• 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 of Riverside PD encounter at mall

mj77724

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
5
Location
apple valley ca
this mall on the doors have a code of conduct and in is it says no weapons or firearms(dont recall witch word they use) allow in mall. so they were not to be in the mall with there firearms. so what happened is all good in my opinion as they were in violation of the mall rules that are posted.

this is just my opinion
i do open carry at times

mj
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
RPD also brings a shotgun to the food court. Fun stuff.

What, no stinkin' bandoliers?!!

Sergeant was obviously trying to trick the OCers into a consent search.

"Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause..."

SCOTUS has repeatedly referred to searches without warrant as "exceptional." There is no exceptional reason here that can be put forth for running a serial number.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
this mall on the doors have a code of conduct and in is it says no weapons or firearms(dont recall witch word they use) allow in mall. so they were not to be in the mall with there firearms. so what happened is all good in my opinion as they were in violation of the mall rules that are posted.

this is just my opinion
i do open carry at times

mj

I walked into the mall through JC Penny this week and did not notice any code of conduct on the doors. But even if it did, I suppose that might be a good reason to be ejected (not detained or arrested) so long as free speech was not being infringed. (California Supreme Court decision concerning Pruneyard Shopping Center)
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Job well done....but

Very good job of minimal conversation and minimal "preaching", standing up for your rights, not giving up names and serial numbers, and making it perfectly clear that this was not a voluntary detainment immediately. I still say that OC'ing at large public malls pushes the envelope at this point in time, legal as it may be. I found it kind of ammusing that the officers were letting the mommies and kids walk between the OC group and the LEO's....The officers used extremely poor police tactics of protecting those soccer moms by keeping the officer with the shotgun BETWEEN you the passing kids and the LEO's....nice public safety(and officer safety) move. The Sgt was clearly lying to trick you, and a personnel complaint will probably lead to some RPD inhouse retraining of field officers. The two helicopter pilots need to go back to flying and I bet you will find out no one complained except them or mall security. Not the shoppers.
 
Last edited:

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
I walked into the mall through JC Penny this week and did not notice any code of conduct on the doors. But even if it did, I suppose that might be a good reason to be ejected (not detained or arrested) so long as free speech was not being infringed. (California Supreme Court decision concerning Pruneyard Shopping Center)
Sons, check the entry way on the east side by the food court or the entryway on the west side right under the parking garage 'walkway'. Those are the two entrances I know have rules posted.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Sons, check the entry way on the east side by the food court or the entryway on the west side right under the parking garage 'walkway'. Those are the two entrances I know have rules posted.

Why should they have to check/search for a sign? If the mall wants to enforce their policy then they should have every possible entrance clearly posted.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I found it kind of ammusing that the officers were letting the mommies and kids walk between the OC group and the LEO's....The officers used extremely poor police tactics of protecting those soccer moms by keeping the officer with the shotgun BETWEEN you the passing kids and the LEO's....nice public safety(and officer safety) move.

POP QUIZ

1. The officers in this video are?

a. Poorly trained
b. Unconcerned of a real threat
c. Lazy with their police tactics
d. Could care less about the public, just looking for a snack.
e. All the above
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
Why should they have to check/search for a sign? If the mall wants to enforce their policy then they should have every possible entrance clearly posted.
TheBigSD, He should not have to check. I never said he had to. Sons was asking where they were.

Also, those signs hold no legal weight in CA. It is up to the property owner or agent of the property owner to enforce their "rules". If you are doing something illegal on the premises, that is what the Police are for.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
This video was really upsetting. Instead of "fighting crime and putting their lives on the line to protect the citizens" like they boast about, they are at a freaking mall harrassing people who are just peacefully exercising their rights while EDUCATING the public about FREEDOM. On top of that, I feel the shotgun was there for intimidation.

TO PROTECT AND SERVE < TROLOLOLOL
 
Last edited:

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
POP QUIZ

1. The officers in this video are?

a. Poorly trained
b. Unconcerned of a real threat
c. Lazy with their police tactics
d. Could care less about the public, just looking for a snack.
e. All the above

I vote.......E, all of the above
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I skimmed through the video. I did not see what made this a detention. I'm not saying it wasn't; I'm saying that in skimming the video I did not see factors that made it a detention.

Can someone mention which factors or elements of a detention were present. I wouldn't need the time/hash mark. Just an explanation of what it was that made this a detention.
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
If one merely feels they are not free to leave it is considered a seizure.


Whether a person has been “seized” often determines if he or she
receives Fourth Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has
established a standard for identifying seizures: a person is seized when a
reasonable person in his situation would not have felt “free to leave” or
otherwise to terminate the encounter with law enforcement. In applying
that standard, today’s courts conduct crucial seizure inquiries relying only
upon their own beliefs about when a reasonable person would feel free to
leave. But both the Court and scholars have noted that although empirical
evidence about whether people actually feel free to leave would help guide
the seizure inquiry, no such evidence presently exists. This Article presents
the first empirical study of whether people would actually feel free to leave...
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic526845.files/Kessler_Production_Proof correct pagination.pdf
 
Last edited:

EXTREMEOPS1

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
248
Location
Escondido CA
Bravo Zulu to all

OMG RPD rush into the mall with eight officers and one carrying a shotgun WTF .....Bravo Zulu guys on your conduct in the mall and standing up for your rights....Loved the "Have you got enough attention remark by the SGT...he came with eight officers and a Shotgun ...purleeeease.....OC'ers are not attention seakers.....can't wait to drop by there with my AR15 over my shoulder....if AB144 goes into law ...that should have all the patrons being scared .....pah!!! RPD huge Fail....read your own OC memo

All California law enforcement personnel should be aware of the following firearms laws in c as they are confronted with a subject openly carrying a firearm.

PC 12025 (f), unloaded firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed with in the meaning of section 12025.
PC 12025 only applies to concealable firearms, which is defined in PC 12001 (a) as a pistol, revolver or firearms with a barrel less than 16 inches in length. There is nothing prohibiting someone from carrying an unloaded, concealed rifle or shotgun on their person or in their vehicle unless the barrel in less than 16 inches.
PC 12031 (g), A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. **Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which it can be fired. People vs. Clark (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1147.
PC 12031 (e), in order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory, Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
PC 626.9, Any person who possesses a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in or on the grounds of a public or private school for kindergarten to grade 12, or within 1000 feet of the school, without written permission of the proper school authority or on the grounds of a public or private university or college.
If this Open Carry movement expands, not all people wishing to exercise their Open Carry rights will be as well educated as those actively engaged in the open carry movement. As a society, we could end up with citizens who are not as well informed, make assumptions about the law, and for personal reasons are more hostile to law enforcement encounters. There are many other scenarios that could occur at equally dangerous venues. A deputies knowledge of the law could be very useful in defusing the situation.

EXAMPLE: An example would be where a person is Open Carry legally and then out of ignorance of the law goes to pick up their child at school on violation of PC 626.9. Someone at the school calls 9-1-1 and reports an armed subject on the school grounds. A deputy responds and encounters the Open Carry parent on campus who incorrectly claims their right to Open Carry anywhere and the parent becomes defiant because they believe they understand the law, the parent refuses to let the deputy inspect the gun to see whether or not it is loaded as required by PC 12031 (e); even though the mere possession of an unloaded gun on campus is a violation of PC 626.9.

PC 12031 BACKGROUND: The history of Penal Code 12031 is helpful in understanding this issue. Prior to 1967, it was lawful in California for an adult, not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, to carry a loaded firearm in plain view in public and in an incorporated city. Only the carrying of a concealed firearm was proscribed. However, early in May of 1967, a group of Black Panthers marched into the California legislature fully armed. This action resulted in the Legislature enacting Penal Code 12031, effective July 28, 1967, thereafter proscribing the carrying of a loaded firearm in public, even if not concealed, illegal.

With that background in mind, it is noted the Penal Code 12031 provides in pertinent part that:

(a)(1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory. (Emphasis added)

Subdivision (g) of 12031 provides that:

A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpected cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder. (Emphasis added)

While Penal Code 12025 addresses carrying a concealed firearm, subdivision (f) of that statute expressly declares that "Firearms carried openly in blet holsters are not concidered concealed within the meaning of this section." The firearm does not become "loaded" for purposes of a violation of 12031 if there is a loaded magazine or other carry of ammunition close at hand.

Here, the situation presented is of an adult person carrying an unloaded firearm in plain view in public. While there is ammunition close at hand for said firearm, the ammunition is not attached to the firearm. Even if the ammunition was, for instance, taped to the side of the firearm, it is questionable whether this would constitute "loading" of the firearm in light of the holding in People v. Clark, (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1147, 1152, where the court of appeal, dealing with the question of whether the defendant had committed the offence of possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm, held that:

Under the commonly understood meaning of the term "loaded," a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired; the shotgun is not "loaded" if the shell or cartridge is stored elsewhere and not yet placed in a firing position. The shells here were placed in a separate storage compartment of the shotgun and were not yet "loaded" as the term is commonly understood.

CONFLICTS WITH LOCAL ORDINANCE: Local ordinances are able to close this gap by, making it a violation of a city's municipal code to carry an unloaded and unconcealed firearm in public. In this regard, please note Article XI §7 of the California Constitution, provides that:

A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.

Peace Officers may rely upon 12031(e), which provides that:

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in any vehicle while in nay public place or on any public street in an in corporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE RESTRICTIONS: California selectively prohibits possession of firearms. Prohibitions generally apply to drug addicts and those convicted of felonies and specified misdemeanors, or subject to probation orders or restraining orders that prohibit possession (PC 12021, 12021.1), and those with histories of making deadly threats or receiving mental treatment for dangerous proclivities (W&I 8100, 8103). Minors may not generally possess concealable firearms (PC 12101).

In addition, individuals generally may not possess firearms in certain places, such as public buildings (PC 171b), airport and passenger vessel terminal "sterile areas" (PC 171.5), or on the ground or within 1000 feet of a public or private school, or on a college campus or property (PC 626.9). Possession during specified crimes increases the punishment (Exs: PC 12021.5, 12022, 12022.3, 12022.5, 12023 and 12024).

Other restrictions are you cannot carry in a National Park (36 CFR 2.4 (a)) or in a State Park (CCR Title 14, Div 3, Chap 1 s4313 (a)); however firearms may be possessed within temporary lodging or a vehicle when unloaded and packed, cased, or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use" and you cannot carry on U.S. Postal Service property (39 CFR 232.1(I)).

It is also generally unlawful to carry a loaded firearm (whether concealed or not) in a public place in incorporated cities and in prohibited areas of unincorporated territory (PC 12031). Because "prohibited area" includes any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, this includes all Public streets (PC 12031 (e)). If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and database check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 543 US 177, 187.

Per PC 12031 (g) (also for H&S 11370.1 -possession of certain drugs while armed with a loaded firearm, and for PC 12035 - Criminal storage), a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired. People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1147. Under this definition, neither PC 12025 nor 12031 is violated merely because a person openly carrying an unloaded firearm on a belt holster has matching ammunition on him, or close at hand. (Contrast: PC 171c and 171d - "loaded" at the state capitol/offices and governor's mansion, and 12023 - "loaded" with intent to commit a felony, all of which define "loaded" as being in possession of the firearm and matching ammunition; F&G 2006 - "loaded" rifle or shotgun in a vehicle on a public road, requires chambered shell).

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR AGENCY?

Presentation of an individual walking down the street carrying a pistol in a holster raises obvious tactical issues, as well as safety concerns for both officers and the public. Other than to note these safety and tactical issues, we would urge that officers be alerted of this issue, that there is a possibility that they may encounter this behavior, and that they should be prepared to appropriately respond.

Field personnel should be made aware of the current state of the law as set forth in this Training Bulletin and cautioned that this is not behavior warranting arrest, but that that they are legally entitled under 12031(e) to demand inspection of any such firearms in order to ascertain that the weapon is unloaded. If the firearm is unloaded, it should be returned and the subject released to go about his/her lawful business. Of course, if the firearm is loaded - as defined above - then an arrest is appropriate. Any refusal to allow inspection of the firearm constitutes cause for immediate arrest for violation of 12031.

BOTTOM LINE; Police may stop a person who is openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster and may inspect to see if the firearm is loaded. Prompt incidental checks on the person and the weapon may provide probable cause for arrest; however, the person may not be arrested for violating PC 12031 if ammunition is not in nor attached to the weapon so as to allow it to be fired, even though the person may have access to matching ammunition.
 
Last edited:
Top