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?
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)
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.