Pulled over with my Smith and Wesson

Trent Rock

Trent Rock

Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,698
I'm hope some California LEO's can chime in

I got pulled over on a routine traffic stop
I had my Smith and Wesson neck knife under my t shirt

1)Do the conceal laws apply while you are in your car?
Could the cop have busted me for wearing it under my t-shirt in my car?

2) Should I have informed him that I had a knife under my shirt?
When he went back to his car to run my plates I took it off and threw it in my center console

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(a)(4) Carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger.

(c)(24) As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k [switchblade], or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.

(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
Click to expand...
 
Trent Rock said:
I'm hope some California LEO's can chime in

I got pulled over on a routine traffic stop
I had my Smith and Wesson neck knife under my t shirt

1)Do the conceal laws apply while you are in your car?
Could the cop have busted me for wearing it under my t-shirt in my car?

2) Should I have informed him that I had a knife under my shirt?
When he went back to his car to run my plates I took it off and threw it in my center console
Click to expand...

1. yes, so long as it is on your person (fixed blade, correct?).

2. i dont want to offer advice here, because you were carrying the knife illegally. but you are not required to admit you are doing something illegal.

if for some reason you were searched, you could have been arrested for violating 12020 pc.

having the knife in your car is legal, regardless of where it is stored, so long as it is not in violation of 653k. i also dont believe a knife carried in a backpack is considered concealed, generally.
 
joe-bob said:
Really?! That seems to violate common sense. Would you please explain your reasoning?
Click to expand...

concealed per the letter of ca law, requires "ready use as a stabbing weapon".

i dont believe a knife in a backpack being worn is capable of ready use. it is concealed in that it is not visible, but not in the context of the section.

reaching in to your pocket requires little movement or effort. reaching in to a backpack would require one to remove, open, and reach in.

generally speaking.
 
I agree completely. You got lucky.

Just a few observations.

Never volunteer information. If they ask you MUST TELL, if they don't ask that is a whole other story.

Some key terms to remember are
1 ready use
2 readily accessable

So in a back pack is legal since, as was stated, it is not "readily accessable".

Not too sure about in a car. I have had a few cases of exactly this nature and have not found a real answer yet. In the cases I had, the charges were dismissed because we were able to prove that the knives were not concealed. That leaves me to believe that concealed in a vehicle would be illegal if they are, once again, readily accessable. Can't say for sure though.

One case was a student with a couple martial arts weapons in his back seat. The officers report stated that he saw them in the back seat as he approached the driver. The driver was arrested for concealed carry of a dirk or dagger. My argument was that if the officers saw them from outside of the vehicle then they must not have been concealed. They dismissed the case on that argument. I just don't know what would have happened if they would have been concealed. I fear that they would fall back and referance the language of 653k and use the old standby of readily accessible to the driver. But that is just a guess on my part.
 
R.W.Clark said:
I agree completely. You got lucky.


Never volunteer information. If they ask you MUST TELL, if they don't ask that is a whole other story.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in that
However, as a gun owner I have always told law enforcement when I am carrying firearms(legally of course..in locked case...ammo separate...etc) as a courtesy
One time I was all sketched because I was transporting so called assault rifles from my ranch in Colorado
I told the cop I was transporting several firearms after he asked if I "had any firearms in the car"
The funny part was he pulled my Colt Ar-15 Sporter out of the case, racked the slide and said "Niceeeeeee!!" with a big grin on his face
It made my day ;)

That is the reason I was gonna mention it to the cop
I'm glad I didn't
I think I did luck out
It would just be a misdemeanor anyways right??
I thought the law said "worn openly ABOUT the waist"
My bad
I guess I'll have to start wearing my Western W49 Bowie knife on my belt :eek:
1960svintageWesternBowie.jpg
 
IIRC , (I used to live in Commiefornia ) it would be a felony ! At least if it was determined it fell under the dagger/dirk deffn.

Chris
 
cdf said:
IIRC , (I used to live in Commiefornia ) it would be a felony ! At least if it was determined it fell under the dagger/dirk deffn.

Chris
Click to expand...

it is actually what we call a "wobbler". it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony.

the booking is always as a felony, but ultimately the court/da may decide to reduce it to a misdemeanor.
 
