Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: VIDEO. My buddy harassed for OCing by OC sheriff

  1. #1
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    VIDEO. My buddy harassed for OCing by OC sheriff


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3
    hey this is me! haha

  3. #3
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378
    HAHa....nailed it

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    To much talking.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3

    @ Dale

    what do u mean?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    First Travis, let me say Thank you for serving, and OC'ing

    You do not need to ID yourself, give him any personal med history, your service record, all that stuff is way to much talking.

    They violated your rights,

    did they run a search of the S#?
    did they run your ID? did you volunteer it? or did they take it?
    How long was the illegal detainment?
    From the first part of the clip, when we see/here the office call in a "detainment". Every thing after that is a **** situation.
    I am glad you had a camera going. It could just have made you a lot of money, if you want to go forward with a Federal civil rights suit
    Last edited by Iopencarry; 12-21-2011 at 10:34 PM.

  7. #7
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,220
    I concur with Dale.

    While they may have been fellow servicemembers, these men were not your friends. They were not entitled to ID or to otherwise detain you for any longer than would be necessary to determine that the firearm was unloaded.

    Your right to remain silent begins even before the police contacted you for openly carrying a firearm. The questions they were asking you were objective to getting you to confess to a crime so they could hook you up, seize your weapon for destruction, and put you in a jail cell.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138

    More gooder responses

    Agreed, too much offering of information.

    Deputy: "We're allowed to run the serial number."

    The proper response would be: "Deputy, please state the penal code section or case law that provides you the authority to run the serial number in this instance?"

    Most likely, the response of the deputy will be "departmental policy."

    Deputy: "If this gun has been used in a crime...."

    The proper response would be: "Deputy, what is your reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause to believe that this firearm is either stolen or has previously been used in a crime? What penal code section or case law provides you with the authority to seize personal property that you, as you have just admitted, don't know is the product of criminality?"

    Most likely, the response of the deputy will be "departmental policy."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3
    thanks for the info/advice guys, i might sound like a boot or newbie but this was my first OC run in with the cops. they took the gun while my hands were above my head, and asked for my ID. my step father and father in law are cops, i know i will not be able to prevent them from running my S/N, all i can do is say something. my papers are good so i have nothing to hide, but i do agree that i should have just pleaded the 5th and told the ******* that said he served to suck it, although i did tell him its not relevant, and gave him Base information (411) number instead of my chain of command. they dont give a rats ass, they laughed. but its a learning experience, i was detained for about 30 minutes, i have memorized the penal codes 12031 (e) about the search, as well as the pamphlet from the web site. what type of grounds would i have to stand on for a law suit? i also am deploying to afghanistan february, and i dont want any interference with that. i already have a lawyer, so he would probably stand in for me at court. ?
    thanks again guys

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    1) unlawful detainment
    2) illegal search and seize


    If you do not want to file a suit, due to being shipped out, at least file a complaint. Let the dept. and the city know they did wrong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Absolute FAIL!!!!

    the moment they contacted you, you acted like a criminal, or at least someone who was doing something wrong and you emboldend them to trample all over your rights. They do not have the right to search serial number unless you let them, they dont have right to ask for ID, unless your under arrest.

    Your buddy needs to do a lot more studying of the law and history of UOC here in CA and what to do say and how to act before doing this again.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,733
    +1 to remaining silent. If open carriers are going to spout the mantra of "a right unexercised is a right lost" then we should be exercising our right to remain silent with as much zeal as our right to open carry. Ask if you're detained, if you are, assert your right to remain silent. If you're not detained, then don't stop. Then when you're free to get the officer's business card. I've been watching open carry videos and reading reports for a while now and I have yet to see anybody do this correctly.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I damn near pulled all my hair out watching this video..... why give them all that info? DO YOU HAVE PTSD!?!? They were digging for information to find a reason to disarm an American. The police officers in this video hate freedom < I stand by this blanket statement.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,825
    While you answered correctly and didn't give out any wrong answers, you gave out unneeded answers.

    Officer Friendly's job is to investigate suspected crimes and arrest suspected criminals. Any time Officer Friendly asks someone a question beyond "Hey, hot (/cold) enough for ya?" he's developing probable cause.

    He's looking for illegal activity.
    He's looking to put someone in jail.
    He's looking at you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,219
    Surprised he didn't ask you what brand of coffee you drink and what size underwear. Blatant violation of rights, IF you had said "I do not consent to search or questioning, but will not resist". Now, you can do nothing about it.

    PS good for you for videoing.
    He's looking for illegal activity.
    He's looking to put someone in jail.
    He's looking at you.
    This is what a LEO is paid to do. Arrest, find a reason (if it exists) to arrest, attempt to detain and cause you to resist, cause you to disrespect him, and then have you take the ride and if you become afraid to exercise your rights all the better; then have a judge sort it out. Glad you weren't shot.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 12-22-2011 at 02:33 PM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  16. #16
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    Surprised he didn't ask you what brand of coffee you drink and what size underwear. Blatant violation of rights, IF you had said "I do not consent to search or questioning, but will not resist". Now, you can do nothing about it.

