• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Read This First - California Open Carry Information

A ECNALG

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
138
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

Please excuse any duplicity.

People should be familiar enough with this material so that in the event of a contact with law enforcementthat goesbeyond PC 12031e, one may knowledgeably discuss the matter with the officer or deputy in a civil fashion.



DEFINITIONS:[/b]

[/b]
“Plain View” Doctrine
[/b]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain+View+Doctrine

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2043-plain-view-doctrine-


Reasonable Suspicion / Cause
[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+cause


Probable Cause[/b]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause


Stop and Frisk[/b]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk


Memo to: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Subject: Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
[/b][/b]
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf



COURT CASES:[/b]


Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)[/b]
“Search” for serial numbers; “Plain View” doctrine; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://supreme.justia.com/us/480/321/case.html



Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (1999)
Anonymous Tips; Reasonable suspicion; Stop and Frisk (Terry Search); 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://supreme.justia.com/us/529/266/case.html



Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial DIistrict Court of Nevada, Humbolt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Reasonable Suspicion; Stop and Identify statutes; Terry search; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

[url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html[/url]



Ornelas et al. v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)
[/b]Reasonable Suspicion; Probable cause; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/690.html



Reynolds v. State of Florida, 592 So. 2d 1082 (1992)
[/b]Reasonable Suspicion; Terry search; Consent to search; Illegal use of Handcuffs

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/75832/75832.html



Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Reasonable Suspicion, Investigatory “Stop” and “Frisk”; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/392/1.html


St. John v. David McColley and[/b] The Six Unknown Officers of the Alamagordo Department of Public Safety, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM (2009)
[/b]Open Carry in Public; Search and Seizure; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf


United States of America, v. Kahli Ubiles, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,224 F.3d 213 (2000)
[/b][/b]Anonymous Tips; Reasonable Suspicion; Terry Search; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/224/213/576335/


US v. King and Burdex, US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 990 F.2d 1552 (1993)
[/b]Firearm in Vehicle; Reasonable Suspicion; Seizure; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/990/1552/434777/




U.S. CODE:
[/b]
[/b]
United States Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter 1, Section 1983
[/b]Civil action for deprivation of rights

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title42/42usc1983.html




ARTICLES:
[/b]

Does the use of handcuffs turn a temporary detention situation into an arrest?[/b]

http://www.icje.org/id72.htm



Reasonableness of Handcuffing during a valid “Terry Stop”
[/b]
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/tshcuffs.shtml



Legal Update: Terry Stop Document from A to Z
[/b]
http://www.halloran-sage.com/News/story.aspx?storyid=2309



Liability and the Use of Handcuffs
[/b]
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/35314-liability-and-the-use-of-handcuffs



Reasons to handcuff without making an arrest with court cases cited
[/b]
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/35306-reasons-to-handcuff-without-making-an-arrest-with-court-cases-cited


Searching Suspects - An integral law enforcement function
[/b]Terry Pat-Down versus Consent Search[/b]

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Operations-and-Tactics/Searching-Suspects/3$31099
[/b]



COURT CASE RESEARCH WEBSITE:[/b]

http://law.justia.com/





 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
imported post

A ECNALG wrote:
[/b]COURT CASES:[/b]


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial DIistrict Court of Nevada, Humbolt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Reasonable Suspicion; Stop and Identify statutes; Terry search; 4[suP]th[/suP] Amendment

[url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html[/url]
Howdy A ECNALG, you and MudCamperdid a wonderful job however, please remove the Hiibel v. Sixth because it isn't applicable to our State and it is sent misinformation to everyone, especially both lazy DAs & LEOs did missing the othercases facts.

I did the searched and wrote it back in 1985. Someone stolen it and place in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes under the Obligations under “stop and identify” laws in State of California and I don’t mind, just let’s everyone known about this situation.

And I’m about to send this same message to MudCamper but I just notice that thread has been changed on regarding of Hiibel v. Sixth (not applicable in CA).[/i] Thank you!
 

A ECNALG

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
138
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

The reason for citing Hiibel here is that some LE departments and and D.A.s also cite Hiibel, but as justification for demanding that the "detainee" provide his/her name. Hiibel is specific to Nevada, a state with a"stop and identify" statute. SCOTUS said:


"Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer....

"The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop....

"Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The Court noted a similar limitation in Hayes, where it suggested that Terry may permit an officer to determine a suspect's identity by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting only if there is "a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect's connection with that crime." 470 U. S., at 817."
The Terry stop must of course be valid, and for that it must be based upon reasonable suspicion of a crime.

California does not have a stop-and-identify statute.

Unloaded open carry is not a public offense, thus, no crime is committed by doing so.

The fact that the officer does not know whether the detained UOC'er is in the prohibitted class should be irrelevant barring articulable reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Thus, the citation of Hiibel is an important educational tool for those who practice, or intend to practice, UOC.
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
imported post

A ECNALG wrote:
Thus, the citation of Hiibel is an important educational tool for those who practice, or intend to practice, UOC.
I'm aware of that and thanks for posted to narrow that down and I agreed as above but like I wrote before, lazy DAs and LEOs missed that parts isn't in their memos nor or explanation of why in Hiibel v. Sixth case? Are they bothered to read it all and so is the UOC? Mostly like to read in summary just like you did it as above posted. You already got Terry v. Ohio is good enough without the Hiibel. Please just add (not applicable in CA) to getting the DA and LEO attention and let's them figure it out why and what if they missed your posted from the thousands of threads here? Also add the link I posted as above before or used from the MudCamper's link: Kolender V. Lawson ondisregarded ofHiibel v. Sixth case.

Just wanting to stop the gossip. Thanks again.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Thanks for the constructive input, Wc. And A ECNALG I still haven't gone through and made sure all of your references are in the first three post. But I will!
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
imported post

MudCampermust be very HAPPY to see this topic on top of this California page and LOCKED!:monkeyAnd no more hunting the topic or thread!:celebrate
 
Top