Knives in police departments? (specifically GA)

[yepimonfire]

O.C.G.A. States:

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127
Carrying weapons in unauthorized locations

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Courthouse" means a building occupied by judicial courts and containing rooms in which judicial proceedings are held.

(2) "Government building" means:

(A) The building in which a government entity is housed;

(B) The building where a government entity meets in its official capacity; provided, however, that if such building is not a publicly owned building, such building shall be considered a government building for the purposes of this Code section only during the time such government entity is meeting at such building; or

(C) The portion of any building that is not a publicly owned building that is occupied by a government entity.

(3) "Government entity" means an office, agency, authority, department, commission, board, body, division, instrumentality, or institution of the state or any county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or local board of education within this state.

(4) "Parking facility" means real property owned or leased by a government entity, courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship that has been designated by such government entity, courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship for the parking of motor vehicles at a government building or at such courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship.

(b) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1 and subsection (d) or (e) of this Code section, a person shall be guilty of carrying a weapon or long gun in an unauthorized location and punished as for a misdemeanor when he or she carries a weapon or long gun while:

(1) In a government building;

(2) In a courthouse;

(3) In a jail or prison;

(4) In a place of worship, unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders;

(5) In a state mental health facility as defined in Code Section 37-1-1 which admits individuals on an involuntary basis for treatment of mental illness, developmental disability, or addictive disease; provided, however, that carrying a weapon or long gun in such location in a manner in compliance with paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of this Code section shall not constitute a violation of this subsection;

(6) On the premises of a nuclear power facility, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.2, and the punishment provisions of Code Section 16-11-127.2 shall supersede the punishment provisions of this Code section; or

(7) Within 150 feet of any polling place, except as provided in subsection (i) of Code Section 21-2-413.

(c) A license holder or person recognized under subsection (e) of Code Section 16-11-126 shall be authorized to carry a weapon as provided in Code Section 16-11-135 and in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) or prohibited by subsection (e) of this Code section; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages.

(d) Subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply:

(1) To the use of weapons or long guns as exhibits in a legal proceeding, provided such weapons or long guns are secured and handled as directed by the personnel providing courtroom security or the judge hearing the case;

(2) To a license holder who approaches security or management personnel upon arrival at a location described in subsection (b) of this Code section and notifies such security or management personnel of the presence of the weapon or long gun and explicitly follows the security or management personnel's direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun; and

(3) To a weapon or long gun possessed by a license holder which is under the possessor's control in a motor vehicle or is in a locked compartment of a motor vehicle or one which is in a locked container in or a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle and such vehicle is parked in a parking facility.

(e) (1) A license holder shall be authorized to carry a weapon in a government building when the government building is open for business and where ingress into such building is not restricted or screened by security personnel. A license holder who enters or attempts to enter a government building carrying a weapon where ingress is restricted or screened by security personnel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if at least one member of such security personnel is certified as a peace officer pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 35; provided, however, that a license holder who immediately exits such building or immediately leaves such location upon notification of his or her failure to clear security due to the carrying of a weapon shall not be guilty of violating this subsection or paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this Code section. A person who is not a license holder and who attempts to enter a government building carrying a weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) Any license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall not be arrested but shall be fined not more than $100.00. Any person who is not a license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.

Now according to GA code, a knife with a blade of 5 inches or less than 5 inches is not considered a weapon except within a school safety zone, where <2" is the limit.

Any ways I have to run some errands tomorrow, i usually take public transportation, one of the places i have to stop by is a police department to drop something off. Can i bring my 3" knife or should i leave it at home? Anyone have any experience with it? Could it be left with security if need be or is it a potenitally bad idea? I see absolutely nothing stating knives smaller than 5" in a govt building is illegal. In fact they're not even included as weapons except as it pertains to school safety zones.

 

[Charlie_K]

In answer to your question, technically it might be yes, but effectively the answer is no. Because of a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding a traffic stop and ambiguous law language, by a margin of 8 to 1, the police aren't required to know what the law says when making a stop or arrest. They simply have to claim that they believed something was illegal, and didn't know otherwise.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

Held: Because Darisse&#8217;s mistake of law was reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment.

Pp. 4&#8211;13.
(a)The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to actreasonably, not perfectly, and gives those officials &#8220;fair leeway for enforcing the law,&#8221;
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176. Searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. See, e.g., Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 183&#8211;186. The limiting factor is that &#8220;the mistakes mustbe those of reasonable men.&#8221; Brinegar, supra, at 176. Mistakes of law are no less compatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion, which arises from an understanding of both the facts and the relevant law. Whether an officer is reasonably mistaken about the one or the other, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. And neither the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s text nor this Court&#8217;s precedents offer any reason why that result should not be acceptable when reached by a reasonable mistake of law.

 

[glistam]

In answer to your question, technically it might be yes, but effectively the answer is no. Because of a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding a traffic stop and ambiguous law language, by a margin of 8 to 1, the police aren't required to know what the law says when making a stop or arrest. They simply have to claim that they believed something was illegal, and didn't know otherwise.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

Pardon if my response might be a bit bad-tempered than usual, but that's a completely incorrect application of that decision. Heien was arrested for having cocaine. Cocaine is still illegal. The only thing the decision does is state that even if the initial contact (brake light) is not correct application of a law, it doesn't render discovered evidence of a real crime (cocaine) to be Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

More instructive is Sorrell v McGuigan, which while based in Maryland, was a federal case. In this case, the officer incorrectly believed that possession of a folding knife over a certain length was a crime. He was wrong. Not only were the charges against Sorrell dismissed, but the court found the officer had violated Sorrell's civil rights by detaining him for something that was itself not a crime. This decision was upheld on appeal and the officer's department subsequently fired him for his incompetence.

yepimonfire, while I see nothing in there either, a police department as a building has the right to make it's own rules on what they will allow in, but they will tell you. It should be on a sign or they will tell you at security. You will not be arrested for asking if it's OK to carry a completely legal knife into a building that potentially doesn't allow them. At worst they will say "No you can't bring that in here. Put that in your car." Best to call ahead if you ask me, since unlike general knife laws, this is genuinely their call.

 

[Charlie_K]

Pardon if my response might be a bit bad-tempered than usual, but that's a completely incorrect application of that decision. Heien was arrested for having cocaine. Cocaine is still illegal. The only thing the decision does is state that even if the initial contact (brake light) is not correct application of a law, it doesn't render discovered evidence of a real crime (cocaine) to be Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

You think the above is an incorrect application of the Heien decision? Just wait until it's actually put into play by the people who see you as nothing more than a paycheck. You'll whistle a different tune when you have to pay out $10,000 to get the charges against you dropped, when there never should've been charges to begin with.

More instructive is Sorrell v McGuigan, which while based in Maryland, was a federal case. In this case, the officer incorrectly believed that possession of a folding knife over a certain length was a crime. He was wrong. Not only were the charges against Sorrell dismissed, but the court found the officer had violated Sorrell's civil rights by detaining him for something that was itself not a crime. This decision was upheld on appeal and the officer's department subsequently fired him for his incompetence.

None of which matters because it's a lower court ruling, and has no bearing on supreme court precedent.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Charlie, you are wrong and badly wrong and gilsam is clearly correct. The issue was the legality of the search incident to the stop for having only one working taillight - period. The defendant was not convicted of having only one taillight when the law actually called for only one. She was convicted for the drugs discovered after the stop. How do we know? Because that is exactly what the court said.

If it's not a crime, incorrectly thinking it is does not make it so.

If you want to base behavior on a belief that the cops will get it wrong and you will have to pay $thousands to get out from under a wrongful charge, stay home. You might be deported as an illegal alien.

 

[Charlie_K]

Then you obviously haven't heard about the "in good faith" exception where such errors are overlooked and excused. In simple terms, an officer merely has to believe that their actions were legal, measured under the reasonable person test, for the courts to determine that their actions were indeed legal, and thus allowable under the law.

 

[liamstrain]

The issue was the legality of the search incident to the stop for having only one working taillight - period.

Still a big issue though. It means that there no longer needs to be reasonable suspicion in order to have a warrantless search. Just a "good faith" misunderstanding of traffic (or other) laws. So much for the 4th.

 

[Charlie_K]

Still a big issue though. It means that there no longer needs to be reasonable suspicion in order to have a warrantless search. Just a "good faith" misunderstanding of traffic (or other) laws.

Precisely. You now have no legal protections against being arrested for a non-crime. The arresting officer(s) merely has to claim that they didn't know your actions were perfectly legal under the law to justify the arrest, because they were acting in good faith in their determination that you weren't. And it's tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to prove that they were in the wrong.