    PS good for you for videoing.


    This is what a LEO is paid to do. Arrest, find a reason (if it exists) to arrest, attempt to detain and cause you to resist, cause you to disrespect him, and then have you take the ride and if you become afraid to exercise your rights all the better; then have a judge sort it out. Glad you weren't shot.
    Agreed. While you didn't do bad (only a little worse than my first LEO encounter ) you gave up alot of info. If the local laws don't require you to identify yourself, then don't. Tell them politely you don't consent to search and seizure and then shut up.

    From what I understand the (e) check is discretionary on the part of the LE, they are not required to perform it. What if you told them that if they don't perform the check they have no reason to detain you and walk away? They only have authority to detain for the check, anything else goes beyond case law on (e) and Terry right?

    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by Baked on Grease View Post
    . What if you told them that if they don't perform the check they have no reason to detain you and walk away? They only have authority to detain for the check, anything else goes beyond case law on (e) and Terry right?

    Sent using tapatalk
    Failure to allow an E check is in itself a crime.

  18. #18
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Iopencarry View Post
    Failure to allow an E check is in itself a crime.
    Close, but not quite accurate.

    Failure to allow an e-check is probable cause to arrest for for being unlawfully loaded. Once they determine that you are in-fact unloaded; there is no crime, only an arrest.

  19. #19
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Barnes View Post
    my step father and father in law are cops
    Okay, that in itself probably explains your accommodating demeanor toward them. Being alone and surrounded by deputies is very intimidating, and I am sure that you wanted to do everything you could to seem as non-threatening as possible.

    Nothing wrong with being respectful and cordial, but you certainly did learn something about how Orange County law enforcement interpret the penal code and case law.

    By the way, what city?

    Also, how were you dressed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Barnes View Post
    i was detained for about 30 minutes
    Far beyond what is neccessary for an (e) check. And while they may record and run a check of the serial number should it just so happen to come into "plain view" during the inspection (funny how that darned serial number will ALWAYS happen to come into plain view), not only will the system cough out the information in far less than thirty minutes (less than five), but they have no authority to detain you pending completion of the stolen gun registry check. (See McCurdy, below)

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Barnes View Post
    what type of grounds would i have to stand on for a law suit?
    Depends upon how much money and time you have to devote to a suit. And this is what they rely on in order to get away with this sort of harassment.

    When UOCing, I keep a laminated card that bears the following information (reminders to self) in my shirt pocket. It is based upon the sequence of events that I have experienced during 12031(e) stops. None of this will prevent them from doing exactly what they intend, but it does get them on record justifying their actions...and the whole point is for you to ask the questions and for them to answer, not the other way around.


    California Peace Officer:

    To the best of my knowledge and intent, I am lawfully practicing UNLOADED OPEN CARRY, as permitted under PC 12025(f).

    1) Am I being placed under arrest ?
    [If “yes,” SHUT UP IMMEDIATELY !]

    2) Why am I being detained ?
    [Examination of firearm for ammunition]

    3) Could you please cite the specific statute or case-law authority for this detention ?
    [PC12031(e)]

    4) I do not consent to a search of my person or property, but I will not resist.

    5) Do you intend to physically restrain, and conduct a pat-down search of, my person ?
    [If “yes,” go to 6)]

    6) What facts and/or circumstances existed prior to this contact that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion:
    a) that criminality may be afoot; and,
    b) that I am in possession of a concealed weapon; and,
    c) that I am presently dangerous ?
    [All three conditions must be satisfied to support a “Terry v. Ohio” pat-down search.]

    Florida v. J.L. (2000): “The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search.”

    McCurdy v. Montgomery County, (2001): “When an officer literally has no idea whether a presumptively law-abiding citizen has violated the law, the Fourth Amendment clearly commands that government let the individual be.”

    United States v. Ubiles, (2000): “…an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.”

    United States v. King (1993): “…the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

    7) If you intend to ascertain whether this firearm is reported stolen, what facts and circumstances raise probable cause to believe so; and could you please cite the specific statute or case-law authority for this seizure and search ?

    The People v DeLong, (1970): “the examination permitted by Penal Code section 171e and section 12031e is … limited to a single purpose (i.e., ammunition).”

    Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office’s One Minute Brief No. 2008-22 appears to interpret Arizona v Hicks (1987) to suggest that: “If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases.”

    However, the qualifying condition is “If.” Not “When” And certainly not “You may so cause.” Further, the Brief provides no authority for maintaining possession of the firearm pending completion of the records check.

    While the Court in Arizona v Hicks may have held (in that case under review) that the mere recording of a serial number did not constitute a “seizure,” it also made clear that probable cause is required to invoke the “plain view” doctrine as it applies to seizures, and that probable cause to believe the item is stolen is also necessary to support the search for a serial number.

    Probable cause may be defined as sufficient reason based upon known facts and circumstances to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with
    a crime.

    “Plain view” doctrine is the rule that a law enforcement officer may make a seizure (to move or otherwise disturb) without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry
    or search.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •