Grant County District Court

[gogodawgs]

PALO,

First welcome to the forum.

Second, let's add one little thing. I go to the courthouse, check my firearm, turn it over in the holster (serial number not in plain sight), the officer does not state that they are going to unholster, unload the firearm, I state "I do not consent to any searches of my firearm while in your possession" and they give me my claim check. I return later and pick it up. It is returned unloaded, magazine empty, action open in a brown paper bag. Do they have a right to do the cursory serial # check?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You guys are missing a HUGE portion of the whole 'plain sight' deal.

Even IF a serial number is visible, you're conducting a CRIMINAL investigation absent ANY information or RAS that a crime has been committed.

If an officer disarms you for 'officer safety', then goes and runs the serial number, he has just conducted a criminal investigation, attempting to ascertain whether or not the firearm is stolen. Without RAS that the firearm is stolen, there can be no 'sidebar' investigation. If the purpose of the traffic stop (for example) was to issue you a citation, he cannot start a criminal investigation without RAS. The same would be said of an officer saying he has to run the serial number on your stereo to make sure it's not stolen... Can't do it. So when the officer takes your firearm, then starts a criminal investigation without RAS (delaying you), the lawful detention (traffic stop) turns into an unlawful detention, as the officer is now conducting a criminal investigation instead of issuing you a citation.

The question in this case seems to be, whether being in the care of an officer, or a lock box, is relinquishing your privacy rights.

I would say no. The purpose of the law in terms of checking firearms is SOLELY to keep temporary possession of them. If a woman asks an officer to hold onto her purse while she uses the rest room, does that give the officer permission to search the purse? In the limited scope that the officer has been given to 'hold' the purse, while he has temporary possession of it, does not infer the right to search it as the limit of the consent was mere possession.

There may be a grey area when an officer perceives that you surrendering your weapon is giving them complete custody of it, to do as they please. Ya know, the whole 'It was an honest mistake!' bit...

I would surmise, that instructing them NOT to remove it from the holster, and NOT run the serial number, would be similar to limiting the scope of a consensual search. Ie .. 'you can search the car, but don't look in the glovebox or the trunk'...

Well said! Sometime we over complicate an issue.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

PALO,

First welcome to the forum.

Second, let's add one little thing. I go to the courthouse, check my firearm, turn it over in the holster (serial number not in plain sight), the officer does not state that they are going to unholster, unload the firearm, I state "I do not consent to any searches of my firearm while in your possession" and they give me my claim check. I return later and pick it up. It is returned unloaded, magazine empty, action open in a brown paper bag. Do they have a right to do the cursory serial # check?

I never thought about that statement at courts, since I have only dealt with lockboxes. Good point.

I have used that statement at a traffic stop when the deputy disarmed me, I over heard him tell his partner he was going to run a search, I told him I don't consent, he didn't run the search and then asked if he could secure it in my glove box, I did give consent to that. This also was at a time I carried without one in a chamber due to not having a CPL, this officers suggestion was never to do that, funny he was less concerned about me breaking the unloaded in car without a CPL law, than not being able to defend myself if the situation arose. His words carrying like that is just "Stupid".:lol:

 

[TechnoWeenie]

PALO,

First welcome to the forum.

Second, let's add one little thing. I go to the courthouse, check my firearm, turn it over in the holster (serial number not in plain sight), the officer does not state that they are going to unholster, unload the firearm, I state "I do not consent to any searches of my firearm while in your possession" and they give me my claim check. I return later and pick it up. It is returned unloaded, magazine empty, action open in a brown paper bag. Do they have a right to do the cursory serial # check?

ALL searches are per se UNreasonable unless an exemption applies.

You articulated that you do not consent to ANY searches. A search was made without your consent. I'd say that it was an illegal search.

 

[gogodawgs]

I never thought about that statement at courts, since I have only dealt with lockboxes. Good point.

I have used that statement at a traffic stop when the deputy disarmed me, I over heard him tell his partner he was going to run a search, I told him I don't consent, he didn't run the search and then asked if he could secure it in my glove box, I did give consent to that. This also was at a time I carried without one in a chamber due to not having a CPL, this officers suggestion was never to do that, funny he was less concerned about me breaking the unloaded in car without a CPL law, than not being able to defend myself if the situation arose. His words carrying like that is just "Stupid".:lol:

I have been giving some thought to this recently and have done some cursory court checks. I can't find anyone prosecuted for breaking the 'loaded car carry' law. It shows up as an add on charge for more serious crimes, but really it looks as though LE uses discretion in this regard.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I have been giving some thought to this recently and have done some cursory court checks. I can't find anyone prosecuted for breaking the 'loaded car carry' law. It shows up as an add on charge for more serious crimes, but really it looks as though LE uses discretion in this regard.

I agree I think your assessment is spot on, and in my personal experience seems to have validity.

 

[PALO]

You guys are missing a HUGE portion of the whole 'plain sight' deal.

Even IF a serial number is visible, you're conducting a CRIMINAL investigation absent ANY information or RAS that a crime has been committed.

If an officer disarms you for 'officer safety', then goes and runs the serial number, he has just conducted a criminal investigation, attempting to ascertain whether or not the firearm is stolen. Without RAS that the firearm is stolen, there can be no 'sidebar' investigation. If the purpose of the traffic stop (for example) was to issue you a citation, he cannot start a criminal investigation without RAS. The same would be said of an officer saying he has to run the serial number on your stereo to make sure it's not stolen... Can't do it. So when the officer takes your firearm, then starts a criminal investigation without RAS (delaying you), the lawful detention (traffic stop) turns into an unlawful detention, as the officer is now conducting a criminal investigation instead of issuing you a citation.

The question in this case seems to be, whether being in the care of an officer, or a lock box, is relinquishing your privacy rights.

I would say no. The purpose of the law in terms of checking firearms is SOLELY to keep temporary possession of them. If a woman asks an officer to hold onto her purse while she uses the rest room, does that give the officer permission to search the purse? In the limited scope that the officer has been given to 'hold' the purse, while he has temporary possession of it, does not infer the right to search it as the limit of the consent was mere possession.

There may be a grey area when an officer perceives that you surrendering your weapon is giving them complete custody of it, to do as they please. Ya know, the whole 'It was an honest mistake!' bit...

I would surmise, that instructing them NOT to remove it from the holster, and NOT run the serial number, would be similar to limiting the scope of a consensual search. Ie .. 'you can search the car, but don't look in the glovebox or the trunk'...

this is false on many levels. officers can and do run CRIMINAL WARRANTS check even when they are not doing a CRIMINAL investigation. a stop for a civil traffic infraction is one example. there are many others

the issue here is about privacy interests, because you are simply wrong about the requirements for a "criminal investigation" and i just gave merely ONE example that refutes your premise

you are drawing disanalogous analogies (so to speak), since looking inside a purse VIOLATES A PRIVACY INTEREST and running a serial # does not

and nobody said they could "do as they please" with the surrendered firearm. they couldn't do, for example, a functionality check, a ballistics check, etc.

bad analogies = bad conclusions

 

[PALO]

ALL searches are per se UNreasonable unless an exemption applies.

You articulated that you do not consent to ANY searches. A search was made without your consent. I'd say that it was an illegal search.

i've already explained to you why the exemption applies

as for the second scenario, THAT would be a MUCH more difficult question. however, it was not the scenario presented

 

[PALO]

You guys are missing a HUGE portion of the whole 'plain sight' deal.

Even IF a serial number is visible, you're conducting a CRIMINAL investigation absent ANY information or RAS that a crime has been committed.

If an officer disarms you for 'officer safety', then goes and runs the serial number, he has just conducted a criminal investigation, attempting to ascertain whether or not the firearm is stolen. Without RAS that the firearm is stolen, there can be no 'sidebar' investigation. If the purpose of the traffic stop (for example) was to issue you a citation, he cannot start a criminal investigation without RAS. The same would be said of an officer saying he has to run the serial number on your stereo to make sure it's not stolen... Can't do it. So when the officer takes your firearm, then starts a criminal investigation without RAS (delaying you), the lawful detention (traffic stop) turns into an unlawful detention, as the officer is now conducting a criminal investigation instead of issuing you a citation.