Keep in mind, the prosecutor, and the judge, are under exactly ZERO legal obligation to dismiss erroneous charges simply because the arresting officer was ignorant about the law.

In fact, as we've learned from the whole NYPD slow down protest, cities and counties actually have a financial incentive to pursue charges against anyone they can, for any reason they can, as it leads to more money going to the coffers.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Then you obviously haven't heard about the "in good faith" exception where such errors are overlooked and excused. In simple terms, an officer merely has to believe that their actions were legal, measured under the reasonable person test, for the courts to determine that their actions were indeed legal, and thus allowable under the law.

Charlie, the error -- the "action" -- being excused is the stop and search. The defendant was not convicted of an act that was not a crime. The defendant was convicted of a drug offense. So if a cop stops and searches you incorrectly thinking your legal knife is illegal AND FINDS A BAG OF COKE, you are screwed - for having the coke, but you are still not guilty of having an illegal knife.

This is really not that tough. Really.

.

Still a big issue though. It means that there no longer needs to be reasonable suspicion in order to have a warrantless search. Just a "good faith" misunderstanding of traffic (or other) laws. So much for the 4th.

Makes it easier for evidence of crime to be admissible even though the reason for the search incident to the stop was technically wrong. Does NOT make the single taillight into a convictable offense - the law about taillights (or knives) still stood.

 

[killgar]

Precisely. You now have no legal protections against being arrested for a non-crime. The arresting officer(s) merely has to claim that they didn't know your actions were perfectly legal under the law to justify the arrest, because they were acting in good faith in their determination that you weren't. And it's tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to prove that they were in the wrong.

Keep in mind, the prosecutor, and the judge, are under exactly ZERO legal obligation to dismiss erroneous charges simply because the arresting officer was ignorant about the law.

In fact, as we've learned from the whole NYPD slow down protest, cities and counties actually have a financial incentive to pursue charges against anyone they can, for any reason they can, as it leads to more money going to the coffers.

You appear to have completely misunderstood the courts ruling.

Here is what the ruling DOES mean- If a cop mistakenly stops or arrests someone for doing something legal, and during the stop/arrest the cop discovers that the person is doing something illegal, then that person can be charged with the illegal act, but not the legal act that they were initially stopped/arrested for, because the legal act is not a crime.

However, and here is where you are wrong, if a cop mistakenly arrests a person for doing something legal, and that person has not committed any actual crime, that person will be released, and they will not be officially charged (arraigned) or prosecuted. The arrested person certainly doesn't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fight any charges, much less face prosecution. The mistake of a cop will not turn a legal act into an illegal act.

You see, when a person is arrested the arresting officer has to fill out an arrest report. And in that report the officer must state the specific penal code statute that the person violated. Cops don't just arrest people and take them to jail. There is paperwork, official and mandatory record keeping, there are checks and balances, the arrest will be reviewed very shortly after it is made. If a cop mistakenly arrests someone who has not committed any crime, that officer will quickly discover his mistake when they are unable to find a statute that matches their reason for arresting the person, or when a superior officer reviews the arrest. And the person will be released.

Say for example a cop arrests a person for smoking on a public street because that cop mistakenly believes that smoking on a public street is illegal. That officer will quickly discover that smoking on a public street is NOT illegal, and the person will be released. No prosecutor is going to charge a person with smoking in public when there is no law against smoking in public. A prosecutor has to cite the specific penal code that was violated in order to file charges and prosecute. And no judge will allow a person to be held in custody, and prosecuted, who is not charged with a specific violation of the penal code. Both the prosecutor and judge are most certainly under an obligation to release people who are wrongly arrested and have committed NO CRIME, it's called the Fourth Amendment, and despite the ruling you mentioned, it is very much alive and well in this country.

 

[Charlie_K]

Let me make something clear, because you two apparently aren't grasping the finer details of the Heien decision. Due to the ruling, the police can stop and arrest you for something they claim to believe is a crime, even if it isn't. Even if a judge will throw out the case for absurdity, the arrest can still be used to instigate prosecution for offenses that require zero physical proof in a court of law. Charges like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, failure to comply, trespassing, interfering with a police officer in the course of his duties, obstruction of justice, and anything else along those lines that we've seen applied time after time after time. Even if the offense that got you arrested wasn't against the law, and it gets dismissed, those charges don't get thrown out just because the cop proved to be ignorant of what the law was.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Precisely. You now have no legal protections against being arrested for a non-crime. The arresting officer(s) merely has to claim that they didn't know your actions were perfectly legal under the law to justify the arrest, because they were acting in good faith in their determination that you weren't. And it's tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to prove that they were in the wrong.

