Can Police Assume a Container Has a Gun And Open It Without a Warrant Under Single-Purpose Exception
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- The "single-purpose container" exception to the warrant requirement originated in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). The central question in Sanders was "whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, police are required to obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile properly stopped and searched for contraband." Id. at 754, 99 S.Ct. 2586. The Court answered this question in the affirmative, but declared:
Not all containers and packages found by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.
Id. at 764 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2586.
In Robbins v. California, a plurality of four justices elaborated on the "single-purpose container" exception, explaining that the exception is:
little more than another variation of the "plain view" exception,[7] since, if the distinctive configuration of a container proclaims its contents, the contents cannot fairly be said to have been removed from a searching officer's view. The same would be true, of course, if the container were transparent, or otherwise clearly revealed its contents. In short, the negative implication of footnote 13 of the Sanders opinion is that, unless the container is such that its contents may be said to be in plain view, those contents are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment.
453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (plurality opinion), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 801*801 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
Full case here: US v. Gust, 405 F. 3d 797 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2005, scholar.google...
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
lawstache.com/...
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
lawstache.com/...
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
russiansandieg...
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In short , a cop can do whatever he wants because he knows that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill and he won't even get fired.
Everyone thinks that until people stop caring what the paperwork says.
In short keep your mouth shut! If the guy had never opened his mouth he may have been fine.
If a cop does whatever he wants and breaks the law a lawyer will beat the case.
@@RT-fq3tp you forgot the part where you need to actually PAY a lawyer. A court appointed one is just going to go through the motions and tell you to plead regardless.
He’s saying that there are zero ramifications for the cop to break the law. Even if he gets in trouble he doesn’t have to pay, his city does (the taxpayers)
Why does the cop get to search a case just to see if the firearm is illegal? Whether it is a gun case or not shouldnt even come into play, as the police observed no illegal activity or had no reasonable suspicion the gun inside would be illegal. Private property, not breaking a law, yet they get to search the case.
The firearm is legal. The Gov gave themselves power to interpret. It's not theirs. It's yours. No, the US GOV isn't allowed to place infringements on rights of people have to bear arms. Not unless you let them. I'll die first. For real.
Legal and illegal are not right and wrong. The worst atrocities that humanity has ever committed were legal.
Depends on probable cause reasoning..
If the person may be regarded as a person of interest in (example, armed robbery), they (LE) could essentially have said probable cause to verify if that firearm in the case, 1. Is legal or not, 2. Whether it matches the description of alleged use and verification of model/color/etc.
🤷
There may be more info that we are not privy to.. also.
@@ray_donovan_v4 here's where the argument falls down. The title says without warrant, you've stipulated probable cause but never showed exigent circumstances. Hence, a warrant is always required and should be trivial to acquire with proper probable cause.
Especially given that it's long been successfully argued that *everyone* is regarded as a person of interest to law enforcement, so if that's the only justification and it's allowed, the entire fourth amendment is nullified by mere law, rather than the required amendment, thereby rendering the entirety of the Constitution null and void.
The Constitution empowers laws, not the converse, the Constitution guides what laws are Constitutional, not the converse. Without that Constitution, we literally have no lawful government or laws.
@@spvillano i was answering the person above, not the video and it's title.
Good luck. ✌️. I also wasn't arguing a thing.. but that's what you seem to have read. 🤣
My argument would be there is no such thing as a single use container.
Recycle reuse repurpose
One just asks who has ever heard of a single use Zero Haliburton. Any who reply in the affirmative should be immediately charged with perjury.
Edit: I should clarify, those expensive cases are famous for being adapted to custom use containers, such as firearms cases, electronics device cases and more (hell, the nuclear football, inside of the leather satchel, is a Zero Haliburton container and decidedly is more than communications equipment, as targeting codes are also contained in it). I've also had firearms cases that were retasked, due to their specialized configuration to carry classified parcels. In the latter case, they weren't exceptionally secure, as they were utilized for transport, not storage, but they had an outer sleeve that secured and covered the classification label. One removed the outer sleeve with a key, exposing the inner box that was marked, per the law. Open that without a confirmed clearance and need to know, you'll swiftly be under the federal building being debriefed and signing an NDA or in solitary confinement.
