Pulled over by PCSO.

[Cubex DE]

Some of you are arguing that I shouldn't have "let" him disarm me. How you suppose I prevent that?

Here's how your conversation should have gone:

Cop: "I'm just gonna take this..." (Reaches awkwardly through window, narrowly missing banging his oversize forehead into your car)
You: (Keeping hands at 10 and 2) "Excuse my sir, I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any seizures."
Cop: "I'm only taking this for my safety." (Unsafely points the muzzle of your loaded gun at your legs as he removes it from the vehicle)
You: "My holstered firearm presents no safety hazard sir. If it did, yours would present the same hazard to me."
Cop: "I'll give it back to you when we're done here." (Unsafely places your loaded gun in his jacket and squeezes it with his arm to keep it from sliding out onto the ground)
You: "If you don't return my firearm now, you are in violation of the fourth amendment of the US Constitution against unreasonable seizures."
Cop: "It's not unreasonable; it's for my safety." (Wipes booger from his big dumb stupid face)
You: "As I've already stated, it is not a hazard to your safety, so the seizure is unreasonable."
Cop: "Well I'm keeping it until we're done here." (Narrowly misses being hit by multiple cars as he stands in the road while talking to you)
You: "In that case, I should also inform you that I do not consent to any searches, which includes running the serial number of my firearm."
Cop: "I'm a cop, so I do what I want. Screw the law." (Turns to go to his car, trips on his shoelace, your gun goes flying)
You: "Enjoy your last night as a cop!"

I should mention that I assumed your voice recorder was running this whole time. If you have a smartphone, you have a voice recorder: use it! When you are pulled over, take your phone out, start it recording, and set it face down on your dashboard. You do NOT have to inform the officer you are recording, since he is a public servant in a public location and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy (someone please provide the citation for this, I forget what it is).

Maybe you noticed I don't like stupid cops who overstep their authority

 

[Citizen]

Do you really think that some of us here are so unfamiliar with the right against self-incrimination that we need to read your entire post? Really? Or, that your post is sooo original, sooo ground-breaking, and you deserving of credit for these incredible breakthroughs, that all of us need to learn all your wonderous thoughts? Really?

OK. I'm gonna take the time to read that entire post. There had better be something applicable in there. If not, you're getting shredded. I'll be back in a few minutes.

This first part is to CubexDE. The second part below has 4A and 5A info and is addressed to all readers:

OK. I read it.

I'll concede this: that post has a broad general applicabililty insofar as some cops are not nice guys. And, there is a broad general applicability of the 5A to protect an innocent, in the present situation that would be someone carrying a gun legally.

But, as I suspected, you missed the point that would be most applicable here. You see, I didn't ask for specificity because I didn't know; I asked for specificity because I suspected you didn't know. That, and I didn't feel like reading that entire post just for the few bits that might apply to the current discussion. Imagine my surprise when I discovered in today's reading that there were no applicable bits, that I had to distill the whole thing down to something many of us already know: that cops aren't your friend, and the 5A protects innocents. Wow!! Thank you so much for that brilliant piece of scholarship!

So, Mr. Arrogant. Here is the part you missed:







The connection between 5A and the present thread is that the courts consider self-incrimination to include giving the government information that is a link in a chain of evidence that leads to the suspect. See Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court for a hint in this direction--the last paragraph of the opinion. The applicability here is that declaring a legally carried gun can lead, for example, to a serial number check that could (but hasn't to my knowledge) lead to a stolen gun unknowingly purchased by the driver. A link in a chain.

So, declaring a legally carried gun when not required by law to declare it waives both 5A and 4A. Oh, it waives 4A? Sure. You and the car are protected from arbitrary search and seizure up to the point the cop reasonably suspects or knows about the gun. As soon as the cop reasonably suspects or knows about the gun, that protection evaporates. See also Michigan vs Long and related car search doctrine along the lines of the cop finding something else while searching for or seizing a gun that the driver told him is, say, in the glove box or console, behind the truck seat, on the back seat of a car in its original box (actual situation, but the OCer didn't declare and the cop didn't notice).

Also, if the cop dismounts you from the car in order to seize the gun from your holster, there is no reason he has to stop at removing the gun from the holster. We've had a very few OCers who were then patted down for knives and back up guns. Want a cop frisking your junk?

So, thank you for the waste of time reading your post about the 5A for stuff I already knew. That most of us already knew.


