Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Responding to a LEO's Request for ID?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Huntington Beach, California, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I had a question on whether or not you present your drivers license to LEO when requested if they stop you for a 12031(e) inspection. I've watched all the youtube videos, read nearly every post here, and I've researched the laws pretty thoroughly.

    In Hiibel v. Sixth, it seems that I am only required toverbally state my name. I am not required to "show id aka a drivers license." It seems that the LA District Attorney's Office is referring to an armed individual as to one that is carrying an unloaded gun legally.

    I'm just curious to see how you respond when they request this of you.



    Nate's In-Depth Open Carry FAQ
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
    What should I do if a cop thinks that open carry is illegal? Will he ask me for ID?


    Since carrying openly while obeying the state's restrictions is not a crime, a police officer has no authority to ask for your identification only because of your (legal) activities. In California, police may only ask for your identification if they ACCUSE you of a crime that is a misdemeanor or a felony (Kolender v. Lawson, Hiibel v. Sixth District of Nevada). There have been multiple reported cases of officers asking open carriers for identification because these officers view carrying a gun as probable cause of having committed a crime. While this line of thought is legally tenuous at best (and many departments are taking strides to educate their officers), its use illustrates the necessity of adequate recording devices while UOCing.
    LOS ANGELES COUNTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (One Minute Brief):
    http://info.publicintelligence.net/LAOpenCarry.pdf
    The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.




  2. #2
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Demand what ID? I don't carry it when Open Carrying -- unless I'm also driving/riding at the same time.

    With out PC or RAS of a crime being committed, about to be committed or in progress there is no authority to detain (stop) and demand ID.

    The only authority they have lacking PC/RAS as cited above is to inspect the firearm for an unexpended cartridge or loaded magazine in the magazine well of the firearm. This does not include manipulating the firearm to reveal otherwise non-visible serial numbers.

    The memo you pulled from is partly correct, partly incorrect.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

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

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    With out PC or RAS of a crime being committed, about to be committed or in progress there is no authority to detain (stop) and demand ID.
    Hiibel held that, "The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop." In Nevada, there is a stop and identify statute, so any detainee would be obliged to provide his name if requested. It is my understanding that, in California we have no such obligation.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    I agree that all verbal communication by the OC'er to LEO's (in a negative enforcement situation)should be as limited as possible. Any chit-chatting, asking questions, etc., can be taken as allowing a voluntary detention. After the weapon inspection , the only thing you need to say is "Am I free to leave NOW?" Keep repeating this phrase until he says yes once you have your weapon back. IF you ask the question and he does not answer you, a common LEO trick when he knows he has nothing to hold you on, tell him you are leaving, at least twice. and start walking away slowly if he does not object.

    I don't know if I would be so abrupt to throw out the lawyer card, other than to say you have personal business to conduct immediately , you are going to be late for work, miss the opening of the marajuana despensiery...OK , just kidding...and that you don't want the officer delaying you any time more than necessary to inspect the weapon. This is not the time to ask the officer his opinion on OC, about how cool certain guns are, or your/his job, or about that time you got busted and it was bogus, or any other subject. Just do whatever is necessary (act impatient, but polite) to put some distance between you and the LEO and get on your way. The more you talk and delay your departure, the better chance of bad things happening to you.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I believe the best course of action is a very simple on but it takes self control and probably some practice. This is what you should do....

    You are walking down the street, a police officer confronts you and opens with one of many typical questions...... ANSWER NONE OF THEM !!

    Upon the officer initiating contact and communication simply state the follow :

    "I will comply with a section 12031 (e) examination of my handgun. However, I do not consent to any searches of my persons or property and I will answer no further questions without my attorney present"

    Stating such will prevent the police from asking you any question or removing any ID from you. It will also PROHIBIT the officer from gleaning any information from your answers that will give him any probably cause or suspicion.

    The officer will have no authority to do any more searches and will have no right to ask anymore questions so the detained should END RIGHT THERE and you should then ask :

    "Am I free to leave?" "Am I free to leave?"

    Make sure you have an audio/video recorder on you and make sure you practive OVER AND OVER your verbal statement to police.

    Anyone care to give an opinion on my advice ?
    Hey Ca Patriot and Oc4ever,

    I liked your posts.