The question in this case seems to be, whether being in the care of an officer, or a lock box, is relinquishing your privacy rights.

I would say no. The purpose of the law in terms of checking firearms is SOLELY to keep temporary possession of them. If a woman asks an officer to hold onto her purse while she uses the rest room, does that give the officer permission to search the purse? In the limited scope that the officer has been given to 'hold' the purse, while he has temporary possession of it, does not infer the right to search it as the limit of the consent was mere possession.

There may be a grey area when an officer perceives that you surrendering your weapon is giving them complete custody of it, to do as they please. Ya know, the whole 'It was an honest mistake!' bit...

I would surmise, that instructing them NOT to remove it from the holster, and NOT run the serial number, would be similar to limiting the scope of a consensual search. Ie .. 'you can search the car, but don't look in the glovebox or the trunk'...

here's some other examples where your claim is proven demonstrably false.

officer sees you drive by/. notes your license plate. does he need ANY indicia of suspicion to run a "criminal"check on your registration (stolen through WACIC etc.?) no

he can literally FISH and run it JUST BECAUSE

cops routinely do this and find stolens. entirely non-suppressable

hth

 

[TechnoWeenie]

here's some other examples where your claim is proven demonstrably false.

officer sees you drive by/. notes your license plate. does he need ANY indicia of suspicion to run a "criminal"check on your registration (stolen through WACIC etc.?) no

he can literally FISH and run it JUST BECAUSE

cops routinely do this and find stolens. entirely non-suppressable

hth

1. The plates are clearly visible.
2. You are not being detained to run the plates.
3. There is no privacy interest in a publicly displayed license plate.

I'll give you a better scenario.


You get pulled over on a routine traffic stop. The RO is a female and has a suspended license, and the person driving is a male... The officer pulls the vehicle over because he has reason to believe the vehicle is being operated unlawfully, and it's reasonable to believe that the RO is the driver... The officer approaches the vehicle, and notices that a man is driving..

What's the officer do?

If it's anything other than 'Sir, I pulled you over because the registered owner didn't have a drivers license and I thought she might be driving, have a nice day'.....there's gonna be a problem. The traffic stop was initiated on RAS ,however once the suspicion of crime has been alleviated, as obviously a female isn't a male, then the detention ends there. To pursue further and request ID from the driver would turn into an unlawful stop...



Similarly, on a legitimate traffic stop, an officer spots a camera on the dash.. For 'officer safety' he pulls the driver out and pats him down, then looks in the immediate vicinity for concealed weapons. He notes the serial number on the camera.... The officer retrieves the persons details, and runs them.... He also runs the serial number on the camera to see if its stolen. The purpose of the traffic stop is to issue a citation, and the power to temporarily detain someone in that situation comes from that situation only. To use the situation to extend a detention by conducting a criminal investigation without RAS, the stop has become 'unreasonable'... However, the courts decide what's reasonable and what's not...

 

[PALO]

1. The plates are clearly visible.
2. You are not being detained to run the plates.
3. There is no privacy interest in a publicly displayed license plate.

I'll give you a better scenario.


You get pulled over on a routine traffic stop. The RO is a female and has a suspended license, and the person driving is a male... The officer pulls the vehicle over because he has reason to believe the vehicle is being operated unlawfully, and it's reasonable to believe that the RO is the driver... The officer approaches the vehicle, and notices that a man is driving..

What's the officer do?

If it's anything other than 'Sir, I pulled you over because the registered owner didn't have a drivers license and I thought she might be driving, have a nice day'.....there's gonna be a problem. The traffic stop was initiated on RAS ,however once the suspicion of crime has been alleviated, as obviously a female isn't a male, then the detention ends there. To pursue further and request ID from the driver would turn into an unlawful stop...



