ID check. serial number check

[matt2636]

ive been watching youtube videos of open carry in cali. and somethings ive see in police asking for ID and checking serial numbers on guns. im not very clear on this so i thought i would ask. in iowa do you have to show ID? or when do you have to show ID in the state of iowa? and 2nd when i decide to OC and a cop checks or writes down my serial number on my gun is that illegal? under what codes are these found? im worried about the serial number being check for that fact that if that police officer is against carrying. he could write down the numbers and report it stolen and the next time your stopped the officer runs the numbers and its "stolen" your prolly gunna be arrested. and its not just loe i worry about it could be anyone but i dont give out my serial numbers on my guns anyway. any thoughts or links to iowa codes where these could be found?

 

[Hef]

A false report of a gun being stolen can easily be disproved. If an LEO were to take a lawfully owned gun's serial number and enter it into the NCIC stolen guns database, and the rightful owner were later arrested for possession of a stolen firearm, it could certainly be tracked and the officer held accountable.

While possible, it isn't likely, nor something to worry about as a reason not to carry.

 

[78 Camaro]

4th amendment is the code

No valid reason to "check" your serial number without a warrant.

 

[matt2636]

A false report of a gun being stolen can easily be disproved. If an LEO were to take a lawfully owned gun's serial number and enter it into the NCIC stolen guns database, and the rightful owner were later arrested for possession of a stolen firearm, it could certainly be tracked and the officer held accountable.

While possible, it isn't likely, nor something to worry about as a reason not to carry.

Ok that makes me feel better. I would hope none of them would do that.

 

[Citizen]

Fourth Amendment is the Code. No valid reason to "check" your serial number without a warrant.

Not entirely true. I agree there is no valid reason to check the serial number. However, the law seems to allow such checks. Certainly, I have never heard of a case where checking the serial number of a gun temporarily seized during a temporary seizure of the person was held unconstitutional.

Look up:

Terry vs Ohio and Michigan vs Long and see what they have to say about police temporarily seizing a firearm from someone who has been seized. One case is about foot encounters, the other is about car stops.

Then google "plain view searches". Or, "warrant exceptions", meaning exceptions to the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment.

I'm betting the rationale goes something like this:

1. Only unreasonable searches are prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
2. All warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional, unless the search or seizure is done under a recognized exception to the warrant clause.
3. If a cop sees an offense, or has genuine reason to suspect a crime is, was, or is about to occur, he can seize the person without a warrant.
4. If the person is armed, he can temporarily seize the weapon for his safety and the safety of those around him.
5. If the cop is in a place he is legally allowed to be, he is allowed to use his eyeballs looking for contraband in plain view--for example a stolen gun, drugs, etc. If he sees such, it would not be subject to the Exclusionary Rule.

I'm not saying the foregoing list is the law. I'm suggesting you might find this rationale or something close to it if you look up the references I mentioned.

 

[78 Camaro]

Re: Citizen

You bring up a lot of great points and I haven't finished the research you offered. But I will.

However, the OP was mentioning what appears to me a causal encounter.

For no other reason than a person happens to have a holstered gun in plain view the cop wants to know this persons life history etc. I personally would highly object to having my numbers checked.

Anyway I found Arizona vs Hicks where the cops responded to a call where shots were fired, they found other items that they thought were stolen so they recorded serial numbers, they had to move these items around to find the serial numbers. this later was found to have violated the plain view rule. So along those lines, if the officer had to remove the gun from the holster to read / check the serial numbers, wouldn't that in effect violate the plain view rule?

I could see if a cop came up to you and said, "Hey, at role call we were informed of a stolen glock and I see you are carrying a glock, I need to check the serial number to see if its the one we are looking for". At least he has a valid reason to check the numbers.

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Still googling..

 

[matt2636]

Re: Citizen

You bring up a lot of great points and I haven't finished the research you offered. But I will.

However, the OP was mentioning what appears to me a causal encounter.

For no other reason than a person happens to have a holstered gun in plain view the cop wants to know this persons life history etc. I personally would highly object to having my numbers checked.

Anyway I found Arizona vs Hicks where the cops responded to a call where shots were fired, they found other items that they thought were stolen so they recorded serial numbers, they had to move these items around to find the serial numbers. this later was found to have violated the plain view rule. So along those lines, if the officer had to remove the gun from the holster to read / check the serial numbers, wouldn't that in effect violate the plain view rule?

I could see if a cop came up to you and said, "Hey, at role call we were informed of a stolen glock and I see you are carrying a glock, I need to check the serial number to see if its the one we are looking for". At least he has a valid reason to check the numbers.

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Still googling..

ok a lot of that seem bogus. theres always going to be "a stolen glock" or a "stolen sig, xd, kahr,....." the list goes on cause theres a lot of stolen ones out there. iv heard of the plain view rule but OC is not against the law so there is NO reason for a stop in the first place. unless you have it unholstered and in you hand for some odd reason.

 

[hermannr]

The difference is: Were you stopped for reason? Or were you stopped just because you wore mismatched socks?

If you were stopped for reason, I would suspect that the officer could check anything related to that reason. Example, you run a stop sign or speed. The officer can ask for your drivers license. Initially that is all he can ask for unless state law, as here in WA, says he can ask to see your proof of insurance and the registration for the vehicle. (different states have different laws here)

If you are committing a criminal act, he may arrest you and temporarly hold your weapon. If all you are doing is walking down the street with an open carried firearm, at least with WA law, no he cannot legally take that weapon for any reason. No more than he can ask you to remove your underware so he can check and see that you changed them in the year.

 

[IA_farmboy]

... but OC is not against the law so there is NO reason for a stop in the first place.

Open carry is unlawful inside city limits on public property without a permit. If one is seen on a sidewalk or in a park with a visible firearm then it might seem reasonable for a LEO to ask for a permit.

On the other hand, one does have the presumption of innocence. An officer should presume the person has a permit unless there is some articulable reason for the officer to presume otherwise. We also have the right against unreasonable searches to bolster that premise. The officer should be able to articulate a reason for stopping a person to ask for a permit. The question arises, is merely the open carry of a weapon sufficient articulable reason to detain a person for a search? It appears that the answer is, yes.

There is also a couple practical issues at hand here. One is that if a person is carrying a firearm openly can that person be expected to stop for every single officer that wants to verify a valid permit? Imagine a large park filled with people and a few dozen police officers, with only one person carrying a firearm openly. Is that person supposed to stop for every officer? I thought we lived in a free country where we didn't need "papers" to go to the park. Imagine that same park filled with people but now there are hundreds of people carrying openly. Is the individual officer empowered to stop large groups of people and hold them until every person has shown their "papers" to the officer?

Take this crowd filled park to the issue of checking (and quite likely recording) the serial numbers of these firearms. I thought we had the presumption of innocence. Does not taking the firearm and checking the serial number require some sort of articulable suspicion?

The whole basis of a permit to carry weapons is a violation of not only our Second Amendment rights but also our rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

Okay, I need to get off my soap box and get to the question at hand. As far as I can tell the law does allow an officer to stop an open carrier in city limits to ask for a permit. I see no law that would allow for the seizing of the weapon to check the serial number against a stolen weapon database.

If the person is on private property, a filling station or grocery store for example, the authority of the officer to ask for a permit is debatable. There is nothing unlawful for being on private property while armed (openly or concealed) if the property owner permits it. However, the officer can logically presume that one had to enter a public space (road or sidewalk) to get there. That's one case where I would not push the matter and just show my permit. That's a court case that I don't believe I would win.

 

[Citizen]

Re: Citizen

1. You bring up a lot of great points and I haven't finished the research you offered. But I will.

2. However, the OP was mentioning what appears to me a causal encounter.

For no other reason than a person happens to have a holstered gun in plain view the cop wants to know this persons life history etc. I personally would highly object to having my numbers checked.

Anyway I found Arizona vs Hicks where the cops responded to a call where shots were fired, they found other items that they thought were stolen so they recorded serial numbers, they had to move these items around to find the serial numbers. this later was found to have violated the plain view rule.

3.So along those lines, if the officer had to remove the gun from the holster to read / check the serial numbers, wouldn't that in effect violate the plain view rule?

4. I could see if a cop came up to you and said, "Hey, at role call we were informed of a stolen glock and I see you are carrying a glock, I need to check the serial number to see if its the one we are looking for". At least he has a valid reason to check the numbers.

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Still googling..

1. Thank you.

2. At best the OPer was ambiguous. In that he used language like "have to" and "next time...stopped" I would lean more towards he's trying to find out all the circumstances he is compelled by law to act in certain ways or comply etc. Meaning a detention/seizure/Terry Stop rather than a consensual encounter. With all that said, I am not in a position to comment on Iowa law, so I wasn't particularly trying to address that. I was addressing your exact comment about the validity of a serial number check. Obviously it helps if we all are a little more precise.

3. I agree that removing a gun from a holster in order to search its serial number would be prohibited by AZ vs Hicks. My favorite line from AZ v Hicks: "A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Do keep in mind that a gun seized for officer safety is seized for a different reason than a serial number check. Good luck, though, trying to prove the cop only seized the gun to run the serial number when he says he seized it initially for officer safety. I am convinced that many of the guns temporarily seized during traffic stops, etc., are seized solely to run the serial number, but proving it in any single case is likely to be extremely difficult, or rather convincing a judge to rule in favor of the gunners 4A rights would be extremely difficult.

4. I can't see that, myself. No particularized suspicion. No individualized suspicion. (See the warrant clause of the 4A--probable cause, particularly describing, etc.) A million+ Glocks or whatever out there and they are going to seize the person (can't seize his gun without seizing him, can they?), and then seize the gun to check the serial number because he might remotely be the one they're looking for? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm betting that one won't fly. Escpecially in light of Florida vs JL where SCOTUS expressly declined to adopt a gun exception to standard Terry Stop doctrine. Florida vs JL is not directly on point. But, it gives some insight into the court's thinking.

 

[SavageOne]

Whether or not the serial number of my gun may be checked if I am detained has troubled me for a long time. Several good points have been brought up here.

If I am detained and I relinquish my firearm for "officer safety", I would insist they take it holster and all. I am not sure this will keep my guns serial number from being run, since I think it's commonly allowed to render the firearm safe(i.e. unloaded), which would entail removing it from the holster to do so. Once removed the serial number is in "plain sight" for the officer to run.

Another technique I have heard discussed on various forums, is to obscure the serial number to remove it from "plain sight" even if upholstered. The simplest way described was to use black electrical tape(or similar) to cover the serial number. A drop of lock tite is then applied to each corner of the tape so as to indicate if the tape is peeled back. This technique was, to say the least, controversial. Many stated they thought this would be a violation of state and federal law. I live in MO, so I am unaware if the laws are the same, but here's what it says in MO.


http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000045.HTM


Defacing firearm, penalty.
571.045. 1. A person commits the crime of defacing a firearm if he knowingly defaces any firearm.

2. Defacing a firearm is a class A misdemeanor.

(L. 1981 H.B. 296 § 571.040)



Here's the definition of "deface" found in the definition portion of that chapter.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000010.HTM


(5) "Deface", to alter or destroy the manufacturer's or importer's serial number or any other distinguishing number or identification mark;




So, by letter of the law, I think I would be safe in MO, since I would only be covering, not altering or destroying the serial number. There is however the question of RAS. Would the intentional obscuring of the serial number of a firearm give a LEO RAS that a firearm may be stolen and therefore reason to run the serial number? I don't know, which is why I have yet to try this technique. I am also unaware of any Federal statues concerning "covering" the serial number of a firearm.

Any thoughts or input would be appreciated.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Driving a car without a license is illegal, but a LEO has no authority to stop any and every car just to see if the driver has one. The same is true with firearms. Without some RAS that a specific crime is afoot he has no authority to stop you and, if he does, the entire event is unlawful. ...

Stop right there for a second, is this written in the law somewhere? Has there been a court case on this? As far as I know this concept has not been tested when it comes to firearms. What you say seems logical but I'm not so sure that is how the law and courts have dictated. If this is not the law already I do suspect that the law, or some future judicial precedent, will make this true. Until that happens, as far as I know, the LEOs in Iowa have the legal authority to stop a person they have seen with a weapon and ask to see a permit to carry. Again, that is as far as I know. I am not a lawyer and I am certainly not YOUR lawyer.

... Taking the gun and running the serial number would be a illegal siezure and an illegal search. However, once a legal stop is made, with appropriate RAS, your gun can be taken and held for the duration of the stop for "officer safety". Once the officer has your gun he can do whatever he wants with it.

A terry stop does allow the officer to disarm the individual in question. Without some further research I have doubt about your claims. One thing I am quite certain of is that the officer cannot do just ANYTHING with the weapon, such as destroy it. The weapon is potentially evidence in an investigation and must be treated as such. Whether or not the running of the serial number is illegal can be debated. Until I see some evidence either way I'm not sure what to think.

I'm quite certain that if my firearm was taken from me by a local LEO then I'd be seeking a lawyer. I'd have the NRA, SAF, and ACLU on the phone in short order.

 

[Citizen]

Stop right there for a second, is this written in the law somewhere? Has there been a court case on this? As far as I know this concept has not been tested when it comes to firearms. What you say seems logical but I'm not so sure that is how the law and courts have dictated. If this is not the law already I do suspect that the law, or some future judicial precedent, will make this true. Until that happens, as far as I know, the LEOs in Iowa have the legal authority to stop a person they have seen with a weapon and ask to see a permit to carry. Again, that is as far as I know. I am not a lawyer and I am certainly not YOUR lawyer.

Here is the OCDO info on Iowa OC: http://www.opencarry.org/ia.html

"Iowa is not a traditional open carry state, but no permit is required to open carry except when in vehicles or when inside city limits. Open carry in cities is technically legal with an Iowa permit to carry weapons, however Iowa is a may-issue state, and some sheriffs have indicated that they will revoke your permit for open carrying."

Here is an IA statute that seems applicable. IA Code 724.4(4)(i) is an exception to the prohibitions against carry:

A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit. (emphasis by Citizen)
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2003SUPPLEMENT/724/4.html

Now, here is the earlier opening section of that statute:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.

So, Section 1, just above, lays out what is illegal. Then Section 4, coming along a little further down the page of the statute, lays out some exceptions to section 1. And, subsection 4.i lays out the specific weapons permit exception.

Now, I would say, from reading Section 1 that outside of city limits, only concealed weapons are illegal. Thus, section 4.i acts only as an exception to the concealed weapons outside a city, and concealed and open guns inside a city.

Thus, I would say a cop has no authority to demand a permit if he sees OC outside of a city. Not unless there is a court case that interpreted the law differently, or another statute altogether, or a later statute (this one seems to date from 2003 according to the URL).

I am not a lawyer.

Also, even if I'm right, that don't mean the cops is gonna follow the law. Your remedy against them illegally seizing your ID might take you a couple years in federal court. Meanwhile, maybe the sheriff has revoked your permit to carry concealed outside cities, and open and concealed inside cities.

So, the obvious solution is to get engaged to the sheriffs daughter or niece. Come on, you can do it. Sometimes ya gotta take one for the team. :0

 

[Tucker6900]

Driving a car without a license is illegal, but a LEO has no authority to stop any and every car just to see if the driver has one. The same is true with firearms. Without some RAS that a specific crime is afoot he has no authority to stop you and, if he does, the entire event is unlawful. Taking the gun and running the serial number would be a illegal siezure and an illegal search. However, once a legal stop is made, with appropriate RAS, your gun can be taken and held for the duration of the stop for "officer safety". Once the officer has your gun he can do whatever he wants with it.

Iowa Law 724.4.i states:

A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons

There is no law stating that we are required to provide any other identification during a stop for a firearm.

 

[Citizen]

Yes, but a legitimate Terry Stop requires RAS. Without RAS the detainment is illegal and officer safety does not apply. If it's not a legitimate Terry Stop, you are not detained and it must be consensual. If the LEO invokes "officer Safety" just refuse consent and walk away. You are right, he can't do "anything". That was hyperbole. I assumed everyone would recognize it.

Huh!?! Walk away!?! After merely refusing consent? Without the officer's permission to walk away?

There is law, and there is tactics based on the law. The first does not directly translate into the second. There are a number of other factors going on. Below is a post of mine from a recent thread. That discussion was about giving identity info to a cop during a Terry Stop. This discussion is not about identity, but some of the factors still apply.


...Now, you might know with complete certainty that you're up to nothing and haven't done anything. But, its not what you were actually doing that counts. Its whether the cop has reason to suspect. Whether he has observed something, or received a report of something.

Here's the tricky part: How on earth is an OCer going to know whether the cop really has genuine RAS or not? There are reams of court opinions about whether this or that set of circumstances added up to enough to be genuine RAS. You'd be surprised what kinds of things courts have allowed as being suspicious enough to allow a temporary seizure of the person. I read one case, Christian vs Commonwealth, where the detainee was carrying his gun in his hand from his car into his apartment building. The dissent pointed out that since he didn't have a permit, this was the only way he could carry the gun. Nope, the VA Supreme Ct or Court of Appeals ruled the detention lawful because there was a police drug sting going on in the area at the same time, it was a drug area, the sting command post was in his apartment building (possible danger to the cops in the command post), and he had a gun. Go figure.

So, first, you have the problem of knowing what the cop has seen or received a report about (911 call—what was reported by the 911 caller? Was it a true report? Was it embellished?). Then, you have the problem of guessing whether a court has already ruled similar circumstances amount to RAS. Then you have the problem of guessing whether the judge you might face will rule RAS existed or not. And, all of this assumes the cop tells you his RAS truthfully, without stretching, lying, or withholding something, and that he won't stretch, lie, or embellish later; and, I've never seen a court opinion that required a cop to tell his RAS to the detainee or to be truthful to a detainee.

Now, if there is a statute or ordinance or something that requires you to identify yourself to a cop, and you guess wrong about the RAS, here come the chrome bracelets for sure. Even if you guess right, you might still get arrested, but released later. Its what the cop and later your judge thinks, not what you think.

So, its more than just whether there is a statute or not. There is also the whole question of RAS, and trying to guess whether the RAS is genuine. There is a distinction here: the law is one thing. How you apply it during a police encounter is something else.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Here is the OCDO info on Iowa OC: http://www.opencarry.org/ia.html

"Iowa is not a traditional open carry state, but no permit is required to open carry except when in vehicles or when inside city limits. Open carry in cities is technically legal with an Iowa permit to carry weapons, however Iowa is a may-issue state, and some sheriffs have indicated that they will revoke your permit for open carrying."

That information is out of date. Iowa is no longer a may-issue state. A sheriff cannot revoke a license for open carry.

Now, I would say, from reading Section 1 that outside of city limits, only concealed weapons are illegal. Thus, section 4.i acts only as an exception to the concealed weapons outside a city, and concealed and open guns inside a city.

Correct. Carry of any kind in a city requires a permit. The question at hand is whether or not an officer can use only the spotting of a firearm in city limits as RAS to stop a person and demand the presentation of a permit. Carrying in the city limits is illegal without a permit, does seeing an armed person equate to seeing a potential crime in progress? I sure hope not.

Thus, I would say a cop has no authority to demand a permit if he sees OC outside of a city. Not unless there is a court case that interpreted the law differently, or another statute altogether, or a later statute (this one seems to date from 2003 according to the URL).

Agreed. As far as I know this part of the law was unchanged in the most recent permit to carry reform bill.

I am not a lawyer.

Likewise.

There is no law stating that we are required to provide any other identification during a stop for a firearm.

Since my permit has my name, photo, date of birth, and city of residence I fail to see the distinction of failure to be required to show any other document. Further information is on file with the state in the processing of that permit, which is undoubtably available to the officer over the radio in short order.

... That was hyperbole. I assumed everyone would recognize it.

Even though I am still awake and surfing the web at midnight my brain likes to fall asleep at about 11:30. Forgive me if I'm not so quick on catching the obvious.

 

[Citizen]

Yes, you walk away. If he stops you you are officially detained. Then you shut up.

You were the one who said a detention was occurring. Here is what you wrote, that I quoted, emphasis added by me:

Yes, but a legitimate Terry Stop requires RAS. Without RAS the detainment is illegal and officer safety does not apply. If it's not a legitimate Terry Stop, you are not detained and it must be consensual. If the LEO invokes "officer Safety" just refuse consent and walk away. You are right, he can't do "anything". That was hyperbole. I assumed everyone would recognize it.

You wanta stop giving out advice that might get people physically restrained by police?

I say again: The law is one thing. Translating it into tactics is something else.

 

[Tucker6900]

On the other hand, one does have the presumption of innocence. An officer should presume the person has a permit unless there is some articulable reason for the officer to presume otherwise. We also have the right against unreasonable searches to bolster that premise. The officer should be able to articulate a reason for stopping a person to ask for a permit. The question arises, is merely the open carry of a weapon sufficient articulable reason to detain a person for a search? It appears that the answer is, yes.

Per Iowa Law (724.4.i) we are required to show a permit upon demand of an officer. Now, I believe, that leaves open the question as to whether or not an officer has reason to ask for a permit due to open carry. It is unclear, unless you can cite a specific code.

I would like to believe that an officer would not bother me if I was open carrying, but thats a different world now isnt it.

 

[Badger Johnson]

Though you can't obliterate a serial number you can cover it with tape or glue or something opaque, correct?

I'm just guessing but I've heard of people taping over their numbers which means the LEO can't peel it off because it's illegal search to uncover something. Only if he sees it in plain sight and memorizes it can he run it, AFAIK.

 

[Tucker6900]

Though you can't obliterate a serial number you can cover it with tape or glue or something opaque, correct?

I'm just guessing but I've heard of people taping over their numbers which means the LEO can't peel it off because it's illegal search to uncover something. Only if he sees it in plain sight and memorizes it can he run it, AFAIK.

I believe, although I am unable to cite at this time, that any obstruction of the serial number is a crime. Ill do some checking.