    I agree with CaPatriot on the self mirandization. By mirandizing yourelf, you have forced the officer to provide RAS or PC for any further detainment that he forces you to comply with.

    If the fuzz further detaines you, repeatone phrase: I need my lawyer and you personally owe me $21,0001.

    my 2/10ths of a cent.

    Foot note #1: Judge Black and St. John set the going rate for 4A violoations at $21,000.

    markm

  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    I agree that all verbal communication by the OC'er to LEO's (in a negative enforcement situation)should be as limited as possible. Any chit-chatting, asking questions, etc., can be taken as allowing a voluntary detention. After the weapon inspection , the only thing you need to say is "Am I free to leave NOW?" Keep repeating this phrase until he says yes once you have your weapon back. IF you ask the question and he does not answer you, a common LEO trick when he knows he has nothing to hold you on, tell him you are leaving, at least twice. and start walking away slowly if he does not object.

    I don't know if I would be so abrupt to throw out the lawyer card, other than to say you have personal business to conduct immediately , you are going to be late for work, miss the opening of the marajuana despensiery...OK , just kidding...and that you don't want the officer delaying you any time more than necessary to inspect the weapon. This is not the time to ask the officer his opinion on OC, about how cool certain guns are, or your/his job, or about that time you got busted and it was bogus, or any other subject. Just do whatever is necessary (act impatient, but polite) to put some distance between you and the LEO and get on your way. The more you talk and delay your departure, the better chance of bad things happening to you.
    I suggest using "Unless I am being detained for committing a crime, I will be leaving. Am I being detained?" If the officer does not answer, repeat it with this addition: "Am I being detained? I will take you silence to mean that I am not being detained, have a nice day officer."

    Of course, have your recorder going at all times.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    what i say is "i do not wish to show you my i.d. and just for your information officer you are being audio/video recorder presently" that is a great detterant.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm less confident about the tactic of easing away or walking away if the cop refuses to reply to your query if you are being detained.

    In the big picture, the cop can always later say you didn't ask, or didn't hear you ask.

    Who knows?maybe he hasthe idea that you are not free until he expressly says so. We already know some cops have goofy ideas at odds with the actual law.

    If he is avoiding answering your question, he is already into playing some game with you. It is too easy to be polite, courteous and just answer your question about whether you are free to go. Is he also cranky? Is he looking for a chance to forcefully set your a$$ on the curb? Who can say with total certainty?

    Iplan to expressly withhold myconsent to the encounter itself at the outset. Politely. For example, "Officer,no offense. I know you are probably just doing your job. But, I do notconsent to this encounter."

    This is more comprehensive than justinvoking the 5th Amendment right to silence. It is more comprehensive than refusingconsentto any searches or seizures. It covers not only things that may happen during the encounter, it covers the encounter itself. It immediately removes the entire encounter from the realm of being consensual.

    It closes the door on anyclaims that you consented by hanging around. It also throws the entire onus onto the cop for continuing the encounter. Since it is no longer a consensual encounter hemust have RAS. (Terry v Ohio.)

    I am not suggesting this as a substitute. I would still invoke my right to not answer questions, expressly withhold my consent to any searches or seizures, and repeatedly ask if I am free to go. I am suggesting for consideration to politely, verbally, refuse consent to the encounter itself at the very beginning of the encounter. First words out of my mouth.

    And, then, I would not physically make any movement as though to leave until the cop expressly said I was free to go. I've already covered my 4A base by refusing consent to a consensual encounter. If the cop continues the encounter, it cannot possibly be consensual. If he is not responding to my question about whether I am free to leave, itcannot possibly have moved back into the realm of being consensual.

    For the purposes of exercising my 4A rights, all I need to do is establish my refused consent. Plenty of court cases seemto bethe court determining whether consent wasgiven by some non-verbalcircumstance, or whether a seizure actually occurred based on somecircumstance caused by the police. Allthe ambiguityabout consent disappears if I expressly refuse consent to the encounter itself at the outset. And, all the ambiguity about whether acopactually seized me disappears by his continuing the encounter past my refused consent to the encounter.

    It occurs to me that you can further establish the non-consensual nature of the encounter by adding one word to the question. "Officer, am I free to leave, yet?" Or, "Officer, am I still being detained?"

    It also occurs to me that you can reinforce the non-consensual nature of the encounter just be declaring, "Officer, I want to leave. The reason I am remaining is because you are continuing the encounteryou will not tell me I am free to go, making me think you would compel to stay." Or, some such.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    The following youtube video is a good example of walking away from a illegal or overextended detention. The Oc'ER used very poor judgment walking up on the officer on a traffic stop. He was a bit overly verbal, but did a good job of not giving up his ID and walking away from the LEO's when they had nothing on him. You will notice the OC'er wants to leave but the LEO's neither say he can or can't leave. When they don't tell you to stay, it really means they want you to hang around while they figure out something to charge you with, but have no legal right to make you stay. This is a age old LEO ploy.

    Learn from this video both the good and what needs working on, like walking up on a LEO engaged in other police business....a really bad idea.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Citizen,

    You wrote:

    "Iplan to expressly withhold myconsent to the encounter itself at the outset. Politely. For example, "Officer,no offense. I know you are probably just doing your job. But, I do notconsent to this encounter."'

    Unfortunately, here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), wemustconsentto the initial detainment or be subject to immediate arrest. PC 12031 (e) states such. We must allow LEO to inspect our gun for load condition. In Delong v. People, the judge opined that the 12031 (e) check should be brief, focused on one objective and the detainment shouldavoid embarrassment; but, the judge additionally opined that it was Constitutional.

    For us PRK OCers, there is a definite demarcation between a legal detainment and a prolonged detainment which becomes a 4th A violation and subject to civil court action and a LEO's loss of qualified immunity. For me, a wheel gunner, that demarcation line is crossed when the officer takes my gun out of the holster and opens the cylinder and exposes the SN. Myholsters do not cover the top of the cylinder, which allows for a visual (e) check, while holstered--a visual inspection is all that is required to determine my guns loaded/unloaded condition.

    Hopefully, I have given enough information to make you rethink your post regarding self-mirandizing and asking twice if you are being further detained, and then slowly sidestepping awayin a non-threatening manner.

    My most important point: While in PRK, OCers must consent to detainment or get arrested. Case law exists that states that 12031 (e) is Constitutional. Please come to PRK, refuse an (e) check and start the legal process to test 12031 (e) at SCOTUS.

    markm

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    oc4ever wrote:
    The following youtube video is a good example of walking away from a illegal or overextended detention. The Oc'ER used very poor judgment walking up on the officer on a traffic stop. He was a bit overly verbal, but did a good job of not giving up his ID and walking away from the LEO's when they had nothing on him. You will notice the OC'er wants to leave but the LEO's neither say he can or can't leave. When they don't tell you to stay, it really means they want you to hang around while they figure out something to charge you with, but have no legal right to make you stay. This is a age old LEO ploy.

    Learn from this video both the good and what needs working on, like walking up on a LEO engaged in other police business....a really bad idea.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4
    oc4ever,

    That guy was an idiot. What a stupid dumb$hit. You are correct, don't ever approach an officer like that. Thanks for warning us about that moronic tactic.

    markm

  12. #12
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Unfortunately, here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), wemustconsentto the initial detainment or be subject to immediate arrest. PC 12031 (e) states such. We must allow LEO to inspect our gun for load condition. In Delong v. People, the judge opined that the 12031 (e) check should be brief, focused on one objective and the detainment shouldavoid embarrassment; but, the judge additionally opined that it was Constitutional.
    Negative. The case you cite expressly provides that an e-check is not a detention, its a 'brief inspection' to determine the loaded state of a firearm. Essentially its been ruled constitutional along the same lines as agriculture/DUI/Smog checkpoints.

    Also keep in mind that 12031(e) is only applicable where its illegal to be loaded.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Unfortunately, here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), wemustconsentto the initial detainment or be subject to immediate arrest. PC 12031 (e) states such. We must allow LEO to inspect our gun for load condition. In Delong v. People, the judge opined that the 12031 (e) check should be brief, focused on one objective and the detainment shouldavoid embarrassment; but, the judge additionally opined that it was Constitutional.
    Negative. The case you cite expressly provides that an e-check is not a detention, its a 'brief inspection' to determine the loaded state of a firearm. Essentially its been ruled constitutional along the same lines as agriculture/DUI/Smog checkpoints.

    Also keep in mind that 12031(e) is only applicable where its illegal to be loaded.


    mjones,

    Negative, semantics aside, anytime a LEO stops a citizen and under penalty of arrest, requires the handling of citizen's property by LEO, a detention has occurred. The judge in Delong may have been crafty in his wording; however, a detention is a detention.