@@spvillanogenius..
Correct. Does it contain cash or a firearm. Warrant is needed..
❤❤❤There is NO such thing as a single purpose container. Just because cops have not figured out an additional use for a case / container does not mean that other persons cannot / have not figured out other uses for that same container.
At the beginning he states, that gun shots were heard NEAR an area where shooting is not allowed. After Mr. Gust told the officers that he was target shooting, there was no reason for them to look in his gun case since where he was, shooting was allowed.
This is why you always keep guns in laundry bags and store cans of beans in your rifle case🤔
Isn't that the main reason folks walk around with half their a** crack sticking out with their waste band damn near around their knees?
Spring snakes in the rifle case.
@@longshot7601 That's actually fucking hilarious
@@garrettlundy3959 I always looked in the dirty laundry :-) there is an anything or any place you can think to hide something that the cops can’t also think of that.
Personally, I use all kinds of cases, gun cases, musical instrument cases, whatever to carry my work tools.
If I need to do some drywall, I grab that case, if I need to crimp a large electrical fitting, I grab that case.
If some idiot wants to go through all my cases looking for weapons or other contraband, it will take them awhile only to be disappointed.
There is always a law or exception to allow a cop to do what they want, if not, they will make one up.
Isn't it odd that a cop can pick and choose which laws and details they remember and that can change from case to case.
They are simply lying on documents and in court.
And the prosecutors which attorneys help them.
Anyone else want to buy a lot of gun cases and fill them up with those spring-snakes? "Sure officer, you can open this and take a look . . . ."
Better yet, tell the cops "Sir, I wouldn't open that case if I was you" and see what happens.
Exactly! "Please don't open my gun case.!"
LEO: "Whatcha got in the case?"
MAN: "Oh, you don't wanna look in there."
While I get the humor, that is a sure fire way to get holes punched in your case and/or car and for you to find out what real handcuffs feel like (not those cheapo fake ones you buy from “that website”). Remember those two cops who magdumped their own cruiser because of an acorn?
@@ryanlukens9280#FTP
Why would Gus talk to cops? The first rule of interaction with cops is "never talk to cops." Warrantless searches on private property is highly suspect. And I often use a lockbox to store a firearm or valuables. And almost any "gun case" is by definition not really "single-purpose." And my "range bag" is actually a rucksack which is certainly not "single-purpose." Yet somehow a cop is sufficiently "expert" to make such a determination instantaneously at the scene of an investigation? I don't think so.
Having a gun isn’t a crime.
It is to a cop, who believe only cops should have guns. Hell, I've heard some say that even the military shouldn't have guns, only cops should. Suffice it to say, those that espoused that last lost even the support of their own peers.
@@spvillano So much for their oath to the US constitution.
#FTP
Even a single purpose container could be used for other things. Just imagine, cops are called because someone is playing a violin loudly in the middle of the night. They arrive at the scene and see someone leaving with a violin case. They then search that single purpose container and discover a tommy gun inside. They still might be interested in the contents, but that's probably not the source of the noise violation they were looking for.
We have lost so many rights and are losing more every day.
Our rights are unalienable ! You NEVER LOSE your rights ! They VIOLATE them !!!!!!!!!! Our rights are a natural virtue of our humanity!!!!!!!!!!! Please, get your head screwed on right!!!!!!!!!!
While these politicians cant account for 24 billion dollars which was said to be used to help the homeless. You could split that 24 billion and give each 180,000 people 150,000 each. They stole 24 billion you dont pay your taxes and they will come after u
I have two multi-use cases that can carry firearms or... cameras, gimbals, lenses.
I guess putting your gun case in one of those black bins you get at home Depot might be a good deal. In the gun case it's protected but then the case is protected from being seen because it's in a black bin with a yellow lid
Pelican cases with pick-n-pluck foam holds a lot of things. I have one for electrical metering/test equipment. Another with a camera. And three more with guns . . .
@@Bigrignohio Pelican?! Too darn expensive!!! H freight saved the day.
@@GSSGLLCApache for life. Pelicans were cool when the DOD paid for them lol.
There is absolutely no federal law that saws you have to register a firearm.
In fact there are laws preventing such a registry. Which the ATF is now been proven to be guilty of violating that law.
Yea any other weapons and nfa items need a tax stamp, it is used as a registration.
10th amendment… Do states have the right to implement a registry?
Actually, three immediately come to mind: 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.
@@charlescarmichael1124 The laws refer to the creation of databases of firearms and their owners, not a registry of them. You really need to be more precise in your comments. Oh, by the way, any law which purports to control, limit or prohibit the behavior of the BATFE can safely be presumed to be ignored and repeatedly prison r@ped by that agency.
Was it lawful to shoot where they were? Would the detention be lawful if it was? Why does the state get to say, “I believed it to be within the restricted shooting limits, so I…” and get a pass under the good faith exception? Ignorance cuts the private citizen when they use it as a defense. If it turns out the shooting was on private property outside of the restricted zone, is the only recourse to sue your neighbors in that community for civil damages? I think the people are the only check to the government's overreach. How many times have we heard that we investigated ourself and found no wrong doing. The state and courperations should incur the same consiquinces as a private citizen.
Was it lawful for GOV to infringe at all is real question a free man asks.
@@sloppyoppie Spoken like an anarchist. I am pro-law but believe all citizens are accountable for their actions. Law enforcers are citizens first. Our founders designed our system, enabling legislators to draft laws approved and enforced by the executive branch and adjudicated by the judiciary. If the executive violates those laws, they must be held accountable. This is not how it is in today's society. Law enforcement training teaches officials to control others with a false belief their word is law. In my idealized view, we, the people, are the fourth untitled branch of our government. When the people fear their government, we live in tyranny.
In my wargaming years, I used a rifle case to carry my armies around town. so this view of a "Single-Purpose" exception is more full of holes than Swiss Cheese
Still do myself.
What about the folks who walk around with half their a** crack sticking out with their waste band damn near around their knees?
My harmonicas are in a hard pistol case. There are no brands on it and I labeled it harmonica. It's heavy because it has a bunch of antique instruments packed in. I keep a lock on it in case a cop sees it and thinks I'm transporting a pistol unlocked, lol.
@@kirkthiets2771 just proving openly that they aren't hiding anything in their prison pocket
Remember folks, they make concealed carry pouches that have a cross and say first aid on them for a reason. My range bag is a large EMS jump bag and fits a rifle inside
War crime
So what if there is a gun... Carrying a gun is a lawful activity. Assuming guilt or conducting searches without a warrant is a violation of the law. Every Citizen has the right to protect themselves against an illegal search or seizure. Any attorney will tell you that
Because they control the law the courts cops jails. Tyranny
Not an illegal firearm. A sawed off shotgun with an illegally short barrel is by definition illegal. The worst thing was that the guys confessed that he was using firearms in a "no shooting zone". That opened the door wide open for the search.
@@robertsteinbach7325 According to whom is it illegal.... The GOV that has no right to infringe... or someone else. Seriously.
He also said "unregistered firearm"...what exactly is that?
To some cops (probably a small percentage) you are guilty of something and they just have to find out what that something is.
I keep angry bees in a container just like that.
That would be amazing…pleas mr poolice man dont search in my container…you wont like what you find…
Sorry officer, I haven't cleaned that container out in awhile, I guess a bunch of black widows made it home.
@@michaellowe3665 I’ll bet you some smart lawyer will say that that’s a booby trap and it’s illegal to place booby traps. And if you do that, who do you think is gonna have the worst day?
Spoke with this man over the phone regarding a case. Extremely knowledgeable and would 100% recommend him and his firm.
# 1. Do NOT talk to police. Invoke your Right to remain Silent, and to have a lawyer present before the cops ask you ANY question. Do not give consent to ANY search or seizure, They must have a warrant to search.
@@dirtybird437 I’ve been telling that people for years you know how many people follow that advice virtually no one.
The police had no legal justification to enter the property to conduct a search or investigation of any sort, because they had no reason to suspect that a crime was being committed. The whole thing should be thrown out, and they should be criminally charged for civil rights violations.
He tells you’re right at the very beginning the officers were called by somebody else. They didn’t just magically show up for no reason and that when they arrived, they heard gunshots that is probable cause all day long.
@@JohnHill-k6p cops hear gunshots everywhere (acorn drops) just like they smell marijuana everywhere
@@1DwtEaUn that’s their job to hear gunshots. And the smell of marijuana is everywhere. So I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
@@JohnHill-k6p The point about gun shots is cops are not the best at telling that sound from any other sounds, for example the acorn cop. Then again they also aren't chosen to be the best and brightest for reference Jordan v New London.
@@1DwtEaUn police officers have to have a high school diploma and the vast majority of departments at least where I’m from also have to have at least a two-year college degree and if you wanna get hired and make sure you get hired, you better have a four year degree. They 75,000+ good benefits. I don’t think that type of job is given to idiots. here’s my advice go for ride along different shifts different officers and do it often on when you can for a month or two to see what they really have to put up with on a day-to-day basis look at it from their side. I’m just guessing, but here’s my guess is that you’ve had run-ins with the law that we’re not positive. And that’s why I think you have a jaded opinion of officers. I know good cops I know bad cops. I know good next-door neighbors I know bad next-door neighbors I know good doctors. I know bad doctors I know good carpenters I know bad carpenters. The list is endless. But I’ve made this challenge forever if you think you can qualify for the job if you think you can do the job better then do it and here’s the answer the cheap way out. I’d never do that job and they give all kinds of explanations that are just excuses. Somebody has to do it and why wouldn’t you want a job with good money good benefits? Don’t you have a moral obligation to show everybody how the job should be done properly? Of course you do so go get hired and in 10 years come back and we’ll have this conversation. Good luck.
Thank you for this lesson on the law.
Thank you for the comment and subscription! Cheers from San Diego! ~ Anton
I was pulled out at gun point, put in hand cuffs, and thrown in the back of a police car for a toolset in my truck seat.
That's BS, simple possession or existence of a firearm doesn't constitute a crime, it's called the 2nd amendment. So just because they are holding a gun case there is no reason to be searched without a warrant. Only in commifornia
Did you hear "sawed off"?
Unregistered firearm
@@burtvhulberthyhbn7583 Doesn't matter that's not the issue, the issue is searched belongings without a warrant duh
@@LJR_LIMITED Firearm registration is illegal
@@burtvhulberthyhbn7583 Right to bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't say except when sawed off or short barrel hello
This was an area of case law that I was unfamiliar with. Thank you so much for presenting it. This is the first time I've seen you, but you earned a subscriber in me.
So, the man decided to ignore his Miranda and 4th and 5th amendment rights?
I'm listening to this as I'm putting the Pelican-style case my Springfield handgun came in, with a beautiful "Not California Legal" sticker placed on it by Springfield, into my car. I have repurposed it for a radio project I'm working on. It's perfect to hold the radio, antenna and batteries, with some spare room. The sticker will remain there for as long as it can, as an eff you to the tyrants in California.
I have _zero_ interest in ever setting foot in California again. If I did, I'd gladly bring that case (sticker and all) to dare the cops to stop me and search it. It would contain anything other than a firearm. Maybe a camera to catch the disappointment on their faces.
In my world, there is no such thing as a container that can only serve one purpose.
This is the first time I’m hearing of single use container, exception good to know
That plain view is going to be tested by the correctional officer pulled over for tint. She told the officer to write a ticket but he said she had to roll her window up for his test. He arrested her for obstruction. If they get away with this they will say next let me put my port scanner on your car to see if you have been speeding. The officer calls her employer and try's to get her fired. Please note the offers tint was not legal, wasn't wearing seat belt, failed to stop at stop signs as he pulled her over.
It is very sad that in a country which is supposed to be the freest in the world we see so mnay violations of our civil rights. The Fourth Amendment does not have an "exceptions" clause yet courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been whittling down our Constitutional Rights for years with invalid interpretations of the laws and "exceptions" such as the one named in the video. As far as training, the police receive no real training in law. When I went through the Academy it was a grand total of 64 hours of legal training. For all the supposed concern we have for catching criminals, which is how we justify these abuses of our civil rights, we certainly haven't done too much to secure the border or stop human and drug trafficking. But this is really the citizens fault. The government only does what WE allow it to do.
If its locked, they should require a warrant.
There was an incident in CA, where lockbox owners items were illegally seized in a "bank-like holding facility"
The whole case/procedure was/is in question as to whether or not it was legal, in order to protect innocent victims of said illegal seizure of assets.
Procedures in question: improperly cataloging contents.. illegal search/seizure and forfeiture, possibly more inconsistencies.
There are so many twists and kinks to the 4th ammendment that it renders it useless as a defense to prosecution..
So a Machine gun in a Violin Case is OK!
of course.
@@juliemunoz2762 Not unless you pay the government $200.00.
@@MarsMan1 follow the constitution not illegal laws.
I'm sure the appearance of a rifle case doesn't differ from the appearance of an electric piano case.
This happened to a friend of mine. The police searched 2 cases he had with him in a park that they SWORE contained guns and ammunition. My friend is a amateur radio (ham) operator. One of the cases he made into a "go kit" which is basically a case with radio(s) mounted in them along with associated items. The other case he had with him contained a large battery pack that he made to power the go kit. The DA refused to prosecute because the police made a warrant less search. since my friend refused to answer any of the officers questions he was also arrested for obstruction (even though there wasn't a primary charge). My friend is in the process of suing the police since he was also hurt during the situation by the police.
and, what were they doing entering his private property without permission, a warrant, or RAS?
Located “near”, not on. Huge difference….
If the guy had been smart he would've carried his sawed off shotgun around in a violin case.
And we should argue that there’s no such thing as a single used container. Therefore, setting president that the single used container exemption should be removed. I need to get back onto the courts.
Question: If a registry is illegal, how do they verify tax stamps?
The paperwork that _must be_ kept with the stamp and gun includes make, model and serial number. Not having that paperwork with the gun is a crime. The law requiring the paperwork with the gun is about 50 years older than the law prohibiting a gun registry, and Congress understood that there was no conflict between the two laws when the more recent was passed. The standard in case law is that if two laws conflict, the newer law takes precedence.
You may say that paperwork might be forged, but that's the government's problem, of its own making, not ours.
@@geekchameleon Forgery was my point.
@@vagrunt5056 The fact that forgery is possible does nothing to change the fact that a registry is explicitly illegal under federal law, because such a registry is more dangerous than the occasional forged tax stamp. Congress' actions making it illegal to create a registry _even though_ tax stamps might be forged is proof that Congress considered a registry to be a greater danger than forgeries. The fact that something is awkward or inconvenient for our government agents should _never_ be allowed as an excuse for them to violate our rights or the law.
Do you know what would make it impossible to forge the tax stamps? Eliminating the need for them altogether.
But the ATF has proven time and time again that they do have a registry. Not realizing what they were acknowledging, CNN reported that the ATF was able to trace the rifle used to try and assassinate Trump back to the shooter's father, even though the gun store he purchased it from was out of business, and the sale was eleven years ago. They traced it in about thirty minutes. The ONLY way that trace was possible that fast is if they have a registry which Detelbach recently testified under oath in front of Congress, the ATF unequivocally does not have. Detelbach claimed in front of Congress that in order to run a trace, agents had to thumb through box after box of paper records.
@@geekchameleon The question was rhetorical.
The charge specifically was possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun (shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches) not a firearm. It’s a violation of the national firearm act
The bill of rights are orders not permission slips.
That is why I always carry a gunsafe that is locked through and through and refuse them to search it. They can waste all of the time they want and find absolutely nothing in there and can get in trouble for it.
So the client didn’t exercise his 5th amendment.
From what you said, the defendant was not in an area where possession of firearms or discharging firearms was prohibited. (Yes this goes beyond the issue argued at the Circuit Court.) so even when the defendant said the case contained a firearm there is not even a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed much less probable cause to believe a crime had been committed to justify a search on any grounds. I further believe “officer safety” can not be argued about a cased firearm.
Since when have we had gun registration
It's only in communist states though it does violate our constitution!
I drive around with a gun case on my passenger seat filled with donuts.
My question is, what if law enforcement wants to know if the single purpose container, i.e. gun case, is holding a particular style of firearm? More specifically an unregistered assault weapon, in some states, or an NFA item? Without probable cause, or disclosure from the owner, does this single use container rule apply?
Excellent topic and coverage! With regard to your point about general purpose cases, long agp, I owned a Thompson .45 ACP, full automatic carbine (legally, with federal license). I bought a hard shell guitar case, gutted the inside, built a custom set of inserts to fit the Tommy with drum magazine. It was quite a conversation started at the range but never attracted attention from cops, despite its presence in my back seat during two separate traffic stops! 😂😂😂
The law basically says a cop can do whatever he wants during a stop, but many of those things are legally dubious or plainly illegal, but no one knows anything for certain until a lawyer is involved. This is why you MUST assert your rights even if the police are hellbent to do whatever they want to do and mock you for doing it.
One of the TV mobile units I frequently worked on used a rifle case to hold a particular variety of microphone that was 2 feet long and tubular. (Sennheiser 816)
My little vault clearly says “Death Star Plans Container”. Keeps them safe from The Empire.
Anton, it appears to this student that the defendant Gust spontaneously volunteered 2 statements against self interest (“The cases contain firearms” and “We were just practice target shooting”) thereby giving the officers probable cause that evidence that could prove the defendants were illegally shooting firearms were in the case in defendant Gust’s possession.
Without the spontaneous admission, the mere possession of multi-purpose cases shouldn’t defeat a legal assertion that the defendants were legally transporting lawful items in an appropriate container and therefore entitled to the full protection of the 4th Amendment. Had defendant Gust carried the firearm on his person, the suppression of the sawed off shotgun would have been much more difficult, had it been discovered during a Terry Frisk.
Anton, had the LEO testified that because of his specialized training and observation skills he was able to discern that the item in “guitar case” weighed considerably more than that of a guitar; might have the judge deemed the search to be reasonable? The question is apropos because if the answer is no; then all of the non consensual at the gate searches of passengers’ carry on luggage at airports involving domestic flights by LEOs attempting to ferret out large quantities of cash and illegal drugs should at the gate should probably be suppressed as well.
I’m assuming that the admissions against self interest were suppressed because of a failure of the police officer to properly Mirandize the defendant Gust.
If it was legal to shoot where they were, the statements were affirmation of a legal activity therefore not self-incriminating. Search has to be pursuant to suspicion of a crime. If he said "I'm out here practicing with my sawed-off shotgun" now he's incriminating himself, but the illegal activity wasn't discovered without the illegal search. I'm not even sure a statement alone is reasonable cause without a warrant.
Those are not necessarily admissions of anything. He said they were near a no shooting zone, not in one. I am not fully familiar with the totality of the circumstances, but it sounds like they were in a spot they were allowed to shoot, if only barely. Furthermore, carrying a gun in a case is not illegal, even in California, so the issue at hand is the guns being NFA items without a tax stamp which are illegal in CA even with a tax stamp. There was no indication as to the type of gun in the case, and since legal guns could fit in the case, even with him saying that there were guns in the case there is no reason to search it.
@@jamesscott2704 you, sir are correct. I conflated “near” to “in” a no shooting area. Thank you for the correction.
@@matthewlong9369 thank you for the correction. I mistakenly believed that they were in a no shooting area.
Why does the government not consider consent. If a cop insists on a search and doesnt have a warrant then its an illegal search.
And now you just claimed that the only thing that can be in a pelican case is a crime?! A well regulated militia.....
We are required to keep our weapons in a locked single purpose container by law, so they already know where to look.
Who told you that? Which state?
Maybe in some states but, not all. Some only require it be ‘secured’. As in a trigger lock or equivalent. However, in most states, no such requirement exists unless that firearm is being interstate transported.
@@RT-fq3tpCalifornia, New York, and Illinois are 3 that I'm aware of.
@@JimboDaMagnifico1086 Illinois also does not have a legal requirement to lock your firearms in a single purpose case. Of all the states you claimed that has requirements for a locked single purpose case, none of that is factual. Even if you use the Illinois wildlife code which specifically describes a gun case “as a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun”. It does not say that it needs to be a single purpose container. So a lock box that specifically designed to safely store other valuables to include guns can be legally used. So again, if someone were to get a general lock box, police cannot legally just assume that it posses a gun.
Illinois state gun laws covering transporting firearms:
dnr.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/dnr/hunting/documents/transportyourfirearmlegally.pdf
Sir I do believe your mustache could be a less than lethal weapon you should probably be registered as such. Good day to you sir
Your statement of federal law that requires a gun to be registered is false. There are some states that have these laws, but not all. Again there is no federal law that says a firearm has to be registered.
It sounded like an NFA item requiring a tax stamp. Short-Barrel shotgun.
@@joelpeterson8424I was here to say the same thing and didn’t consider NFA, I suspect you are correct.
Last days of NFA
@@fredcarbery3966 hopefully!!!
I am so glad I moved out of that communist state of California in the early 90's.
Carry guns in a locked violin case and NOT in your car..
Might be a very large violin?
@@RTS907a Cello?
@@justinesmith8050 or a Bass when more room is needed ...
I once had a false report that I displayed a gun out of my apartment window... in short, cops found and tore apart a locked black plastic box they claimed had a gun inside. It had money inside. Cops also illegally tore open my property bag to get my keys to illegally return to my apartment to search further, claiming one officer dropped one of his mags and had to retrieve it.
Hear your talking about gun case . But from what you stated here is people target shooting legally. And cops coming on property which brings up trespass law. Then cops get identity cards and run them for warrants. Which is violation of 4th amendment. And these folks had no obligation to give them ability to do so.
The single use case in this case closed. The owner had no duty to open and cop had no legal reason to search. As one no crime had been committed. So the cops had no valid reason to be on property. So any search of any kind without warrant would be invalid
The weapon is another matter of broad constitutional law. Where in the constitution does it state your weapon has to be registered.
And with that the government has tax stamp on a number of items that came from atf policy on items that aren't even weapons.
The true meaning of the Second Amendment rights, as outlined in the Constitution, includes the right to form militias to thwart a tyrannical government. This historical context, rooted in the experiences of King George's tyrannical government in the 1770s, underscores the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against government overreach and oppression. Restrictions on firearms ownership and transfer, such as those imposed by the NFA of 1934 and FOPA of 1986, limit the ability of citizens to organize and arm themselves for self-defense against potential tyranny.
In conclusion, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 have sparked debates about government abuse of power and their impact on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens. Critics argue that these laws infringe upon constitutional rights, limit the formation of militias, and restrict the ownership of automatic weapons for self-defense purposes. The ongoing debate underscores the need to balance public safety with individual liberties and uphold the principles of the Second Amendment in a manner that respects the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend against potential tyranny.
In short nowhere in any of the Amendments does the government get the authority to Assume anything. This is what the amendments must do; THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
About time a court ruled correctly.
How is possession of a firearm a crime? I guess since you're from CA you think that.
Buy a rifle case, put a Fender decal on it, Voila: guitar case.
So what happens to the property that is unlawfully found in violation of the 4th amendment contained by the “single purpose container “?
I imagine that it is destroyed, as returning it would put the police in violation of both state and federal firearm laws.
Cops love that exigent circumstance exception. That’s what they used to jump the wall at OJ house.
Here's us Warhammer 40,000 players going single purpose containers my ass.
Pistol/rifle cases are used by professional cameramen all the time for durability, waterproof, heavy duty locks and rated, etc. As a diver, I would see dive cameras all the time in pistol cases. Dive cases would sometimes just be relabeled ammo/pistol/range cases. Pelican vs plano. I put my high end electronics in Pelican pistol cases back in the day. Before that metal ammo cases with foam. Could imagine what a cop would think if he saw the back of my van. Watching this I thought about El Mariachi 1992 and the Untouchables. Lol.
Gonna get a pelican case just to carry around a 2.5lbs plate. To troll the police.
If you have a notice on the container explaining that you do not consent to a search, and that you will invoke your right to remain silent, then they had better go get a warrant. _Burghuis v. Thompkins,_ 560 U.S. 370 (2010)
it is obvious that they can and will do whatever they want and poor people have no recourse.
Exercise the 5th. Shut up. You can talk yourself into jail as people do but only your attorney can talk you out😊😊
What if that container is locked? Can the possessor of that container be compelled to unlock that container at the demand of law enforcement so that they may search it at the threat of a charge of obstruction of justice?
