Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-11-2013, 1:05 AM
johnny1290 johnny1290 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,581
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I got pulled over, answered "the question", and passed the search. I talked to other guys that tried the you can't search my car thing, etc and got arrested and car searched. Case was dropped before trial, but not after spending time in the jail and $1500 on a lawyer + tow fees.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-11-2013, 1:19 AM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,757
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.
Does anyone know the exact wording for this. Is they do a "safety" check, are they also allowed to record and run the serial numbers through the system, or just the quick check?
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-11-2013, 10:48 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI View Post
Does anyone know the exact wording for this. Is they do a "safety" check, are they also allowed to record and run the serial numbers through the system, or just the quick check?
Here is the exact wording of the statute (Penal Code section 25850 (b)):
(b) 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 the 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.
The law on recording and/or running serial numbers is not entirely clear.

I believe that an officer is permitted to record and/or check a serial number on a weapon provided it is readily visible and the length of the detention is not unreasonably prolonged by doing so. There is a large body of case law that provides officers are not required to close their eyes to things they see (like a serial number) while in the performance of their duties. At the same time, the subject is detained while the weapon inspection is in progress and there is also a large body of case law that provides a detention cannot last longer than is necessary.

Others have cited the case of Arizona v Hicks as standing for the proposition that it is unlawful to record and/or run serial numbers during the inspection. In Hicks, officers were searching an apartment, under exigent circumstances, for weapons and ammunition. They observed some expensive stereo equipment. They moved the equipment in order to record the serial numbers and learned the equipment had been stolen. The court suppressed the evidence of serial numbers since the officers had no reason to move the equipment. But the problem in applying the Hicks rationale to weapon serial number is that there is no movement issue. There are a few weapons where S/N's are covered by grips or otherwise are not readily visible. Hicks would preclude the removal of grips to view a S/N.

Some folks have advocated placing electrical tape or something similar to cover a S/N, without damaging or removing it, in an attempt to frustrate an officers ability to run the number. That action may very well trigger the application of Hicks, but it also triggers the application of Penal Code section 537(e) which is a misdemeanor. The subject can then go to jail. The weapon is evidence of the violation, and then become subject to destruction as an instrumentality of the offense.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:13 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

But....if its in a locked box? They need a search warrant.

Lock yer chit!
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:29 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillaFunk View Post
But....if its in a locked box? They need a search warrant.

Lock yer chit!
Under the circumstances of the OP's post, no search warrant is needed.

There's no magical properties about a locked box that generates a need for a search warrant.

U.S. v Ross is the primary Supreme Court case governing vehicle searches. Here are two useful excerpts from that decision.
"Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase"

"We hold that they may conduct a search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize in a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched.""
Search and Seizure law is really complex. There are many instances where a search warrant would be required, but this isn't one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:40 AM
stilly stilly is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Currently in a shanty I made in the river bottom by Eastvale.
Posts: 10,509
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.
...

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.
Good info.

Now just one more question. My trunk is a locked trunk. BUT I also have a button that can be pressed to open it up from inside the vehicle. Is my trunk still considered a locked container for transporting firearms?

It only took about 4 minutes in OT/you tube to see that all cops were out to get you despite the 2-3 positive contacts that I have had with them outside of this forum group. It is sad how mass media can do that...

Last edited by stilly; 09-11-2013 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:45 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Well, I don't have to tell him whats in the case. I could lie. Its not illegal to lie. I don't remember the combination anyways. (rolls eyes).

Go through the hassle of searching my entire vehicle, under the guise of 'probable cause', only to find a locked case. Should the case be somehow opened, there would be about 5 officers on site by that time. Once I do remember the combination, they could find an unloaded weapon registered to me. Or my girlfriends bikini top.

So, they find nothing, really, after detaining me for.....hours.

Grounds for a great lawsuit.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:48 AM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied Commiefornia
Posts: 6,807
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The problem is that most people are too distracted by absolutely nothing, and can't pay attention to ANYTHING is going on around them. Check your rear-view mirror every 10 seconds whenever possible... Drive in ONE lane... use your signal... adjust your speed according to what is going on in front of you... don't bobble-head left and right if you are going straight you have the right of way so don't stop if nothing is in front of you... know the right-of-way (which should be logical, but many still can't), and pay attention... I haven't been pulled over in MANY years, and I do tend to speed, but I TRY not to be an azz unless someone is holding up traffic like a pot-head...
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-11-2013, 1:38 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillaFunk View Post
Well, I don't have to tell him whats in the case. I could lie. Its not illegal to lie. I don't remember the combination anyways. (rolls eyes).

Go through the hassle of searching my entire vehicle, under the guise of 'probable cause', only to find a locked case. Should the case be somehow opened, there would be about 5 officers on site by that time. Once I do remember the combination, they could find an unloaded weapon registered to me. Or my girlfriends bikini top.

So, they find nothing, really, after detaining me for.....hours.

Grounds for a great lawsuit.
Sir,

Check out Post #25. You could certainly file a lawsuit under your circumstances, but you're not going to win anything, and that's after incurring a lot of legal fees. To win a suit, you have to show that a right was violated and that you suffered damages. Where the officers act in accordance with published case law, you're not going to be able to show the violation of a right. In short, you win a lawsuit when the officers break the rules, the officers win when they follow the rules.

The fact that you disagree with "the rules" doesn't give you grounds for winning a lawsuit.

Last edited by RickD427; 09-11-2013 at 1:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-11-2013, 2:53 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

^ Damn.

either way, that was probably the most respectful and polite 'actually, you are wrong' I have ever received.

Respect. And thanks.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-11-2013, 3:00 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillaFunk View Post
^ Damn.

either way, that was probably the most respectful and polite 'actually, you are wrong' I have ever received.

Respect. And thanks.
Sir,

You're most welcome.

All in the spirit of lively debate. I had to eat a little "humble pie" in a different thread on this forum just yesterday...................
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-11-2013, 3:07 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilly View Post
Good info.

Now just one more question. My trunk is a locked trunk. BUT I also have a button that can be pressed to open it up from inside the vehicle. Is my trunk still considered a locked container for transporting firearms?

It only took about 4 minutes in OT/you tube to see that all cops were out to get you despite the 2-3 positive contacts that I have had with them outside of this forum group. It is sad how mass media can do that...
Stilly,

IANAL, please keep that in mind, but speaking as a LEO, I think that you're OK. Here's the definition of a "Locked Container":

16850. As used in Sections 17740, 23925, 25105, 25205, and 25610,
in Article 3 (commencing with Section 25505) of Chapter 2 of Division
5 of Title 4, in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) of
Division 5 of Title 4, and in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
26400) of Division 5 of Title 4, "locked container" means a secure
container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock,
combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked
container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a
motor vehicle.

The key theme seems to be the requirement for a "locking device." I would think that your electrical lock would meet that test, but others could view it differently. A mechanical lock would come closer to meeting the definition terms.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-17-2013, 8:55 AM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,576
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

OK...

Same Question, but assume you are in a truck, coming home from a day of outdoor plinking and have been a responsible calgunner cleaning up after yourself.

Guns are unloaded, in locked containers, under a blanket in rear seat. Trash can full of spent shells and targets in pu bed...

Now how would you answer?
__________________
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
--Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. --Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-17-2013, 9:55 AM
rman's Avatar
rman rman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

remain silent and floor it


-Armand

Sent from my Apple Galaxy
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:11 AM
billofrights's Avatar
billofrights billofrights is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SFV
Posts: 2,167
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rman View Post
remain silent and floor it


-Armand

Sent from my Apple Galaxy
You forgot to add "while screaming 'you'll never take me alive!'"
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:27 AM
krwada's Avatar
krwada krwada is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,459
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have gotten pulled over for a moving violation while coming back from the range. Basically, it was those !###!!!@@@! bikers. You know, those arrogant types trying to race you down the hill on their ultra-expensive bicycles.

Anyway; the officer looked at me, and looked at the back of my SUV. Clearly, I had everything that looked like I just came back from the range. He was friendly enough. The conversation went like this:

Officer: Hello Sir; do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: Yes officer, I think I was speeding.
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: I think so, I think I was a little bit over the speed limit. I did not use good judgement and attempted to pass a cyclist on the way down ... he saw this and started cranking those pedals!!!
Officer: Smiling, yes, unfortunately the cyclists do have the right of way, and the speed limit is 30MPH. I clocked you going at 50MPH. However, I will write it down as 45MPH. You were going way to fast, and the higher speed will get a more severe penalty.
Me; Gee? Really? Thank you very much! You know what? I really appreciate you doing this for me!
Officer: No problem sir; Just please be more careful next time. With this moving violation ticket, you should be able to deal with this on-line. Again, please be more careful and do not do this again.
Officer: ... after writing the ticket and handing it, then looking in the back where all my firearms are stored ... "Have a nice day sir!"

This is what happened, As usual, for some reason, I got off easy ... again.

I have a bunch of LEO's as close personal friends. The following is what they tell me.

1. We all break the law during our daily lives. Just do not break the bad ones. For example, do not drink and drive, or hurt anybody.
2. Use common sense and judgement in what you do. The law enforcement officers are there to do their job. They also are allowed to use their judgement too.
3. Accept whatever fate may come upon you. Do this, in a courteous and professional fashion. Do not push any buttons. Again, common sense rules here.
4. NEVER, EVER ... I MEAN NEVER EVER! ... offer up more information than what is asked!

Yep ... on #4, ALL of my law enforcement friends say this! They say this falls under using the common sense.

To a TEE... most, (not all), law enforcement officers are very strong 2A advocates. From my own personal experience; I have seen them give the Occupy and other Liberal types a very hard time with things such as carrying pen, pocket knives, bottles, rocks, bricks, tire irons and clubs. As I recounted here, they cut me a lot of slack with my firearms in the back seat of my SUV. I was clearly carrying some long guns and pistols. They appeared to be properly stored in their cases in the back.

Last edited by krwada; 09-17-2013 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:34 AM
kelvin232 kelvin232 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 647
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geeknow View Post
Supposed to jump from the car, do a tactical roll / lock the car / swallow the keys combo move, and immediately demand to know whether you "are being detained or are free to leave".
^^^ This.
__________________
__________________________
If I didn't reply to your post, it's not because you won; It's because what you said was dumb and you have no hope of realizing it.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-21-2013, 1:14 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This is the absolute best post I have ever seen on this subject. Thanks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-21-2013, 1:32 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,576
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The CalGuns Online store has a tag to put on your gun carrying cases:
http://calguns-advertising.net/store...products_id=39

CGN-tagfront.jpg

CGN-tagback.jpg

In case you cant read the small print in the images,
It reads:

Quote:
In case of Encounter, Detainment, or Arrest:
  1. STATE that you DO NOT wish to answer questions, then REMAIN SILENT.
  2. DO NOT CONSENT to a Search
  3. DEMAND AN ATTORNEY
  4. CALL CGF at (800) 556-2109
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VOLUNTEER INFORMATION!
On rear it reads:

Quote:
NOTICE TO POLICE
The Contents of this Container are Private.
Voluntary Consent to Search is NOT Granted!
A Search Warrant is Required for Access.
Owner/Suspect Invokes His/Her Right to Remain Silent.
I've never had an issue with being pulled over or detained while carrying a firearm in my auto, but this seems like a surefire way to piss off a LEO.

Can any LEO's or Attorneys please chime in on this for a legitimate answer???
__________________
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
--Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. --Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-21-2013, 1:40 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Personally it depends where I am. In the LA basin, Bay Area, Sacto, Stockton, San Diego, ect. I would just say no. In the more rural parts of the state I'll tell it straight.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)

Last edited by Meplat; 09-21-2013 at 1:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-21-2013, 1:41 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,963
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
The CalGuns Online store has a tag to put on your gun carrying cases:
http://calguns-advertising.net/store...products_id=39

Attachment 266793

Attachment 266794

In case you cant read the small print in the images,
It reads:


On rear it reads:


I've never had an issue with being pulled over or detained while carrying a firearm in my auto, but this seems like a surefire way to piss off a LEO.

Can any LEO's or Attorneys please chime in on this for a legitimate answer???

I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Last edited by SVT-40; 09-21-2013 at 1:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-21-2013, 2:05 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,547
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Additionally, the sticker maintains that "a warrant is required for access." This is rarely the case where a motor vehicle is involved and there is probable cause for a search (refer to U.S. v Ross). Search and Seizure law is really complicated. There going to be cases where a search warrant is needed, but in more than 30 years of searching vehicles, I've very rarely needed a warrant.

The Supreme Court has already considered the question of whether a person can invoke their right to remain silent, in a written form, in advance of questioning. The Court held that such attempts were not a valid exercise of that right (refer to McNeil v Wisconsin).

The sticker may be nice "feel good" gesture for someone to put on their car, but the sticker contains some significant legal errors and it's simply not going to change to outcome of a traffic stop.

Last edited by RickD427; 09-21-2013 at 2:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-21-2013, 2:35 PM
jeffxbr jeffxbr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was detained in the back of the cop car because I said yes. I was told they can do that for officer safety. What's happens if I just refuse to answer next time ? I don't think that's a crime
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-21-2013, 2:44 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Typically the question I'm asked around here involves "You have anything in the car I need to be worried about? Bombs, bazookas, etc".

The answer is "no". He doesn't need to be worried about my gun, and it's not a bomb or bazooka....
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-21-2013, 2:47 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,576
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.
I wouldn't just point to the gun case tag and be silent!

What I'm asking is... if I follow the advice on that tag it may rile an officer and in the long run cause me more grief?

However, I am also pretty sure that CGF wouldn't create and sell such an item if what's printed on it wasn't reviewed by their attorneys.

ANY ATTORNEYS/LEO's CARE TO ADD TO THIS???
__________________
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
--Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. --Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-22-2013, 3:36 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,963
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
I wouldn't just point to the gun case tag and be silent!

What I'm asking is... if I follow the advice on that tag it may rile an officer and in the long run cause me more grief?

However, I am also pretty sure that CGF wouldn't create and sell such an item if what's printed on it wasn't reviewed by their attorneys.

ANY ATTORNEYS/LEO's CARE TO ADD TO THIS???
Just don't be a Ahole .... It's pretty much as simple as that... If you answer questions in a evasive or angry way you will get the officers attention, and possibly lead him to inquire further, because most people are not evasive or angry...

Evasion and anger are often used to cover up undetected criminal behavior....

As I said the "tags" are just a advertising gimmick, and carry no weight of law...Yes the "tags are "reviewed" by attorneys.... However no attorney will tell you that a "tag" overrides a persons direct answers, or an officers PC to search...

On a side note I have similar magnet warnings on my safes....As a joke!!
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:15 AM
Gemini Effect Gemini Effect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 342
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kel-tec-innovations View Post
I do not have any weapons.

Weapons: An instrument of attack or defense in combat

My tools do not fall under any of those at the moment or intend/plan to use it during the drive so NO its not a weapon, but a complex tool. No different than a hammer, nail gun, paintball gun, kitchen knife, scissors etc.

The answer "I do not have anything illegal is the proper answer"

If they ask you to step out, lock the doors behind you. If they insist on search "I do not consent to any searches" and keep repeating it. Do not physically resist or they will kick your arse, tase you, pepper spray or beat you into a pulp or shoot you and charge you with assaulting an officer.

Try to find a witness, if possible, or a camera, but the officer might smash your phone and kick your arse so watch out.

If the officer is an arsehole he will do it anyway. A calgunner here experience where the officer said "I can't hear you" and searches while the calgunner continue to say "I do not consent to any searches. "

Get the officers badge and name and call a LAWYER and file a complaint with the police department.
While most of what you said sounds pretty good, your definition of a weapon and its uses is pretty horrible. A gun is a weapon, plain and simple.
__________________
My YouTube Project: http://www.youtube.com/user/BlueonGoldZ/videos

Last edited by Gemini Effect; 09-25-2013 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:22 AM
Armando de la Guerra Armando de la Guerra is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,020
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In 50 years of driving, I've never had a cop ask me if there are weapons in the car. They almost always ask 'do you know why I stopped you?' My answer is always 'no'.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-08-2013, 4:07 PM
Not a Cook Not a Cook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Simple questions that are somewhat related:

1) If a LEO pulls me over for a routine traffic stop, why does that LEO invariably ask whether I have firearms or anything illegal in the vehicle?
2) Are LEOs instructed to ask this question routinely, or is there a "trigger" of some sort that leads to the question being asked?
3) If LEOs are being instructed to ask these questions, is it due to a "from the top down" anti-firearms bias, in order to "go on a fishing expedition" while I'm stopped, or something else?

Note: as far as I am aware, nothing about my appearance or my vehicles' appearances would suggest that I might be carrying a firearm or anything illegal. I also have a clean driving record and no criminal record. I'd be very interested in hearing the feedback of the LEOs who are contributing to this thread. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-08-2013, 4:49 PM
Reelemup's Avatar
Reelemup Reelemup is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,413
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

When I had that question asked a very few times I said yes when I did and I said no when I did not have guns in my car. Nobody searched anything or asked about guns again.
__________________
Fish molester also pick shrooms
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:13 PM
tackdriver tackdriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 556
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Do you know why I stopped you?
Is it because you like tall, blond guys??

Seriously though, the question I've always had on this matter is: Since your handguns will be in a locked case, if you refuse to give over the key or combo would that be considered "interfering" with a LEO?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:59 PM
billofrights's Avatar
billofrights billofrights is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SFV
Posts: 2,167
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It never ceases to amaze me that people assume that placing a firearm inside their car AUTOMATICALLY makes it immediately evident to LEO that you have one. How often have you EVER been asked about guns in the car prior to buying your first firearm? I have never been asked.

That said, thanks for making this a sticky, it's still a useful point to address.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-09-2013, 1:14 PM
Not a Cook Not a Cook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billofrights View Post
How often have you EVER been asked about guns in the car prior to buying your first firearm? I have never been asked.
Thankfully I get pulled over very rarely, but I seem to always get asked whether I "have a gun or anything illegal in the vehicle" (see my previous post several posts up).
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-09-2013, 1:16 PM
Spyguy's Avatar
Spyguy Spyguy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 7,390
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_k_lopez View Post
2) Don't drive around in your illegal "look at me" lowered/raised, loud stereo bumping, tinted windows, broken tail light vehicle speeding or making illegal lane changes when transporting firearms period.
FIFY
__________________
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, 9th US Circuit Crt of Appeals
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-09-2013, 2:37 PM
c-wick's Avatar
c-wick c-wick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: LBC
Posts: 207
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyguy View Post
FIFY
or just stop driving period...
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-11-2013, 7:24 PM
KABA556 KABA556 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 307
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablito View Post
If i get pulled over while transporting my firearms and the police ask if there are any weapons and I say yes, do i have to show them my guns and prove that they are legal and properly stowed? Do my 4th amendment rights apply?I choose to maintain as much privacy as the constitution grants me at all times. Thanks


Unless you are required by law to notify [such as notifying for concealed carry- which some states, such as mine, require] the standard procedure should be to declare, "there is no contraband in this vehicle."


That is technically correct and it avoids issues that might arise from lying to the police.


If the officer then directly replies along the lines of, "I directly asked you if you have weapons, I didn't ask about contraband, do you have any weapons in this vehicle?"

I would then inquire, "am I being detained or am I free to go because I wish to be allowed to go free on my way, are you detaining me?"

If he says that he is detaining you, then you simply state, "I have nothing further to say and I wish to speak with my lawyer."

If he states that he is not detaining you then you are free to go and you should confirm this by stating, "since you are not detaining me, I am free to go on my way and I am now going to proceed to leave."

If he tells you that you cannot go, then he is actually detaining you and you're not free to pull away.



Telling an officer that you are not going to answer any of his questions and that you are going to call your attorney requires some nerve, you have to be able to hold up under pressure. The natural human urge is to answer a question when a question is asked and try to explain your way out of trouble.

About a year ago I had an encounter and I asked them, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" and I was told, "you can walk home if you want, you're free to go, but we're detaining your vehicle" at which time I said, "I am not answering any more of your questions, I have nothing further to say to you, and I want to call my attorney."

