Redondo Beach PD E-Checks on Day after Peruta Decision

hgreen · Dec 12, 2010

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=933282132995&oid=122802434426757&comments

Two of us who were at the South Bay Open Carry regular monthly meet-up at the local Turners went over to the South Bay Galleria Mall across the street for lunch. After having lunch (at CPK

) we walked through the mall for a couple minutes.

On our way back to Turners we were stopped just as we were stepping off the mall parking lot.

The officer says that they only did it because the mall pays a lot in taxes.

After the encounter the officers came over to our table at Turners and talked with everyone else there for a few minutes, performing no further e-checks.

oc4ever · Dec 12, 2010

great job guys

You did a great job guys. Respectful,firm and knowledgeable while recording everything clearly.Older Sargent knows better than jumping into a pile of civil lawsuit crap without first consulting with his boss. Notice officer #2 does just what the sergeant asks and no more. When the video camera is rolling, LEO's know to become very careful with their actions. The playing field is level ,and it is not your word against theirs anymore.

Ca Patriot · Dec 12, 2010

HAHA

COP : "were you involved with the carry open people" ?

COP : "so you're saying I cant look at the serial number?" - Wow, looks like he sure knows the law. I guess cops arent actually supposed to know the law, they are just supposed to arrest people.

COP : "yeah, can you 21 me on the cell phone so we can hide our communications to avoid lawsuits and to continue our harrasment and violations of the US Consitution"

COP : "Well, the galleria pays alot of taxes so I kinda HAVE to violate your constiutional rights"

Sorry, but this is not a good thing here.

ryanburbridge · Dec 12, 2010

Ca Patriot said:
HAHA

COP : "were you involved with the carry open people" ?

COP : "so you're saying I cant look at the serial number?" - Wow, looks like he sure knows the law. I guess cops arent actually supposed to know the law, they are just supposed to arrest people.

COP : "yeah, can you 21 me on the cell phone so we can hide our communications to avoid lawsuits and to continue our harrasment and violations of the US Consitution"

COP : "Well, the galleria pays alot of taxes so I kinda HAVE to violate your constiutional rights"

Sorry, but this is not a good thing here.

This is crazy. if he would of talked over the radio we could find out what was said. Now personal cell we will never know. i love the ending hes about to lecture you then realizes he on tv lol.

good job Hgreen what did you use to get the vid?

JoeSparky · Dec 12, 2010

I've not ever been "e-checked" or approached by a LEO while carrying but.... What would have been the outcome instead of allowing the "E" check based on the 12031(e) statutes to simply state at the outset that you object to and refuse ANY sort of search or seziure including any search based upon 12031(e), but you will not resist if they insist. this will preserve your rights under the constitution and clearly establish that what is occuring is NOT A CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER.

12031(e) IMO is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it allows the LEO to conduct a search of your property simply because it is legally carried WITHOUT ANY RAS OR PROBABLE CAUSE!

hgreen · Dec 12, 2010

JoeSparky said:
I've not ever been "e-checked" or approached by a LEO while carrying but.... What would have been the outcome instead of allowing the "E" check based on the 12031(e) statutes to simply state at the outset that you object to and refuse ANY sort of search or seziure including any search based upon 12031(e), but you will not resist if they insist. this will preserve your rights under the constitution and clearly establish that what is occuring is NOT A CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER.

12031(e) IMO is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it allows the LEO to conduct a search of your property simply because it is legally carried WITHOUT ANY RAS OR PROBABLE CAUSE!

Even stating that will not make a difference unless you plan on pursuing legal action. Unless someone is willing to bankroll a law suit, you'll probably find most encounters go down like this in CA.

ConditionThree · Dec 12, 2010

JoeSparky said:
I've not ever been "e-checked" or approached by a LEO while carrying but.... What would have been the outcome instead of allowing the "E" check based on the 12031(e) statutes to simply state at the outset that you object to and refuse ANY sort of search or seziure including any search based upon 12031(e), but you will not resist if they insist. this will preserve your rights under the constitution and clearly establish that what is occuring is NOT A CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER.

12031(e) IMO is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it allows the LEO to conduct a search of your property simply because it is legally carried WITHOUT ANY RAS OR PROBABLE CAUSE!

The statute is the probable cause;

(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.

If that isnt enough, such a refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect your firearm would probably result in a misdemeanor charge of delaying a peace officer under PC 148. Stating that you object will not deter deputies or officers from doing what they feel is necessary. My objection in my most recent contact, as well as others who have had encounters with police who insisted on inspecting for loaded condition as well as searches for wants on our firearm serial numbers has gone unchallenged in court. Its going to take more than 'refusing consent' or 'objecting' to the search.

mjones · Dec 12, 2010

ConditionThree said:
The statute is the probable cause;

The statute establishes probable cause for arrest, but only if the check is refused. Prior to refusal there is neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause, only 'administrative authority' to check the loaded state.

JoeSparky · Dec 12, 2010

mjones said:
The statute establishes probable cause for arrest, but only if the check is refused. Prior to refusal there is neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause, only 'administrative authority' to check the loaded state.

And I don't see how stating the you do not consent but will not resist IS NOT ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN!

