• 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.

College Campuses: Leaving Gun in Vehicle

meggers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
28
Location
Bellevue
I attend a local Washington college and their policy on guns states:

Weapons. Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the college campus, except for authorized college purposes or for law enforcement officers, unless written approval has been obtained from the vice president of student services or any other person designated by the president.

I'm assuming their parking lot is considered campus, but is leaving an unloaded firearm locked in a safe in my car considered possession?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
I attend a local Washington college and their policy on guns states:



I'm assuming their parking lot is considered campus, but is leaving an unloaded firearm locked in a safe in my car considered possession?

Yes it would be considered part of the campus and yes it would be considered possession. If they don't see it then they don't know it's there.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
You are in possession when you arrive in the car and when you depart in the car. This, unfortunately, makes you in possession on campus.

I would make sure it is locked and secured before arrival and it stays there until after departure form campus property. Don't say anything to anyone, because on our liberal bastions of education, someone will talk to someone else about it.

It's sad you have to deal with this.
 

meggers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
28
Location
Bellevue
Thanks guys for clearing that up. I also found a link (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p057.htm) to the legal definition of possession which states:

A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it.

I think, if I'm interpreting this right, that (1) knowing where my car is and where the gun is kept satisfies know[ing] its presence and (2) having my keys/combo to the safe satisfies physical control over it.

I'm also worried about them running dogs through the parking lot and sniffing gun powder in my car -- maybe I'm being paranoid, but wouldn't that suck?
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Thanks guys for clearing that up. I also found a link (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p057.htm) to the legal definition of possession which states:



I think, if I'm interpreting this right, that (1) knowing where my car is and where the gun is kept satisfies know[ing] its presence and (2) having my keys/combo to the safe satisfies physical control over it.

I'm also worried about them running dogs through the parking lot and sniffing gun powder in my car -- maybe I'm being paranoid, but wouldn't that suck?

In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...

:banana:
 

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
Concealed handgun? What concealed handgun? Why would I need to carry a handgun at school...do you think I'm crazy?!

I carried at my college. I even decided not to OC anywhere until I finished college because of that (I only had another six months or so to go when I decided I wanted to start OCing). Anyhow, if you're just wanting to keep the gun in your car, I wouldn't worry about it from the standpoint of getting caught....and it's obviously up to yourself to make the decision regarding breaking rules or not. That's the whole weighing the possibility of having to write a big essay/being suspended/being expelled over the safety of your life (since it's not illegal here...just against the rules).
 

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
in wa the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. Or 'what's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... Then stand up and say 'well officer, i just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... Or whatever... You get the drift...

:banana:

roflmao
 

meggers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
28
Location
Bellevue
In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...

:banana:

That just made my week!
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...

:banana:

There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.
 

dadada

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
112
Location
Edge of the woods
There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.

Joe, I think you're wrong on this. They have a right to search a locker you are using if the dog gets a hit, because the locker is school property. Your car doesn't suddenly stop being your property just because of where it's parked. If the dog alerts, they can ASK you for your permission to search, but without a warrant, they can NOT enter your personal vehicle. If the cop asked for permission and you refuse, you can drive away. They may try and detain until they get a judge to issue a warrant, but they will be wasting their time. The most the warranted search would turn up, assuming he doesn't have anything illegal in the car like weed, is that the cop will find a legally possessed firearm. What's the crime? The school will ask him to leave and trespass him, but at no time was a crime committed simply because a dog sniffs gunpowder.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Joe, I think you're wrong on this. They have a right to search a locker you are using if the dog gets a hit, because the locker is school property. Your car doesn't suddenly stop being your property just because of where it's parked. If the dog alerts, they can ASK you for your permission to search, but without a warrant, they can NOT enter your personal vehicle. If the cop asked for permission and you refuse, you can drive away. They may try and detain until they get a judge to issue a warrant, but they will be wasting their time. The most the warranted search would turn up, assuming he doesn't have anything illegal in the car like weed, is that the cop will find a legally possessed firearm. What's the crime? The school will ask him to leave and trespass him, but at no time was a crime committed simply because a dog sniffs gunpowder.

I am not wrong. There are many court cases that deal with dogs alerting and probable cause for search. Here are two of them.

Sherry Hearn v. The Board of Public Education

Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.

When a vehicle is in operation, yes.

When it's not, the exigent circumstances/mobile conveyance exemption to the 4th does not apply, as there is no risk of the evidence being destroyed.

They would have to either break a window, something that will get them in hot water if nothing is found, or restrict access to the vehicle and get a warrant.

Dogs are BS because the handler can say the dog 'alerted', and voila, instant permission to search. Some dogs have been proven to be trained to 'alert on command'... Again, total BS...

