If the only reason for the seizure is safety then there is nothing justifying the search (running the serial number), regardless of the time. The serial number was not visible to the officer until he seized it.
Adding dope to the mix is a moot point because at that point you have an arrest, so even if you don’t have a charge related to the firearm you’re going to seize it for safe keeping at a minimum. At that point you’re going to run the serial number before entering it into property and evidence storage.
I live in California what if I’m coming from the gun range and my pistol is locked inside a gun case in the rear seat can they force me to open the gun case to run the firearm do I need to disclose what’s inside the case?
Having you open the gun case to run the serial number, if you consent, would not be a violation of the 4th amendment. IF you consent and it does not extend the stop. However, if you do not consent, the case cannot be opened without probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) to believe it contains the fruits of illegal activity. A search of your person and the immediate vehicular vicinity for a weapon with reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) may still be permissible under the Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long in both scenarios.
I believe he was referring specifically to the extending the duration of the stop. If you are issuing a citation and your buddy runs the serial number it doesn't interfere with or delay you from issuing the citation so it hasn't extended the duration of the stop at all.
What should be concerning is here are 3 people discussing ways to get around violating peoples Rights. Mind boggling. Reaaon #37 why to build your own firearm that doesn't require a serial number.
@MrMackey9 You seem like someone who makes up garbage in their own head, and calls it reality. Its more likely that you read my post with your own internal, very unhappy voice. Nothing I said can even remotely be construed as some kind of unhappiness. Confussion, disbelief, or perhaps even befuddlement are the emotional cues I penned. Not unhappiness. Be better.
What about someone who has a CCW, but never carries a weapon? Forgets to mention that they have a permit but no weapon, and the cop finds out about the CCW when he runs the license? Can they search the car because they believe a weapon might actually be in there?
I would HOPE the fact that you have a CCW but it's unrelated to the reason you were stopped should make the cop more at ease. CCW holders are FAR less likely by magnitudes to commit a crime. Look it up.
@@MaverickCompanyIf a LEO for some reason find out about the CCW that you did not mention they can absolutely search the person AND the car but ONLY the area of the car that is in the immediate control of the driver. A search of the person would be permissible under Terry v. Ohio and a search of the immediate vicinity of driver control incident to a Terry frisk would be permissible under Michigan v. Long. Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long are the case law on this. Reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) are the basis under which both searches would be permissible as long as they are properly articulated on the basis of reasonable ness.
@@writingonthewalls9052 correct. But that is a search for other weapons within reach or on the person. Not a search of the vehicle which is what I think they were asking. But a tale begins on how they found the CCW as you say to begin with for sure.
The Lawyers here in SC state that is an illegal search and seizure in SC as in SC people are allowed even without a permit to have a gun loaded in the glove Box, Console and rear of the veh. in a secured container. Not about time
This is untrue. Here is the SC penal code that says what you’re saying is not true. Section 16-23-510. (C) When carrying a handgun, whether concealed or not, a person must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact he is carrying a handgun when an officer: (1) initiates an investigatory stop of the person including, but not limited to, a traffic stop; (2) identifies himself as a law enforcement officer; 3) And requests identification or a driver's license from the person. This is the penal code. Nowhere in here does is make an exception for permits or protected areas. It says concealed or not concealed. Black and white. That’s all. Which means if you fall into one of these two categories (which you do) you have a duty to inform. No special areas or non-permit exceptions are made.
And the search of a serial number is not illegal. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Doesn’t matter what lawyers in SC say. The Supreme Court has the final say.
@@johnhalpin1847 I read it and it says absolutely nothing about not in forming a law enforcement officer that you are armed. Nowhere in that entire subsection does it say anything like that. It says a permit holder Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, a permit holder must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact that he is a permit holder and present the permit identification card when an officer. It doesn’t say that you DONT have to inform them you are armed just because you don’t have a permit. Where does it say that non permit holders do not have to inform law enforcement that you are armed? Especially when it clearly says that “concealed or unconcealed “ you must inform them.
@writingonthewalls9052 seriously, I sincerely hope your not a LEO. It says if you are Cwp holder it doesn't need to say if your not. God help us if your a LEO. Dude really your erroneous interpretation going to get you in trouble. Talk to your local Solicitor if your LEO
Not in South Carolina. We only have “possession of a weapon during a violent crime” which would only apply to trafficking weight. Which isn’t hard to get with everything except marijuana. But marijuana is the exception to that anyways because it isn’t a violent crime even if trafficking.
US v. Robinson 846 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2017) states if a person is armed they are therefore dangerous for the purpose of a traffic stop. Running the serial number would be prohibited, however, if someone has a firearm you can check to see if they are a prohibited person which in turn would extend the stop in theory but it’s a verification. If you are a convicted felon, been ordered post conviction of DV 2nd not to have firearms or have a possession with intent to distribute charge you cannot possess a firearm. If I run someone through NCIC and then run their license through SCDMV that is still a check and many different case laws talk about what a true extension of a stop is so I think we are getting a little lost with some of this. Also, no having guns and drugs in South Carolina means nothing UNLESS you have trafficking amounts. If you have trafficking amounts of meth (which is 10 grams or more) (SECTION 44-53-375(C). And you have a firearm you will be charged with trafficking meth and trafficking charges are violent crimes in South Carolina so if you have a gun you will also be charged with possession of a handgun during the commission of a violent crime. If a guy got pulled over with 5 grams of meth and a gun. As long as the offender isn’t prohibited you can’t charge him with having drugs with a gun.
That's abhorrent. That you'd run the serial number of a gun owned by a non criminal on a traffic stop without their consent, absent probable cause of a disqualifying crime.
Serial numbers in the vehicle located on items that are the subject of a lawful search or seizure of a lawfully stopped vehicle are not subject to an expectation of privacy. If I am lawfully looking at the gun incident to a lawful search or seizure why would I not lawfully be able to run the serial number? That’s the equivalent of saying your license plate number is subject to privacy when I am viewing It lawfully in a place that I am lawfully allowed to be. It’s not. Neither are the serial numbers. Probable cause is not a requirement because there is no expectation of privacy for serial numbers that I am lawfully examining. If you don’t like it you can take it up with the Supreme Court.
@@writingonthewalls9052 You're telling me the mechanics used to accomplish something that I see as unconstitutional. Seizing the gun of a law abiding citizen, under the guise of officer safety, just to run the serial number. My original comment stands. It's abhorrent. It should only be done if probable cause exists, or there's RAS concerning the gun. I've had 6 or 7 encounters (traffic stops) with police while armed, in several I was required by law to inform them I was armed. In no instance did one seize my gun for officer safety. I guess now I'll need to make sure my holster covers the serial number.
@@ShenandoahShelty I’m telling you it does not matter what ‘you’ personally see as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not see it as unconstitutional. So your opinion on what is unconstitutional when weighed against the ruling of the Supreme Court is worthless. You think your definition of unconstitutional is worth more than the Supreme Court’s? It’s definitely not. The Supreme Court has already decided it is not unconstitutional for a police officer to run the serial number of an item that they are lawfully examining. That’s it. It’s done. There’s no argument to be had. It’s decided. Your original comment does not stand because the Supreme Court says that you are wrong. So your comment is your own personal opinion that is not rooted in fact. Because it’s incorrect. If an officer is in place they are lawfully allowed to be and conducting a search that they are lawfully allowed to conduct on a serial number that is in plan view it makes no logical or legal sense for them not to be able to run the serial number as the expectation of privacy does not extend to a sequence of numbers in plain view. And the Supreme Court agrees. So you’re just wrong.
@@ShenandoahShelty police can remove your gun from you at anytime under Terry v. Ohio for the duration of the stop. Just because the encounters you claim to have had they did not didn’t mean they’re not allowed to. They are. I have mine removed from me most of the time. And it’s lawful for them to do so, once again, under Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court has decided this also.
@@writingonthewalls9052 You sound like a broken record. I say it is wrong and reprehensible that a police officer disarms a legally armed citizen under the guise of officer safety just to run the serial number of his gun, and you keep saying No! it's Supreme Court precedent. That the Supreme say it's legal doesn't make it right. My "claim" is that when I dealt with the police at traffic stops they showed better judgment than you. I'm assuming my more positive experience with the police revolves around the power of the ballot box. If the police in my area kept seizing firearms during traffic stops and running their serial numbers, their political masters would soon find themselves out of a job.
If the only reason for the seizure is safety then there is nothing justifying the search (running the serial number), regardless of the time. The serial number was not visible to the officer until he seized it.
Adding dope to the mix is a moot point because at that point you have an arrest, so even if you don’t have a charge related to the firearm you’re going to seize it for safe keeping at a minimum. At that point you’re going to run the serial number before entering it into property and evidence storage.
I live in California what if I’m coming from the gun range and my pistol is locked inside a gun case in the rear seat can they force me to open the gun case to run the firearm do I need to disclose what’s inside the case?
Having you open the gun case to run the serial number, if you consent, would not be a violation of the 4th amendment. IF you consent and it does not extend the stop.
However, if you do not consent, the case cannot be opened without probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) to believe it contains the fruits of illegal activity.
A search of your person and the immediate vehicular vicinity for a weapon with reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) may still be permissible under the Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long in both scenarios.
@@writingonthewalls9052 thanks for the info these california gun laws get trickier by the day
Back-up officer can do whatever he wants without violating someone's rights?? Care to explain/Case Law
That was an ignorant statement.
I believe he was referring specifically to the extending the duration of the stop. If you are issuing a citation and your buddy runs the serial number it doesn't interfere with or delay you from issuing the citation so it hasn't extended the duration of the stop at all.
What should be concerning is here are 3 people discussing ways to get around violating peoples Rights. Mind boggling.
Reaaon #37 why to build your own firearm that doesn't require a serial number.
Or how they are giving cops the correct answer to enforce the law. It’s not illegal. Calm down. You seem like you’re never happy.
@MrMackey9 You seem like someone who makes up garbage in their own head, and calls it reality. Its more likely that you read my post with your own internal, very unhappy voice. Nothing I said can even remotely be construed as some kind of unhappiness. Confussion, disbelief, or perhaps even befuddlement are the emotional cues I penned. Not unhappiness.
Be better.
@@AnAZPatriot you’re just mad you got called out and you’re wrong. Cope harder junior.
What about someone who has a CCW, but never carries a weapon? Forgets to mention that they have a permit but no weapon, and the cop finds out about the CCW when he runs the license? Can they search the car because they believe a weapon might actually be in there?
No. And in Florida a CCW check does not show up during a driver's license check.
What is PC for search?
I would HOPE the fact that you have a CCW but it's unrelated to the reason you were stopped should make the cop more at ease. CCW holders are FAR less likely by magnitudes to commit a crime. Look it up.
@@MaverickCompanyIf a LEO for some reason find out about the CCW that you did not mention they can absolutely search the person AND the car but ONLY the area of the car that is in the immediate control of the driver. A search of the person would be permissible under Terry v. Ohio and a search of the immediate vicinity of driver control incident to a Terry frisk would be permissible under Michigan v. Long.
Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long are the case law on this. Reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) are the basis under which both searches would be permissible as long as they are properly articulated on the basis of reasonable ness.
@@writingonthewalls9052 correct. But that is a search for other weapons within reach or on the person. Not a search of the vehicle which is what I think they were asking. But a tale begins on how they found the CCW as you say to begin with for sure.
The Lawyers here in SC state that is an illegal search and seizure in SC as in SC people are allowed even without a permit to have a gun loaded in the glove Box, Console and rear of the veh. in a secured container. Not about time
This is untrue. Here is the SC penal code that says what you’re saying is not true.
Section 16-23-510.
(C) When carrying a handgun, whether concealed or not, a person must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact he is carrying a handgun when an officer:
(1) initiates an investigatory stop of the person including, but not limited to, a traffic stop;
(2) identifies himself as a law enforcement officer;
3) And requests identification or a driver's license from the person.
This is the penal code. Nowhere in here does is make an exception for permits or protected areas. It says concealed or not concealed. Black and white. That’s all. Which means if you fall into one of these two categories (which you do) you have a duty to inform.
No special areas or non-permit exceptions are made.
And the search of a serial number is not illegal. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Doesn’t matter what lawyers in SC say. The Supreme Court has the final say.
@writingonthewalls9052 you need to read THE law 23-31-215 specifically says A PERMIT HOLDER. Seriously speak to the Solicitor I have
@@johnhalpin1847 I read it and it says absolutely nothing about not in forming a law enforcement officer that you are armed. Nowhere in that entire subsection does it say anything like that. It says a permit holder Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, a permit holder must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact that he is a permit holder and present the permit identification card when an officer.
It doesn’t say that you DONT have to inform them you are armed just because you don’t have a permit. Where does it say that non permit holders do not have to inform law enforcement that you are armed? Especially when it clearly says that “concealed or unconcealed “ you must inform them.
@writingonthewalls9052 seriously, I sincerely hope your not a LEO. It says if you are Cwp holder it doesn't need to say if your not. God help us if your a LEO. Dude really your erroneous interpretation going to get you in trouble. Talk to your local Solicitor if your LEO
Possession of illegal drugs coupled with a weapon is a separate charge of Armed Possession
Not in South Carolina. We only have “possession of a weapon during a violent crime” which would only apply to trafficking weight. Which isn’t hard to get with everything except marijuana. But marijuana is the exception to that anyways because it isn’t a violent crime even if trafficking.
