Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!
Last edited by IYAOYAS; 01-25-2011 at 03:01 PM. Reason: typo in title
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
Now if the officer had initially said that you match the description of a bank robbery suspect so he is going to detain you in order to determine if you are the suspect, then he could handcuff you and verify the unloaded status of your firearm. He didn't do this though, so if the video captures the entirety of the interaction I would say this is an unconstitutional 12031(e) check (aside from the fact that 12031 is already unconstitutional). This PDF is somewhat instructive on the topic of handcuffing without arresting.
That being said, I think the OP did a good job asserting his rights, remaining mostly silent, and asking for the police to identify themselves.
Wow... sorry to hear your 4A rights were violated.
Next time you're cuffed or told you're being detained (Always ASK once those bracelets come out) ask for one of these:
If you wish to pursue a case, these are monumental evidence that more than an "inspection" as proscribed by CA PC § 12031 (e) and an unlawful detainment occurred. If they get evasive about it, demand one. Always get the "detaining" LEOs' info.
Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.
This was a Terry hot stop, without RAS.
An illegal search and siezure occurred.
Delong, in part, states:
"But if the examination may be called a search, it is not an unreasonable one; and only unreasonable searches are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868].) It is, as we have said, limited to a single purpose. It does not have about it any except the slightest element of embarrassment or annoyance, elements overbalanced by far by the purpose of preventing violence or threats of violence. The minimal intrusion does not begin to approach the indignity of the frisk, as graphically described in Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 17, fn. 13 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 903]. It is true that the frisk, as sustained in the Terry case, requires as justification something different than mere possession of a firearm in a proscribed place, but it requires a good deal less than cause for arrest."
If a frisk requires "a justification", what do hand cuffs require?
At the least, you must demand a Detention Certificate, it is your duty as an American!
I am not joking.
I agree with BigToe. If the video captured the entire encounter, you were handcuffed and (e) checked. No questions with regard to robbery or determination as whether you were a suspect. Sorry that another LEO could care less about your freedoms and liberties, subjugated you to shackles of slavery, while he violated you.
Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.
All kidding aside, this wasn't a good e-violation. Just because he was quick, doesn't mean he didn't violate you, the Constitution, and his Oath.
I especially liked the part where he said putting you in cuffs was for your safety! Spoken like a true tyrant.
And I too don't see how this plays into the nearby robbery. What the hell...there is a robber on the loose in the area, perhaps an armed and dangerous, violent robber, and so for your safety you're cuffed?! Seems to me they put your life in needless danger.
"Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin