• 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.

Unpleasant encounter with a sheriff in Mendocino national park

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
Unpleasant encounter with a sheriff in Mendocino national forest

Hello, Im new to opencarry.org. I've been lurking for a while and decided to join.

As the title says, I had an unpleasant experience while in Mendocino. This doesnt have anything to do with open carry specifically but I am looking for some advice on what I could have done better and what the officer did wrong.

I was driving along minding my own business when I approached a narrow one lane road. I saw a green truck come down. I pulled off the road to allow it to pass. Instead of driving by the truck blocks the road and a sheriff and some one else who was some form of law enforcement approached the car. They ask me what im doing and tell them im just going up the road to check out a trail that we wanted to hike. They asked what was up with my "arsenal" (looking at my mossberg and AR15 riding shotgun). I told them I just got the shotgun and wanted to try it out and my buddy lent me the AR. She asked if I had a weapon on my person and I said yes(I was LOC my m&p) Then the sheriff asked me to step out of the car, again, for no reason. She walked me and my friend over to the hood of the car and then removed my sidearm. Then she told me that she was going to check all the weapons in the car to make sure they didnt have a round in the chamber. I told her I dont consent to any searches of my vehicle and she didnt like that. She told me that she has the right to check all of the weapons (i dont know if what she did was legal or not but I didnt want to argue so I said ok but I dont consent to any searches). She then questions me about the length of my mossberg 930 and i told her it is the 18.5" factory bbl. After checking all of the weapons and unloading them she told me to unload them when I hit paved road and to take the shells out of my mossbergs side saddle. I ask why and she said that if they are in the shell holder than the gun is loaded. I told her that the court ruled that shells on the butt-stock are specifically mentioned and that does not make the gun loaded since they are not in a position that makes the weapon ready to fire(people vs clark). She said has done "research on the subject and I was wrong" and that we can agree to disagree(which really tick'd me off). After which I was free to go.


I feel that they had no right to stop and detain me. I was not doing anything wrong and I feel that they had no probably cause that I was doing something unlawful. They probably saw the guns but i cant imagine its something out of the ordinary out here.
 
Last edited:

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
You were loaded open carrying on unincorporated land and they stopped you?

I'd call the CalGuns Foundation since you were subject to a 12031(e) check where 12031 did not apply, and thus you were unlawfully seized and searched without any reason. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/cgf-hotline.html

You were right about the unlawful detainment and you were right about the sidesaddle being loaded. The cop was misinformed or being willfully ignorant.
 

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
You were loaded open carrying on unincorporated land and they stopped you?

I'd call the CalGuns Foundation since you were subject to a 12031(e) check where 12031 did not apply, and thus you were unlawfully seized and searched without any reason. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/cgf-hotline.html

You were right about the unlawful detainment and you were right about the sidesaddle being loaded. The cop was misinformed or being willfully ignorant.

Well, they didnt even know I was LOC until they stopped me. They were checking to see if there was a round in the chamber on all of the guns. Apparently thats not allowed when in a vehicle. Its not quite the same as the e check. I didnt know that at the time but luckily I didnt have a round in the chamber for safety reasons so I wasnt charged with anything.

Thanks for the hotline number, that could be very useful if im ever wrongfully charged!
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Well, they didnt even know I was LOC until they stopped me. They were checking to see if there was a round in the chamber on all of the guns. Apparently thats not allowed when in a vehicle. Its not quite the same as the e check. I didnt know that at the time but luckily I didnt have a round in the chamber for safety reasons so I wasnt charged with anything.

I'm not sure about laws regarding loaded rifles in automobiles in unincorporated areas. If the officer checked the loaded status of your handgun though then that sounds like they overstepped their ability and violated your rights (not counting the unconstitutionality of the 12031(e) check to begin with).
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I'm not sure about laws regarding loaded rifles in automobiles in unincorporated areas. If the officer checked the loaded status of your handgun though then that sounds like they overstepped their ability and violated your rights (not counting the unconstitutionality of the 12031(e) check to begin with).

This is correct- the officer overstepped their authority by inspecting his sidearm in an unincorporated area or an area where discharge is not prohibited. Since it is legal to LOC there, there is no legal justification to inspect.
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
Once you express non-consent they must cease. Not consenting to any searches and then consenting to a search of the chambers cancels the non-consent. One may write up a NOTICE and then sign and have it notarized or witnessed by two or three and record it in the public such as at one's county recorder or run it in a newspaper for 30 days. There are online public recording sites too. Carry certified copies to hand to any "enforcing" agents. The notices may express one's reservation of all rights, non-consent to detainment, searches, etc. and any fee for violating such.
California Civil Code Section 1708 could be useful on a notice as it has been in the past;

Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

Once noticed, if they continue they will be liable and now one has record and recourse to pursue remedy.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Once you express non-consent they must cease. Not consenting to any searches and then consenting to a search of the chambers cancels the non-consent. One may write up a NOTICE and then sign and have it notarized or witnessed by two or three and record it in the public such as at one's county recorder or run it in a newspaper for 30 days. There are online public recording sites too. Carry certified copies to hand to any "enforcing" agents. The notices may express one's reservation of all rights, non-consent to detainment, searches, etc. and any fee for violating such.
California Civil Code Section 1708 could be useful on a notice as it has been in the past;

Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

Once noticed, if they continue they will be liable and now one has record and recourse to pursue remedy.

