"Illegal database"

[LittleRedToyota]

So, I'm walking down the street - the street I live on (not that it matters).

A cop sees me and decides to have an 'encounter' with me.

Now, this cop TAKES my firearm from me. No RAS, no Probable Cause - just outright demands it - or (better) informs me that they are removing it from my person and commands me to be still with my hands up (or something like that) while I am deprived of my personal property.

this is not analagous to a traffic stop (or other terry stop). at a traffic stop (or other terry stop) there is RAS...otherwise, the entire stop is illegitimate (assuming the person is actually being detained and not voluntarily participating).

Or, are you suggesting that "running" a firearm through NCIC is just normal SOP that is taught at the Academy? That, a standard, routine part of every 'encounter' is "running" all property carried by the subject through NCIC???

i have no idea what is taught at the academy, but running serial numbers of terry seized guns through NCIC is quite common.

but the key there is that the gun was properly terry seized in the first place. your scenario doesn't fit into that. you have to limit your thinking to traffic stops and other terry stops where there actually was RAS for the stop in the first place.

Are they going to "run" my cell phone, my wrist watch and anything/everything else that I have on my person (that has a serial number anyway) 'just to make sure' that nothing I got on me is 'stolen'?

if they have what the courts consider a legitimate reason to be handling your cell phone...and they can see the serial number without taking it apart (and probably without opening it)...they could run it through NCIC to see if it is stolen.

of course, they most likely cannot legitimately seize it in the first place under terry since a cell phone is probably not considered a weapon (which makes it different from a gun).

Exactly how does all this square with the Right of citizens to "be secure in their ... effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Exactly where is the Due Process in either the seizure or the 'search' in this scene?

it doesn't really. but the courts are quite intellectually dishonest about what the 4th amendment says.

so, you will have to ask the majority in the terry case...and the justices who have participated in developing the plain view doctrine.

btw, if you have never read it, read the dissent in the terry case. it contains the correct ruling/rationale...unfortunately, though, it is not the ruling that the court adopted.

[cigarmanpa]

Despite my earlier assertion contrary to Steve's information, between his statement, and LRT's thoughts, I consider myself to be "corrected". I've frequently been accused of being a cop hater, but for those who haven't been around here long, Steve is one of the good guys. He doesn't come around as often as he used to, but I value his perspective, and his info has a history of being solid. That doesn't mean I like the way things are, but I understand that to be the current reality, thus my own choice to make sure my S/N is not in plain view.

Steve, I'm curious what your take would be if you encountered such a situation in the line of duty. Do you believe it would be ok to remove the material covering my S/N without consent or a warrant? Would a charge under §6117 be something you would consider issuing for such action?

while I disagree with the way things are I'm not faulting him for what appears to be law...i'm having issues with the "you've got your head up your ass" comment in what, till that point, had been a civil discussion.

[Bruce]

this is not analagous to a traffic stop (or other terry stop). at a traffic stop (or other terry stop) there is RAS...otherwise, the entire stop is illegitimate (assuming the person is actually being detained and not voluntarily participating).

I was responding to this post:

Unreasonable search of what?

If the officer takes your firearm during an encounter. There is no "illegal search" if he checks the serial number to see if it is stolen.

There is no RS or PC needed to run anything through NCIC. Whoever thinks that has there head where the sun doesn't shine.

I did not see "traffic stop" or "terry stop" mentioned in this (immediately above quoted) post. In fact, I am pretty sure that this quote states: "There is no RS or PC needed [...]" mentioning only "encounter[s]", while you, on the other hand, clearly concede in your response that PC or RAS would indeed have been needed at some point before 'running' firearm serials.

But, apart from minor things like - oh, the whole premise being off here - as far as your response goes, I can't argue with anything you wrote, LRT. And, you already knew very well I've read and comprehend Terry v. Ohio; as well as my own anguished thoughts regarding it.
.