• 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.

VIDEO: Two 'e' Checks In 2 Minutes Spanning 2 Agencies.

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
Because PC12031 is written vaguely I often wondered if one could be detained indefinitely under it's exemptions and 'authority' given to LEOs.

Example 1: "The Infinite Loop". Take a group of LEOs (6 or so) tasked with keeping the peace at an event. To discourage an OCer from attending or in hopes of being able to have probable cause for arrest they take turns 'e' checking the OCer in a loop until he/she slips up. Each officer checks the OCer, steps aside to give way for a partner to check. Each officer can claim the "authority" under the exemption to check. After all, that second, third, etc. officer hasn't checked the loaded condition. By the time you come around to the 1st officer he/she could claim that the loaded condition could have changes since they last met.

Example 2: "The Pestering Pete". Take one officer with an agenda. To discourage open carry or in the hopes of making an arrest pursuant to PC12031 the officer 'e' checks the OCer. Then the officer glances away or turns away long enough for a reasonable person to load their weapon. Provided the officer did not have clear sight of the person or firearm during that time, one could argue (in court) that the loaded condition could not be attested to.

With that being the case, the officer again has the "authority" to 'e' check. Lather-rise-repeat.


I know some departments have accepted a once a day check or once per officer you come across. Others, once a year. How often is too often. If you ask me, once ever is too often.

I submit for your approval my double 'e' check. Direct download (HD) or YouTube
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
I can't believe they didthis.

BadAce, *knowing that SJPD was on its way, I almost think that it would be better to get the e check over with the "nice" sheriffs . Their is no way in hell you should be subject to a second detainment within 2 minutes. No judge is going to look kindly on this video, and this looks like a total setup to jerk you around between the two agencies. The sheriiffs' should have notified San Jose you were not any threat. What a stroke job, they have radios that work at the speed of sound and have the ability to radio either other within two minutes(it was 70 seconds between the two detainments). For a guy that wants to invoke your right to remain silent....you sure have a lot to say.
 
Last edited:

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
This looks like a fairly good encounter to me,

In spite of the general adversarial nature, you weren't on the ground, cuffed or otherwise molested. Despite what many others think about these "stops", I don't see them as a bad thing right now. You are meeting and communicating with your law enforcement department, and under the general circumstances, things went well. It didn't sound to me like the cops you met had it in for you or us in general. There was a little uneasyness, but with all that iron in the mix, that's to be expected.
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
Its clear to me that SJPD has way too much funding if they are able to send 3 cars out to a call that has already been handled by the deputies...

Well, I'm not from San Jose, so maybe it is a utopia of crime-free living up there and I'm just out of the loop, so the best thing they have to do with their time is harass lawful citizens.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
Continuing off topic.
Radio wave is the carrier. The carrier is modulated at an audio frequency. The reciever strips off the audo and it is amplified and played out the speaker.

The speed of sound varies depending on air temp, and air density (moisture in the air)
The speed of radio waves is the same as light.
 
Last edited:

XDSTEEL

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
216
Location
North Dakota
sorry

Kinda related to the topic but has anyone actually challenged the PC12031? I mean it is an illegal search basically so why not take it to court federal or State level. I mean it may be expensive but there are plenty of OC groups in CA to raise some monies together? I don't know just curious
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
lets see who laughs last

Speed of light or speed of sound out the speaker. Either way we are talking milliseconds. Radio waves traveling 100 yards between the two police agencies cars, doesn't make a hoot of difference, even if they go through a repeater system. I am sure the deputies thought it was real funny that BadAce got detained again within 70 seconds by SJPD. They had to be watching and laughing. Bet their bosses are not going to think it is such a funny little joke if they start getting FOIA/ legal papers served on them.

BadAce , you did a great job, but your dog's attorney was pissed you gave his name up. He did not submit to the detention willingly as you used a degree of force by holding his leash. Don't be surprised if he pee's on you for violation of his rights!!

Tell the LEO next time the dog also does not wish to submit to any searches or dog tag ID checks(they could find out who you are from the info). I think you can legally tape over the dog tag number and still show the expiration date of the tag.
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
Speed of light or speed of sound out the speaker. Either way we are talking milliseconds. Radio waves traveling 100 yards between the two police agencies cars, doesn't make a hoot of difference, even if they go through a repeater system. I am sure the deputies thought it was real funny that BadAce got detained again within 70 seconds by SJPD. They had to be watching and laughing. Bet their bosses are not going to think it is such a funny little joke if they start getting FOIA/ legal papers served on them.

BadAce , you did a great job, but your dog's attorney was pissed you gave his name up. He did not submit to the detention willingly as you used a degree of force by holding his leash. Don't be surprised if he pee's on you for violation of his rights!!

Tell the LEO next time the dog also does not wish to submit to any searches or dog tag ID checks(they could find out who you are from the info). I think you can legally tape over the dog tag number and still show the expiration date of the tag.

I'm planning on having my dogs carry concealed weapons.

They will be concealed in little plastic baggies tied to their harnesses.

I welcome LEOs doing a complete search and DEEP inspection of these baggies for any illegally possessed weapons.
:)
 

xnetc9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Orange County, CA
the speed of sound is 340.29 m/s while most bullets travel about 300m/sec. take for example, the 9mm. it has a velocity of 1125 ft/sec or 342.9 m/sec at muzzle. this bullet actually traveling faster than sound for a bit but drops off to 975 ft/sec or 297.18m/sec at about 100 meters.

the speed of the radio wave is 29900000 m/sec. this is much faster than 340.29 m/sec.
 

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
its been too long since ive OCed. That video gave me some butterflies like the first few times i was stopped. Way to handle it!
 

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
Listen to him again, he retained his right to remain silent, which means he can stop talking anytime he feels the need with no legal eagle catch-22.

Thanks for noticing. Retaining or reserving the right to remain silent means that I can speak when I choose but "interrogations" on their part to gain info are over. ;)
 

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
its been too long since ive OCed. That video gave me some butterflies like the first few times i was stopped. Way to handle it!

DirtyKoala,

You have been the inspiration to many. I've been carrying in my neighborhood and on these walks with the dog every day since AB1934 was proposed (and subsequently shut down). The way would not have been as paved if it wasn't for folks like you carrying in the face of adversity early on.

Unlike you I haven't been drawn on :) I consider myself lucky with the brevity and professionalism exude by the LEOs in my area. I hope the LEOs in your area can follow suite.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Speed of light. Radiowaves are just a form of light, so it naturally travels at the speed of light.

I think its the other way around, light is just a specific frequency band on the electromagnetic spectrum. Sorry couldn't resist.

ETA: Wow, when I posted I had no idea how many had commented on this. :)
 
Last edited:

SouthBayr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
108
Location
San Jose, California, USA
Last edited:

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
That is really sad, and doubly unconstitutional. Did he really have the authority to e-violate you once he knew you already talked to the other LEO's? Without a lawsuit we'll never know.

But talk about the what if's? What if you had stayed just a little longer with the deputies. What if the deputies had actually performed the e-violation (I can see an activist judge saying no harm since your weapon was not inspected, even though you were "checked"). What if you had questioned the city cop's authority since you were just e-checked by the deputies.

It would have been nice to see you challenge the city cop a little more like you did the deputies. But I guess others would argue it was a "good violation" since he finished in about 5 seconds.
 
Top