Keep in mind, the prosecutor, and the judge, are under exactly ZERO legal obligation to dismiss erroneous charges simply because the arresting officer was ignorant about the law.

In fact, as we've learned from the whole NYPD slow down protest, cities and counties actually have a financial incentive to pursue charges against anyone they can, for any reason they can, as it leads to more money going to the coffers.

The stop and search was not justified. The court found the cop was wrong. The search incident to the stop found evidence of a different crime. Notwithstanding the error in making the stop and search, the evidence of the drug crime was allowed and the guilty defendant was convicted for that crime, not the non-crime of having less than two working taillights.

You are, of course, dead wrong about the legal and ethical obligations of the prosecutor and judge if they know a charge is baseless.

To the extent that you argue the entire system is corrupt, you are in the wrong forum. That's for Politics since it is not about knives or laws about knives.

 

[killgar]

Let me make something clear, because you two apparently aren't grasping the finer details of the Heien decision. Due to the ruling, the police can stop and arrest you for something they claim to believe is a crime, even if it isn't. Even if a judge will throw out the case for absurdity, the arrest can still be used to instigate prosecution for offenses that require zero physical proof in a court of law. Charges like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, failure to comply, trespassing, interfering with a police officer in the course of his duties, obstruction of justice, and anything else along those lines that we've seen applied time after time after time. Even if the offense that got you arrested wasn't against the law, and it gets dismissed, those charges don't get thrown out just because the cop proved to be ignorant of what the law was.

If you are suggesting that sometimes members of law enforcement will knowingly and intentionally file false charges against people in order to jamb them up, that has been happening for as long as there have been cops. The Heien decision dosen't create such dishonesty, nor does it legalize it.

Honest cops will still be honest cops. And dishonest cops will continue to be just as dishonest. If a bad cop wants to knowingly file false charges against you, and commit perjury in the process, yes, you are screwed, but the Heien decision does not make such a thing any more likely than it was before.

Sadly, there have always been innocent people falsely charged with crimes by dishonest cops, and there always will be. Though I personally believe that such cops are the minority.

 

[Charlie_K]

You are, of course, dead wrong about the legal and ethical obligations of the prosecutor and judge if they know a charge is baseless.

Uh huh. Say that whenever a prosecutor isn't fired for withholding evidence that would exonerate someone accused of a crime.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5758861728040203406&q=424+U.S.+409&hl=en&as_sdt=400003

The question presented in this case is whether a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is amenable to suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that he is not. 500 F. 2d 1301. We affirm.

To the extent that you argue the entire system is corrupt, you are in the wrong forum. That's for Politics since it is not about knives or laws about knives.

Nope. Wrong. This is very much about the laws regarding knives. See the post above.

More instructive is Sorrell v McGuigan, which while based in Maryland, was a federal case. In this case, the officer incorrectly believed that possession of a folding knife over a certain length was a crime. He was wrong. Not only were the charges against Sorrell dismissed, but the court found the officer had violated Sorrell's civil rights by detaining him for something that was itself not a crime. This decision was upheld on appeal and the officer's department subsequently fired him for his incompetence.

Under the post-Heien standard, that would no longer be the case. All the arresting officer would have to do is claim he didn't know Sorrell's knife wasn't illegal, because he acted in good faith in making the arrest. The laws that govern legal knives are now no longer worth the paper they're written on, because the legal protections they offer can now be ignored by any cop who doesn't like what you're carrying, and claims they didn't know about or understand the law at the time of the arrest. And as said above. Even if a judge will throw out the case for absurdity, the arrest can still be used to instigate prosecution for offenses that require zero physical proof in a court of law. Charges like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, failure to comply, trespassing, interfering with a police officer in the course of his duties, obstruction of justice, and anything else along those lines that we've seen applied time after time after time. Even if the offense that got you arrested wasn't against the law, and it gets dismissed, those charges don't get thrown out just because the cop proved to be ignorant of what the law was.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Let me make something clear, because you two apparently aren't grasping the finer details of the Heien decision. Due to the ruling, the police can stop and arrest you for something they claim to believe is a crime, even if it isn't. Even if a judge will throw out the case for absurdity, the arrest can still be used to instigate prosecution for offenses that require zero physical proof in a court of law. Charges like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, failure to comply, trespassing, interfering with a police officer in the course of his duties, obstruction of justice, and anything else along those lines that we've seen applied time after time after time. Even if the offense that got you arrested wasn't against the law, and it gets dismissed, those charges don't get thrown out just because the cop proved to be ignorant of what the law was.

You are failing to grasp the entire holding of the court. Again, you are describing convictions for crimes actually committed, not the crime the cop erroneously thought you committed. So if you are carrying a knife and it might get you stopped, don't commit other crimes. If you are ordered to stop, comply. Don't carry coke, don't punch the cop, don't otherwise resist, don't lead him on a merry chase.

Not sure who "we" is ("we've seen"), but I'll bet it's interesting.

 

[liamstrain]

Makes it easier for evidence of crime to be admissible even though the reason for the search incident to the stop was technically wrong.

Correct, and absolutely the problem. We used to call that illegal search and seizure, and was protected against by the 4th amendment. You might be doing something illegal in your living room, but the cops cannot just walk into your house without reasonable suspicion and a warrant to prove it. Well, they didn't used to be able to.

And just because something isn't a convict-able offense, doesn't mean it isn't going to get you arrested and ruin your day (and possibly finances defending against it) before it finally gets resolved in court. Especially now that there is no burden on the part of the arresting officer to make sure you actually are breaking a law before searching you and arresting you for carrying a knife under the size limit, that the officer doesn't need to know anymore.

 

[Thomas Linton]

So what advice do you give? Avoid ignorant cops? [how?] Avoid all cops? [how]

More to the point, carry no knives 'cause the ignorant cop may think it's illegal when its not?

Or is this now a thread to denounce the current state of the law? That is, a political thread?

 

[liamstrain]

It probably should be in the political area. I don't disagree (at least regarding the direction it has gone since the OP's post).

I do not have any advice, sadly. I was just trying to clarify what I saw as the issue with the new SC ruling (the effective legalization of warrantless search and seizure) rather than Charlie's take on it.

 

[Demon613]

Ignore the people talking about "search incident to arrest" (something that ended years ago a la USSC) and "warrantless searches" and other inconsequential minutiae.

If you have to drop something off at the police department then go drop something off. If there is no metal detector to pass through then the topic is irrelevant. If there is a metal detector, tell the person staffing it that you are there simply to drop off paperwork at the desk sergeant and see if they can hold it or do you need to "take it back to my car." If they say they won't hold it, go outside and find some place to hide it on the ground. Under a bush, inside an empty chip bag inside a trashcan, etc.

Your actual task should only take twenty seconds. Your planning for this task shouldn't take hours.

 

[Charlie_K]

You are failing to grasp the entire holding of the court. Again, you are describing convictions for crimes actually committed, not the crime the cop erroneously thought you committed. So if you are carrying a knife and it might get you stopped, don't commit other crimes. If you are ordered to stop, comply. Don't carry coke, don't punch the cop, don't otherwise resist, don't lead him on a merry chase.

Not sure who "we" is ("we've seen"), but I'll bet it's interesting.

Cute thought, except the above mentioned crimes are crimes that require absolutely zero physical proof in the court room. The arresting officer doesn't have to prove that you actually committed assault at the time of arresting you for a legal activity, they simply have to make the claim, and it's accepted by the courts as the absolute gospel. You can be charged with assaulting an officer for simply breathing on them because they got too close.

So what advice do you give? Avoid ignorant cops? [how?] Avoid all cops? [how]

There is no advice to give. Rule of law no longer applies with regard to carrying a legal or illegal knife, either in a legal, or illegal area. You can be arrested for whatever, at any given time, and you'll require a court date, hearing, attorney, and significant investment to prove your innocence. You can be waiting months between hearing before you get to actually have your case argued. All the cop has to do is say "I didn't know the knife was legal" and the judge will be like "I'll accept that." Then you get the joy of not only proving that your knife is legal, at your own expense, you have to prove that the cop was at fault for being incompetent. And now they most likely have qualified immunity shielding them from any civil prosecution for being incompetent.