Citations?
 

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
I told her I did not consent to any searches but she said that she has the authority to check my firearms and proceeded to do so. So was that made up or do police have the right to check the weapons(the only thing I can think of is the 12031 e check which doesnt apply)? Can anyone cite any law that might help me in the future(other than the basic 4a rights)?
 
Last edited:

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
You gave her the right when you consented. "...I didnt want to argue so I said ok ..."

There isn't a silver bullet statement to make when someone is insistent upon violating you but forming a record and having something to hand to them as mentioned above helps to make them think first.

Bigtoe;
This cite is not in regards to open carry but is an example that pertains to Civil Code Section 1708; http://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pb_pdf/pbuscaharringtoncomplaint.pdf

As far as citing 1708 in relation to a detainment I only have reference to an incident that was sent to me as a testimony.

The inappropriate actions of an officer during a stop may cause liability for stalking;
http://www.stalkingalert.com/cacivilcode.htm
Even if a stalking charge isn't pursued a restraining order is another option.
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Check Fish and Game Codes

I believe the F&G Code give LEo's gun inspection rights. There is a specific F&G Code , section 2006 for having a "chambered" round in a rifle or shotgun in a vehicle. Thie courts have applied if the gun is touching the car, ie, leaning against it ,or on the hood/or in the trunk. That was probably why she did nor care if you were open carrying loaded, or if any of the other guns were loaded, just if you were in violation of the F-G Code section for having a chambered round on the longuns. If she tried to apply this section to a handgun, she better go reread her law books, it only applies to shotguns and rifles.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(a) It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in
any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or
along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way
open to the public.
(b) A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the
purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or
shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or
shells are in the magazine.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace
officers or members of the Armed Forces of this state or the United
States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Last edited:

JBolder

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
17
Location
SLO county
Did you record this encounter? If not, it is you and your friend's word against two LEOs, who are trained to lie.
 

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Iowa
You gave her the right when you consented. "...I didnt want to argue so I said ok ..."

I would disagree, he stated that he chose not to be confrontational but reserved his right against unreasonable searches.

Thejoyofdriving said:
She told me that she has the right to check all of the weapons (i dont know if what she did was legal or not but I didnt want to argue so I said ok but I dont consent to any searches).

I took that to mean that he said,"Okay, but I don't consent to any searches."

I'll concede that because we are just getting a summary and not viewing/hearing a recording of the incident, it may not have occurred exactly as the OP stated. However, given what the OP stated, my opinion is that the check of the handgun exceeded the officer's authority and was a non-consensual and unreasonable search.
 

tcmech

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
368
Location
, ,
I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the laws of Kalifornia, but it appears to me that when the law enforcement blocked the trail without any RAS that you were being illegally detained. Approaching your vehicle and peering into it while illegally detaining a person seems to be a flagrant violation of your 4th amendment rights. Keep in mind this is only my opinion and if I were to try to exercise any complaint against the sheriff's department I would check with a lawyer first.

The best thing you can do is carry a voice recorder, or one of the miniature cam corders which you can make sure you document the entire event.
 

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
Did you record this encounter? If not, it is you and your friend's word against two LEOs, who are trained to lie.


Doh! I have a voice recorder on my phone but I can never remember to use it! :banghead: Im usually too busy being nervous about if the LEO is going to be a nice informed guy(or gal) or a ignorant ass hat who's out to get me for no reason :)
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
You were loaded open carrying on unincorporated land and they stopped you?

I'd call the CalGuns Foundation since you were subject to a 12031(e) check where 12031 did not apply, and thus you were unlawfully seized and searched without any reason. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/cgf-hotline.html

You were right about the unlawful detainment and you were right about the sidesaddle being loaded. The cop was misinformed or being willfully ignorant.

Right - even of AB 144 passes, loaded open carry will still be legal in unincorporated terretories where the county has not banned all shooting.

Do you have a name of this deputy and the link to the department so folks can send some emails to teh Sheriff's office so they get retraining??
 

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
National Park or National Forest? There is a difference.


Forest


Right - even of AB 144 passes, loaded open carry will still be legal in unincorporated terretories where the county has not banned all shooting.

Do you have a name of this deputy and the link to the department so folks can send some emails to teh Sheriff's office so they get retraining??

Thats actually the biggest problem. I didnt get the badge number or name of the officer( I know, I know im an idiot :banghead:). I remember what she looks like so im going to try and talk to someone at the sheriffs dpt and file a complaint with the professional standards bureau.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Thats actually the biggest problem. I didnt get the badge number or name of the officer( I know, I know im an idiot :banghead:). I remember what she looks like so im going to try and talk to someone at the sheriffs dpt and file a complaint with the professional standards bureau.

It's not that big of a problem. You can submit a PRAR for the sheriffs on duty during that time and/or a copy of radio traffic during the time when you were unlawfully detained. Since the officer was a woman it should be a piece of cake to find her.
 

Thejoyofdriving

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
55
Location
CA
It's not that big of a problem. You can submit a PRAR for the sheriffs on duty during that time and/or a copy of radio traffic during the time when you were unlawfully detained. Since the officer was a woman it should be a piece of cake to find her.

Do you think I could just call the professional standards bureau and they could help me out ?
 
Top