Police Right to Search for Weapon

I have to add, in my original scenario I didn't say the police officer had knowledge that the person carried a weapon as a rule. I said the police officer knew the particular case the female traineee PI was working on was dangerous and so he/she assumed she might be armed. That's different, isn't it? Where werehis reasonable grounds for a search? It was just a hunch, wasn't it? Or wasn't it? I'd like to know, but please be clear, there was no reason to supsect she had a weapon other than the nature of the case she was investigating. And she did have a current and clear CCW permit.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The scenario as laid out makes NO indication the officer knows about the gun. In fact, he says this: "A police officer has never seen the weapon in the female's possession while she's been on duty."

So, absent something more, or consent, no search would be lawful.

---

yes, I read that wrong. So, with that in mind; he did say the cop suspects she is carrying. I do not believe that alone would be justification of a terry but would the knowledge of that AND being aware of her possessing a CCW be adequate?

Quote:

---

A police officer has never seen the weapon in the female's possession while she's been on duty, but is aware that the case she's currently investigating could well be dangerous. He suspects, therefore, that the female 'trainee PI' may be armed

---

.

cdwjava,

I'm so rotten a typist, I can't keep up with you. You have the facts dead right, so, please, would you summarize the answer for me?

The police officer didn't know she was carrying. The police officer didn't know she had a CCW. All - all - he knew was that the case she was on was dangerous. It's my scenario, and that's what it said. Help!

To make it clear, a few days ago I had the concern about a fictitious female trainee PI with a tote so big she could carry a Glock 19 in it if she wanted to, and then I wondered what would happen if a trainee PI, with a CCW, carried a NAA Mini-Revolver (four rounds loaded, not five, so she didn't shoot herself by accident). I put the point originally to the BSIS and was told the trainee PI could not carry a weapon, regardless of her possessing a CCW. I didn't much like the answer and so asked the question here, wrapped up in a scenario that covered a couple of other points about which I was interested. If I failed to produce a clear scenario, I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

1 The BSIS told me that, even with a CCW permit, a trainee PI on a case just couldn't carry a firearm. You, I think, disagree with that, and I found it hard to see why a trainee PI should be in a worse position than any other innocent citizen. So, would you confirm that a trainee PI with a CCW is not committing an illegal act simply by carrrying a firearm while working on a case, please?

---

This is a different issue.

The BSIS requires the appropriate exposed carry permit as well as the CCW for firearms, but failing to possess such a card is generally going to be an issue for the BSIS. If there is a code section making this violation a crime, I am unaware of a specific section that spells it out.

At best it might be a misdemeanor under B&P 7542, but, I cannot find that the regulatory provisions of this section are anything but ... well, regulatory. In other words, i cannot find that a violation is criminal. Maybe, but I cannot find it just now. Plus, I defy anyone to find an officer on the street who will know that section or even have ready access to a resource to find even this section while in the field.

A valid CCW and no misuse is almost certain to get the cop off her back.

Quote:

---

2 You say the police officer may ask if she's carrying a weapon and may ask if he can search her. A while back you told me anyone can ask anything, or words to that effect. So, if she says 'No, I stand on my rights as a citizen not to be searched without a warrant/good reason' or something similar, what can he police officer do? And is she in trouble?

---

In this situation, absent consent he would need probable cause to search her for a weapon.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

yes, I read that wrong. So, with that in mind; he did say the cop suspects she is carrying. I do not believe that alone would be justification of a terry but would the knowledge of that AND being aware of her possessing a CCW be adequate?

---

Well, we do not know that the officer is aware of the CCW, but together that might be sufficient for probable cause. But, an argument can then be made, why the search? If not for an illegal item (and the weapon would not be illegal because of the CCW) then, why?

We do not tend to search for legal items. If I can articulate why I might feel in danger from the woman's gun, then maybe ... but, what then? if I found the gun, what would I do? Leave it in place or remove it until I depart? So, why then would I conduct a search?

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

The police officer didn't know she was carrying. The police officer didn't know she had a CCW. All - all - he knew was that the case she was on was dangerous. It's my scenaerio, and that's what it said. Help!

---

He could not compel a search without some additional facts. And even if he did, with the CCW there would be little he could do about it if he did find a gun.

Quote:

---

cdwjava;508819]

Well, we do not know that the officer is aware of the CCW, but together that might be sufficient for probable cause. But, an argument can then be made, why the search? If not for an illegal item (and the weapon would not be illegal because of the CCW) then, why?

We do not tend to search for legal items. If I can articulate why I might feel in danger from the woman's gun, then maybe ... but, what then? if I found the gun, what would I do? Leave it in place or remove it until I depart? So, why then would I conduct a search?

