No guns and the police

[divemedic]

I just got back from a gun show here in Orlando, and along with a discussion in the Disney thread, what happened has caused me to think of a question:

At the door to the gun show there is a sign that reads "No firearms allowed inside, even with a concealed weapons permit." Also at the door, a police officer (FHP) asked me if was carrying a weapon. When I said no, he said "Are you sure? Don't make me frisk you!" (He said it in a joking manner, but ...)

At Disney, a worker who legally had a weapon in his car was met in the parking lot by Disney security and half a dozen deputies who demanded to search his car. He refused and was suspended.

My question is not about the rights of property owners, but of police powers:

1 It is illegal to lie to a LEO who is conducting an investigation in the performance of his duties. If the LEO is working as a security guard, he is not in the performance of his duties as a LEO, then I am free to lie to him. If I do so, can I be lawfully arrested?

2 Does he have the legal authority to search me, or even to demand that I submit to a search?

It seems to me that a LEO working as a security guard and engaging in searches is opening himself, the property owner, and his department in a legally precarious position.

 

[xjchief]

I'm fairly certain the police at least here in Jacksonville have the ability to enforce the law on their own time even if they're doing some kind of security gig. Don't know if you can be dishonest to an LEO off duty or not.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Good thing you didn't get frisked. ; )

-Sans Authoritas

 

[divemedic]

Sure, but searching cars and people entering private property is not enforcing the law. If they are acting in their capacity as LEOs, then what they are doing is unlawful search, and therefore they are depriving you of your civil rights under color of authority.

If they are not acting in their capacity as a LEO, then they cannot penalize you for lying to them.

It has to be one or the other.

 

[Rokyudai]

...tell him, "Hey, not unless you are planning to buy me dinner."

Verbal kung fu chop!

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

1 It is illegal to lie to a LEO who is conducting an investigation in the performance of his duties. If the LEO is working as a security guard, he is not in the performance of his duties as a LEO, then I am free to lie to him. If I do so, can I be lawfully arrested?


No, you cannot lie to him. His "police powers" are with him on and off duty. A Mpls police officer in Duluth can arrest you for shoplifting if he sees you do it. (The question is, does he really want to waste his time doing it in Duluth.)

It's never ok to lie to the police.




2 Does he have the legal authority to search me, or even to demand that I submit to a search?

If he has reasonable suspicion that you have a firearm and are up to no good, he can legally frisk (terry pat) you. If he has probable cause that you committed a crime he can search you.




It seems to me that a LEO working as a security guard and engaging in searches is opening himself, the property owner, and his department in a legally precarious position.



Depends on the situation, and there's many.

 

[SomeKid]

Keep in mind, state laws vary.

In TN, police lose their powers when off the clock. However, the way the law is written, a HCP must always tell a cop if directly asked whether or not they are carrying.

 

[Thernlund]

What usmarine said applies here as well I do believe.


-T.

 

[divemedic]

Really? and exactly what PC dies he have just because I am walking into a gun show? When he is asking every person who walks in if they have a weapon?

What law states that I cannot lie to a cop working as a security guard who is not investigating a crime?

ETA:

These are the only ones I could find:

837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) Whoever knowingly gives false information to a law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of a capital felony, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

837.055 False information to law enforcement during investigation.--
Whoever knowingly and willfully gives false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting a missing person investigation or a felony criminal investigation with the intent to mislead the officer or impede the investigation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Again, when working as a security guard, he is not investigating a crime.

 

[midnights]

first let me say I am an officer in Florida and have been for over 16 years and local laws and department SOP vary. That said I work many off duty detail such as you are describing.

First off lets look at the working off duty part- I am always on duty no matter who is paying the bill. Our city for instance makes the companies or individuals wanting a police detail sign a hold harmless agreement in an attempt to limit liability. The officer must be acting at all times with the intent to uphold state/local laws. If at any time the officer need to take action- as long as the action is in good faith and appropriate it can be taken.

Now does the officer in your instance have the right to search you. Yes and No- he can if he has any brains at all he can justify doing a pat down for weapons. Can he go into your pockets or do a detailed "search" NO.

Now for the fun part-- CAN YOU LIE TO A POLICE OFFICER?? are you kidding me--- YES YOU CAN- let me repeat that- you can lie to a police officer and not be breaking a single law. Is it smart NO, but are most people smart-NO. That being said you can be charged if you lie when obstructing an investigation and/or during a custodial interrogation. Now if the officer feels you are lying he has many ways to screw with you if he so wishes but given your example- if you lied you would not have broken any law with the lie. I would however remind you to be very aware of the concealed carry restriction. I would also like to point out that the officer can lie to you as well- in fact it is part of academy training and can be used in many ways.