Okay here's my question is it legal to render the firearm inoperable by removing the firing pin
What if they have a concealed weapons permit
US v. Robinson 846 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2017) states if a person is armed they are therefore dangerous for the purpose of a traffic stop.
Running the serial number would be prohibited, however, if someone has a firearm you can check to see if they are a prohibited person which in turn would extend the stop in theory but it’s a verification. If you are a convicted felon, been ordered post conviction of DV 2nd not to have firearms or have a possession with intent to distribute charge you cannot possess a firearm.
If I run someone through NCIC and then run their license through SCDMV that is still a check and many different case laws talk about what a true extension of a stop is so I think we are getting a little lost with some of this.
Also, no having guns and drugs in South Carolina means nothing UNLESS you have trafficking amounts. If you have trafficking amounts of meth (which is 10 grams or more) (SECTION 44-53-375(C). And you have a firearm you will be charged with trafficking meth and trafficking charges are violent crimes in South Carolina so if you have a gun you will also be charged with possession of a handgun during the commission of a violent crime.
If a guy got pulled over with 5 grams of meth and a gun. As long as the offender isn’t prohibited you can’t charge him with having drugs with a gun.
That's abhorrent. That you'd run the serial number of a gun owned by a non criminal on a traffic stop without their consent, absent probable cause of a disqualifying crime.
Serial numbers in the vehicle located on items that are the subject of a lawful search or seizure of a lawfully stopped vehicle are not subject to an expectation of privacy. If I am lawfully looking at the gun incident to a lawful search or seizure why would I not lawfully be able to run the serial number?
That’s the equivalent of saying your license plate number is subject to privacy when I am viewing It lawfully in a place that I am lawfully allowed to be. It’s not. Neither are the serial numbers.
Probable cause is not a requirement because there is no expectation of privacy for serial numbers that I am lawfully examining.
If you don’t like it you can take it up with the Supreme Court.
@@writingonthewalls9052 You're telling me the mechanics used to accomplish something that I see as unconstitutional.
Seizing the gun of a law abiding citizen, under the guise of officer safety, just to run the serial number. My original comment stands. It's abhorrent. It should only be done if probable cause exists, or there's RAS concerning the gun.
I've had 6 or 7 encounters (traffic stops) with police while armed, in several I was required by law to inform them I was armed. In no instance did one seize my gun for officer safety. I guess now I'll need to make sure my holster covers the serial number.
@@ShenandoahShelty I’m telling you it does not matter what ‘you’ personally see as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not see it as unconstitutional. So your opinion on what is unconstitutional when weighed against the ruling of the Supreme Court is worthless. You think your definition of unconstitutional is worth more than the Supreme Court’s? It’s definitely not.
The Supreme Court has already decided it is not unconstitutional for a police officer to run the serial number of an item that they are lawfully examining. That’s it. It’s done. There’s no argument to be had. It’s decided. Your original comment does not stand because the Supreme Court says that you are wrong. So your comment is your own personal opinion that is not rooted in fact. Because it’s incorrect.
If an officer is in place they are lawfully allowed to be and conducting a search that they are lawfully allowed to conduct on a serial number that is in plan view it makes no logical or legal sense for them not to be able to run the serial number as the expectation of privacy does not extend to a sequence of numbers in plain view. And the Supreme Court agrees. So you’re just wrong.
@@ShenandoahShelty police can remove your gun from you at anytime under Terry v. Ohio for the duration of the stop. Just because the encounters you claim to have had they did not didn’t mean they’re not allowed to. They are. I have mine removed from me most of the time. And it’s lawful for them to do so, once again, under Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court has decided this also.
@@writingonthewalls9052 You sound like a broken record. I say it is wrong and reprehensible that a police officer disarms a legally armed citizen under the guise of officer safety just to run the serial number of his gun, and you keep saying No! it's Supreme Court precedent. That the Supreme say it's legal doesn't make it right.
My "claim" is that when I dealt with the police at traffic stops they showed better judgment than you.
I'm assuming my more positive experience with the police revolves around the power of the ballot box. If the police in my area kept seizing firearms during traffic stops and running their serial numbers, their political masters would soon find themselves out of a job.
Gotta be a gangbanger SMH