I have zero knowledge on such an entity. I'm guessing not, but feel free to prove me wrong.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter Thejoyofdriving
- Start date
I have zero knowledge on such an entity. I'm guessing not, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Thejoyofdriving
Regular Member
Update:
I contacted the dpt and spoke to a sergeant at the professional standards bureau. He took down my info and I told him what happened. He says my rights werent violated. He said that when the officer saw my firearms that was all the probably cause she needed(since when is having firearms probable cause that a crime is or might be committed???). He said that the officer did have the right to check my handgun. At the same time he did not even know that it is indeed legal to carry a loaded handgun openly in unincorporated territory such as the NF. I had to explain it to him and I dont think he believed me. Im a lucky SOB i didnt run into him :uhoh: So im not sure if he knows what hes talking about in the first place. Either way, he doesnt think my rights were violated but he said he would pass along my request to identify the officer. We shall see...
I contacted the dpt and spoke to a sergeant at the professional standards bureau. He took down my info and I told him what happened. He says my rights werent violated. He said that when the officer saw my firearms that was all the probably cause she needed(since when is having firearms probable cause that a crime is or might be committed???). He said that the officer did have the right to check my handgun. At the same time he did not even know that it is indeed legal to carry a loaded handgun openly in unincorporated territory such as the NF. I had to explain it to him and I dont think he believed me. Im a lucky SOB i didnt run into him :uhoh: So im not sure if he knows what hes talking about in the first place. Either way, he doesnt think my rights were violated but he said he would pass along my request to identify the officer. We shall see...
Last edited:
We-the-People
Regular Member
Well of course your rights weren't violated and a firearm most definitely is probable cause......now hand over your papers please!!!!
NEVER expect a government official to 1) know the law in the first place 2) give you a straight answer 3) care about your rights
Take them to task. I would also consider recording future phone conversations...not sure the law there, is it a one party state for phone conversations as it is for face to face?
NEVER expect a government official to 1) know the law in the first place 2) give you a straight answer 3) care about your rights
Take them to task. I would also consider recording future phone conversations...not sure the law there, is it a one party state for phone conversations as it is for face to face?
Thejoyofdriving
Regular Member
As told to me by a detective i once spoke to, only one of the parties involved has to consent.(In california, its different in other states)
Last edited:
mjones
Regular Member
recording conversations
In CA the concepts of 1-party or multi-party consent aren't used directly.
Ultimately where the boundary lies in CA is with regard to 'expectation of privacy' or 'confidentiality'
So, recording a telephone conversation without notification = expectation of privacy = illegal
But, recording a conversation in public without notification = no expectation of privacy = legal
Of course don't forget, this is CA so learn the nuances of the law yourself. Start with CA PC 630-638
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1042289413+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
In CA the concepts of 1-party or multi-party consent aren't used directly.
Ultimately where the boundary lies in CA is with regard to 'expectation of privacy' or 'confidentiality'
So, recording a telephone conversation without notification = expectation of privacy = illegal
But, recording a conversation in public without notification = no expectation of privacy = legal
Of course don't forget, this is CA so learn the nuances of the law yourself. Start with CA PC 630-638
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1042289413+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Thejoyofdriving
Regular Member
Not too long ago a buddy of mine helped some detectives try and get a confession to a crime over the phone. They were recording the call but the other guy did not know. Thats when the detective told me there is a 1 party consent...sooo were they breaking the law:question:
Gundude
Regular Member
I wore my spy sunglasses into my bank, and told the teller I was recording her. She said she wasn't sure she liked that. I told her to stop recording me and I would stop recording her. That ended the conversation.
We-the-People
Regular Member
priceless!!!!
You seemed to have ignored We-the-people's admonishment regarding government officials. Allow me to post it again.
mjones is right regarding the recording of telephone conversations. When your friend helped some detectives to do something it wasn't your friend recording, it was the police officers recording. It is very likely the case that police officers can record confessions or attempts to obtain confessions even without informing all parties.
Danny Phillips
New member
Re Mendocino National Forest
What county were you in? I know that there was a major raid in the Mendocino Nat'l Forest not too long ago by 25 Agencies including the 5 or so counties that the forest lies in. I would have a problem with her blocking your vehicle as she couldn't have RAS until she got out of her vehicle first and checked yours. I go to the Mendocino Nat'l Forest quite often to the Shooting range at the end of the airstrip at Lake Pillsbury but have had no contact with LE. I do know that one of the female rangers is a real C&*t in Mendocino County. I hope you get all your answers.
What county were you in? I know that there was a major raid in the Mendocino Nat'l Forest not too long ago by 25 Agencies including the 5 or so counties that the forest lies in. I would have a problem with her blocking your vehicle as she couldn't have RAS until she got out of her vehicle first and checked yours. I go to the Mendocino Nat'l Forest quite often to the Shooting range at the end of the airstrip at Lake Pillsbury but have had no contact with LE. I do know that one of the female rangers is a real C&*t in Mendocino County. I hope you get all your answers.
JBolder
Regular Member
Outstanding!
mjones
Regular Member
There are some exceptions for LEOs and things with regard to crimes.
Thejoyofdriving
Regular Member
I wouldnt be surprised
FCC Rules
Last time I remember under the FCC Rules when recording over the phone, you must hear a beeping background sound every 15 seconds.
Last time I remember under the FCC Rules when recording over the phone, you must hear a beeping background sound every 15 seconds.
Jurisdictional
Section 512 becomes effective on February 22, 2010. Section 512 affects implementation of the existing NPS regulations regarding the possession of firearms in national parks, by now allowing individuals to possess firearms if:
(1) they are not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and
(2) such possession is in compliance with the law of the state in which the park unit or that portion of the unit is located.
Section 512 applies to possession of firearms within the National Park System regardless of the jurisdictional status of the unit—exclusive, concurrent or proprietary.
~~~~~~~~~
HUH?!? Around, around, around we go regardless the 14th Amendment clause in compliance with the law of the State?
Are we getting from one nut of balls from them?
Aren't you aware of this is one of a kind regardless the State or local government laws on knife, letter opener, sword, bow, pepper spray and etc.?
Section 512 becomes effective on February 22, 2010. Section 512 affects implementation of the existing NPS regulations regarding the possession of firearms in national parks, by now allowing individuals to possess firearms if:
(1) they are not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and
(2) such possession is in compliance with the law of the state in which the park unit or that portion of the unit is located.
Section 512 applies to possession of firearms within the National Park System regardless of the jurisdictional status of the unit—exclusive, concurrent or proprietary.
~~~~~~~~~
HUH?!? Around, around, around we go regardless the 14th Amendment clause in compliance with the law of the State?
Are we getting from one nut of balls from them?
Aren't you aware of this is one of a kind regardless the State or local government laws on knife, letter opener, sword, bow, pepper spray and etc.?
Jurisdiction depends on the Park. Yosemite National Park was regranted by the Kali legislature and Congress accepted the reccession; therefore, Yosemite is a federal reservation just like Puerto Rico, USVI, DC, or Guam. Yosemite has its own jail. Yosemite's website has the historical information regarding the regrant.
I have asked Yellowstone and Grand Teton for thier regrant history and I receive nothing but silence.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore states this:
"Most areas of the Lakeshore are managed under proprietary jurisdiction. This means that the Michigan State Police, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alger County Sheriff's Department, and the Munising City Police Department share jurisdiction on park lands and waters. Officers of these non-Federal agencies actively enforce their rules and regulations within the park in addition to Federal officers (including National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)."
http://www.nps.gov/piro/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
Forest Service land follows 16 USC 480. To paraphrase, civil and criminal jurisdiction belongs to the state.
http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-19239874
thanks,
markm