    I would hope that SCOTUS would rule an (e) check to be unconstitutional as the mere presence of a gun does not negate a citizen's 4th A rights (paraphrase of SCOTUS rulings).

    markm

    Edit: Fixed apostrophe catastrophe and added the wordcitizen's.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Citizen,

    You wrote:

    "Iplan to expressly withhold myconsent to the encounter itself at the outset. Politely. For example, "Officer,no offense. I know you are probably just doing your job. But, I do notconsent to this encounter."'

    Unfortunately, here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), wemustconsentto the initial detainment or be subject to immediate arrest. PC 12031 (e) states such. We must allow LEO to inspect our gun for load condition.
    I see.

    Does the statute actually require consent, though. Or, just compliance?

    There is a difference between compliance and consent. Broadly speaking, compliance can be compelled. But not consent.

    I have heard of implied consent. For example, in some states, perhaps all,driving a car on public roads implies consent to a blood-alcohol test under certain circumstances related to drunk driving. Is there an express "implied consent" doctrine applied to an (e)-check, whether express by statute or court opinion?

    If there is no consent required, you could still politely refuse consent. For example, "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing you job. While I will comply, I want to make it clear that I do not consent to this encounter."

    The main point is to take advantage of court rulings to the effect that consent automatically renders legal what would otherwise have been an illegal search or seizure. (See the Busted video).

    And, even if it turns out there is some implied consent to an (e)-check, or one is crafted by government, you can always declare that you refuse consent to anything and everything except the loaded chamber check.

    Separately, while we spend a lot of text discussing this point, don't nobody lose sight of the fact that it is just one element of a broader picture. I started my part in this thread expressing personal doubt abouteasing away from a cop who refuses to answermy question about whether I amfree to go.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Here is the text of PC12031(e):

    (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
    the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
    to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
    vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
    incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
    Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
    this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
    this section.


    Based on the wording, I can understand MarkBofRAdvocate's statement.

    You California guys have probably been all around this from every angle. But, I'm going to hazard some comments. I am not a lawyer.

    It seems to me that the statute can only be talking about compliance, as in the "refusing to allow" being the typeof refusal that physically prevents or impedes the cop's inspection. This also makes sense from the perspective that nobody wants cops and carriers duking it out on the street. First give the carrier the chance to physically allow it. If he does not, then the cop can moveright to an arrest, without having to physically strugglewith the carrier, then havingwon the struggle, only inspect the gun.

    Also, the cop couldn'tarrest the carrierfor having a loaded gun before the "refused to allow" occursbecause the cop wouldn't have probable cause to know it was loaded. Thus the statute says refusing to allow is probable cause, making the refusal its own offense against this statute--not justeveryday obstruction or impeding an officer. I am guessing this is a way around the idea that the cop cannot otherwise compel the inspection without RAS or PC--he would first haveto seize the gun in order to inspect it, and that seizure for inspecting loaded status would require the cop first had RAS or PCit was loaded topass muster under the 4A.

    Another angle on this is that if the statute required consent and included a penalty for withholding consent, it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment right to not be compelled to provide information to the government that it could use to prosecute you. Or, so I am thinking.

    So, the solution, it seems to me, for anyone wanting to use my suggested approach, is to allow the inspection--comply with the demand to inspect--while refusing consent. I would just work out somedeclaration that makes it clear I am allowing the inspection only over top of my refused consent under threat of legal penalty under (e) and whatever obstruction statute.

    I am thinking we have lots of legal precedent. Does a person who walks in cuffs to a police car actually give his consent by not sitting down and making the police drag him? You get the idea.

    Also, remember, the point here is not to resist the (e)-check, or protect against it, but to invoke the 4A and 5Afor every single other thing the cop may do that would also require your consent to be legal/constitutional.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Perfect summary Citizen. Your analysis, recomendations and solution are exactly what we've been recommending in the CA subforum for years now.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Citizen and mjones,

    Your argument is to contrived.

    It is really simple, if LEO perceives your verbalsemantics to be a refusal to (e) check, he can arrest. RAS does not require hard proof; it needs to be reasonable suspicion. Your recording of your mangled words could become proof to convict.

