Quote:
Originally Posted by GunLawyer001
On the related issue of whether police can remove your weapon, take it to their car, record the serial number and run it against the "stolen" and "transfer" databases, here's a case where police moved a stereo around and ran the serial number just on speculation, "to see if it was stolen". I think it has application here.
1. The policeman's actions come within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. The mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a "seizure" since it did not meaningfully interfere with respondent's possessory interest in either the numbers or the stereo equipment. However, the moving of the equipment was a "search" separate and apart from the search that was the lawful objective of entering the apartment. The fact that the search uncovered nothing of great personal value to respondent is irrelevant. Pp. 324-325.
|
Hicks is an interesting case, for a number of reasons. It may have application to checking serial numbers of guns being held by police while a LTCF is being verified, but it could go either way.
It wouldn't be a stretch for the Court to say that they have always granted wide discretion to police where officer safety was concerned. Disarming someone pending the verification of a LTCF is not unreasonable, though I admit that each individual officer will evaluate their own comfort level and make their own decision. It is unlikely that the Court will attempt to examine the officer's interpretation of the totality of the circumstances as it related to his perception of his own safety with 20/20 hindsight.
What turned the tables in Hicks was the officer physically moving the objects, thereby interfering with the possessory interest of the owner and turning a plain view observation into a search.
There was no safety interest in Hicks justifying the movement of the stereo equipment. The same cannot be said of an investigation of an armed man (until the LTCF is verified).
Since the court is likely to accept the reasonableness of an officer temporarily taking custody of a handgun while he is verifying the owner's LTCF, it seems equally likely that the logic in Hicks would render the plain view reading of the serial number to be equally permissible. Since the logical reason for obtaining the number is to run it (and here I'm talking about stolen status only, not for ownership through the PSP), Hicks could be interpreted to allow that as well. If the serial number can be properly obtained, then the computer check is also arguably proper.
I cannot imagine the Court creating a privacy interest in stolen property that is in temporary police custody for a legitimate reason.
My personal opinion is that a verified LTCF makes it incredibly unlikely the gun is stolen, but then again I don't generally disarm people who can present a LTCF. I will always verify them, however. I think it's easier to counterfeit a Philadelphia county LTCF then it is to make a good counterfeit PA operator's license, and I always run those...must be the cynic in me.
Then again, the Court could rule that my opinion ( good LTCF=very small chance the gun is stolen) should be the law of the land.