They were somewhat surprised when I promptly contacted my attorney who I have on speed dial.

In the end I was able to drive away from the encounter.



The less you say to the police the better.

Keep encounters as short as possible, do your best to avoid them if at all possible.


The easiest way to avoid an encounter with police is to simply obey all traffic laws. I have never received a traffic ticket for the simple reason that I obey all traffic laws. Although in regards to the speed limit I generally keep my speed within a range of 5-8 miles of the posted limit, depending on road conditions. Driving too fast or too slow is a recipe for being pulled over and scrutinized [especially those people who drive 20-30 miles UNDER the limit on a highway- because they're being too careful].

Even still, you cannot always avoid encounters with police. At some point in your life you will hit a deer or you will be struck by a careless motorist and the police will respond.

The less you say, the better, don't make small-talk, only discuss the issue at hand, and tactfully answer [or just avoid/decline to answer] any iffy questions.


"Do you have anything I need to know about in this vehicle? Do you have any weapons?"

"There is no contraband in this vehicle."

"Then you don't mind if I take a look around do you?"

"I do not consent to any searches."

"Well you're not hiding anything, are you?"

"I do not consent to any searches, am I being detained?"

Once an officer challenges your polite assertion of your right not to be searched without a warrant [or your consent] it is time to establish if the encounter is voluntary [you're free to leave] or involuntary [you're being detained]. If he responds that you are not being detained, then you are free to leave and you should immediately terminate the encounter by leaving.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-11-2013, 7:32 PM
KABA556 KABA556 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 307
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffxbr View Post
I was detained in the back of the cop car because I said yes. I was told they can do that for officer safety. What's happens if I just refuse to answer next time ? I don't think that's a crime


Let them assault you under color of law 18 USC 242] and then use the law, 42 USC 1983 which allows for civil penalties for deprivation of rights under color of law.

If they say, "sir would you mind stepping out of the vehicle" that is technically a request and you are within your rights to say, "yes I would mind stepping out, I'd much prefer to stay where I am."

It only becomes an order if they DEMAND that you get, along the lines of, "Sir get out of the vehicle now!" and even then it would have to be a lawful order.

Ordering you out of a vehicle at gunpoint because of a traffic accident/incident, would probably be an unlawful order.


Here you go- In Aurora Colorado police shut down an intersection, dragged about 40 motorists from their cars [at gunpoint], handcuffed all of them, and detained them for 2-3 hours while trying to figure out which of the 40 MIGHT have been a bankrobber. The city's attorney doesn't see anything wrong with what happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1575009.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...r-bank-robber/

In the end they arrested the guy in the last car, because he had a pistol in the vehicle. But there was no mask, no bag, no money, and no bicycle that the robber was seen riding away from the bank on.

I think they got to the last car and decided that they had better have something to show for shutting down an intersection and using a SWAT team to pull 40 motorists out of their cars at gunpoint.

I hope every officer involved is personally sued for deprivation of rights under color of law and that they are criminally indicted for assault.

In one picture you can see they pointed a shotgun right in the face of a man and ordered him out of his truck. They later said, "we didn't force him out, he came willingly." Well they had a shotgun 18 inches from his face, it wasn't a request, it was an order backed up by the threat of instant death.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-12-2013, 10:32 AM
conradca conradca is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Keep a blanket covering your guns and don't tell them you have any guns.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-13-2013, 10:09 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,963
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KABA556 View Post
Unless you are required by law to notify [such as notifying for concealed carry- which some states, such as mine, require] the standard procedure should be to declare, "there is no contraband in this vehicle."


That is technically correct and it avoids issues that might arise from lying to the police.


If the officer then directly replies along the lines of, "I directly asked you if you have weapons, I didn't ask about contraband, do you have any weapons in this vehicle?"

I would then inquire, "am I being detained or am I free to go because I wish to be allowed to go free on my way, are you detaining me?"

If he says that he is detaining you, then you simply state, "I have nothing further to say and I wish to speak with my lawyer."

If he states that he is not detaining you then you are free to go and you should confirm this by stating, "since you are not detaining me, I am free to go on my way and I am now going to proceed to leave."
A traffic stop by definition IS a detention.....

