Case won, but Judge chickens out

R.W.Clark

R.W.Clark

Joined
Apr 30, 2001
Messages
1,742
Got the verdict one of my open cases. It was a 653K (switchblade) violation. It was a juvi case so I can't give case numbers or names but it occured at the Orange County South Court.

The arresting Officer from Brea PD approached J.A. and asked him if he had any weapons. J.A. produced a cheap liner locking folder. The Officer flipped the blade open and arrested J.A. for 653K.

Per the Officers own statements, J.A. has no record or history of criminal behavior. He was not acting in a strange manner. He was just in front of a strip mall area with some friends. All were young 14-17 yr old hispanic males.

When I met J.A. he was a very polite, well spoken and very scared kid.

I testified that the knife in question did not meet the qualifications required in 653K to be a violation and that due to its having a detent that biased it closed and being opened via thumb pressure it was excluded from being a class of knives listed in 653K.

The Court accepted my testitmony as an expert on knives and allowed my interpretations of 653K as a expert on knife law as well.

The Defender put the Judge in the hot seat and demanded that if he ruled against us that he would have to do so by making it official Case Law in writting as to why he found it in the public interest to ignore the exception to the law.

The Judge ruled that the knife was not a violation of 653K, not based on our arguments but, based on what he said was the fact that he found the knife to be very difficult to flip open with the wrist.

Now this was my first time as an expert witness against this Judge. In the past three weeks he has had four cases exactly like this one and has found the defendants guilty without any thought.

So, he did not have to rule against us and make Case Law, forcing us to appeal to higher courts. Then if he got over turned he could end up lossing his seat. He did not rule in favor of our argument which would have put all the other cases he just ruled on into appeal and would have tied his hands in all future trials.

What did he do? He chickened out and ran, ruling on a whole other part of the law. Figures! :rolleyes:

Oh well. I was back in court today and I will be back again on the 15th. Well get case law if it kills me. ;)
 
>grumble< Sounds like the judge wasn't chicken, more like the stuff that comes outta the aft end of a chicken... and I don't mean eggs, either!

Four cases in three weeks, for that judge alone? Is there some sort of crackdown going on, trying to "get knives off the street" in El Lay?

Oh, almost forgot: On behalf of knuts everywhere, thanks for your hard work!!!
 
When I was first approached by the defenders office to do this work I did not expect the case load that was going to come in thats for sure. It really is amazing how many people are getting arrested for 653k violations. What is really amazing is I am only hearing about the cases that are going to trial, not the ones that are being pled out.

From the Judges standpoint in this case, he did the only thing he could. He did not want to risk making case law and he did not want to tie his hands in future cases. He was actually smart. That is IF you see things from HIS stand point. But he is anti-knife.

The LEOs on the street are only doing their jobs as they see them. They are told that these knives are illegal, so they make the arrests. They are just trying to do what is best, nothing against them.

On the upside, we are winning our cases. I really don't care how we win then. What matters is that at the end of the day the defendant walks.

Another upside is that I have actually been approached by local Law Enforcement Agencies interested in having me teach knife law to their officers as part of thier In-Service training. That is a win all around. While I would prefer that all knives be legal to carry to begin with, at least now we will be able to cut down on the cases of mistaken identity.:thumbup:
 
R.W.Clark said:
Got the verdict one of my open cases. It was a 653K (switchblade) violation. It was a juvi case so I can't give case numbers or names but it occured at the Orange County South Court.

The arresting Officer from Brea PD approached J.A. and asked him if he had any weapons. J.A. produced a cheap liner locking folder. The Officer flipped the blade open and arrested J.A. for 653K.

Per the Officers own statements, J.A. has no record or history of criminal behavior. He was not acting in a strange manner. He was just in front of a strip mall area with some friends. All were young 14-17 yr old hispanic males.

When I met J.A. he was a very polite, well spoken and very scared kid.

I testified that the knife in question did not meet the qualifications required in 653K to be a violation and that due to its having a detent that biased it closed and being opened via thumb pressure it was excluded from being a class of knives listed in 653K.

The Court accepted my testitmony as an expert on knives and allowed my interpretations of 653K as a expert on knife law as well.

The Defender put the Judge in the hot seat and demanded that if he ruled against us that he would have to do so by making it official Case Law in writting as to why he found it in the public interest to ignore the exception to the law.

The Judge ruled that the knife was not a violation of 653K, not based on our arguments but, based on what he said was the fact that he found the knife to be very difficult to flip open with the wrist.

Now this was my first time as an expert witness against this Judge. In the past three weeks he has had four cases exactly like this one and has found the defendants guilty without any thought.

So, he did not have to rule against us and make Case Law, forcing us to appeal to higher courts. Then if he got over turned he could end up lossing his seat. He did not rule in favor of our argument which would have put all the other cases he just ruled on into appeal and would have tied his hands in all future trials.

What did he do? He chickened out and ran, ruling on a whole other part of the law. Figures! :rolleyes:

Oh well. I was back in court today and I will be back again on the 15th. Well get case law if it kills me. ;)
Click to expand...