Readers can check up and learn more about the cases I mentioned here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&

 

[Citizen]

Here's how your conversation should have gone:

Cop: "I'm just gonna take this..." (Reaches awkwardly through window, narrowly missing banging his oversize forehead into your car)
You: (Keeping hands at 10 and 2) "Excuse my sir, I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any seizures."
Cop: "I'm only taking this for my safety." (Unsafely points the muzzle of your loaded gun at your legs as he removes it from the vehicle)
You: "My holstered firearm presents no safety hazard sir. If it did, yours would present the same hazard to me."
Cop: "I'll give it back to you when we're done here." (Unsafely places your loaded gun in his jacket and squeezes it with his arm to keep it from sliding out onto the ground)
You: "If you don't return my firearm now, you are in violation of the fourth amendment of the US Constitution against unreasonable seizures."
Cop: "It's not unreasonable; it's for my safety." (Wipes booger from his big dumb stupid face)
You: "As I've already stated, it is not a hazard to your safety, so the seizure is unreasonable."
Cop: "Well I'm keeping it until we're done here." (Narrowly misses being hit by multiple cars as he stands in the road while talking to you)
You: "In that case, I should also inform you that I do not consent to any searches, which includes running the serial number of my firearm."
Cop: "I'm a cop, so I do what I want. Screw the law." (Turns to go to his car, trips on his shoelace, your gun goes flying)
You: "Enjoy your last night as a cop!"

I should mention that I assumed your voice recorder was running this whole time. If you have a smartphone, you have a voice recorder: use it! When you are pulled over, take your phone out, start it recording, and set it face down on your dashboard. You do NOT have to inform the officer you are recording, since he is a public servant in a public location and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy (someone please provide the citation for this, I forget what it is).

Maybe you noticed I don't like stupid cops who overstep their authority

Lets start with the request that someone else provide the cite for your assertion about the law on recording public servants. Forum Rule #5 doesn't say you ask someone else to provide the cite; it says you provide the cite. Cite, please.

How do you figure that running a serial number that is in plain view is an instance of a cop disregarding the law? Does WA law forbid it?

I do like the idea that an unsafe weapon seizure is unreasonable and thus a violation of 4A. I'm not convinced it is, since the 4A is generally aimed at arbitrariness and harassment and that sort of thing. But, if you can make it stick without wild flights and leaps of logic, I would be genuinely pleased to start using it.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I do like the idea that an unsafe weapon seizure is unreasonable and thus a violation of 4A. I'm not convinced it is, since the 4A is generally aimed at arbitrariness and harassment and that sort of thing. But, if you can make it stick without wild flights and leaps of logic, I would be genuinely pleased to start using it.

Property rights?

There is some recent discussion at (Volokh Conspiracy dot com?) to the effect once upon a time the courts analyzed 4A violations in terms of trespass. This was debunked, though. Turns out, according to the scholars, that the court decision that instituted a privacy-based analysis made up the trespass analysis, meaning the scholars looked and found no earlier cases using a trespass analysis to sort out the reasonableness of searches.

So, I wonder if there is case law on unnecessary or unreasonable property damage or risk of property damage during a search or seizure?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Interesting, I have never been disarmed or had a problem when pulled over if I advised them I was armed or not. But then I rarely get pulled over.:lol:

Strike take with a grain of salt as you have responses from those who have a bone to pick with any government representative, those who no longer have a drivers license and unable to step into your shoes and those who feel they can do what ever they want with out consequences or taking responsibility for their own actions.
Some playing the role of activist and wanting everyone in protest regardless of what the individual wants.

If you plan on resisting in a non violent manner make sure you understand the law as you maybe the one paying for the process and may come out poorer or possibly a winner minus the wounds along the way, it is your choice.

Straw man city lacking any substance other than veiled ad hominem attacks against those you seem to disagree with, typical.

Who is arguing to do what they want without paying for the consequences?

Who no longer have licenses and if they did why would that matter in pointing out an argument against rights?

Who are playing activist? You either actively take a stance for rights or you don't. What are you "playing" at?

If the OP didn't want peoples opinion on his actions he could have not posted it.

And it's always easy to tell someone what they should do when it it's not your @ss on the skillet.

Like all the bystanders at a developing bar fight egging on one of the participants.

Poor analogy. A developing bar fight are between two private parties and party doesn't have the power and sanction of the state to execute you with impunity. Or to just "end this" like Meade did.

So a bully starts a fight at the bar and wants you to give up your rights you should just capitulate?

Really? In this situation there is ONE legal difference between the Police Officer and the Store Clerk. The difference is that the Police Officer has the right to temporarily disarm the subject for the duration of the traffic stop whereas the Store Clerk does not. That is the only difference. Hardly comparing apples to oranges.

Because some folks insist on putting our public employees on a pedestal they don't belong on.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I would argue that running the serial number of a firearm seized "for officer safety" during a traffic stop violates the 4th Amendment and the Washington State Constitution.

I like it!

Big Note: New readers should understand that Navy is discussing what he would argue, not what the law is. The courts have not adopted his analysis.


In a broad sense, what lets the cop get away with running the serial number of a gun he has seized temporarily for officer safety is something called the plain view doctrine. In short, if a cop is in a place he is legally allowed to be, and something is in plain view therefrom, then he can legally view that item. If that item is contraband, then it is fair game as evidence.