 

[midnights]

Also- an officer is not working as a security guard... It may be easier to think of it this way- The officer is the same officer he is simply working a fixed location. Dont be confused he has the same power and can take the same actions.

 

[BobTheTomato]

I cannot answer that question on the grounds that you may incriminate me.

 

[NukemJim]

inciminate

NukemJim

 

[divemedic]

Let me ask you, if an officer is searching everyone who enters a gun show for concealed weapons, what is his PC? What law has been broken? There are no restrictions in FL against carrying a concealed weapon into a gun show, so AFAIK, he has no PC to stop me, search me, or demand that I answer his questions. Therefore, he is not searching me as a LEO, unless (like you say) he is "inventing" a reason, which is a violation of my civil rights under color of authority.

Now, if the owner of the property (Disney, or the gun show, or whoever) wants him to search everyone entering his property, the LEO cannot be doing that in his capacity as a LEO, because the property owner's policy is not law.

A LEO must follow the law and the constitution or he (and his employer) are wide open for lawsuits.

as long as the action is in good faith and appropriate it can be taken

What is good faith and appropriate about searching everyone that enters a venue?

 

[MedWheeler]

If an officer is checking for CFs at a gun show at the request of the show's operators and/or the owner(s) of the property on which the show is being presented, he has that right. However, ti must be done "in a reasonable manner", which, unfortunately, leaves some wiggle room in definition.
Constitutional freedoms do not necessarily apply on private property (after all, YOU would want the right to determine if illegal drugs were being carried onto your own property by your daughter's new boyfriend, even if you chose not to exercise it.)
In all likelihood, the officer is an off-duty, being privately contracted as security. However, in most jurisdictions, even off-duty LEOs have arrest authority, assuming they are still within their jurisdictions.
Contrary to popular belief, property "open to the public" is not always the same thing as "public property". That's why the mall has the right to have rowdy teens tossed out, despite their pleas of "C'mon, man! It's a free country, isn't it!?"

 

[VARifleman]

MedWheeler, you have forgotten that there are different levels of private property. The publicly accessible private property described is much different than the truly private property of a house. You can do more searches at the latter than the former.

 

[MechAg94]

I would think that if they post prior notification based on your state's laws and he gets some indication that you are in fact carrying, he can have PC to search you.

In Texas, we have that 30.06 sign they can post which makes it a felony to carry a gun inside. While I have heard of people carrying anyway, it is not worth it to me. Personally, I am not really against that policy.

 

[Ed N.]

MedWheeler, your example of someone bringing illegal drugs onto your property is not a good analogy.

The drugs are illegal. The concealed weapon is not.

Regardless of what an employer has told an off-duty officer, the officer must still follow the law. If the employer told him that no women wearing padded bras were allowed, could the officer search for them? (If so, I'm in the wrong line of work.)

The gun shows at the Orlando fair grounds and at the Lakeland civic center are notorious for posting "no concealed weapons" signs. There is no crime in ignoring them. IF someone from the show sees your weapon (damn poor job of concealment) and IF they ask you to leave and IF you refuse, you have then committed armed trepass.

I choose to ignore these signs. If an officer asks if I'm carrying, I'll lie. If he asks to search me, I'll refuse. If he thinks he has probable cause to search me anyway, he might do so, but he'd be wrong. This might have consequences for the officer, but it would have none for me. If the officer searches me and finds I have a weapon, so what? It's legal for me to carry it. What's he going to charge me with?

MedWheeler, you might consider that if you are searching for something that is LEGAL, it's going to be damn tough for you to show probable cause for the search. And at a gun show, there will be lots of witnesses whose sympathies will not be with you.

My actions are legal. End of story.

Someone who can't afford the lawyer may want to make a different choice than mine.

 

[midnights]

Ed

In your example I agree your lie does not break any law. You then refuse the request to search. The officer then has several choices. First and easiest would be to refuse entry to you. Second the officer for example would need to be able to articulate why a pat down was done. If then it was discovered (and is legal) we are back to the first choice of refusal of entry. As for liability and potential legal action against the officer- GOOD LUCK. Your best chance of any recourse against the officer would be thru his department. Your odds of actually winning a judgement against the officer would be very slim to none and would at the least be very costly to you. Then lets say money is no option for so you go for it and actually win- what would your expected outcome be? The officer will most likely be reprimanded which is the same as originally making the complaint with his department.
Just one opinion but food for thought none the less

 

[k_dawg]

In Florida, you would be breakign zero laws by carrying concealed [ with a permit ] in said scenario.

 

[Murexway]

As an ex-LEO, here's my long opinion:

If the officer is being paid by a private property owner to enforce a policy of that owner, then he can't (legally) arrest you for a violation of policy. He can ask you to leave and/or refuse to allow entry to the property, just as a private security guard could. However, as already mentioned, if you refuse to comply, you will be lawfully arrested on the spot, since the officer has police powers.

As for the lawfulness of a pat down search in connection with his enforcing the owner's policy, if you refuse such a request he can do nothing but to deny you entry.

As for lying to the officer, it normally would not be a violation of any law to do so under such circumstances, since he is not investigating a crime or acting in his capacity as an LEO. But don't forget that under Florida law if you have a carry permit and are armed, you have to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact when asked. And if the officer has PC to believe that you might be in violation of any law, he can take action just as if he were on duty and being paid by his agency. So if he decides to pat you down, he'd better be right. And if you tell him you're not armed - you'd better be right!

But as long as you have a carry permit and are carrying legally, there's not much risk.

Now for my short opinion:

Although I'm sensitive to preserving our individual liberties, it's rarely a good (or cheap) idea to lie to the PO-lice. Even if you don't get arrested or have to hire an attorney to deal with the consequences of an arrest, you are potentially opening yourself up to administrative action against your carry permit.

So if the situation, and the officer's request, are "reasonable", why go through life the hard way?

 

[divemedic]

But don't forget that under Florida law if you have a carry permit and are armed, you have to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact when asked.

What law is that? I am not aware of any such law in the state of Florida.

Although I'm sensitive to preserving our individual liberties, it's rarely a good (or cheap) idea to lie to the PO-lice. Even if you don't get arrested or have to hire an attorney to deal with the consequences of an arrest, you are potentially opening yourself up to administrative action against your carry permit.

For what reason? That is the beauty of SHALL issue. I am not subject to the whims of LEOs when it comes to my permit.

So if the situation, and the officer's request, are "reasonable", why go through life the hard way?

What is reasonable about denying me my civil rights under color of authority by taking my weapon or conducting an illegal search?

 

[Murexway]

Quote:
But don't forget that under Florida law if you have a carry permit and are armed, you have to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact when asked.

What law is that? I am not aware of any such law in the state of Florida.

Oops. You're correct. What I meant to say is that under FS 790.06 (1) a licensee must carry the license at all times that he is carrying a weapon and must display the license upon demand of a law enforcement officer.

My point was that even if you don't get arrested, you might end up putting your permit at risk by trying to lie your way past an LEO if you're really carrying, lie about it, and he decides to pat you down.

 

[divemedic]

That is my point- not if the pat down is an illegal search to begin with. A police officer can pat you down to search for weapons for his safety, but the stop must be for a reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in an illegal act (or about to) a LEO cannot, under the law, simply stop and search you for no reason. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) "The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Because of the important interest in protecting the safety of police officers, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch.")

The LEOs earlier in this thread made comments that a "good cop" could invent a reason and make such a search stand up. I think that is a dangerous idea.

Suppose that I know this is going on, so I surreptitiously video a cop at the door of a gun show stopping everyone entering the show. This recording comes to light after the search that was "made legal." The LEO and his employer(s) are about to pay the person searched a lot of money, and the LEO himself may lose his job, his state certification, and go to jail.

 

[Ed N.]

Midnights wrote: "Then lets say money is no option for so you go for it and actually win- what would your expected outcome be? The officer will most likely be reprimanded which is the same as originally making the complaint with his department."
======================================


Perhaps. OTOH, I suggest you read up on violations of civil rights (search w/o cause) and see what outcomes are possible in lawsuits, and notice that officers can be PERSONALLY sued, especially when they are working under the auspices of an employer other than the police department.

An officer conducting himself in this manner while not on police business, but working for a private employer, is risking a great deal of money as well as his job.

Furthermore, since the officer is working for the gun show owner in this scenario, he has opened his private employer up to a lawsuit. Do you really think a few lawyers won't smell blood in the water?

My only risk is not being admitted to the gun show.

So - why should I submit? And why would any cop put himself at this type of risk?

Practically speaking, it's never been a problem and I doubt it ever will. When I enter the show, I ignore the signs. Only once has an officer ever asked if I had a weapon, and I simply shook my head and walked past. I have NEVER seen anyone patted down before entering a gun show. I certainly wouldn't stand for it, and no show operators who value their business would insist upon it.

Can you imagine the furor on the forums if, say, Suncoast Gun Shows was requiring their security guard (i.e., off duty cop) to frisk their customers? It would be the death knell for their business.

Some things just aren't worth worrying about, and this is one of 'em. Ignore the damn sign, lie to the cop if necessary, and go about your business.