I used to carry a RAT 1, but then I did some research before getting my first high-end folder and found out that I wasn't supposed to be carrying it without concealing it because it has a blade over 3". I carry a Mini Grip right now, and I've always had my eye on a Benchmade 940. However, LA knife laws state that folders with blades having a length of 3 inches or longer would have to be carried completely concealed (no pocket clip, which I can't stand). However, upon closer inspection of municipal code 55.10, it appears that the word "concealed" is never used, nor is "openly carried," which are both somewhat clearly defined in federal laws. However, "plain view" is not defined anywhere. To me, "plain view" means easily visible, so having it clipped in a pocket wouldn't be in "plain view," especially if my shirt is sometimes covering it. I figured it would be better to get some input on what "plain view" is defined as, and how I would be able to put up a good legal defense if needed, before I go back to carrying blades over 3".
Below is municipal code 55.10:
(a) As used in this section, the term knife or dagger shall include any knife, dirk or dagger having a blade 3 inches or more in length, any ice pick or similar sharp tool, any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle
(b) No person shall wear or carry in plain view any knife or dagger upon any public street or other public place or in any place open to the public
(c) The prohibitions of this section shall not apply where a person is wearing or carrying a knife or dagger for use in a lawful occupation, for lawful recreational purposes, or as a recognized religious practice, or while the person is traveling to or returning from participation in such activity
EDIT: I did some more research and found out about the "Plain View Doctrine," which allows officers to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant if they see some sort of contraband (such as a firearm or drugs in the car of motorist stopped for speeding). However, a knife with a blade length of over 3" doesn't necessarily count as contraband, as such blades aren't outlawed, but must not be carried in plain view. Any idea whether or not a folder with a blade over 3" carried with a deep pocket clip would be probable cause for this type of unwarranted search and seizure? Also, should the fourth amendment protect one from an unwarranted search and seizure? The "Plain View Doctrine" may say no, but if an officer can't even tell if the item is a knife (deep pocket), or if they can't tell the blade length by looking at the pocket clip (which they shouldn't be able too), is an unwarranted search still justified under the doctrine?
Below is municipal code 55.10:
(a) As used in this section, the term knife or dagger shall include any knife, dirk or dagger having a blade 3 inches or more in length, any ice pick or similar sharp tool, any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle
(b) No person shall wear or carry in plain view any knife or dagger upon any public street or other public place or in any place open to the public
(c) The prohibitions of this section shall not apply where a person is wearing or carrying a knife or dagger for use in a lawful occupation, for lawful recreational purposes, or as a recognized religious practice, or while the person is traveling to or returning from participation in such activity
EDIT: I did some more research and found out about the "Plain View Doctrine," which allows officers to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant if they see some sort of contraband (such as a firearm or drugs in the car of motorist stopped for speeding). However, a knife with a blade length of over 3" doesn't necessarily count as contraband, as such blades aren't outlawed, but must not be carried in plain view. Any idea whether or not a folder with a blade over 3" carried with a deep pocket clip would be probable cause for this type of unwarranted search and seizure? Also, should the fourth amendment protect one from an unwarranted search and seizure? The "Plain View Doctrine" may say no, but if an officer can't even tell if the item is a knife (deep pocket), or if they can't tell the blade length by looking at the pocket clip (which they shouldn't be able too), is an unwarranted search still justified under the doctrine?
Last edited: