Police asks to search - would you allow

[Scarab0088]

Originally Posted by dexters

Watch this ... arrested!

No surprise.

To restate:

...Although submitting to inspection is voluntary, vehicle and commodities are not allowed to enter until released by an inspector.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PE/Ext...rders_faq.html

The inspectors and police in your video clearly informed these "videographers" that the vehicle would not be allowed entry without inspection.
They ran the checkpoint and were stopped by Law Enforcement.
Law Enforcement offered that they could return to their origin without inspection, but they refused.

Safe travels

[hohenwald48]

Originally Posted by Adam1219

The law enforcement officer has no idea who they are dealing with other than a person driving a car.

I would think that if the driver has a CCW permit that would at least give the officer some indication that he is not dealing with a habitual criminal.

[ThePowells]

[dexters]

Originally Posted by ThePowells

Good post; I'm guessing because I don't know what it means.

[ThePowells]

It means that these 2-3 times yearly "RV Search" threads are so entertaining and hilarious.


I was taught by my Police Law civil attorney a long time ago that the hardest four word sentence for police officers to learn is "I have no authority" when the public's solution for every problem is to call 911. As a field training officer, administrator, and legal advisor that was usually the second lesson I taught, The first was how to call for help.


One the flip side, the public in general have no idea what constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
When it gets to that point, my only advice is you do what you think is right and I will do exactly what I know is right and we will go from there.

[Papa_Jim]

[BobGed]

[QUOTE=dexters;4499581]Watch this ... arrested!
Correct. Arrested after they ran the Inspection Station. IMHO the female official at the inspection station let herself get into a back and forth no win and unnecessary conversation with the driver.

When he refused the inspection she should have simply told him, if you do not agree to the AG inspection, you will not be allowed to enter the state of CA. If you continue to enter the state without my clearance, you will be pulled over by the CHP and arrested for running the AG inspection station. At that point he has two options, turn around and not enter CA, or agree to the inspection.

The LEO's that stopped him never said anything about searching or inspecting his vehicle. All they wanted was his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance so they could issue him a citation for illegally proceeding through the AG station.

[mobilemike]

Originally Posted by Old-Biscuit

When you go to the Firearms Store to purchase a weapon you go thru a background check, waiting period and that firearm serial number is registered on the paper work




Also had that firearm serial number listed with my CCW

That application is stored at the FFl that sold the pistol. Not the feds. The Feds are specifically barred from keeping records. (maybe they do maybe they dont)
There is not a provision for a serial number on the sample CCW permit from SD.gov website and no mention of a corresponding number to the permit.

Every states CCW is legal in SD so it makes no sense for SD to require their citizens to have a serial number on the permit and millions of people from other states do not.



I can carry any of my pistols with my permit. Even pistols that are not mine. I can buy and sell pistols and it has no effect on the permit. I can get a permit without owning a pistol too.


https://sdsos.gov/general-services/c...led-carry.aspx

[MRUSA14]

Originally Posted by Scarab0088

No surprise.

To restate:

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PE/Ext...rders_faq.html

The inspectors and police in your video clearly informed these "videographers" that the vehicle would not be allowed entry without inspection.
They ran the checkpoint and were stopped by Law Enforcement.
Law Enforcement offered that they could return to their origin without inspection, but they refused.

Safe travels

Yup. I would love to know what happened after the arrest.

[Old-Biscuit]

Originally Posted by mobilemike

That application is stored at the FFl that sold the pistol. Not the feds. The Feds are specifically barred from keeping records. (maybe they do maybe they dont)
There is not a provision for a serial number on the sample CCW permit from SD.gov website and no mention of a corresponding number to the permit.

Every states CCW is legal in SD so it makes no sense for SD to require their citizens to have a serial number on the permit and millions of people from other states do not.



I can carry any of my pistols with my permit. Even pistols that are not mine. I can buy and sell pistols and it has no effect on the permit. I can get a permit without owning a pistol too.


https://sdsos.gov/general-services/c...led-carry.aspx

NEVER implied it was Federal.....read my post in its full content.


Never stated serial number was on CCW.....it was recorded on the application


Again read my post in its full content


Reminds me of the old 'telephone game'

Whisper a sentence into someones ear and by 3rd person it has changed....by 5th person it becomes so skewed it has become a completely different story

[Bob Hyatt]

I would only add one comment here. IF you give them permission to search, you can NOT later challenge the legality of the search. That horse has left the barn. Far better to say "no". If they want to manufacture some probable cause, then get a judge/magistrate/whatever to sign off on the warrant, you have grounds for contesting the search. If you way "yes" whatever they find (or plant) you are stuck with.

