Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for...

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NavyLCDR

member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,677
Location
Stanwood, WA
Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for...
concealing a firearm! :scrutiny:

http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2010/03/jury-acquits-honor-student-gun-charge/

“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.
Click to expand...

At least there are 12 people in San Francisco with some common sense.
 
LAME
the LEO took pictures AFTER moving the gun and handling it... what a waste of taxpayer money, both on his salary and the trial.
 
Another example of LEO, good or bad, iver stepping their bounds and hasseling innocent law abiding citizens. For "good" LEO's on this site, this isn't badgering all LE, just the bad ones like these ones.
Asside for even making an arrest for some thing that wasn't illegal, or even coming close, they addmitied to evidence tampering. This guy gets put thru the ringer, will have his future possibly harmed, and more. And I bet no disaplinary action will be taken against the officers.
 
There have been at least two similar situations in Ohio.

About a year ago, a young man was arrested by Cleveland police for CCW while openly carrying a gun in a military-style flap holster. The young man chose to enter a diversion program rather then fight the CCW charge.

Recently. a man was arrested for CCW when Warren police saw him carrying Mexican style. The article writer mistakenly used the term "holstered" but there was no holster.

WARREN - Antonio M. Hernandez, 23, 1929 S. Feederle Drive S.E., was arrested on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon after police said he was seen with a handgun holstered at his waist about 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in the 2200 block of South Feederle Street S.E.

He was arraigned Thursday in Municipal Court and is in the Trumbull County Jail in lieu of a $5,000 bond. He has a preliminary hearing set for March 18.

A police report states that officers on patrol saw him standing on the sidewalk with the gun in plain sight in front of several people, including several children who were playing.

Police stopped and ordered Hernandez to come over to their cruiser, and officers took the gun, which was a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun. A records check revealed that Hernandez does not have a concealed weapon permit, the report states.

The weapon was loaded with a nine-round clip, the report states.
Click to expand...

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/534681.html
 
What about other Constitutionally protected items?

Can they arrest you for carrying a visible Bible or newspaper? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and these contain many dangerous ideas that MIGHT prompt you to break some law.
 
He is just lucky the officers didn't invent other probable cause, which does happen. Or his entire defense would have been ruined.

Had they said something like "smelled odor of marijuana", or "in a high drug trafficking area", or "suspicious in area with high gang activity" or "patted something and believed to be instinctively feeling for his weapon" or one of the similar blanket excuses often used instead of honestly saying they saw the openly carried firearm his defense would have faltered.

Essentially if the officers had made up any other reason for probable cause except for seeing an openly carried firearm they could have claimed they found the concealed firearm afterwards. Which would have made his defense much more difficult.

Had he lost his case he would have become a prohibited person in California.


Officers are also free to stop anyone to check if the gun is loaded under California law per the penal code. So they can harass people legally carrying an unloaded firearm each time they see them without any additional probable cause.
 
Last edited:
This is great news... aside from the wasted tax dollars of course. Many of us are hoping to build up enough momentum to push for "shall issue" and reciprocity laws soon. Even though this case has nothing to do with CCW permits, the fact that a CA jury actually sided with the gun owner is a giant leap in the right direction.

Had they said something like "smelled odor of marijuana", or "in a high drug trafficking area", or "suspicious in area with high gang activity" or "patted something and believed to be instinctively feeling for his weapon" or one of the similar blanket excuses often used instead of honestly saying they saw the openly carried firearm his defense would have faltered.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. And a lot of the cops in CA do these scandalous things with frightening regularity (especially in cities like SF). This is the price we pay for having our KGB liberal mafia state... the cops are not defenders of society, they are defenders of the elite.
 
It's really illegal to carry a loaded gun in your car in California? Geez! How do they get away with those drive by shootings then?
 
This is an example of why Yuma Arizona is gonna be the new sea coast!!!!!
Click to expand...

It has started already, for several years now we have had a large influx of California residents moving here, not only into Yuma but throughout Arizona and other western states as well.
 
Wait a second. Did that article from Ohio state he was wearing a gun in plain...in front of...children who were playing? Dear God!! Will the madness ever end!?

If that is not an attempt by the media to totally (and in as lame a manner as possible), to paint open carry advocates in an extremely negative light I do not know what is. That is almost the exact way they describe a perv flashing people.
 
One of these days The Peoples Republic of Kalfornia will be forced to rejoin the United States of America. Until then I just refuse to go there for any reason.
 
A lawyer who had many successful concealed carry cases told me that any case where the police claim to have seen a concealed weapon is very easy case to win. He said the same thing as the lawyer in the article, concealed means "not visible" so you can't "see" a concealed weapon. He said a good concealed weapons charge is ancillary to another legitimate reason to search an individual and they happen to find a weapon by a method other than viewing it.
 
Ive read how our first president George Washington carried a dress sword on his person at all times, when he was out. That would just be ..... If our president open carried a dress pistol when he went out in public. Not sure how the perception in this country has gotten so that carrying a weopon in public all in itself makes you evil. Our first prez was a General and the sword was part of his dress attire. So he wore that same attire as president. I guess America has become more civilized since then? Nowadays you have to worry about having the police called on you if your open carrying. And potentially getting CC charges if your holster isnt deemed proper. Like you were really trying to hide it. Had someone mention that to me while OCing my S&W 442. Its a small gun and I have a small holster, Im not trying to conceal it. If I wanted to do that I would just put it in my pocket, it would be much easier.
 
A lawyer who had many successful concealed carry cases told me that any case where the police claim to have seen a concealed weapon is very easy case to win. He said the same thing as the lawyer in the article, concealed means "not visible" so you can't "see" a concealed weapon. He said a good concealed weapons charge is ancillary to another legitimate reason to search an individual and they happen to find a weapon by a method other than viewing it.
Click to expand...

Which is why all they have to do is approach them, and do a terry frisk, which requires no probable cause per our SCOTUS, and then "discover" the concealed weapon they could see all along.
At which point they can write it up as coming across a concealed weapon while doing a routine terry frisk for officer safety.

Officers abuse the "terry frisk" to discover drugs and other things all the time when actually doing it for that purpose is illegal. They may know someone clearly does not have a weapon in a tiny little pocket, or in their skin tight clothing, but they are going to check it anyways to "accidentally" stumble across contraband during their permitted terry frisk.
They have even done a "terry frisk" in some cases on people legally carrying a loaded firearm (either openly where legal, or with a concealed permit) everyone knows about to look for contraband.
Clearly a joke in that case because the guy has an obvious lethal weapon on him known to everyone, but the officer is going to use the pretense of making sure he has no dangerous weapons (purpose of the Terry frisk) to explore what is in his pockets?


The "terry frisk" is routinely used in California and other places to explore the contents of pockets when probable cause does not exist. If they then "stumble" across contraband they write it up as an accident. Or they can retroactively create probable cause. Like saying they smelled marijuana if they find marijuana. Or saw symptoms of some narcotic if they find narcotics. It may be untrue, but it is routine and nobody in a court of law is going to know any better.
 
Zoogster said:
Which is why all they have to do is approach them, and do a terry frisk, which requires no probable cause per our SCOTUS, and then "discover" the concealed weapon they could see all along.
At which point they can write it up as coming across a concealed weapon while doing a routine terry frisk for officer safety.

Officers abuse the "terry frisk" to discover drugs and other things all the time when actually doing it for that purpose is illegal. They may know someone clearly does not have a weapon in a tiny little pocket, or in their skin tight clothing, but they are going to check it anyways to "accidentally" stumble across contraband during their permitted terry frisk.
They have even done a "terry frisk" in some cases on people legally carrying a loaded firearm (either openly where legal, or with a concealed permit) everyone knows about to look for contraband.
Clearly a joke in that case because the guy has an obvious lethal weapon on him known to everyone, but the officer is going to use the pretense of making sure he has no dangerous weapons (purpose of the Terry frisk) to explore what is in his pockets?


The "terry frisk" is routinely used in California and other places to explore the contents of pockets when probable cause does not exist. If they then "stumble" across contraband they write it up as an accident. Or they can retroactively create probable cause. Like saying they smelled marijuana if they find marijuana. Or saw symptoms of some narcotic if they find narcotics. It may be untrue, but it is routine and nobody in a court of law is going to know any better.
Click to expand...
You are wrong on several counts. First the cop must have "articulable reason " to do a Terry stop and if he doesn't the the cop is violating the law. Second, carrying an unconcealed weapon in a holster, or at least not in your hand, is not even reason for a Terry stop. Why are you giving cops powers they do not have?
 
You are wrong on several counts. First the cop must have "articulable reason " to do a Terry stop and if he doesn't the the cop is violating the law. Second, carrying an unconcealed weapon in a holster, or at least not in your hand, is not even reason for a Terry stop. Why are you giving cops powers they do not have?
Click to expand...

They are powers they use all the time. They harass teenagers with it everyday (as teenagers, are responsible for a lot of certain types of crime.)
Who are being "suspicious" or "loitering" or other regular things teens do when just hanging out with friends.
Teenagers (or parents on their behalf) don't sue over minor things very often either so make ripe targets of abuse.
The burden of proof for a terry is almost non-existant and any officer can create a reason on the spot for anyone. Unlike probable cause.

They are a little slower to harass adults, but if they really want to do a terry they can create a reason. It does not even require probable cause and if they know it will result in a charge (like a concealed weapon charge from a weapon they can plainly see) they will proceed.

Maybe your area is different, but in many areas I have lived, especially in California, and most especially in lower income areas (which incidentally are the high gang and crime areas) , they do these things regularly.
 
Last edited:
Zoogster said:
They are powers they use all the time. They harass teenagers with it everyday (as teenagers, are responsible for a lot of certain types of crime.)
Who are being "suspicious" or "loitering" or other regular things teens do when just hanging out with friends.
Teenagers (or parents on their behalf) don't sue over minor things very often either so make ripe targets of abuse.
The burden of proof for a terry is almost non-existant and any officer can create a reason on the spot for anyone. Unlike probable cause.

They are a little slower to harass adults, but if they really want to do a terry they can create a reason. It does not even require probable cause and if they know it will result in a charge (like a concealed weapon charge from a weapon they can plainly see) they will proceed.

Maybe your area is different, but in many areas I have lived, especially in California, and most especially in lower income areas (which incidentally are the high gang and crime areas) , they do these things regularly.
Click to expand...
If they are doing it they are breaking the law and need to be stopped. Cops are not omnipotent and do not possess those powers. Oh and they would never get away with it with any of my kids or me. If you let them do it, you are not much of a citizen or a parent if let them get away with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Court overturns denial of gun permit to man once detained in mental ward
Replies
3
Views
456
Big Gay Al
B
E
  • Locked
Calif. Judge Dismisses Suit against Gun Industry
Replies
12
Views
984
jimpeel
J
U
  • Locked
Decision: Police can search person suspected of carrying illegal firearm for ID
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Z
  • Locked
Florida man sues officers for concealed weapon (firearm) arrest
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
joab
J
C
  • Locked
California: "Calif. May Bring Charges Against Wal-Mart "
Replies
3
Views
320
tyme
T
Back
Top