So, if I have a locked box that might have a weapon in it, but instead have a note that says, SUCKER! Will the jackal still charge me with something?
Would an automobile valuables safe secured (locked and attached to the car) in the trunk or under the seat be protected since it could be used to safely store cash, a wallet, a firearm, or other high value items?
Note to self, put lunch in a portable pistol safe and embarrass officers.
Who gets to say that a container is a single purpose container. Maybe I regularly transport something small and valuable (and completely legal) and use a cushioned steel lock box for that transport. Perhaps I found a lock box that is the right size and it says Hornady on it. Just because it was sold as a firearms lock box doesn’t mean that is the ONLY thing that can be in there. The problem is, the idea of a single use anything is ridiculous. Someone who is crafty and/or a hoarder can easily take a “single use container” and make it in to something else. This lawyer works in CA, isn’t that the epicenter of “reduce, recycle, repurpose”?
At 3:04 I noted that the Defendant said that the case was used for carrying a firearm. Just the mere mention makes it another point of contention. What if the container in question is a vehicle firearm safe ?
Near a no shooting area! Not in? So, was it even a crime to be using a firearm there or not? Because having a gun in a case isn't illegal!
Possession of a firearm is NOT A CRIME!!!! IT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
I use to do house clean outs for a management company. I’ve found a lot of gun cases that didn’t contain guns. From cash, drugs and even sex toys. There is no such thing as a single purpose container.
I would like to see a video discussing legal constraints pertaining to knock and talk, curtilage, and open field doctrine police must abide by while within a gated community, which is privately owned property.
I don't need a video - my neighbor and I held a trespassing vehicle at gunpoint until they identified. Two deputy sheriffs. They haven't been back.
@@ZekeRivers ZekeRivers I'm glad it didn't turn into a gunfight cause even if you win the legal battle after the fact would be horrendous. Pigs probably didn't even have a valid reason for being there.
Healthcare at the court says they are absurd in most cases they don't uphold our fundamental freedoms or the Constitution they just interpret what they want to when they're supposed to be not interpreting the Constitution but ruling by the understanding of what the people back then and the creators of it understood it to mean and stand for then not reinterpreting the Constitution. They were on their own property which is private property that's in the private sector where they have no jurisdiction that had no lawful jurisdiction to evening go on the private property that was obviously known to them and then start rummaging through whatever they wanted to in the first place.
Simple possession of a firearm is not a crime.
Put your sidearm inside a cookie jar, next to some freeze dried coffee and Oreos, just like Jim Rockford. Seat belt the jar into the passenger seat. The cop is free to assume that you have cookies in the jar.
Did the court address the issue of whether or not the container in question was, in fact, single purpose? Would the police have had good reason to believe that the container was a gun case if they hadn't been told?
Then they would assume there is one in your glove box or under your seat.
You can buy i.e. Harbor Freight cases that could contain a gun(s) also can be used for camera(s) whether small or a long case that have protection foam inside these cases.
So, put your gun case in a closed duffle bag. Problem solved.
They suspected there were donuts being hidden from view.
New subscriber here. Thanks for the info/content
Since they admitted to doing target practice, there was no legal reason to open a case to see the firearms. That was an unnecessary and therefore unreasonable search. Owning and possessing a firearm is a constitutional right that is a protected activity; shooting “near” a “gun free zone” and the arbitrary designation of “sensitive areas” is questionably unconstitutional as well.
If I recall correctly, they had a sawed off shotgun.
Weren’t these two individuals on private property? How can the cops go into private property just because they heard gunshots
This is a bit confusing to me. It’s not clear if they were on a public property where shooting was illegal or on private property where it was.
If it was private property, we have an admission of an activity that is legal. An admission that guns are in the cases. There’s no reasonable investigatory need to look at the case to see if there are guns in it. That’s been stipulated. So does the single use container exception suggest that the gun case is only used for illegal weapons? That seems like the biggest hole in the legal logic.
Not lawfully.
So, keep your gun case in a duffle bag or suitcase. Gotcha.
Yet another reason to never keep your firearm in one of these.