Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: E-checked

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    I was headed to a firearms training today, and on my way there I stopped at Starbucks to grab a cup of Joe in Azusa. Walked in with a lieutenant from Azusa police department, and he immeidately asked me to step out.

    I was instructed to interlace my fingers over my head and drop on my knees. He patted me down and found my voice recorder, and conveniently turned it off.. :?

    Backup arrived, and I was handcuffed, wallet taken away. Another officer drew his pistol, while the lieutenant struggled to get my Sig out of my serpa holster. Lieutenant also ran my drivers license although I informed that they do not have the right to do that. He said "Of course I have, what law school did you go to". I asked one of the female officer there if they have got these calls before, and she just turned away. Another officer asked why do I do this, what if some bad guy tries to grab my pistol. I laughed and said, "well you lieutenant took a good 20 seconds to get my gun when I'm not resisting. Now what do you think".

    After a minute or so lieutenant came back and said I'm all clear, uncuffed me, and gave me the whole lecture of how I should apply common sense and not do this. I didn't respond, and they instructed me not to touch my gun (which was on the ground) until they all left the parking lot.

    I did so, carried on and went to get my coffee. Funny thing came in. The cashier took my order and said "e check eh??" Good conversation with him for a bit afterward.

    So there it goes, my e-check cherry popped. I just wish he didn't find my voice recorder and I actually have proof of what he did wrong. Not too bad an experience, took about 10 minutes.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Its pretty galling that the LT turned off your voice recorder- this would have been somewhat mitigated by the presence of a friendly witness- or perhaps hiding the voice recorder with your 'frank and beans' with a mic pinned to your collar. They would certainly have more difficulty with the justification of such an intrusive search.

    The fact that they rifled through your wallet, certainly goes beyond a simple (e) check, and surely they ran your CDL as well as your firearm. While sterile carry isnt for everyone, the absence of state issued ID to positively identify you could keep you from being targeted by a dirty DA or city attorney for later retribution foryour assertion of your right to be armed.

    Personally, I dont need a lecture from anyone about why I shouldnt be armed, particularly from a P.O. Under the same circumstances, I would have asked if I were free to go and departed upon recieving leave.If they seemed open to a discussion about carry, I might stay and lay some ground work for future carriers- but it seems that they were more interested in detering lawful activity.

    I find it pretty funny that he would trot out the "Shouldnt do this or someone will snatch your gun," after strugging with removing it from a compliant detainee. Having had a similar experiece, I have vowed not to assist police in decribing how to disarm and search me if the opportunity ever arrises again.

    Be sure to PRA the incident- Its always interesting to see the details behind the stop, even if youre not pursuing litigation.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Yuck.

    I was headed to a firearms training today, and on my way there I stopped at Starbucks to grab a cup of Joe in Azusa. Walked in with a lieutenant from Azusa police department, and he immeidately asked me to step out.
    Did he ask you or order you? Should have made him demand it. A simple, "Oh, no thank you" would have made him clarify.

    I was instructed to interlace my fingers over my head and drop on my knees. He patted me down and found my voice recorder, and conveniently turned it off..
    Violating Terry since you weren't dangerous and a frisk can only remove weapons.

    Backup arrived, and I was handcuffed, wallet taken away.
    So you're absolutely detained by now, but illegally since undoubtedly the officer isn't suspecting you of having committed or about to commit a crime. Wallet confiscation is also violating Terry.

    Another officer drew his pistol, while the lieutenant struggled to get my Sig out of my serpa holster. Lieutenant also ran my drivers license although I informed that they do not have the right to do that. He said "Of course I have, what law school did you go to".
    "Actually sir, only basic reading comprehension is required to understand Terry v. Ohio."

    I asked one of the female officer there if they have got these calls before, and she just turned away. Another officer asked why do I do this, what if some bad guy tries to grab my pistol. I laughed and said, "well you lieutenant took a good 20 seconds to get my gun when I'm not resisting. Now what do you think".
    Spot on there.

    I didn't respond, and they instructed me not to touch my gun (which was on the ground) until they all left the parking lot.
    I despise this crap. They're all up in arms over you having a gun, and then they give you grief about a criminal taking it away, but then they leave it on the ground and they tell you to leave it there until they leave the parking lot. So which is it? Are they really concerned or do they not care?

    I hope one day somebody picks up their gun and gets arrested so we can challenge this kind of nonsense.

    oc3068 wrote:
    I did so, carried on and went to get my coffee. Funny thing came in. The cashier took my order and said "e check eh??" Good conversation with him for a bit afterward.
    Whaaaaa? How'd he know?

  4. #4
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    We seriously need to start pooling funds together to initiate some 42 USC 1983 lawsuits against these cops who go far beyond a simple e-check. They all know the proper procedures by now. They have all read the interdepartmental memos. They all know Terry front to back, and they don't care if they violate those standards. The Fourth Amendment means nothing to them. They are acting with impunity against Californians, who have thus far not made any legal actions beyond departmental complaints. Read the New Mexico case, St. John v. McColley, if you need some inspiration.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Did you get the lieutenant's name? Did you get the name of the Starbuck's employee who witnessed the incident and any others who may have witnessed the incident?

    At the very least, file a compliant with the department since this detainment is without probable cause, goes beyond a simple e-check, and is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Don't worry, Igot all the names. A penis your friend in these situations. Currently I'm drafting my letterof complain. LEOs need to know that thelaw not only applies to free citizens, but also governs what they can or cannot do, and they cannot just do whatever they want and expect the citizens to just suck up to that.

  7. #7
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    oc3068 wrote:
    A penis your friend in these situations.
    That's what she said.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Criminals hiding behind badges!

    We need an initiative campaign to add to the penal code a non-wobbling felony (cannot be converted to a misdemeanor) for anyone but the owner of the recording device to turn it off or remove it from the person of the owner when law enforcement officers are present. They need to lose their jobs for destroying evidence. Being felons should cause them to lose their POST certifications.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    oc3068 wrote:
    A penis your friend in these situations.
    That's what she said.
    :what::what::what::what: :what:



    this e check story made me pretty upset. wewd is right about trying to get some suits going, i dont want to be that group, but it seems like it is neccisary.

    wewd is also right about thats what she said.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  10. #10
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    This is another egregious example of rights violations against peaceful gun owners. I look forward to reading updates; please let me know if I can assist with the letter of complaint.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    oc3068 wrote:
    I was headed to a firearms training today, and on my way there I stopped at Starbucks to grab a cup of Joe in Azusa.¬* Walked in with a lieutenant from Azusa police department, and he immeidately asked me to step out.

    I was instructed to interlace my fingers over my head and drop on my knees.¬* He patted me down and found my voice recorder, and conveniently turned it off.. :?

    Backup arrived, and I was handcuffed, wallet taken away.¬* Another officer drew his pistol, while the lieutenant struggled to get my Sig out of my serpa holster.¬* Lieutenant also ran my drivers license although I informed that they do not have the right to do that.¬* He said "Of course I have, what law school did you go to".¬* I asked one of the female officer there if they have got these calls before, and she just turned away.¬* Another officer asked why do I do this, what if some bad guy tries to grab my pistol.¬* I laughed and said, "well you lieutenant took a good 20 seconds to get my gun when I'm not resisting.¬* Now what do you think".

    After a minute or so lieutenant came back and said I'm all clear, uncuffed me, and gave me the whole lecture of how I should apply common sense and not do this.¬* I didn't respond, and they instructed me not to touch my gun (which was on the ground)¬* until they all left the parking lot.

    I did so, carried on and went to get my coffee.¬* Funny thing came in.¬* The cashier took my order and said "e check eh??"¬* Good conversation with him for a bit afterward.

    So there it goes, my e-check cherry popped.¬* I just wish he didn't find my voice recorder and I actually have proof of what he did wrong.¬* Not too bad an experience, took about 10 minutes.
    FARKING ********.

  12. #12
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Post imported post

    oc3068 wrote:
    Not too bad an experience, took about 10 minutes.
    How can this be anything but a bad experience.

    Sounds like it was about 9 minutes and 30 seconds too long.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    I'll agree and, not to be contradictory, add that it sounds about 10 minutes too long.