Similarly, on a legitimate traffic stop, an officer spots a camera on the dash.. For 'officer safety' he pulls the driver out and pats him down, then looks in the immediate vicinity for concealed weapons. He notes the serial number on the camera.... The officer retrieves the persons details, and runs them.... He also runs the serial number on the camera to see if its stolen. The purpose of the traffic stop is to issue a citation, and the power to temporarily detain someone in that situation comes from that situation only. To use the situation to extend a detention by conducting a criminal investigation without RAS, the stop has become 'unreasonable'... However, the courts decide what's reasonable and what's not...

your objections don't address your ORIGINAL CLAIM, which i vitiated by these examples.

do i need to quote you AGAIN?

hint: you claimed cops cannot do a criminal inquiry without some indicia

that's demonstrably false, and i proved it

now, you backpedal and bring up OTHER factors which also were addressed, but are tangential to your fallacious claim about cops not being able to run a serial # without a claim

the issue of taking the gun out of the holster is a SEPERATE issue

this rebuts your claim about the running of the serial # ONCE the gun is out of the holster

for the 100th time, whether taking the gun out of the holster itself is an unlawful search is a MATTER OF CONJECTURE. i clearly stated that imo i believe it would not be unlawful. however, i am not the trier of law, and nobody knows what a court WOULD say given such a case. i can only conjecture

if and when you can address your erroneous claim that i just refuted, that cops cannot conduct criminal investigative checks w/o indicia, then get back to me

i respect intellectual honesty. i ignore evaders

you said it. i refuted it. i will quote it one more time if you ask, but i';ve done it already and it gets old


HERE I WILL REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID!!!! *********************READ IT AGAIN****************************


YOU SAID : --- even IF a serial number is visible, you're conducting a CRIMINAL investigation absent ANY information or RAS that a crime has been committed. If an officer disarms you for 'officer safety', then goes and runs the serial number, he has just conducted a criminal investigation, attempting to ascertain whether or not the firearm is stolen. Without RAS that the firearm is stolen, there can be no 'sidebar' investigation. If the purpose of the traffic stop (for example) was to issue you a citation, he cannot start a criminal investigation without RAS

THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. AND I SHOWED YOU WAYS IT IS ROUTINELY DONE, EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO INDICIA FOR ANY STOP WHATSOEVER, LET ALONE A TRAFFIC (CIVIL INFRACTION STOP)

A COP CAN CONDUCT CRIMINAL INQUIRIES WITH NO INDICIA OF SUSPICION. IT'S BLACK LETTER LAW, I GAVE YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES, AND YOU BACKPEDAL

AND HE CERTAINLY CAN, CONTRA YOUR CLAIM "START A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WITHOUT RAS IN A CITATION STOP" WHICH IS WHAT HE DOES EVERY SINGLE TIME HE RUNS A NAME FOR WARRANTS DURING A TRAFFIC STOP

TYPICAL

MAN UP AND ADMIT YOU WERE IN ERROR OR NOT.

YOUR CHOICE

 

[TechnoWeenie]

HERE I WILL REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID!!!! *********************READ IT AGAIN****************************


YOU SAID : --- even IF a serial number is visible, you're conducting a CRIMINAL investigation absent ANY information or RAS that a crime has been committed. If an officer disarms you for 'officer safety', then goes and runs the serial number, he has just conducted a criminal investigation, attempting to ascertain whether or not the firearm is stolen. Without RAS that the firearm is stolen, there can be no 'sidebar' investigation. If the purpose of the traffic stop (for example) was to issue you a citation, he cannot start a criminal investigation without RAS

THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. AND I SHOWED YOU WAYS IT IS ROUTINELY DONE, EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO INDICIA FOR ANY STOP WHATSOEVER, LET ALONE A TRAFFIC (CIVIL INFRACTION STOP)

A COP CAN CONDUCT CRIMINAL INQUIRIES WITH NO INDICIA OF SUSPICION. IT'S BLACK LETTER LAW, I GAVE YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES, AND YOU BACKPEDAL

AND HE CERTAINLY CAN, CONTRA YOUR CLAIM "START A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WITHOUT RAS IN A CITATION STOP" WHICH IS WHAT HE DOES EVERY SINGLE TIME HE RUNS A NAME FOR WARRANTS DURING A TRAFFIC STOP

TYPICAL

MAN UP AND ADMIT YOU WERE IN ERROR OR NOT.

YOUR CHOICE

I know what I said, and I know what case law is.

Are you familiar with People V. Gonzalez?

A cop can NOT conduct a criminal investigation absent RAS in a traffic stop.

I'll give a scenario that's closer to the issue at hand.. A scenario where an officer is in possession of an item lawfully..

An officer notices a wallet on the ground.... He picks up the wallet, and opens it up, finds the DL, and decides that he's gonna be a nice guy and mail it back to the address on the ID....... He gets curious, and decides to search the wallet, where he finds a small bag of what appears to be cocaine.

Was the search JUSTIFIED?


Because a search is PER SE UNREASONABLE unless justified...

The justifications are..

1. Consent
2. Exigent Circumstances (preserve evidence,search incident to arrest in some states)
3. Warrant

The officer conducted a criminal investigation by searching the wallet.

So, what justification is there for a search?

There was no consent.
There are no exigent circumstances.
There was no warrant.

How do you justify the search?

Fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

[PALO]

I know what I said, and I know what case law is.

Are you familiar with People V. Gonzalez?

A cop can NOT conduct a criminal investigation absent RAS in a traffic stop.

I'll give a scenario that's closer to the issue at hand.. A scenario where an officer is in possession of an item lawfully..

An officer notices a wallet on the ground.... He picks up the wallet, and opens it up, finds the DL, and decides that he's gonna be a nice guy and mail it back to the address on the ID....... He gets curious, and decides to search the wallet, where he finds a small bag of what appears to be cocaine.

Was the search JUSTIFIED?


Because a search is PER SE UNREASONABLE unless justified...

The justifications are..

1. Consent
2. Exigent Circumstances (preserve evidence,search incident to arrest in some states)
3. Warrant

The officer conducted a criminal investigation by searching the wallet.

So, what justification is there for a search?

There was no consent.
There are no exigent circumstances.
There was no warrant.

How do you justify the search?

Fruit of the forbidden tree.

again, you are evading

you have claimed that RUNNING a name, serial # etc. for stolen, etc. is a "criminal investigation" and/or a "sidebar criminal investigation"

AND

that such activity requires some indicia, e.g. RS etc.

i have PROVED to you that is false.

for example, cops routinely run stolen checks on license plate #'s. NO INDICIA WHATSOEVER.

that's ONE example, among dozens proving you are wrong.

you will either admit your claim was false or not. i am , at this point, highly doubtful you will, but hey... hope is the thing with feathers

that being said, i don't have time for people who are too childish to simply admit error

you were wrong. i proved it. you evade

 

[Vitaeus]

Folks need to agree to disagree and move on, this thread has long posts that boild down to "I disagree", with a bit of personal animus included. The discussion is also an apple to orange argument. Using case law about license plates that are issued by the state and in plain view to argue for or against a serial number hidden by a holster and that NONE of you disagree is a "search" is just making noise not discussion. Folks, the case I cited earlier in the thread is one that deals with WA State Supreme Court views on what is and what is not allowed by both consensual and "warrant"ed searches. I suggest ALL parties start using quotes from that or other cit-able documents and stop the various ad hominem and side bar discussions. I am honestly interested in this topic and the drama is getting old.

To sum up vehicle related citations have little to do with an unlicensed activity, could we all move to more related discussion?

EDIT added the case law link: http://www.mrsc.org/dtsearch/dtisap...Form=/wa/courts/index_dtsearch_form.html#hit1

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,,

At the bellingham court house I get to put my weapon in the lockbox myself. If you go back again, wrap a zip tie across the entire holster.

So they cut the zip tie off, then what? I doubt there's any law against their rendering a firearm unloaded while in their custody.

Because it demonstrates the search aspect of it. The OP checked the weapon in a holster to unload it I am assuming they also had to unholster it. If you put a zip tie around it they would in my opinion need to get a warrant to cut it.

Is there a law that allows them to mess with someone's private property?

I believe actions of our government need to be enumerated and limited as intended years ago by our founders.