Trent Rock said:
I am a firm believer in that
However, as a gun owner I have always told law enforcement when I am carrying firearms(legally of course..in locked case...ammo separate...etc) as a courtesy
One time I was all sketched because I was transporting so called assault rifles from my ranch in Colorado
I told the cop I was transporting several firearms after he asked if I "had any firearms in the car"
The funny part was he pulled my Colt Ar-15 Sporter out of the case, racked the slide and said "Niceeeeeee!!" with a big grin on his face
It made my day ;)

That is the reason I was gonna mention it to the cop
I'm glad I didn't
I think I did luck out
It would just be a misdemeanor anyways right??
I thought the law said "worn openly ABOUT the waist"
My bad
I guess I'll have to start wearing my Western W49 Bowie knife on my belt :eek:
1960svintageWesternBowie.jpg
Click to expand...

personally, i appreciate the courtesy notification. so long as the arms are being transported legally and/or it is evident you are not engaging in criminal activity. in other words, if one were just returning from the shooting range, i may just counsel them on proper transportation.

re: the highlighted portion, it has always been my opinion this is an exemption. it has also been said that this is an example of legal carry, not the exemption. i dont know for sure, and havent had to testify in such a case.

the exact verbage is: "knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section."
 
R.W.Clark said:
Not too sure about in a car. I have had a few cases of exactly this nature and have not found a real answer yet. In the cases I had, the charges were dismissed because we were able to prove that the knives were not concealed. That leaves me to believe that concealed in a vehicle would be illegal if they are, once again, readily accessable. Can't say for sure though.

One case was a student with a couple martial arts weapons in his back seat. The officers report stated that he saw them in the back seat as he approached the driver. The driver was arrested for concealed carry of a dirk or dagger. My argument was that if the officers saw them from outside of the vehicle then they must not have been concealed. They dismissed the case on that argument. I just don't know what would have happened if they would have been concealed. I fear that they would fall back and referance the language of 653k and use the old standby of readily accessible to the driver. But that is just a guess on my part.
Click to expand...


12020(a)(3) pc: carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger.

other than the 653(k)pc language, it would be hard to argue that in a vehicle is the same as upon his/her person. of course "in plain view in the back seat" pretty much eliminates the argument that any item is concealed.

but even a firearm, unloaded with action open, may be transported legally in plain view.

simple possession of a billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag is illegal. therefore any form of carry would also be illegal.

you may consider in the future that perhaps the "nunchaku" exemption for martial arts schools is a more appropriate exemption.

(disregard, i just realized the martial arts weapons were bladed, not sticks of some sort.)
 
re: the highlighted portion, it has always been my opinion this is an exemption. it has also been said that this is an example of legal carry, not the exemption. i dont know for sure, and havent had to testify in such a case.

the exact verbage is: "knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section."
Click to expand...

The courts have ruled on this one several times. I forget the case names at the moment but I remember the details of one.

The defendant was in costume and walking from his vehicle to a Renn Faire. As he crossed a public street he was stopped by an LEO. The officer arrested him from 12020. The defendant had a dagger strapped to the outside of his boot. The court found the defendant not guilty and wrote that "on the belt" was only one possible place that a dirk or dagger could be legally carried.

The reasons for these judgments are really very simple if you understand the rules that the courts operate under. Courts will almost always use the common meaning of a word in a law to define the law. That normally comes down to what good ol Webster has to say on the matter. If for some reason one of the involved parties wants to use a meaning other than the common meaning, a separate trial must be held to argue the point. Courts VERY rarely rule against using a definition other than the common meaning. These hearings are normally a matter of a losing side trying to change the rules. (i.e. "it depends on your understanding of what the meaning of the word is is :barf:)

The common usage of concealed breaks down to hidden or not in plain view. So if an item is visible then it can not be concealed.

Courts will also reference the legislative intent of a law. This is the record of all the writings and speeches that are given when the law is still a bill and is being discussed and having its wording amended. They do this because the US Supreme Court ruled that a court can not make a law stricter than the legislature intended. So they need to know what that intent was.

I am recognized by the state as an expert on 653k but not on 12020 so bear with me.

I am almost positive that in the Senate Bill papers, when they are discussing the wording "concealed" one of the Senators made the comment "for example, a knife worn in plain view on a belt in a sheath is not considered concealed". I am not sure if that is the exact wording, but it is close enough.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
it is actually what we call a "wobbler". it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony.

the booking is always as a felony, but ultimately the court/da may decide to reduce it to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

So its bsically what we in Canuckastan would call a dual procedure offence , either Summary or Indictable ( Equiv of Felony or Misdemenor ) . We also treat it as an Indictable offence for pourposes of arrest and search , and most often for pourposes of charges .

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top