You can find out more about this in a case specifically about a serial number--on a stereo turntable--in Arizona vs Hicks. Also, you can wiki "warrant clause exceptions". Wiki can be a little dangerous sometimes, but the legal articles usually have a long list of cites to court cases of which you can hunt and read the official syllabi (syllabus= summary).

There is a link to Arizona v Hicks here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?55914-Get-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&

 

[Vitaeus]

Actually, Washington does have case law that covers searches, in regards to Washington. I will dig up a citation later, don't have it immediately to hand. Yet another example of Washington State Constitution and the better protections we have here versus other places. Seizing the firearm for officer safety, which is arguable, does NOT permit the officer to uncase and then run the serial number absent some form of probable casue the firearm is an element of a crime. This shows the importance of stating "I do not consent, but I will not resist" this preserves your rights and makes any evidence found to be fruit of the poison tree, and thus inadmissable.

ETA: excerpt from https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/June 2012 final Search Seizures and Confessions.pdf

"The Washington Court of Appeals indicates that plain view involves three stages: viewing,
reaching and seizing: (1) The officer must view the item to be seized without intruding
unlawfully on the defendant's privacy; (2) the officer must reach the item without intruding
unlawfully on the defendant's privacy; and (3) the officer must seize the item (a) without
intruding unlawfully on the defendant's privacy (as opposed to the defendant's possession),
and (b) with probable cause to believe the item is contraband or evidence of a crime. See
State v. Hoggatt, 108 Wn. App. 257, 270, 30 P.3d 488 (2001).
C Plain view will not allow an officer to move an item such as a TV set to observe the
serial number. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 94 L. Ed.
2d 347 (1987); State v. Murray, 84 Wn.2d 527, 534, 527 P.2d 1303 (1974), cert.
denied, 421 U.S. 1004 (1975).
C Plain view will not allow an officer to seize a video tape if the exterior of the tape
does not indicate that the tape may be evidence of a crime. See State v. Johnson, 104
Wn. App. 489, 502, 17 P.3d 3 (2001)."

 

[BigDave]

From the same link above https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/ima...onfessions.pdf

Terry Stop and Search Checklist
To STOP – You must have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is committing, has committed, or is
about to commit a crime. Reasonable Suspicion must be based on specific, articulable, rational facts (Less than
probable cause but more than a hunch.)
Articulable factors justifying stop. (Need multiple factors, at least one of which must come from the second column.)
___ hour ___hand to hand movement
___ high crime neighborhood ___eyewitness information
___ appears lost or to not be a resident of the area ___concerned citizen
___ unusual presence ___CI information
___ standing on street corner __co-defendant information
___ nervousness ___personal knowledge of d’s drug use
___ flight-manner of movement ___personal knowledge of d’s license suspension status
___ drug trafficking neighborhood ___smell
___ other ___defendant statement
To FRISK – You may frisk outer clothing for weapons and may search if you reasonably believe you
are in danger.
Articulable factors justifying search for weapons.
___high crime neighborhood ___CI information
___guns common in neighborhood ___co-defendant information
___feel of weapons ___personal knowledge of d having weapons
___shape of weapon ___defendant’s movements
___sight of weapon ___defendant’s statements
___sound of weapon ___sight of ammunition
___concerned citizen information ___other
To QUESTION – You may demand the suspect’s name and address and an explanation of the
suspect’s actions. You may detain him for a reasonable period of time to verify his answer. If he says nothing or
tells you to jump in a lake, that’s your tough luck; you cannot do anything to the suspect.
BOTTOM LINE – You must be able to articulate reasons to distinguish the suspect from someone who just
may happen to be there.

 

[Cubex DE]

So, thank you for the waste of time reading your post about the 5A for stuff I already knew.

You still missed the part I was trying to get you to see (that can happen when you decide to skim over something you really aren't interested in reading). Feel free to click links in that post and you'll see a video where a cop threatens to "blow all your f***ing heads off" during a traffic stop because the citizen voluntarily disclosed that they were armed. That specifically pertains to this post, and based on your reply I can tell you didn't actually click any links and watch the videos. My post has a lot more to it than what I alone wrote.

[video=youtube;SZmId13y730]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZmId13y730&t=33s[/video]

Let's start with the request that someone else provide the cite for your assertion about the law on recording public servants. Forum Rule #5 doesn't say you ask someone else to provide the cite; it says you provide the cite. Cite, please.

Meh, I'm lazy. Also, I decided to start by fixing your punctuation.

How do you figure that running a serial number that is in plain view is an instance of a cop disregarding the law? Does WA law forbid it?

As already stated by others a few posts back, the weapon's serial number was not in plain view, and the courts actually have ruled that running a serial number without RAS constitutes an unreasonable search.

