days" and makes a request to inspect,and I say, "I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person or property. Am I free to go?"; then he would slap the cuffs on me with a "No, you're under arrest for carrying a loaded weapon. We'll clear everything up at the station, with a warrant if necessary."

I'd just as soon avoid that type of situation, if possible.

imported post

Thanks, Big Toe. I would love to go out in public with custom gun leather and Colt SSA replicas - unloaded, of course, to follow current laws.

Unfortunately, police today are not governed by our long written laws - they just wing it, according to what ever political asshole is in power.

imported post

Great post! It's important to adhere to current laws, say what's appropriate, and have an attorney and recorder at hand.

I still lack the fortitude to venture out packing a side arm under UOC rules. Call me a chicken, but I still do not trust the educational or professional level of all LEOs.

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

...However, when he declared, "I have a right to check that it's unloaded, and that's all I'm going to do," you replied, "that's fine."

...I recommend:

"I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person or property. Am I free to go?"...

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but I have found myself wondering what is that fine line of "refusal".

<snip>

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it would be easy to convince a jury of refusal unless you were to say something like, "Hell no you can't check my gun," or if you phsyically resisted the check by moving away from the officer. I doubt it would even get to a jury without some hard evidence; it probably wouldn't make it past the DA's desk.

However, there could be a bad apple among the barrel that would go out of his way to give an activist a bad day/week/year. I think your suggestion is an excellent way to CYA.

imported post

cato wrote:

Great job and attitude by the deputy!  I do hope he reads this and is aware that "e" checks are not required on his part.  He is choosing to do that and may also choose to not check.

Sounds like he is a RKBA supporter.  Just need to move him a little to the "don't have to check" side of "e".

Click to expand...

I know I'm going to be unpopular for stating this, but I think the officer felt he needed to do the "e" check due to there being a clip in the firearm. A quick glance at a firearm with no clip makes the decision easy.

Again, just my $0.02, and probably an unpopular $0.02.

[EDIT}

After writing this I got to thinking. It's illegal to have a cane sword but officers don't go around checking every cane they see to make sure there's no hidden sword there. Guess it's a lot more complex that I originally thought.

imported post

jyda wrote:

cato wrote:

Great job and attitude by the deputy! I do hope he reads this and is aware that "e" checks are not required on his part. He is choosing to do that and may also choose to not check.

Sounds like he is a RKBA supporter. Just need to move him a little to the "don't have to check" side of "e".

Click to expand...

I know I'm going to be unpopular for stating this, but I think the officer felt he needed to do the "e" check due to there being a clip in the firearm. A quick glance at a firearm with no clip makes the decision easy.

Again, just my $0.02, and probably an unpopular $0.02.

[EDIT}

After writing this I got to thinking. It's illegal to have a cane sword but officers don't go around checking every cane they see to make sure there's no hidden sword there. Guess it's a lot more complex that I originally thought.

Click to expand...

My .45 can have one in the pipe with no mag in place. One shot, one kill. Never assume a weapon is unloaded.

Rev. Jim

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

jyda wrote:

cato wrote:

Great job and attitude by the deputy! I do hope he reads this and is aware that "e" checks are not required on his part. He is choosing to do that and may also choose to not check.

Sounds like he is a RKBA supporter. Just need to move him a little to the "don't have to check" side of "e".

Click to expand...

I know I'm going to be unpopular for stating this, but I think the officer felt he needed to do the "e" check due to there being a clip in the firearm. A quick glance at a firearm with no clip makes the decision easy.

Again, just my $0.02, and probably an unpopular $0.02.

[EDIT}

After writing this I got to thinking. It's illegal to have a cane sword but officers don't go around checking every cane they see to make sure there's no hidden sword there. Guess it's a lot more complex that I originally thought.

Click to expand...

My .45 can have one in the pipe with no mag in place. One shot, one kill. Never assume a weapon is unloaded.

Rev. Jim

Click to expand...

Same with my little Baretta 3032. It can still shoot without a magazine.

imported post

Aye, a lot of pistols don't have the "magazine disconnect" feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29#Magazine_interlocks

imported post

Right, so can my .45. My point was more that the officer, acting as a public servant of the scared RP, probably felt he needed to "e" check to calm the RP down and/or cover his butt. Imagine if the gun WAS in fact loaded, and the officer blew off the RP's concern and something bad happened?

I can completely understand the unnecessarly "e" checking everyone argument, but there's always 2 sides.

imported post

jyda wrote:

Right, so can my .45. My point was more that the officer, acting as a public servant of the scared RP, probably felt he needed to "e" check to calm the RP down and/or cover his butt. Imagine if the gun WAS in fact loaded, and the officer blew off the RP's concern and something bad happened?

I can completely understand the unnecessarly "e" checking everyone argument, but there's always 2 sides.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the 4th Amendment doesn't say:

"... unless someone is really scared, then it's OK for the government to search and seize you until the sheeple are satisfied you're on the up-and-up."

There is no "2 sides" to the U.S. Constitution and the rights it was intended to protect. Either they have RAS to investigate a crime; or they don't.

Under the Terry Doctrine, we have a standard for seizing a person and searching them. If the LEO can articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was afoot, then he can seize the person.

Even so, the LEO can NOT search for weapons unless he can also articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the subject is BOTH armed AND presently dangerous.


As for your argument: "Imagine if the gun WAS in fact loaded, and the officer blew off the RP's concern and something bad happened"

LEOs are not responsible for our safe-keeping. They are NOT civilly or criminally liable if they stand by and do nothing while you become the victim of a crime. They ARE both criminally and civilly liable if they willingly deprive us of our rights.

And for good reason. As the old justice-system saying goes: "It is better for 99 guilty men to walk free than for a single innocent man to be wrongfully convicted." Similarly, it is better for officers to not catch 99 criminals for the sake of avoiding trampling the rights of one citizen.

imported post

Good points and I can see the distinction. There really is a huge uphill battle as far as public awareness, education, and acceptance. I'm a supporter of this site's actions, but still have trouble wrapping my head around it all. Can't imangine the average Joe who either indifferent or on the opposing side.

imported post

jyda wrote:

Right, so can my .45. My point was more that the officer, acting as a public servant of the scared RP, probably felt he needed to "e" check to calm the RP down and/or cover his butt. Imagine if the gun WAS in fact loaded, and the officer blew off the RP's concern and something bad happened?

I can completely understand the unnecessarly "e" checking everyone argument, but there's always 2 sides.

Click to expand...

We can 'what if' all day long, after the 'e' check.. weapon unloaded, officer determines carrier is no threat.. carrier then loads weapon and does something bad. Where is the line of liability drawn concerning the officer?

This is why we hash things out here in these forums.. you will find OC'ers like to run scenarios constantly. In this way we attempt to be at the forefront of the law and self defense. There are no stupid questions, I would rather ask a question and look ignorant than not ask the question and make a mistake later.

Rev. Jim