If I'm accused of a crime, I want the evidence proven, and articulated. A dog can't testify, yet the handler can testify for the dog. I would almost want to cross examine a handler, to paint him into a corner to get him to say he 'talks' to his dog...
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
I am not wrong. There are many court cases that deal with dogs alerting and probable cause for search. Here are two of them.

Sherry Hearn v. The Board of Public Education

Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District

First case is a matter of a civil issue, not criminal, and has to do with a teacher wanting her job back.

Second case is also a civil issue, with the schools utilizing 'in loco parentis' as justification, as the school is in charge of the students when they're there. The problem comes into play with seniors, who can be 18. The school can't compel them to do anything, as they do not have the legal authority to 'act as their parent'...



Read This to find out how much BS canines are.

They serve their function, but should not be relied on solely for RAS.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
First case is a matter of a civil issue, not criminal, and has to do with a teacher wanting her job back.

Second case is also a civil issue, with the schools utilizing 'in loco parentis' as justification, as the school is in charge of the students when they're there. The problem comes into play with seniors, who can be 18. The school can't compel them to do anything, as they do not have the legal authority to 'act as their parent'...



Read This to find out how much BS canines are.

They serve their function, but should not be relied on solely for RAS.

I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.

They were only civil issues because people were saying it was an unlawful search therefore the grounds for suspension/termination were wrong. The courts disagreed saying that the searches were lawful. These cases are extremely relevant and they show that there does not need to be exigent circumstances to enter a car if a dog alerts. The courts have allowed searches based on a dogs alert is on a motor vehicle that has been lawful stopped by LEO or in a public environment, which is what we are talking about.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.

They were only civil issues because people were saying it was an unlawful search therefore the grounds for suspension/termination were wrong. The courts disagreed saying that the searches were lawful. These cases are extremely relevant and they show that there does not need to be exigent circumstances to enter a car if a dog alerts. The courts have allowed searches based on a dogs alert is on a motor vehicle that has been lawful stopped by LEO or in a public environment, which is what we are talking about.

It would appear that the problem isn't with the dogs, but with the Courts.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
It would appear that the problem isn't with the dogs, but with the Courts.

I concur with that statement.

There was an instance where kids were coming out of class and the police ran a drug dog through the crowd of students. The dog alerted 12 times and the police and school officials searched all 12 kids and found zero items that were unlawful or against school policy. The courts seem to ignore the fact that there are many instances of false alerts given by dogs.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.

Bzzzt! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

The question becomes one of "does a dog 'alerting' constitute reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has occurred." I'd say NO! because what can the officer say: "we think the dog alerted on a bomb, firearms, marijuana, and ultraporn, for which you are too young."? The point being that establishing suspicion to search is very hard now, much harder than 10 years ago.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Bzzzt! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

The question becomes one of "does a dog 'alerting' constitute reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has occurred." I'd say NO! because what can the officer say: "we think the dog alerted on a bomb, firearms, marijuana, and ultraporn, for which you are too young."? The point being that establishing suspicion to search is very hard now, much harder than 10 years ago.

Nice way to enter the discussion Mr. Smarty Pants but you are way off base so you should just quit playing.

That case deals with a search incident to arrest. That is not the same as a dogs alert.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Nice way to enter the discussion Mr. Smarty Pants but you are way off base so you should just quit playing.

That case deals with a search incident to arrest. That is not the same as a dogs alert.

While I'm being "Mr. Smarty Pants" I'd like to point out that Freud said no such thing as what you have in your signature.

You're wrong about a dog alerting in a parking lot, because that pesky fourth amendment requires a warrant. Under Illinois v. Caballes, it was decided that a dog's sniff does not constitute a search and thus does not require reasonable, articulable suspicion to do during a legitimate traffic stop. The question of a dog randomly searching the parking lot, then requiring opening a trunk, is of a different nature. Moreover, the court did not address the actual search portion of the sniff-test. That is, while use of a dog may not constitute a search, the violation of privacy of what is held in the non-public areas of a vehicle most certainly does constitute a search. To uphold that under the fourth amendment requires a warrant under any reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment. That warrant can be obtained using the dog's alert, with the affirmation of an officer that the dog did alert and what the dog alerted upon.

Important to this discussion, as well, is the protections afforded by the WA state constitution that go beyond the federal in some means. Under Article 1 Section 7, it reads "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." This is critical, because even with ****-poor decisions like Illinois v. Caballes (or Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz), our state provides greater protection for the individual, as it does not allow merely "reasonable" searches. Direct authority of law must exist to violate your private affairs. In the case of a dog, this comes back to the "get a warrant, or go away" standard.
 
Top