I was hoping someone could help me understand the laws in California concerning carrying a Spyderco Ronin. Am I running the risk of arrest if am caught with it on my belt?
I am also looking for a good place in northern California to get some knife combat training, anyone know where to go?
 
If carried concealed, the Ronin would be a violation of PC 12020 and would land you in jail. It must be carried in plain view.
 
jfizzler said:
I am also looking for a good place in northern California to get some knife combat training, anyone know where to go?
Click to expand...

Northern California is a big place you'd need to be more specific. You'd also get more responses on the Practical Forum, which you'll find under training.

Best regards,

Argyll
 
I could have been a little more clear as to the why on my last answer.

First. The Ronin has a blade over 2". In CA it is accepted that any knife under 2" is not considered a deadly weapon, so generally it is OK to carry them concealed (ie keychain knives and credit card type knives). The Ronin having a blade at 3" would put it in the deadly weapon class.

Second. The way that they wrote the meaning of dirk and dagger in CA covers anything that is readily able to be used as a stabbing weapon capable of causing great harm (once again referancing "deadly weapon" so over 2"). This pretty much covers anything with a point be it a knife or ball point pen. Since the Ronin is capable of being used as a stabbing weapon it is a dirk under 12020 and is illegal to carry concealed. It is perfectly OK to carry so long as it is in its sheath and is in plain view however.
 
Mr. Clark,

I absolutely agree with your opinions regarding the Ronin, and have seen a case that says a Swiss Card type knife is a pocket knife, and therefore can be carried concealed, but haven't come across the general less-than-2" rule for fixed blades. Can you point me in the right direction?

Best regards,

Argyll
 
Unfortunatly I can't. It is based off of the 653K 2" limit. It is pretty much universally agreed upon however.

The logic is that since they allow autos, butterflies and gravity knives ( otherwise "deady weapons") to be carried concealed if they are under 2" then any knife with a blade under 2" is not a deadly weapon by default.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a 12020 case for a blade under 2" in the state. Also generally speaking, knives with sub 2" blades have small handles and are not suitable for use as a stabbing weapon so would not be covered by 12020 anyways.

As an example you have the HideAway Knife (HAK). It has a sub 2" blade with the blade offset to the handle. IMO this knife would not fall under 12020 because the blade configuration is not suited for use as a stabbing weapon but is suited for cutting with the edge.

BTW, do you know the case for that Swiss Card ruling? I would love to have that one on file.
 
I guess I should have said that I have not seen any cases for 12020 when the blade was under 2", though I am sure that some are out there (such as the Swiss Card case).
 
Thanks for sharing your reasoning.

The case is In re Luke W. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 650. A juvenile had in his pocket a Swiss Card type knife that contains a very small fixed blade, along with tweezers, bottle openers, and other gadgets. The court of appeal explained that P.C. 12020 is “aimed at preventing surprise knife attacks by prohibiting the carrying of concealed knives that are particularly suited for stabbing and that are readily accessible to the user.” The court noted that the statute not only exempted folding knives, it also exempted “pocketknives,” which by definition had to mean something other than a folder.

Since it took two hands to take the card knife out of its sheath, and the whole thing was akin to your normal Swiss Army knife in its features, the court found that it was a legal concealed pocketknife. (The court also rejected the DA’s argument that if it wasn’t a dirk or dagger it must be of all things – a switchblade:rolleyes: )

Best regards,

Argyll
 
I had read about the Luke case here http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/pocketknife.html but it did not mention the Swiss Card.

What has me a little concerned is how long descisions like that will stand considering that the courts were not bothered by the fact that the butterfly in People v Quattrone took three seperate motions to open. Three seperate motions and its still a switchblade? So, how far from that is a Swiss Card really?:rolleyes:

You know what really burns me up? U.S. Supreme Court states that courts can not make law that the legislature did not intend (yah right:rolleyes: ), we have the letters of intent re:sb274 from Karnette and Judges still fight us and make the law strickter then it was intended. It is a bunch of BS.:mad:
 
I feel the urgent need to comment on this inane law 653k.

653k. Every person who possesses in the passenger's or driver's area of any motor vehicle in any public place or place open to the public, carries upon his or her person, and every person who sells, offers for sale, exposes for sale, loans, transfers, or gives to any other person a switchblade knife having a blade two or more inches in length is guilty of a misdemeanor.
For the purposes of this section, "switchblade knife" means a knife having the appearance of a pocketknife, and includes a spring-blade knife, snap-blade knife, gravity knife or any other similar type knife, the blade or blades of which are two or more inches in length and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, flip of the wrist or other mechanical device, or is released by the weight of the blade or by any type of mechanism whatsoever. "Switchblade knife" does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position.
For purposes of this section, "passenger's or driver's area" means that part of a motor vehicle which is designed to carry the driver and passengers, including any interior compartment or space therein.
Click to expand...