BTW I have seen a few erroneous posts about searching a car. The supreme court handed down a significant decision a few years ago that says cops can NOT search a vehicle just because they are arresting the driver. They gave two exceptions that would allow this. (1) if a crime was committed and evidence (stolen stuff, etc) is visible then they can search; (2) if they fear that guns might be hidden, they can search. But IF they have the driver out of the vehicle, then they can not search period, without a warrant. This was intended to protect a single officer pulling someone over. If there are several officers involved, no way they could fear the driver could get to a firearm without their noticing, so no search.

I would make them do things the right way and get a warrant if they can get a judge to sign it. This gets things in writing that a bogus judge/cop probably won't want to see in the permanent record.

[ThePowells]

Originally Posted by mobilemike

That application is stored at the FFl that sold the pistol. Not the feds. The Feds are specifically barred from keeping records. (maybe they do maybe they dont)
There is not a provision for a serial number on the sample CCW permit from SD.gov website and no mention of a corresponding number to the permit.

Every states CCW is legal in SD so it makes no sense for SD to require their citizens to have a serial number on the permit and millions of people from other states do not.



I can carry any of my pistols with my permit. Even pistols that are not mine. I can buy and sell pistols and it has no effect on the permit. I can get a permit without owning a pistol too.


https://sdsos.gov/general-services/c...led-carry.aspx

Mike, they do keep records. I could run what is called an "E-Trace" and enter the weapon information, the circumstances that it came into our possession, who had it, others involved, and if it was used in a crime.

Then I got back the Importer, distributer, retail seller, purchaser, any other FFL transactions, and any previous inquiries on the weapon. Those took 72-96 hours. If I needed to, once I got the trace request number back, I could call and have it within 3 hours.


Bob, the basic holding of Gant is that when police arrest an occupant of a motor vehicle, they can only search the passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to the arrest if (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle, or (2) there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest will be found in the vehicle. If it a PC search then SITA is irrelevant.
We were watching a case immediately after Gant to see how it went since it was a almost perfect test case. Ric Flair's son was arrested for DWI. While searching for open container(s), the officer found Heroin under the driver's seat. They (defense) lost the original suppression hearing and had appealed to Superior Court, but Fluer ( I think that is the correct spelling) overdosed and the case went moot. The state's argument was that it was reasonable to believe that an open container could be found in a vehicle of an impaired driver. Another case that I testified in hinged on a search of a console where marijuana was found. The officer testified that he had on numerous occasions found either a driver's license of a person who didn't want the actual license seized or found revocation letters from DMV there. I testified that I had also on numerous occasions found the card or letters. That search was upheld and appealed, but I don't know what happened in Superior Court. I don't remember the case (since I am not doing traffic any more) but the School of Gov't crim law blog had a case where a gun was allowed on the same scenario. In this scenario, PC is not the standard but reasonable suspicion.

[ScoobyDoo]

First, let me say that for decades LEO have had the "right" to search the vehicle I drove the most, the office I used the most, and my part time home at their will, in the name of highway safety. And yes, I have been searched in the course of doing my job.
I keep seeing that 99 or 98% of cops are good people just doing a job. Well if that is so, the 2% must all run together, judging by the news. Most times any action a cop takes is justified in the eyes of the others.
If I am stopped, unless I know why I'm being stopped, have not been watching my speed, rolling right turn at that stop sign, whatever, is one thing. But if I don't know why, my hands-free phone is calling 911. All doors are locked, will open drivers side window no more than a inch, and put my keys on dash, hands on wheel. The officer may hear "What is your emergency?" "A person with a gun is approaching me in my car." I will ask why I have been stopped. I can hear when he asks for driver license, I tell him which pocket, don't be scared when I reach for it. By this time 911 should let me know for sure that it is a officer, and can hear/record my cooperation. If my vehicle matches one in a crime, try to show I'm the wrong one so he can go back to the hunt. Registration? "It is in glove box, to get it I will need to unhook seat belt, which means you can't see one hand for a second, don't be scared." Now I need to lift the arm rest, you might see something scary, so be calm. To reach the glovebox, I will need to move sideways in the seat...
If a officer asks if he can search, I will ask why he thinks he should. If he is looking for somebody, then he can see thru windows no place to hide, so no reason to search. Just fishing? Find a lake.

[barmcd]

Originally Posted by dexters

OAitR alert

What's OAitR alert