Gooelf · Dec 12, 2010

mjones said:
The statute establishes probable cause for arrest, but only if the check is refused. Prior to refusal there is neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause, only 'administrative authority' to check the loaded state.

To go further this is obviously unconstitutional the way it is drafted since it provides and blanket warrant for an illegal search. It's obviously against the 4th Amendment, for instance what if it stated instead that police have the authority to inspect your living room to insure compliance with local fire code and refusal to allow such inspection is probable cause for whatever... Ok so this is a lame example but the principle is the same. Why couldn't judges review without the necessity for a lawsuit, maybe have a different challenge medium that is not too costly for an average citizen to initiate.

hgreen · Dec 12, 2010

Gooelf said:
To go further this is obviously unconstitutional the way it is drafted since it provides and blanket warrant for an illegal search. It's obviously against the 4th Amendment, for instance what if it stated instead that police have the authority to inspect your living room to insure compliance with local fire code and refusal to allow such inspection is probable cause for whatever... Ok so this is a lame example but principle is the same.

So who is willing to put their money where their mouth is and start a fund for legal challenge of 12031 and 626.9 ?

MKEgal · Dec 12, 2010

Some business that "pays a lot in taxes" gets precedence over citizens' rights???
They could have told the mall security folks that they took care of the situation, everything was fine, even without committing an unconstitutional search.
On a completely different tangent, that second cop was kinda cute.

Firemark · Dec 13, 2010

Couple of things,

Every cop I have spoken about OC remembers seeing the bulletin and getting a briefing at lineup one day maybe 1-2 years ago but thats it...Almost all of them dont remember what is allowed or not, they remember they can check the weapon, and somehow they can check the serial number, and thats about it... Then they fall back on their training and experience, you are the source of a complaint and are probably breaking the law in some manner otherwise they never would have got a complaint, so they are going to try and get your info to run priors and find something, anything to stick to you.

Although we may have been thru dozens of E checks, and we study and discuss the laws frequently, almost every officer you encounter this will be their very first E check. And they dont know what to do and stay out of trouble..

Also they are not used to sheeple exerting their soverign rights and challenging their authority,

CenTex · Dec 13, 2010

hgreen said:
So who is willing to put their money where their mouth is and start a fund for legal challenge of 12031 and 626.9 ?

Just like you say, maybe we ought to start an Open Carry Legal Defense Fund that will pool money in an interest bearing account and have it ready to assist in paying for the defense of someone who the members of the foundation considers worthy of such assistance. It is just a thought. But if we really want to challenge this unconstitutional law, someone has to be willing to take it on. We need a good lawyer who is 100% behind Open Carry, so much so that she/he open carries. OCDO boast of 23,525 members. If each gave $10 a month that would come to $235,250 in one month and $2,823,000 in one year. Can you see the potential? Of course, I am a realist and I know that not all members would, or could, contribute on a monthly basis.

We would need a Treasurer and a Board that would manage the money. No money could be withdrawn without multiple signatures and the approval of a committee that would be in charge of viewing cases.

It's just a thought!

demnogis · Dec 13, 2010

"I Can't tell them No. They pay big taxes."

Just think about that phrase. For a moment.

I think that sums up the situation in CA entirely.

Ca Patriot · Dec 13, 2010

demnogis said:
"I Can't tell them No. They pay big taxes."

Just think about that phrase. For a moment.

I think that sums up the situation in CA entirely.

I live in a city here in LA that has ALOT of movie and tv show filming on location. The film crews are required by their permits to have uniformed police officers on scene providing security.

One day I went down to take pictures of the movie stars and the film crew security told me to leave even when I wasn in an area that their permit didnt cover. When I wouldnt leave they called over the police and the detained me for 2 hours away from the film location.

Finally when the filming was over and the movie stars were gone the police let me go. One of the officers flat out told me that the department loves the over time and its huge cash cow so the police will do anything the film crews ask them to do (which includes violating my rights).

Growing up I was always pro-police. Not anymore though.

chewy352 · Dec 13, 2010

MKEgal said:
Some business that "pays a lot in taxes" gets precedence over citizens' rights???
They could have told the mall security folks that they took care of the situation, everything was fine, even without committing an unconstitutional search.
On a completely different tangent, that second cop was kinda cute.

As a security guard who has called the police many times I can tell you that the police usually don't even go over to talk with security afterwards. Each time I have had to approach the police and always get the impression that they are not interested in talking to me. It has gotten to the point now that as long as the suspect leaves my property I'm happy and go on my way.

Gooelf · Dec 13, 2010

What about the taxes I pay? Yea it might not amount to huge sums, but it is a lot to me who barely makes enough to live. The taxes that mall pays is probably a pitance to them.

Jonesy · Dec 13, 2010

I can't even imagine living in such a place where you don't have the basic freedom to carry a loaded firearm. Y'all are welcome to move out of that foreign country and come to Virginia.

hgreen · Dec 13, 2010

Jonesy said:
I can't even imagine living in such a place where you don't have the basic freedom to carry a loaded firearm. Y'all are welcome to move out of that foreign country and come to Virginia.

I will be taking that offer very soon.

Redondo Beach PD E-Checks on Day after Peruta Decision

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Centurion

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member