# Police Department contest to seize guns results in lawsuit



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2011)

http://www.examiner.com/county-poli...-after-a-coast-guard-officer-is#ixzz1ByZ7nv18




> The Southern California City of San Fernando and its Police Department will pay $44,000 for negligence because an officer did not know the rules and regulations for individuals or law enforcement officers to lawfully carrying a firearm.
> 
> The San Fernando Police Department gives out awards to officers that achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations, said Jason Davis an attorney for Calguns. But this contest encourages the illegal confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by officers who do not understand the laws themselves.


 
The most positive thing to come out of this IMO, is the following:



> The terms of the settlement include educational policies on assault weapons; carry permits, open carry and LEOSA rules.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 20, 2011)

how about imprisonment for the cop taking firearms illegally


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> how about imprisonment for the cop taking firearms illegally


He has limited immunity.  He was acting in good faith, according to his understanding of the laws.  The question then would become whether his misunderstanding was negligent or malicious -- and it doesn't sound like it would be found to be either.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> He has limited immunity. He was acting in good faith, according to his understanding of the laws. The question then would become whether his misunderstanding was negligent or malicious -- and it doesn't sound like it would be found to be either.


 I will try that excuse next time I am speeding...
no officer I was driving in good faith, I was sure that the speed limit was 90 in this stretch of the freeway...
I had not malicious or neglectful intent... so let me off thank you...

ya whatever.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2011)

Tell you what.

Next time your job routinely opens you up to immense civil and criminal liability, at both the state and federal level... you can complain.

Until then, yeah, cops have immunity when they are doing their honest best to do their job right.  Whether you like it -- or cops -- or not.  That immunity isn't absolute.  

And, yeah, the agency having a contest about gun seizures, unless paired with proper & reinforced training, was stupid.  The chief or whoever came up with that one is likely finding his balls in a vice over it... and may well find that $44000 payment coming out of their hide in one way or another.

There is room for question whether a Coast Guard reserve maritime officer falls under LEOSA.  The rest?  It appears from the article to be a fairly widespread misunderstanding of CA law.  Hey, there are still cops in VA who don't understand that VA is an open carry state... despite several incidents with OpenCarry.org's members.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Tell you what.
> 
> Next time your job routinely opens you up to immense civil and criminal liability, at both the state and federal level... you can complain.
> 
> ...


 
no ignorance is no excuse ever.
If a cop is to damn lazy or to damn stupid to know the law they have no business enforcing it. I know alot of cops, and they are no damn different then anyone else, they have chosen a job, most have a strong sense of moral values and strive to help, but it does not matter if they do not know the law. Your argument is crap.
So when congress votes to make something a law that is clearly illegal in the consititution are you prepared to defend them with this immunity crap?
what you may wish to be true and what is true here are two seperate things.
If a cop, any cop, ever tries to take my firearms away I will create the largest shitstorm you can imagine. Nobody will take away my rights, and I pity the man who illegally tries to take away my rights.

btw the job itself does not open a cop up to civil and criminal liability, the cops ability to stay within the law is what opens themselves up to it.
Virtually any job in the Country will have the opportunity to put the person doing it under possible civil and criminal liability.
so dont give me that sanctimonious crap.
Cops are people they need to understand the laws better then anyone else since it dictates how they do their job, I personally feel that they should be held to a much higher standard with harsher penalties when they break laws. Especially when they illegally take away another persons rights.
No you wont get any sympathy from me here. Cops are great people for the most part, but you have plenty of idiots in the job as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 20, 2011)

I would expect that LEO's would be well trained in laws surrounding weapons possession, and that the higher your rank, the more familiar you would be with them.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 20, 2011)

"Coast Guard Reserve" counts as being a federal LEO??

I'd like to see the real ruling on that one. Unless he was on orders I doubt that one.

As to the rest I would like to know how this copper justified looking into this gun case unless he had consent. Which he may very well have had. The details of the encounter are pretty vague here.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> "Coast Guard Reserve" counts as being a federal LEO??
> 
> I'd like to see the real ruling on that one. Unless he was on orders I doubt that one.
> 
> As to the rest I would like to know how this copper justified looking into this gun case unless he had consent. Which he may very well have had. The details of the encounter are pretty vague here.


That's the catch I see, too.

I don't know the specifics of CA law.  The way he was transporting it would have been legal in VA.  Apparently -- it was also legal under CA law.  But it seems, based on the article, that there are a fair number of cops who don't understand it properly.  Maybe it's a poorly written code section.  Maybe it's just a misunderstanding communicated over several years.  I've seen that happen more than once -- even from people who really are expected to know better.  Like attorneys.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 21, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> That's the catch I see, too.
> 
> I don't know the specifics of CA law.  The way he was transporting it would have been legal in VA.  Apparently -- it was also legal under CA law.



FWIW, since we are bringing it up, that was legal transportation in Illinois.

"Unloaded and in a case" is the rule here. It doesnt have to be locked, the ammo does not have to be seperate.

There have been cases here where people have been arrested for having mags in the same case, and even a recent case that defined the law here where someone was arrested for transporting a firearm in a closed center console, which has now been defined as a "case" since the requirement that was defined in the law was that it be fully "enclosed". 

But the fact remains that cops don't understand these laws, and really really need to.  One thing I agree with Lucky about is that I would create a shitstorm so big everyone in the surrounding states would know our law... but it would be done not with the goal of getting rich, but rather with the intent of educating the cops so it never happens again.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 21, 2011)

The fact of the matter is "COPS" are not a monolithic group in terms of policy, training and the way they go about things.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 21, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> FWIW, since we are bringing it up, that was legal transportation in Illinois.
> 
> "Unloaded and in a case" is the rule here. It doesnt have to be locked, the ammo does not have to be seperate.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that they should know the law.  But sometimes, the laws are ambiguous or just plain confusing.  For example, look at section 18.2-287.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended:_*§ 18.2-287.4. Carrying loaded firearms in public areas prohibited; penalty.* _
_ It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a loaded (a) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (b) shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered on or about his person on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public in the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, or Virginia Beach or in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, or Prince William. _
_ The provisions of this section shall not apply to law-enforcement officers, licensed security guards, military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, or any person having a valid concealed handgun permit or to any person actually engaged in lawful hunting or lawful recreational shooting activities at an established shooting range or shooting contest. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. _
_ The exemptions set forth in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section. _
_ (1991, c. 570; 1992, c. 790; 2003, c. 976; 2004, c. 995; 2005, c. 160; 2007, c. 813.) _​The title suggests you can't carry a gun openly, right?  Read the section, and you start getting into lots of specifications on what guns (basically, "assault weapons") and even what cities and counties it applies to.  I pick on this code section for discussions like this on purpose: if I just check a pocket codebook, I could easily make the mistake of arresting someone based on the title, right.


Other times, there are just plain misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the law that start in the academy.  Again, I'll look at Virginia because I'm most familiar with the laws here.  Sheriff's and their deputies derive their authority from the Virginia Constitution.  Police officers derive their authority from the Code of Virginia, and enacted laws of each jurisdiction.  Some academies are teaching that deputies have full authority anywhere in the state.  It's clear that police in Virginia don't; their authority is basically limited to their jurisdiction.  But I know sheriff's deputies that have rulings from their county attorneys that they have no jurisdiction outside their county.  Who's right?   I really don't know.  (I know my authority, though.  And I don't suggest arguing about whether the cop about to arrest you has sufficient jurisdiction.  There are lots of ways he can have jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction that employs him...)


Again -- it's a LEO's duty to learn the laws, and to understand how they work and what they actually say.  But, sometimes, their are legitimate reasons why he might be confused or incorrect in what the code says.  If it's not the result of gross negligence or misconduct... it's a mistake.  Heck, for a long time, we couldn't get a straight answer about how to transport a gun around or through the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia...


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 22, 2011)

> Again -- it's a LEO's duty to learn the laws, and to understand how they work and what they actually say. But, sometimes, their are legitimate reasons why he might be confused or incorrect in what the code says. If it's not the result of gross negligence or misconduct... it's a mistake.


 
True, true.  But by the same token, the phrase "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" comes to mind.  Don't get me wrong, guys, I didn't post this to bash on cops... I posted it as an example of how bad things can go when a Cop ****s up, which is why I stated that the training and education on their Gun Laws was the best thing to come out of that lawsuit.  I find this especially true now that several states have adopted "Consitutional Carry" and it's (IMO) in the best interests of LEOs to understand the laws as they apply to them.  Hell, I still hear about Crook County Sherrifs here who insist that ammo has to be seperate from the firearm, fanny packs and Center consoles are not legitimate "cases"...  And I bet most of the "educated" LEO here in Illinois only know the "Unloaded in a Case" rule... and would have a shitfit if they saw my gun being transported outside of a case, but there is a provision here that allows that as well, as long as the gun is in a non-firing state... I mean, Cmon, you carry a gun to protect yourself from violence on the street, why not arm yourself with knowlage to protect your *** in the courtroom as well?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 22, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> True, true.  But by the same token, the phrase "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" comes to mind.  Don't get me wrong, guys, I didn't post this to bash on cops... I posted it as an example of how bad things can go when a Cop ****s up, which is why I stated that the training and education on their Gun Laws was the best thing to come out of that lawsuit.  I find this especially true now that several states have adopted "Consitutional Carry" and it's (IMO) in the best interests of LEOs to understand the laws as they apply to them.  Hell, I still hear about Crook County Sherrifs here who insist that ammo has to be seperate from the firearm, fanny packs and Center consoles are not legitimate "cases"...  And I bet most of the "educated" LEO here in Illinois only know the "Unloaded in a Case" rule... and would have a shitfit if they saw my gun being transported outside of a case, but there is a provision here that allows that as well, as long as the gun is in a non-firing state... I mean, Cmon, you carry a gun to protect yourself from violence on the street, why not arm yourself with knowlage to protect your *** in the courtroom as well?


I don't disagree.  And I'm fortunate enough to have access to excellent training and trainers, who work hard to keep us up to date with new developments.  

Not everybody is.  I know officers who haven't had a real legal update since the academy...  It's not that they're not interested -- they don't have decent access.  Their agency limits training hours strictly, and they HAVE to get other classes for either career or professional development.

And there are, like any other profession, the guys who just can't be bothered or won't learn.

Also -- like I said -- sometimes it's just plain confusion.  The recent _Gant _ruling is a good example.  The court held (briefly) that officers can't automatically search a car incident to arrest.  OK...  For a lot of cops, I don't think it was an issue.  They didn't create an arrest solely to search a car.  For others -- yeah, they hooked a guy for something they wouldn't ordinarily make a custodial arrest to get into the car.  For some of those cops -- they lost a tool.  A lot of cops didn't.  And they can still get into the car simply by inventorying it prior to impound...  And that's without even getting into the Carroll Doctrine.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 22, 2011)

If I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong) Gant was outside of his vehicle when he was arrested. The court decided that the search incident to arrest didn't apply to the vehicle because Gant wasn't IN the vehicle when PC to arrest was generated.

People don't realize how the average LEO determines/applies the law and what exactly is involved in keeping up to date with the latest revisions and court cases. What could have been "above board" last year may not apply this year and if the officers are not properly trained they my be misapplying statutes.

PS-Gant is also a good example of why to have a good vehicle inventory policy (although seeing how Gant parked in his driveway, towing may not have been possible).


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 22, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> People don't realize how the average LEO determines/applies the law and what exactly is involved in keeping up to date with the latest revisions and court cases. What could have been "above board" last year may not apply this year and if the officers are not properly trained they my be misapplying statutes.



Man, I hear you and I know it's gotta be tough... look at the flipside tho from a non-LEO perspective for a second:  If the law changed here and I don't keep up on it, and have my gun unloaded and in a fanny pack case, you stop and search me, and find me in violation, chances are no one was going to be effected by what I was doing: I'm a genuinely law abiding citizen who made a mistake: (and I completely understand you would have no way of knowing that and would be well within your job description to arrest me) but if I'm in the right and you don't know that and arrest me and put me thru the system, you could ruin my life, cost me my job, my security and benefits, thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs and even my freedom if my case isn't presented well because I can't afford the best lawyers... I think it is far more damaging for LEO to be ignorant of the laws than the average Joe, which is why, IMO it's so much more important to mandate that kind of training for Cops.


----------



## Hudson69 (Mar 31, 2011)

I believe that Officers should know the law to the best of their ability however how many laws are out there and how do they change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  If you are an Officer of a city then you might have municipal ordinances, state statutes and federal law to deal with all while trying to work a normal shift and deal with everything that goes with it.

Anyone who can say that there is liability in any job is correct however that blanket statement can only come from someone who is not in law enforcement: someone who daily responds to acts of law breaking or is on the verge of doing so.

Someone did drop the ball here or it wouldn't be an issue however before LEO's get pushed for not having all of the statutes they are required to enforce memorized just tell me that at your job you have every Policy and procedure memorized, all of your duties memorized and so on.  

There are enough bad officers out there to give the other 99.8% a bad name (last I heard there were 800,000 commissioned officers in the USA) so I hope that this isn't a bashing session.  And if you think you are getting the wrong end of the stick then contest it in whatever venue suits the situation best.


----------