---

I believe it would be the context of the contact that would rule on all of those questions. Since the OP did not address why there was contact, (and he doesn't like it when I point out what he didn't include), obviously there is no way to come up with an answer. My question was such that if the PI was being questioned as a possible suspect in some crime, I would think that the cop would prefer there not be a weapon, legal or otherwise, in the area yet out of his control. I doubt all cop shootings are done with illegal weapons. I have known people who did have a legal weapon with them in the car when stopped for some reason. The officer did take control of the weapon until the contact was ended.

The OP thought it was obvious that the police officer was aware ONLY that the trainee PI (TPI) was investigating a potentially dangerous case. He was not aware that the TPI had a CCW. He was not aware that she was carrying or carried habitually. (If it was raining, he probably knew that.) To put it another way, the police officer knew two things germane to this question: that the TPI was a TPI, and that the case the TPI was on was potentially dangerous.

For what it's worth, and I know it's not much, the OP thinks: the police officer did not have legitimate grounds to search and, unless unlike police officers I've been fortunate to know, would not even have asked to do so. I guess the scenario was kind of unusual, as presented, but it all stemmed from someone at the BSIS telling me that a TPI could not carry a CW while on a case even if he/she had a CCW permit.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

My question was such that if the PI was being questioned as a possible suspect in some crime, I would think that the cop would prefer there not be a weapon, legal or otherwise, in the area yet out of his control. I doubt all cop shootings are done with illegal weapons. I have known people who did have a legal weapon with them in the car when stopped for some reason. The officer did take control of the weapon until the contact was ended.

---

Under that circumstance, sure. If merely as incidental contact, no such search would likely be warranted or lawfully occur.

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

The OP thought it was obvious that the police officer was aware ONLY that the trainee PI (TPI) was investigating a potentially dangerous case. He was not aware that the TPI had a CCW. He was not aware that she was carrying or carried habitually. (If it was raining, he probably knew that.) To put it another way, the police officer knew two things germane to this question: that the TPI was a TPI, and that the case the TPI was on was potentially dangerous.

---

Not enough to necessarily support a search unless, as JK points out, the officer was confronting the PI as a possible suspect in some activity.

Quote:

---

For what it's worth, and I know it's not much, the OP thinks: the police officer did not have legitimate grounds to search and, unless unlike police officers I've been fortunate to know, would not even have asked to do so. I guess the scenario was kind of unusual, as presented, but it all stemmed from someone at the BSIS telling me that a TPI could not carry a CW while on a case even if he/she had a CCW permit.

---

The BSIS has a set of rules they operate under, and that includes PI licensing. Violating their rules could result in her never obtaining a PI license and might even result in a request to the issuing agency that the CCW be withdrawn.

The police are not as concerned with the BSIS licensing issues. If it ain't a violation of the Penal Code, the officers are not likely to concern themselves.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

What law is she breaking? Maybe I have not had my coffee just yet, but if she has a valid CCW, she is not breaking the law for carrying a concealed weapon/

Her restriction against carrying a weapon "on duty" is an issue for the employer, not for her. She would not be breaking the law though she might be violating her employer's rules.

---

Security and Investigative Service personnel such as private investigators have licensing requirements which includes the obligation that those carrying weapons comply with the requirements for training and obtaining a specific firearms permit before they can carry firearms on the job. In addition they must carry a half a million dollars in liability. A CCW is required to carry concealed but NOT SUFFICIENT.

As I stated, the penalties for violating this are fines and license action.

You may wish to familiarize your self with Chapter 11.3-11.5 of the business and professions code.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Security and Investigative Service personnel such as private investigators have licensing requirements which includes the obligation that those carrying weapons comply with the requirements for training and obtaining a specific firearms permit before they can carry firearms on the job. In addition they must carry a half a million dollars in liability. A CCW is required to carry concealed but NOT SUFFICIENT.

As I stated, the penalties for violating this are fines and license action.

You may wish to familiarize your self with Chapter 11.3-11.5 of the business and professions code.

---

I am ... been there and done that, and used to be involved when this was all part of the DCA.

Not sufficient for the BSIS does NOT make it a crime. Can you point to the definition that makes a violation of those provisions a CRIME? I have not found it.

The police could give a rat's behind about the BSIS' regulatory provisions in the field. A note may be passed on to the BSIS that one of their PIs is not abiding by their regulations, but please point to me the public offense and authority to arrest for such a violation. I do not see it. And, I will wager dollars to donuts the average officer on the street ain't gonna see it, either.