Checking weapon at Tacoma court.

[slapmonkay]

Doubly so if you use a case with a biometric lock. With a case with a keyed lock or a combination lock they might demand (or even get a warrant to compel) you to surrender the key or combination. But they can't compel you to surrender your thumb.

How would one have the grounds to request said warrant in this scenario?

The above is what I quoted and said. Below is what you say.

If a police officer hands you a warrant, duly signed by a judge, are you going to refuse flatly to comply with it? Good way to wind up in handcuffs. Is the warrant valid? If you haven't done anything illegal it probably isn't. But by the time you could challenge it, the search and seizure has already happened.

And that assumes the police don't claim exigent circumstances and skip the warrant.

Laws don't stop criminal activity, they just give an avenue to punish it after it happens.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, that if an officer or anyone where to hand me a warrant telling me to provide a combination or open a locked safe even under threat of arrest for failing to obey I would not submit and I would invoke my right to remain silent. Under the 5th amendment I am not required to provide this information to them. They can take my safe and try and open it themselves but I am under no obligation to give them this information. The Supreme Court has said, a combination - as the “expression of the contents of an individual’s mind” — is protected by the 5th amendment.

Here is a good read:
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnolog...nt_Password_Protected&slreturn=20120803145739

In Fisher v. United States,[FOOTNOTE 11] Justice Brennan, in a separate opinion addressing the implicit authentication rationale, pointed out that "[a]n individual's books and papers are generally little more than an extension of his person." Now that passwords can literally be an "extension" of a person's body or behavior, it follows that the source of their content deserves protection.

We live in a time when biometric identifiers have been transformed into the means for acknowledging the existence, control, possession and authentication of computer files. As passwords shift from randomly chosen letters and numbers to "pieces of ourselves," we must be mindful that protecting "personal privacy" has always been a key purpose of the Fifth Amendment.

And when brain scans and functional MRIs are adapted to biometric security, we will have come full circle. A password whether drawn from our brains or our palms is still a password. And the choice of method is an expression of the "contents of the mind."

 

[carolina guy]

RCW 9A.56.180
Obscuring the identity of a machine.

(1) A person is guilty of obscuring the identity of a machine if he knowingly:

(a) Obscures the manufacturer's serial number or any other
distinguishing identification number or mark upon any vehicle,
machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or other device with intent to
render it unidentifiable; or

(b) Possesses a vehicle, machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or
other device held for sale knowing that the serial number or other
identification number or mark has been obscured.

(2) "Obscure" means to remove, deface, cover, alter, destroy, or
otherwise render unidentifiable.

(3) Obscuring the identity of a machine is a gross misdemeanor.

(BOLD is mine)
-------------------

Does this apply to firearms?

If yes (and it looks like 1a does apply)...

Based on the evidence manual link posted by gogodawgs, this looks like a "plain view" exception (p.204) covers any "privacy" issue: (formatting mine)

------

"The elements of a plain view search are that the officer has a prior lawful justification for the intrusion into the constitutionally protected area;" (not relevant...this is the state's property where this occurred, with the firearm in question being handed to the officer voluntarily in order to be granted admittance.)

"... that the item(s) seized were immediately recognized as contraband or as having some evidentiary value;" (a piece of tape was deliberately placed over the serial, and the same admitted to the officer, thus "...Obscures the manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing identification number or mark upon any vehicle, machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or other device with intent to render it unidentifiable"

"... and that the discovery of the incriminating evidence must be inadvertent." (the officer was not doing anything other than accepting the pistol in the course of his duties in accordance with WA law for admittance to the courthouse.)

------

Sounds like the OP was in luck that they did not decide to impound his pistol and cite him with a misdemeanor.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Does this apply to firearms?

If yes (and it looks like 1a does apply)...
.

I can tell you're not from Washington that law you cited had nothing to do with firearms.

Please read through the Washington posts because the law you think you're referring to has been covered already in another thread.

Besides you need to look in 9.41.xxx if I remember correctly.

 

[gogodawgs]

RCW 9A.56.180
Obscuring the identity of a machine.

(1) A person is guilty of obscuring the identity of a machine if he knowingly:

(a) Obscures the manufacturer's serial number or any other
distinguishing identification number or mark upon any vehicle,
machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or other device with intent to
render it unidentifiable; or

(b) Possesses a vehicle, machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or
other device held for sale knowing that the serial number or other
identification number or mark has been obscured.

(2) "Obscure" means to remove, deface, cover, alter, destroy, or
otherwise render unidentifiable.

(3) Obscuring the identity of a machine is a gross misdemeanor.

(BOLD is mine)
-------------------

Does this apply to firearms?

If yes (and it looks like 1a does apply)...

Based on the evidence manual link posted by gogodawgs, this looks like a "plain view" exception (p.204) covers any "privacy" issue: (formatting mine)

------

"The elements of a plain view search are that the officer has a prior lawful justification for the intrusion into the constitutionally protected area;" (not relevant...this is the state's property where this occurred, with the firearm in question being handed to the officer voluntarily in order to be granted admittance.)