    JJ wrote:
    oc3068 wrote:¬*
    ¬* Not too bad an experience, took about 10 minutes.
    How can this be anything but a bad experience.

    Sounds like it was about 9 minutes and 30 seconds too long.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    wildhawker wrote:
    I'll agree and, not to be contradictory, add that it sounds about 10 minutes too long.

    JJ wrote:
    oc3068 wrote:¬*
    ¬* Not too bad an experience, took about 10 minutes.
    How can this be anything but a bad experience.

    Sounds like it was about 9 minutes and 30 seconds too long.
    Great minds think alike. *Not plugging about my mind but come on now*

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    File a PRAR before you file your complaint. If you need help with the process just ask. Filing a PRAR might possibly give you evidence that would get "lost" if you filed a complaint first and wouldn't be available to you once you filed.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    chewy352 wrote:
    File a PRAR before you file your complaint. If you need help with the process just ask. Filing a PRAR might possibly give you evidence that would get "lost" if you filed a complaint first and wouldn't be available to you once you filed.
    wewd is right again. File a prar first, this will tell you if the officer reasonably should have known how to apropriatly handle the situation, among other things. I filed a complaint before a prar, then they wouldn't release some prar stuff because it was under investigation. Much credit to bad_ace for the prar.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    If I get proned out and/or cuffed, I'll sue for elder abuse.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hayward, Ca, ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    My echeck took about 10 minutes and I didnt get proned out or anything like what yours. I would seriously complain to the chief. You shold have some witnesses to the sto pat starbucks

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Perhaps it's time to start carrying 2 voice recorders. One obvious, and one hidden, or one of the various new DVR wrist watches.

    Then ask them why they turn off the recorder. Ask them what they have to hide. Meanwhile record everything for later playback to their superiors in a complaint.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    using the iphone as a recorder is good because you can require a password to log in inorder to stop recording. i normally have my iphone audio recording, my ipod audio recording and to be used for video if i can get it out, and i a 3rd recorder hidden when cops would have to get pretty friendly to find.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I can only say this with the upmost emphasis and conviction.

    Do not, I repeat do not, under any circumstances, at any point, allow your recorder to be removed from your posession or deactivated.

    Take every precaution you can. Stay in sight of surveillancevideo cameras, carry multiple concealed and constantly running digital video recorders.

    Spend the extra money, it will either end up saving you money, saving your life or saving your valuable time in court.

    I am speaking from personal experience: do not allow your only means of evidence to fall out of yours hands.

  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Perhaps it's time to start carrying 2 voice recorders. One obvious, and one hidden, or one of the various new DVR wrist watches.

    Then ask them why they turn off the recorder. Ask them what they have to hide. Meanwhile record everything for later playback to their superiors in a complaint.

    If I'm going to an area where there is a possibility of a civil rights violation (here in Oregon that's up North) I carry a piece of crap recorder with horrid sound and a good one with 17 hours capability and a USB plug built in.

    We have to inform we are recording here so when/ifthe crappy is found and turned off, one the good one is still running. Also have video surveillance by the wife who CC's as backup.

    Standard Operating Procedure due to cops that "accidentally" deactivate a recorder while searching a law abiding citizen.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  23. #23
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    And you can darned well bet that none of the officers deactivated THEIR voice recording devices, though!

    The following information was excerpted from links posted at the thread:

    California Open Carry Information
    Consolidated links to information about open carry in California



    Reasonable suspicion[/b] is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch[/b]. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


    "To determine whether reasonable suspicion existed for a particular stop, the totality of the circumstances[/b], as known to the officer at the inception of the stop, [or, in this case, at the time of the continued detention,] must be considered." Arnold v. State, 601 So. 2d 145, 149 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)


    [/b]
    Circumstances giving rise to a reasonable and articulate suspicion[/b] frequently involve some of the following: nervous, furtive or evasive behavior; unprovoked flight; knowledge of the site as a location of certain criminal activity; temporal and spatial proximity to the scene of a crime; physical description of suspects; knowledge of a suspects past criminal record or behavior; tips provided by identifiable subject.


    Probable cause n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed, or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant[/b], search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime.