    The safest thing to say is: "I will comply with a section 12031 (e) examination of my handgun. However, I do not consent to any searches of my persons or property and I will answer no further questions without my attorney present1"


    After the (e) check state: "Am I free to leave?1" "Am I free to leave?1"

    If the copper does not answer, state with hands up and palms toward the copper in a non-threatening and submissive way, "I am leaving now, I am leaving now" while slowly walking away. Maintain eye contact and keep your submissive and non-threatening body posture. Without demandsemanating fromthe copfor you to stop, turn and go about your business.

    The police are required to initiate a Terry hot-stop. There is no automaticobligation to consent to a Terry stop, unless LEO initiates it with RAS.

    markm
    Note #1: CA Patriot word-smithed these statements.

  18. #18
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Read closer, that's exactly what we're saying.

    The only disparity that I see is with regard to the constitutionality and whether or not an e-check is a detainment. Obviously its an unconstitutionaldetainment and siezure of person/property; but at this time court rpecident dictates otherwise.

    BTW, the police are not 'required' todo anything. I've been OCing since the 80s and I've never once been e-checked...even while in direct contact with them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    Read closer, that's exactly what we're saying.

    The only disparity that I see is with regard to the constitutionality and whether or not an e-check is a detainment. Obviously its an unconstitutionaldetainment and siezure of person/property; but at this time court rpecident dictates otherwise.

    BTW, the police are not 'required' todo anything. I've been OCing since the 80s and I've never once been e-checked...even while in direct contact with them.
    Hello mjones,

    "So, the solution, it seems to me, for anyone wanting to use my suggested approach, is to allow the inspection--comply with the demand to inspect--while refusing consent."(By Citizen, from an earlier post)

    I am sorry, that statement has semantic mis-step written all over it. It is an oxymoronic statement.

    Have you ever had a LEO encounter while packing guns? I am alwaysvery careful around LEO when I am armed. I am a little nervous. I know that LEO has been trained to think that I will shoot him because I have a gun (the training is all wrong, but it is the standard). It is very easy to mangle your words.

    KISS (keep it simple stupid). Simplex veri sigilum (simplicity is the seal of truth). Ockhams Razor (the simplest approach is usually the best). Lex Parsimone (law of succinctness). Murphy's Law (if something can go wrong--it will).

    You get my drift.

    markm

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Fellas,

    You know, MarkBofRAdvocate has a point. If nothing else, the cop can claim he understood your refused consent to bea refusal to allow the inspection. Even if the judge tossed out the charges, you would still have the arrest, and everything that goes with it. And, who knows, maybe the judge will side with the cop.

    Can't fault Mark for being careful.

    It does seem safer to me avoid implying a refusal to allow the inspection by refusing consent.

    We got onto this sub-topic when I expressed a few posts above that I was not confident in the idea of gently easing away or walking off from a cop who refused to answer whether I was free to leave. My solution was to refuse consent to the encounter itself. For myself, did I live in CA, I would tend more towards agreeing to (e)-check (to prevent any misunderstanding), and while he was checking, I would refuse consent to any additional encounter.

    Mywhole point is to remove any doubt that you consent to anything else, including even being in the officer's presence.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Unfortunately, here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), wemustconsentto the initial detainment or be subject to immediate arrest. PC 12031 (e) states such. We must allow LEO to inspect our gun for load condition. In Delong v. People, the judge opined that the 12031 (e) check should be brief, focused on one objective and the detainment shouldavoid embarrassment; but, the judge additionally opined that it was Constitutional.
    Negative. The case you cite expressly provides that an e-check is not a detention, its a 'brief inspection' to determine the loaded state of a firearm. Essentially its been ruled constitutional along the same lines as agriculture/DUI/Smog checkpoints.

    Also keep in mind that 12031(e) is only applicable where its illegal to be loaded.
    Mark,

    I don't think he is arguing the law as it appears in the opinion.

    I think he is commenting on the lawyerly sinuosities of the judge.

    Iagree with Mjones analysis. Goddamit!! judge. The requirement is not a regulatory matter. It appears in the friggin' PENAL CODE!! Of course it is aseizure for the purposes of the 4th Amendment! So is a DUI roadblock. The seizure has a criminal penalty connected to it. And it is checking for criminal activity.