"... that the item(s) seized were immediately recognized as contraband or as having some evidentiary value;" (a piece of tape was deliberately placed over the serial, and the same admitted to the officer, thus "...Obscures the manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing identification number or mark upon any vehicle, machine, engine, apparatus, appliance, or other device with intent to render it unidentifiable"

"... and that the discovery of the incriminating evidence must be inadvertent." (the officer was not doing anything other than accepting the pistol in the course of his duties in accordance with WA law for admittance to the courthouse.)

------

Sounds like the OP was in luck that they did not decide to impound his pistol and cite him with a misdemeanor.

Just my $0.02.

So, having my firearm in a holster is a crime? As it obscures the serial?

No the above has nothing to do with firearms, please troll elsewhere.

 

[carolina guy]

So, having my firearm in a holster is a crime? As it obscures the serial?

No the above has nothing to do with firearms, please troll elsewhere.

Holsters are different and you know it. Why not ask if keeping it in your house is the same. I am not trolling...just reading and trying to learn.

 

[carolina guy]

I can tell you're not from Washington that law you cited had nothing to do with firearms.

Please read through the Washington posts because the law you think you're referring to has been covered already in another thread.

Besides you need to look in 9.41.xxx if I remember correctly.

Don't see a 9.41 in the RCW I will take a look elsewhere, but thought that someone could help point to it without all the extra digging.

 

[BigDave]

RCW 9A.56.180
Obscuring the identity of a machine.

You say this is your $0.02, hmm it is not even worth that, this is not the RCW that covers Weapons and only deals with Machines.

Try this RCW and it has nothing about hiding a serial number on a firearm.

RCW 9.41.140 Alteration of identifying marks — Exceptions.

No person may change, alter, remove, or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification on any firearm. Possession of any firearm upon which any such mark shall have been changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has changed, altered, removed, or obliterated the same. This section shall not apply to replacement barrels in old firearms, which barrels are produced by current manufacturers and therefor do not have the markings on the barrels of the original manufacturers who are no longer in business. This section also shall not apply if the changes do not make the firearm illegal for the person to possess under state or federal law.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 419; 1961 c 124 § 10; 1935 c 172 § 14; RRS § 2516-14.]

note this is within the firearms section of the RCW 9.41

 

[carolina guy]

You say this is your $0.02, hmm it is not even worth that, this is not the RCW that covers Weapons and only deals with Machines.

Try this RCW and it has nothing about hiding a serial number on a firearm.

RCW 9.41.140 Alteration of identifying marks — Exceptions.

No person may change, alter, remove, or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification on any firearm. Possession of any firearm upon which any such mark shall have been changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has changed, altered, removed, or obliterated the same. This section shall not apply to replacement barrels in old firearms, which barrels are produced by current manufacturers and therefor do not have the markings on the barrels of the original manufacturers who are no longer in business. This section also shall not apply if the changes do not make the firearm illegal for the person to possess under state or federal law.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 419; 1961 c 124 § 10; 1935 c 172 § 14; RRS § 2516-14.]

note this is within the firearms section of the RCW 9.41

(*thumbs up*)....I didn't notice the 9 instead of 9A where I was looking.

 

[carolina guy]

I can tell you're not from Washington that law you cited had nothing to do with firearms.

Please read through the Washington posts because the law you think you're referring to has been covered already in another thread.

Besides you need to look in 9.41.xxx if I remember correctly.

Did my user name or the location in my avatar give me away?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Why would anyone want any more proof than our constitutions, to say states agents (who have no "rights") can invade your "privacy". Besides the 4th amendment isn't about "privacy" a word rooted in relieving your self of certain bodily functions. Like the 2A has nothing to do with self defense.

Self defense and privacy were already common law rights our courts are supposed to recognize.

 

[rapgood]

Regulating "Fundamental" Rights

Simply because a right is considered "fundamental" does not mean that the state cannot regulate the exercise of that right in some fashion. It simply means that a complete prohibition by the state of exercising that right is not permitted.

Freedom of speech, in both the U.S. Const., Amend. I and freedom of speech in, for example, Wash. Const. Art. I, § 5 may be limited to time, place & manner restrictions without being offended.

 

[Freedom1Man]

(*thumbs up*)....I didn't notice the 9 instead of 9A where I was looking.

Is that an apology?

And yes I could tell you were from out of state. I don't go sticking my nose in to the legal matters of other states without reading their laws first.

That is why I pointed you in the direction of where to look.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

It probably is a violation of rights. But the supreme courts (state and federal) maintain that the constitution is not a suicide pact, and that a compelling interest of the state can interfere lawfully with unalienable rights. They have more guns than I do. I can die, or I can fight the system within the system. The latter usually gets more done.

The latter only allows the system to gain further control, by setting precedents in favor of tyranny..

Each new case law allowing a bit more, and a bit more...

Now they can plant GPS trackers on your car with no warrant, and search your cellphone (making a copy of all its content) when you get pulled over for speeding, or that 'tail light that was out' that magically fixed itself when you pulled over.

 

[carolina guy]

The latter only allows the system to gain further control, by setting precedents in favor of tyranny..

Each new case law allowing a bit more, and a bit more...

Now they can plant GPS trackers on your car with no warrant, and search your cellphone (making a copy of all its content) when you get pulled over for speeding, or that 'tail light that was out' that magically fixed itself when you pulled over.

Uhhh....wasn't U.S. v. Jones pretty clear that the FBI needed a warrant to place a GPS tracker?