No offense R.W.C but , the following statement made me wonder
The LEOs on the street are only doing their jobs as they see them. They are told that these knives are illegal, so they make the arrests. They are just trying to do what is best, nothing against them.
Click to expand...
Now like many of us on this board I know a few LEO's and respect the hard and unfortunatly necessary job they have at hand , that being said from the description of the knife the kid got busted for , any cop who thinks that qualifies as a "switchblade" needs to do thier damn homework.
However since the vast majority of our "laws" are written so that your everyday Joe cant readily understand them , I guess any 'ol knife that one cal 'flick' open by wrist action qualifies as a "switchblade" ?
That is beyond stupid as in outer space/pluto type stupid.
So I guess if I was searched and a not so smart LEO found my older Buck 110 with a somewhat loose action and was able to flick it open with his wrist , all of a sudden I'm carrying a switchblade !!!
Stupid!
I am sick of California , this is one of the reasons why California blows. I have lived here for most of my life and I dont know how much longer I can take all of thse stupid "laws" that are so damn vague it's not even funny.
A "switchblade" is a knife that is opened by spring or other mechanical action. Not by a mere flick of the wrist , God I cannot say how pissed I am right now that some people are so stupid as to think this.

Now after all that did I misread all of this ? Or am I on track that we have yet another in a very long series of stupid laws being enforced on the cuff by LEO's who dont know the damn difference of a knife from a "switchblade" ?

:mad:
 
It is all fine and dandy to get your hackels up with local LEOs when viewed from a very limited stance.

653K is only 1 of thousands of laws that LEOs need to have a working knowledge of. Unlike us they do not have the time, nor can we expect them to have the time to spend the hours upon hours researching the minor details of every law they enforce.

Many laws stay static year after year and they are pretty easy to keep track of. 653K is NOT one of those. It has been changed time and time again over just a few short years. Add to that all of the case law that affect it as well. Knife nuts like us have a hard enough time keeping the facts straight let alone a LEO who may or may not really know knives at all.

So you have a ever changing law in the mist of thousands of other laws with new laws being added in twice a year. If you can not only keep track of all the codes, legisative intent and case laws for every code, you are a better man than I.

The LEOs are instructed by thier FTOs that knives that can opened with a flip of the wrist now qualify as switchblades, so they start enforcing it as such. When they are shown that that info was wrong they will change. It sucks but it is also the way the world works.

Instead of being pissed at what you feel is a stupid law, be pissed at the Judges who see what is a very clearly written law and mis-apply it (dispite legislative intent) to fit into whatever thier personal views of the world should be and thereby making a law into a jumbled mess.
 
RW I have a question concerning the "flick of the wrist" provision and the
judges difficulty in opening that knife.

Most LEO's carry a tactical folder these days and presumably have practice
opening the knife by "flicking" it. (When I am bored at work I know I do..)

So is it not possible that some of these LEO's have acquired a skill at opening
these knives in that manner? Where as the average citizen would not have
that same skill?

For instance the cop could open that knife in that manner, but the Judge
could not accomplish the same feat. Is the judge incompetent at opening
knives or are the LEO's that good at opening knives with a flick of the hand?
Wouldn't that mean that the cop had an "extraordinary skill" from practicing
with their own knives were the average person does not?
 
Yes, it is "possible" but I doubt that most LEO care enough about thier gear to practice like that. (Proven fact that the majority of LEOs only remove thier sidearms from thier holsters to qualify, hardly ever for practice).

But your point stands and it was a point we also argued in court. Based on the logic used by the officer and the court, it would make the law arbitrary at best. It would outlaw knives based on the skill of the user. If twenty officers can't "flick it", then it is legal twenty times, but when one can it is then illegal? That would make no sense what so ever.
 
California actually now has better, ie more liberal and more clearly written, knife laws than many other states. While knives that can be "flicked" are apparently illegal in for instance, New York City, that is not the criteria under California law. An excellent explanation of California law for knife owners can be found here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html

Best regards,

Argyll
 
Maybe on the Westcoast the "vast majority" of LEO's only remove their sidearms to qualify but where I live our "vast majority" must TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN!!!

Of course we only have 7500 uniformed LEO's in the entire State, rarely if ever make an arrest for carrying a blade, and thankfully see very few officers shot each year [although it does happen:D ]

Good for you R.W. that you are sending a message to your guys out there to learn the Law, both what's written in your Statutes and what's pure common sense. Maybe these unnecessary arrests will decrease in numbers.

I too testify often as an expert but the money I recieve palls in comparison to defense work. I always and only take cases for the guys that wear the white hats!!!:p :D
 
R.W.Clark said:
653K is only 1 of thousands of laws that LEOs need to have a working knowledge of. Unlike us they do not have the time, nor can we expect them to have the time to spend the hours upon hours researching the minor details of every law they enforce.
Click to expand...

I don't go for it, Mr. Clark. What makes you think that we citizens have more time than cops to research the law? Yes, I have time (it's part of my hobby) and am very familiar with firearm and knife laws from my state and others, local laws too, which I travel too but give me a break.

I can't use ignorance of the law as an excuse and neither can cops and we shouldn't appologize for them when they do :mad:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top