CCW under 4th Amendment Rights

NBT

Moderator
Other than the 2nd Amendment, the Amendment most dearly to us is the 4th.

This Amendment protects us from illegal & unwarranted search and seizures and is stated in the Bill of Rights as follows:


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

source. Wikipedia
Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"—that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize. So, for example, there is generally no search when officers look through garbage because there is no expectation that garbage is private

Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.



Now lets discuss this scenario.
Say I am a closing manager for an electronics retail store who has been robbed twice. I apply for CCL in CA but the state gives me a hard time and denies my application.
I've had suspicious looking people standing outside near my car and I've been followed on the road several times but manage to lose the perps by taking different routes home. I am fed up and decide that my safety and family is much more important than a stupid license so I carry a pistol in a private compartment in my car or under my clothes.

So here's the twist. The Supreme Court would rule that anything hidden underneath my clothes (underwear, gun) would be hidden reasonably within "expectation of privacy", while driving MY property, my car abiding all traffic laws not giving probable cause to be pulled over.

And here are the big questions.
Assuming nobody knows I may be carrying and no officers have any reason to believe I am suspicious in any nature,... who is there to stop me from carrying a concealed weapon without violating my 4th Amendment rights?
What would happen if an officer illegally searches me or my car and finds a weapon and that the court ruled in my favor?
Would the incident be deemed void as if it never happened?

I have heard of cases in the past where the suspect would use this defense when a cop found drug paraphenalia under the car seat and the defense won, but I don't know about any other consequences.
 
Having been a bosun locker lawyer in the Navy, . . . I think you are probably correct and the percentage chance is you would probably get away with it until:

1)The LEO's are looking for a bank robber that matches your general description and driving a similar car, . . . especially if there was a shooting at the bank.:eek: They have plenty of PC to haul you over, . . . search you, . . . and find your trust little rusty.

2)You go into Wendy's for a double and a bowl of chili, . . . and your .32 automatic hits the floor while you are fumbling with a hamburger, chili, frosty, and your billfold.:mad: The LEO's will be unhappy when they have to call out SWAT, cordon off 10 square blocks, etc. to take you down.

We can go on, . . . but the simple version of Murphy's law is that if anything can go wrong, . . . it will go wrong, . . . at the worst possible time.

When you are caught, . . . you are an instant felon in California (from what I have heard), . . . and nobody needs that rap.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I only have a quick moment to address this, and can address in more detail when I have more time.

But I do want to quickly respond to the question.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that individuals have a LOWER expectation of privacy in their AUTOS than, believe it or not, walking as a pedestrian on the street.

It's a ruling that makes ZERO sense and I argued and argued in lawschool about this very non-sense topic.

The rationale seems purely and squarely on the fact that the automobile is MOBILE.

The rulings occurred heavily in the 1980s when drug trafficing and gang violence (drive by shootings) were on the rise and the Courts wanted to be able to conduct legal searches and seizures without a hassel.

When the auto is involved in a search/seizure, there are many (5, If I recall correctly) exceptions to the rule that police need a warrant. Basically, if the cops want to search your car, it's very hard to stop them. First, you need to know to NEVER give consent because that waives all of your rights. But even if you don't give consent and they have lawfully stopped you, in a worst case they can arrest you (even for a seatbelt infraction) and detain you and impound your car, which gives them the right to inventory it.
Five different ways for the police to search a suspects car (from memory of my lawschool days):
1. Consent
a. Can be limited to specific areas
b. Cannot be withdrawn
2. Plain view (more of seizure justification)
a. Only items in plain view without opening or moving anything
3. Search incident to arrest (SITA)
a. Can search entire passenger compartment (not including trunk)
4. Weapons search
a. Passenger compartment only
5. Inventory (failsafe to a search)
a. Entire passenger compartment and trunk
6. Probable cause
a. Entire car

So, bottom line, if it's in your car and the police want to know, they can easily find a way to search your car.

It's completely wrong and a major intrusion on the 4th, but that's just the way it is.

If you live in Komifornia, my advice is move to a free state or expect to have your rights (to keep and bear arms) trampled.
 
Back
Top