    We have described reasonable suspicion[/b] simply as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause[/b] to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not ‚Äúfinely-tuned standards‚ÄĚ comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.


    In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked [/b]by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion.

    Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions (ed. note: other than name, and only if so required by state statute) during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.

    However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.


    A "Terry search[/b][/b]" (from Terry v. Ohio) is a pat-down of the subject's outer garments for weapons only, based on reasonable suspicion. Even if the officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry search, by asking for and getting consent, the officer can expand the search beyond a mere pat-down for weapons[/b].


    Our "stop and frisk[/b]" decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio[/b], 392 U. S. 1 (1968). This Court held in Terry: "[W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct[/b] which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous[/b], where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."


    Handcuffing does not equal arrest. Handcuffing in a Terry (articulable reasonable suspicion) situation will be judged by the standard of objective reasonableness based on the Supreme Court's Graham v. Connor decision. Therefore, although you cannot handcuff everyone in investigative detentions, the handcuffing of persons under suspicion of committing crimes does not automatically equal an arrest. If reasonable suspicion exists to suspect the subject has committed a crime, handcuffing may be reasonable.


    [/b]
    Once the suspect poses no risk to the officer, the detention by handcuffs turns into an arrest (a de facto arrest) that must be supported by probable cause.[/b] See Melendez v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County, 743 So. 2d 1145, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).


    Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention (Terry Stop) is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist[/b][/b]. Bradley v. State, 494 So.2d 750 (Ala. Cr. App., 1985), affirmed 494 So. 2d 772 (Ala. 1986). The test for arrest is whether or not a reasonable person, in the suspect's position, would have understood that he was under arrest Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3151 (1984).


    This is particularly so when the officer testifies that the suspect was not under arrest but that he was handcuffed, with no reason given for the handcuffing. Lamar v. State, 578 So. 2d 1382 (Ala. Cr. App., 1991). This will be ruled an arrest every time.


    This does not mean, however, that an arrest takes place every time an officer handcuffs a suspect he has placed under temporary detention. Examples where courts have held no arrest are as follows:


    1. The suspect voluntarily accompanied the officer to the police station and was placed in handcuffs because of departmental policy, Darden v. State, 571 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. Cr. App., 1990). This was a close call and the court made it clear that departmental policy should not be used as an excuse - there generally must be more.


    2. Handcuffing after the suspect had disobeyed an order to raise his hands and had made furtive gestures, U.S. v. Taylor, 716 F. 2d 701 (9th Cir., 1983).


    3. Handcuffing of two men suspected of armed bank robbery where a third man was suspected to be in the vicinity and the suspects appeared extremely nervous, U.S. v. Bautista, 684 F. 2d 1286 (9th Cir., 1982).


    4. Handcuffing in light of the suspect's flight and the violent nature of the suspected crime: rape, State v. Friederick, 663 P. 2d 122 (1983).


    5. Handcuffing where the officer was informed that the suspect had threatened to kill someone and the officer verified the suspect's violent behavior, U.S. v. Merkley, 988 F. 2d 1062 (10th Cir., 1993).


    6. Handcuffing of an armed robbery suspect where the officer feared that an accomplice might be hiding in the suspect's car, U.S. v. Saffeels, 982 F. 2d 1199 (8th Cir., 1992).


    7. Handcuffing where the officer could reasonably anticipate he might have to go to the aid of his fellow officers, U.S. v. Crittendon, 883 F. 2d 326 (4th Cir., 1989).


    Even if handcuffs are properly used on a suspect during a temporary detention, they should be removed as soon as it is safe to do so. A recent Florida case held that the continued use of handcuffs after the suspect had received a pat-down and no weapons were found was illegal. [/b]The court stressed that the suspect had offered no resistance, did not make any threats and was not particularly belligerent, Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla., 1992).



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Sans RAS, it seems pretty obvious our friend here got stepped on pretty hard.

    Is someone arguing that?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    " He patted me down and found my voice recorder, and conveniently turned it off.. :?"

    I've never had the pleasure of being stopped while OC'ing, but I do have a mini digital recorder and figured as much. I plan on getting one of those that is disguised as an ink pen and sits in your shirt pocket. Still keep the other one as a red herring.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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