Just because you are detained DOES NOT entitle you to an attorney or trigger your Miranda rights.....

Miranda only applies during a custodial interrogation....

Depending on the situation you may call your attorney... Sometimes the officer may not allow you to use your phone....And yes he can prohibit you from using your phone while you are detained...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KABA556 View Post
If he tells you that you cannot go, then he is actually detaining you and you're not free to pull away.
As I said any traffic stop where the officer used his red light to stop you IS a detention....No need to ask...You are not free to leave until AFTER the officer tells you you are free to leave....


Quote:
Originally Posted by KABA556 View Post
Telling an officer that you are not going to answer any of his questions and that you are going to call your attorney requires some nerve, you have to be able to hold up under pressure. The natural human urge is to answer a question when a question is asked and try to explain your way out of trouble.

About a year ago I had an encounter and I asked them, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" and I was told, "you can walk home if you want, you're free to go, but we're detaining your vehicle" at which time I said, "I am not answering any more of your questions, I have nothing further to say to you, and I want to call my attorney."

They were somewhat surprised when I promptly contacted my attorney who I have on speed dial.

In the end I was able to drive away from the encounter.
Kind of strange, as only people can be "detained".... As the driver of the vehicle is the one who committed the violation which caused the detention.....

I always got a chuckle out of the drivers who "called" their attorney during a traffic stop... Because it did not and would not change what I did, or was doing.... It was amusing when the driver tried to hand me the phone so I could talk to their "attorney".. Which I always refused....

LEO's are under no obligation to play phone games or talk with anyone while in the process of doing their jobs...


Quote:
Originally Posted by KABA556 View Post
The less you say to the police the better.

Keep encounters as short as possible, do your best to avoid them if at all possible.

The easiest way to avoid an encounter with police is to simply obey all traffic laws. I have never received a traffic ticket for the simple reason that I obey all traffic laws. Although in regards to the speed limit I generally keep my speed within a range of 5-8 miles of the posted limit, depending on road conditions. Driving too fast or too slow is a recipe for being pulled over and scrutinized [especially those people who drive 20-30 miles UNDER the limit on a highway- because they're being too careful].

Even still, you cannot always avoid encounters with police. At some point in your life you will hit a deer or you will be struck by a careless motorist and the police will respond.

The less you say, the better, don't make small-talk, only discuss the issue at hand, and tactfully answer [or just avoid/decline to answer] any iffy questions.


"Do you have anything I need to know about in this vehicle? Do you have any weapons?"

"There is no contraband in this vehicle."

"Then you don't mind if I take a look around do you?"

"I do not consent to any searches."

"Well you're not hiding anything, are you?"

"I do not consent to any searches, am I being detained?"

Once an officer challenges your polite assertion of your right not to be searched without a warrant [or your consent] it is time to establish if the encounter is voluntary [you're free to leave] or involuntary [you're being detained]. If he responds that you are not being detained, then you are free to leave and you should immediately terminate the encounter by leaving.
As above, a traffic stop is by definition a detention...

If a officer encounters you and tells you to "stop" you are detained.

At the scene of an accident where you are an involved driver you are not free to leave until the officer completes his investigation....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Last edited by SVT-40; 10-13-2013 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-13-2013, 1:03 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
As above, a traffic stop is by definition a detention...

If a officer encounters you and tells you to "stop" you are detained.
I agree completely, but that does not mean there is no question as to the continuity of the detention. For example, say I am stopped at a "DUI checkpoint". I stop and the officer greets me, and asks for my DL. I decline politely, and ask him for his. He is confused. I ask if I'm free to go. At that point I'm asking, because while he is allowed to briefly detain me without PC, to determine if I'm drunk, he cannot detain me any longer than is necessary to make that determination. I also don't have to show ID. So while it is clear I was detained, I'm asking if I'm free to go, because now he knows (or should know) I'm not drunk, and he is wasting my time. Get it?

ETA: I prefer "am I free to go" over "am I being detained", just because it seems slightly less douchey.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.

Last edited by Tincon; 10-13-2013 at 1:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:47 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.