Also our RCW's on firearms states that municipalities cannot be more restrictive except....and list the exceptions, demanding ID, stating "no loaded" firearms are permitted, or anything else demanded above what the RCW's state are more restrictive.

i think you need to study some case law. you are assuming that, for example, the cops running a serial # of a gun they have in their possession is a "searcH' subject to the 4th amendment restrictions. i would ask you where is the right to privacy AS to the serial # which is stamped in plain view ON the firearm?

you ask "is there a law allowing them to do x" when that is just as silly as an antigunner asking "is there a law allowing you to OC" (hint : there isn't)

assuming arguendo, they ran the serial, the question is, is there a recognized privacy interest, whether via case law, or legislation that RESTRICTS them from doing so? ask the wrong question, as you do, and the answer is irrelevant.
again, support your argument with actual case law, or clarify that you are speaking normatively, iow about what you think the law SHOULD be.

imo, this is analogous to the cops running a license plate # of a car they can see from a lawful vantage point or a VIN from the same lawful vantage point

or , to paraphrase shakespeare "much ado about nothing"

these are the posts about zip ties, that you forgot to remember when you suggest studying some case law.

I would equate zip tying my gun in its holster, to the act of locking my car, if im ordered out during a traffic stop.

 

[PALO]

Folks need to agree to disagree and move on, this thread has long posts that boild down to "I disagree", with a bit of personal animus included. The discussion is also an apple to orange argument. Using case law about license plates that are issued by the state and in plain view to argue for or against a serial number hidden by a holster and that NONE of you disagree is a "search" is just making noise not discussion. Folks, the case I cited earlier in the thread is one that deals with WA State Supreme Court views on what is and what is not allowed by both consensual and "warrant"ed searches. I suggest ALL parties start using quotes from that or other cit-able documents and stop the various ad hominem and side bar discussions. I am honestly interested in this topic and the drama is getting old.

To sum up vehicle related citations have little to do with an unlicensed activity, could we all move to more related discussion?

EDIT added the case law link: http://www.mrsc.org/dtsearch/dtisap...Form=/wa/courts/index_dtsearch_form.html#hit1

good points

and again, i have stated emphatically, it is merely my opinion, my CONJECTURE that in the case as described IF a cop removes the gun from the holster, prior to running the serial # that will not be viewed as an unlawful search, and i explained why - IN MY OPINION. and that's ALL it is. opinion. as far as i know, there is no de jure establishment on it either way

that is ENTIRELY tangential to the fact that GIVEN the exposed serial # (once it is removed) and contra the ridiculous claim made above by another, a cop does not need any indicia of suspicion WHATSOEVER to run a serial # he has in his possession/brain, license plate, driver's license #, or name DOB

the latter point is about as well established black letter law as one could get, considering WA LEO's literally THOUSANDS of times a day run "routine" license plate checks, etc. merely because they see a license plate and want to check it's status. NO INDICIA OF SUSPICION REQUIRED

a frequent practice also, is for cops to ROUTINELY run names for warrants that are "frequent fliers" in their community, to check and see if they have active warrants.

fishing? sure

legal? yes

in brief, people do not have an expectation of privacy that GIVEN a cop knowing their name/dob or license plate # , that a cop won't "randomly" "routinely" etc. check it - JUST BECAUSE

and cops do that thousands of timesa day throughout WA.

now, as a tangent, it IS true that if a cop could be shown to be doing so out of some harassment pattern (like again, tracking down an ex's new boyfriend and running him), then THAT is a violation of ACCESS / WACIC protocol and can be severely punished.

of course, that's not the case here

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,, stereo serial numbers in plain sight,,, case law

A question for PALO.

the serial number on my FNP45 is on the bottom of the rail,
it is covered by the light/laser I have mounted there.

it would be a 4th amendment violation to remove that in order to run my number.

can you riddle your way past that?

would this be any different than removing it from the holster, in order to find the number, in plain sight?

If I move your stereo, for my safety?
Is the number now In plain sight?

first of all, people have to remember that the state of WA recognizes a right to privacy . thus, police search and seizure questions must be viewed (unless it's a federal officer) in light of WA state's increased recognition of protection against state invasion of privacy interest

(iow our constitution is more respective of actual privacy. the 4th only recognizes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and never mentions privacy)

again, i am offering my opinion. my opinion is that IF your serial # is covered by that mounted object, that an officer removing that, would constitute a de facto search and in the case of merely having a weapon for admin purposes (storage) that would render that action presumptively UNreasonable.

that's my opinion.

