Police Right to Search for Weapon

My question involves police conduct in the State of: California

Here's the scenario:
A female trainee PI (a person in the employ of a licensed PI from whom she gets a W-2 form and is receiving training with a view to becoming a licensed PI in due course) has a current and clear CCW permit and carries an NAA mini-revolver for self-defense off duty. On duty, she is not supposed to be armed, but she carries the weapon anyway in her purse or strapped to her leg under her pants) because 'criminals aren't too fussy about the law and she'd rather be alive and in trouble than dead.' 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.

Here are the questions:
1 Is the police officer entitled to search the PI's person or purse?
2 If he is, what charges ensue?
3 If he isn't, what happens?
4 If, while on the job, the trainee PI saves her life or that of an innocent party by shooting the criminal, what action is taken against the trainee PI (apart from hugs and kisses from the innocent party)?

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

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.

1 Is the police officer entitled to search the PI's person or purse?

---

A police officer needs reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain a person (other than at a constitutional checkpoint). (Terry v. Ohio, S.Ct. 1968) Once detained, the officer needs a reasonable and articulable suspicion, based on the nature of the stop, in order to frisk for weapons. I think pressing on a purse to detect a possible weapon would be part of an acceptable frisk.

However, I doubt that the officer knowing that the trainee PI was in a dangerous situation would qualify for a Terry stop.

Quote:

---

2 If he is, what charges ensue?

---

I'm not familiar with such charges. No doubt cdwjava would know.

Quote:

---

3 If he isn't, what happens?

---

I assume you mean, "If he is not entitled to frisk here, but does anyway, and finds a weapon, what happens?"

Keep in mind that I am not an oracle. Only an oracle would know for sure whether the officer was entitled to frisk her. So the real question is, "If he frisks her and finds a weapon, what happens?" I suggest that your trainee may need to go to court to defend herself from a serious charge. Is it worth it?

Quote:

---

4 If, while on the job, the trainee PI saves her life or that of an innocent party by shooting the criminal, what action is taken against the trainee PI (apart from hugs and kisses from the innocent party)?

---

It depends on the circumstances. Maybe the trainee is acclaimed as a heroine. Maybe the trainee is charged with murder. It all depends on the circumstances. Shooting a criminal is sometimes a crime.

Maybe a more practical course of action is to be a lot more careful off-duty.

Despite what the PI thinks about criminals, the state of California has strict requirements for those in security services to be armed. She's breaking the law.
As the state points out, protection of the PUBLIC outweighs the protection of the PI in this case. The probable outcomes would certainly be a FINE or possible license action against her and her employer.

You do know that if she shoots someone, she's likely to incur criminal charges? PIs, much less, trainee PIs, aren't given free reign to go around shooting people just because a crime is being committed.

She's seriously jeopardizing her career as a PI (and any other in law enforcement) by violating the firearms restrictions.

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

Here's the scenario:
A female trainee PI (a person in the employ of a licensed PI from whom she gets a W-2 form and is receiving training with a view to becoming a licensed PI in due course) has a current and clear CCW permit and carries an NAA mini-revolver for self-defense off duty. On duty, she is not supposed to be armed, but she carries the weapon anyway in her purse or strapped to her leg under her pants) because 'criminals aren't too fussy about the law and she'd rather be alive and in trouble than dead.' 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.

---

What class is this for?

Quote:

---

Here are the questions:
1 Is the police officer entitled to search the PI's person or purse?

---

With consent, sure. With probable cause, sure. If all the officer has is a suspicion that she might be carrying a gun in the purse, the officer cannot compel a search ... though the officer can ask whether she has a gun and/or whether he can search.

Quote:

---

2 If he is, what charges ensue?

---

If she has a valid CCW, none.

Quote:

---

3 If he isn't, what happens?

---

The officer and the PI go on their merry ways.

Quote:

---

4 If, while on the job, the trainee PI saves her life or that of an innocent party by shooting the criminal, what action is taken against the trainee PI (apart from hugs and kisses from the innocent party)?

---

The PI could face criminal charges for her actions until a finding of self defense is made.

I entirely accept that she's breaking the law (or would be if this were not hypothetical), but does a police officer have legal grounds to search her in the scenario as described? If he doesn't, would it be possible still to make a case against her, or would the evidence be deemed inadmissible?

Please be aware I'm not suggesting it would be right for her to go about with a gun. I'd like everyone not to do so. My original question was motivated by the fact that purses, especially the totes now in fashion (unless I'm out of date again) make it much easier for a female to carry a weapon secretly than it is for a man. They don't let purses into museums in some places, but that's not the same, is it, as a police officer searching a purse on a hunch? Or is it?

Thanks for the first reply, by the way.

carries an NAA mini-revolver for self-defense off duty

Really? This gun has little to no value as a self defense weapon. So you are risking a lot for getting nothing in return.

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

I entirely accept that she's breaking the law (or would be if this were not hypothetical), but does a police officer have legal grounds to search her in the scenario as described? If he doesn't, would it be possible still to make a case against her, or would the evidence be deemed inadmissible?

---

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.

And a search would only be valid with articulable probable cause, or consent. Purse or not, it would not matter - the law remains the same.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And a search would only be valid with articulable probable cause, or consent. Purse or not, it would not matter - the law remains the same.

---

since the OP didn't give much of an explanation of the scenario so it's hard to figure out where he is going with it but;

Since she is known to carry a weapon, if the contact was in the context of investigating the PI, I would think the knowledge of the PI typically carrying a weapon would be more than adequate justification for a terry frisk.

cdwjava, hi, and thanks for the reply.

Your answer is significantly different from the other one I got. If I may, I'd like to focus on the situation where a trainee PI has a valid CCW permit, is carrying a small self-defense weapon, and doesn't fire it. After reading your reply I have two questions:

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?

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?

Not for a case. I'm ignoraphobic - I have a morbid fear of not knowing things, and this seems a good place for answers.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

since the OP didn't give much of an explanation of the scenario so it's hard to figure out where he is going with it but;

Since she is known to carry a weapon, if the contact was in the context of investigating the PI, I would think the knowledge of the PI typically carrying a weapon would be more than adequate justification for a terry frisk.

---

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.

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.