imported post
jsebclark wrote:
mjones wrote:
Ranchero wrote:
I wonder what she'll do next.
Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.
I would surmise that your picture indicating that you have a "Gun Inside" a locked container amounts to Reasonable Suspicion that a gun is inside. Doing so gives LEO the ability to inspect the firearm to see if its loaded (if you are in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated area)
Refusal is Probable Cause for arrest. Read PC 12031 carefully...
Can you please cite the part of 12031 that authorizes the police to open a locked container with out a warrant? I am not suggesting that the above picture would be the best thing. But I want to understand that you are saying that if the police think you have a locked container with a gun inside of it that they have the authority to open it and check to make sure the gun is unloaded WITHOUT a search warrant. Would that be a violation of the 4A? Would it be reasonable for the police to damage or destroy your personal effects WITHOUT a warrant just because they think there is a gun inside that they choose to make sure it is unloaded?
I think you already figured this out, but in case it's not clear to anybody else...
12031(e) states that refusing to allow an officer to "examine" your firearm is PC to arrest under 12031. So, if a cop asks you to open your container, refusing will likely land you in jail. Even if there's no gun in that case. You could be dragged down town, locked up for a day or two while they get a warrant to cut the lock, and then you'll be cut loose when they find out they're wrong.
You still spent time in jail, you probably need to buy a new lock, and they might just keep your firearm as "evidence" just to make you jump through the hoops to get it back (filing forms, paying fees, etc).
If you file a complaint, I have no doubt that the officer will be cleared of any wrongdoing. If you sue, the cop will claim that he "believed" there was a gun inside, and it will be up to a judge/jury to decide if that belief was "reasonable."
The bottom line: LUCC does
not defeat 12031. 12031 is not subject to the 4A or the Terry Doctrine, per the CA Court of Appeals (see People v Delong).