i would contrast that to a situation where the serial # was immediately visible upon merely removing the gun from the holster when taking it for admin purposes (storage) because i don't think a reasonable person would conclude such actions invaded a privacy interest.

again, subjectively (and subjective intent of people is relevant in regard to whether they took an action to protect a privacy interest) speaking, the reason people put guns in holsters is for the reasons mentioned , not to hide a serial #

there are ample case in WA state distinguishing our concepts of both plain and open view, from those under the federal (looser standard).

for example, we have much greater privacy protection vis a vis curtilage

also, under the federal standard, cops can search garbage you put out at the curb. in WA, the cop must first wait for it to be dumped into a garbage truck before searching it, etc

any time a cop manipulates an object such that what was not at first apparent IS now apparent, there is certainly a privacy interest question

removing a holster IS such a manipulation

however, since the holster would be removed to empty the gun ALSO, there is also the question of intent.

i doubt there is any case law on this subject (specific to the holster thing) and i certainly haven't looked this **** up in findlaw or lexis nexis.

but yes, that is my opinion.

removing the gun from the holster while administratively storing it, thus revealing the serial #?

kosher.

removing an accessory to access the serial #?

not kosher

and again, this is with consideration of an independent grounds reading of the WA constitution, not the lower federal standard

i have no idea what you are talking about, "moving a stereo for safety" unless this is some kind of trollish snark about officers who use officer safety (which is a legitimate interest) but in your mind, they are merely on fishing expeditions

trolling bores me.

I know where you are going with this one Bob, and it does have to do with case law.

read arizona v. hicks http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html

a cop MOVES stereo equipement to search the serial number, they were stolen, they were suppressed, it was an Unreasonable search!

 

[PALO]

read arizona v. hicks http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html

a cop MOVES stereo equipement to search the serial number, they were stolen, they were suppressed, it was an Unreasonable search!

of course it was. and if you had asked that question, i would have given that answer

however, that's disanalogous to this situation IMO

and i've already given my OPINION as to why

you may disagree. that's totally groovy.

i haven't faulted anybody for disagreeing with my assessment vis a vis the holster thing. i may be right. i may be wrong

i have only faulted the inane, and demonstrably proved false assertion that GIVEN a serial #, that is requires some indicia to run the serial #.

that was false, and i showed why

i'm not sure why you gave THE ANSWEr vs. asked the question, since i asked you to REPEAT THE QUESTION.

as soon as you move the stereo to get to see a concealed serial #, that kills the plain view thang

LOTS of similar case law, in WA state even.

heck, there's a case where a cop walked over to the front of a car to look at the license plate by leaving the WALKWAY and walking over to the driveway right in front of the garage

THAT was viewed unlawful.

whereas if he could have viewed it on the approach, it would not have been

again, for the HUNDREDTH time, the holster issue is in the instant case GIVEN THAT THE GUN WAS IN ADMIN CUSTODY OF THE COPS, would removing the holster be an unlawful search

my OPINION is no

fwiw, in the case of moving the stereo, among other vast differences, it wasn't an item in ADMIN CUSTODY OF THE POLICE

also, a person asked if the gun/holster case involved a gun with a accessory attached to the rail, and the cop removed that to get to the serial # would that be unlawful in this case

my answer was : YES

i see moving the stereo as much more analogous to THAT, vs. removing the holster (setting aside the additional admin custody thang)

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

I have rarely seen a post so full of fail.
a post so full of misdirection, subtrafuge, and illogic.

really its just sad...

please provide a cite for this.....

LOTS of similar case law, in WA state even.

heck, there's a case where a cop walked over to the front of a car to look at the license plate by leaving the WALKWAY and walking over to the driveway right in front of the garage

THAT was viewed unlawful.

whereas if he could have viewed it on the approach, it would not have been


your lack of style and precision in your posts is breath taking!

 

[amlevin]

I wonder if anyone makes a Trigger Lock with enough of an extension that would cover the Serial number. Handing over a firearm with one of these devices in place, that covered the serial number, would either require them to request removal break it off in order to read the serial number. Not suggesting one carry with such a device in place, just use it when "checking in" a firearm at a Courthouse, etc.

Now that should make for some interesting discussion.