    I'll get off my soapbox now.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    ok, we can all agree that we feel the E check is not Constitutional. However, we do live in CA, and have to abide by its laws or move from the state.

    Right or wrong, it is on the books, and until someone has the money and time to fight it, it will stay there.

    Stay professional, and polite to the officers. Make up your own mind how much info you want them to have, and if you feel it is worth, press the issue, be THE test case we all are hoping some other person will be.

    You might be right, and be able to fight and when, ALL THE WAY to the SCOTUS. Good for you.

    Ho much will that cost? how long will it take? How many yrs do you want to be without your gun(s).

    Even if the DA decides NOT to press charges, they still have your gun, and you Will haveto fight to get it back. It will take at the min 1 1/2 yrs to reclaim it, and then you will also have to go thru the hassle of heaving dros done again. and that cost.

    You decide, it is a personal choice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    I found this exchange very interesting. The best we can hope for is that the law is obeyed, because it does not matter what you do once the police lie and the judge does not follow the law.

    You've pointed out that I need to practice the encounter. I also need the exchange written down and carried with me for the same reason the LEO reads the Miranda warning. I wrote the exchange out as an exercise and as a prompt card.

    Thanks,
    Tack

    REHERSAL and MOTIVATION:
    You are walking down the street, and a police officer confronts you and opens with one of many typical questions. Do not answer them. Upon the officer initiating contact and communication simply state the follow:
    "Officer, you are being audio and video recorded. I will comply with a section 12031 (e) examination of my handgun. I do not consent to any searches of my persons or property and I will answer no further questions without my attorney present"

    Stating such will prevent the police from asking you any question or removing any ID from you. It will also PROHIBIT the officer from gleaning any information from your answers that will give him any probably cause or suspicion. The officer will have no authority to do any further searches and has have no right to ask anymore questions, so the detention should END RIGHT THERE.
    Ask for your handgun to be returned. If asked to show identification you should then say:
    "
    I do not wish to show you my Identification. Officer, am I free to leave or am I still being detained?”

    Wait for the non answer. If the officer does not answer, repeat it with this addition:
    "Am I free to leave or am I charged with a crime and being detained?”

    If the law enforcement officer does not answer, state with hands up and palms toward the LEO in a non-threatening and submissive way:
    “I take your failure to answer as freedom to leave. Have a nice day officer."

    Laminate on a card and carry with you when you open carry.


    LEO encounter-
    "Officer, you are being audio and video recorded. I will comply with a section 12031(e) examination of my handgun. I do not consent to any searches of my persons or property, and I will answer no further questions without my attorney present"

    "
    I do not wish to show you my Identification. Officer, am I free to leave or am I still being detained?”

    "Am I free to leave or am I charged with a crime and being detained?”

    “I take your failure to answer as freedom to leave. Have a nice day officer."
    It does not take courage to change America, it takes courage to keep it.
    Ignorance of the law is an excuse for neither citizens..nor for law enforcement.
    NRA life member

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tack wrote:
    SNIP You've pointed out that I need to practice the encounter.
    If you can get together with one or more OCers and practice it, you'll find it effective and fun.

    Y'all can switch roles. One plays the cop, the other the OCer. Then switch back.

    Start with an easy encounter. Then ratchet up to a mean cop who is mostly legal but maybe drops a few threats. Practice what to do or say if the cop walks towards his car with your gun (to run the serial number), how to refuse consent to it, etc.

    I can never convince the NoVA gang to drill police encounters. (sigh). But, I am convinced it is the most effective preparation.

    PS: Make darn sure you fully clear the gun for the drill. Have your fellow driller verify its clear.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tack wrote:
    SNIP* You've pointed out that I need to practice the encounter.*
    If you can get together with one or more OCers and practice it, you'll find it effective and fun.

    Y'all can switch roles.* One plays the cop, the other the OCer.* Then switch back.

    Start with an easy encounter.* Then ratchet up to a mean cop who is mostly legal but maybe drops a few threats.* Practice what to do or say if the cop walks towards his car with your gun (to run the serial number), how to refuse consent to it, etc.

    I can never convince the NoVA gang to drill police encounters.* (sigh).* But, I am convinced it is the most effective preparation.

    PS:* Make darn sure you fully clear the gun for the drill.* Have your fellow driller verify its clear.
    Make a video. It will ne a good supplement to the ones I have planned.

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
  •