I do like the idea that an unsafe weapon seizure is unreasonable and thus a violation of 4A. I'm not convinced it is, since the 4A is generally aimed at arbitrariness and harassment and that sort of thing.

Seizing my firearm is arbitrary, and is harassing. Those are pretty much the exact words I would use to define it.

 

[gogodawgs]

<snip>As already stated by others a few posts back, the weapon's serial number was not in plain view, and the courts actually have ruled that running a serial number without RAS constitutes an unreasonable search.<snip>

Please cite the court and the case.

 

[Cubex DE]

Please cite the court and the case.

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290

A warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." The Court of Appeals held that the policeman's obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search. Both state courts rejected the contention that the policeman's actions were justified under the "plain view" doctrine.

(Second Google result for "gun serial number fourth amendment")

 

[dadada]

You still missed the part I was trying to get you to see (that can happen when you decide to skim over something you really aren't interested in reading). Feel free to click links in that post and you'll see a video where a cop threatens to "blow all your f***ing heads off" during a traffic stop because the citizen voluntarily disclosed that they were armed. That specifically pertains to this post, and based on your reply I can tell you didn't actually click any links and watch the videos. My post has a lot more to it than what I alone wrote.

[video=youtube;SZmId13y730]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZmId13y730&t=33s[/video]

Before you start correcting others, you might want to make sure you don't have errors yourself. The video you posted, the driver didn't volunteer that he had a gun. He was forced to state it. He was in Ohio, which has a law forcing him to.

 

[Citizen]

Before you start correcting others, you might want to make sure you don't have errors yourself. The video you posted, the driver didn't volunteer that he had a gun. He was forced to state it. He was in Ohio, which has a law forcing him to.

Thanks, da. I guess the irony is lost on him that he wanted me to read his entire post, but to get this one, I'd have to watch the videos and follow all his links, too.

Bluster and noise signifying nothing.

 

[Citizen]

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290

A warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." The Court of Appeals held that the policeman's obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search. Both state courts rejected the contention that the policeman's actions were justified under the "plain view" doctrine.

(Second Google result for "gun serial number fourth amendment")

Oh, you're a brilliant thinker. Do you really think the court is going to apply that case to a cop running a serial number that is in plain view after it is lawfully seized for officer safety? Really?

 

[Citizen]

You still missed the part I was trying to get you to see (that can happen when you decide to skim over something you really aren't interested in reading). Feel free to click links in that post and you'll see a video where a cop threatens to "blow all your f***ing heads off" during a traffic stop because the citizen voluntarily disclosed that they were armed. That specifically pertains to this post, and based on your reply I can tell you didn't actually click any links and watch the videos. My post has a lot more to it than what I alone wrote.

Yeah, and what it does have is stuff we already knew, Mr. Arrogance. Like I said earlier, it all distills down to cops ain't your friend; and the general 5A right to silence. Your wonderous, original contributions to our understanding of the 5A as applied to the OP is awe-inspiring. I'll nominate you for a Pulitzer.

But, thank you for acknowledging me contribution about a link in a chain and (not). Apparently those little details of 5A escaped you in your haste to throw up a non-sequitur defense.

 

[gogodawgs]

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290

A warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." The Court of Appeals held that the policeman's obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search. Both state courts rejected the contention that the policeman's actions were justified under the "plain view" doctrine.

(Second Google result for "gun serial number fourth amendment")

Did you even read the case? http://law.uark.edu/documents/Mincey_v_Arizona.pdf

I highly doubt it, as this has zero similarities to the OP.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP As already stated by others a few posts back, the weapon's serial number was not in plain view, and the courts actually have ruled that running a serial number without RAS constitutes an unreasonable search.

OK, you time waster. I've gone back and read all of Strike's posts. In which post exactly did he say the serial number was not in plain view after it was seized? Just give the post number.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP You do NOT have to inform the officer you are recording, since he is a public servant in a public location and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy (someone please provide the citation for this, I forget what it is).

Hahahahahahahahaahaha!! Still no cite? Using the laziness excuse? Translation: I just wanted to sound important.



Listen, wanting to give advice is a good thing--it shows you care. Just learn to actually give sound advice, stopping treating others like idiots, and cite your authorities so new guys can look it up and read it for themselves rather than having to take your word for it.

 

[gogodawgs]

Hahahahahahahahaahaha!! Still no cite? Using the laziness excuse? Translation: I just made it up as I went along.

I will give you the cite since CUBE can't seem to get any correct.

Our recording of public officials is pretty clear.

State v Flora http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

 

[Citizen]

I will give you the cite since CUBE can't seem to get any correct.

Our recording of public officials is pretty clear.

State v Flora http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

Thanks. I was pretty sure his comments were accurate from reading on the Washington forum in the past. My point was that he didn't cite so unfamiliar Washingtonians could find out for themselves.

Which your post nicely accomplished.