What if a cop thinks my knife is illegal?

[MORIMOTOM]

violate the constitution in what way?

 

[joe-bob]

Well, there is that pesky amendment about equal protection under the law (14th, IIRC). If cops are making it up as they go, there's no way it's equal. There are others that could apply.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Well, there is that pesky amendment about equal protection under the law (14th, IIRC). If cops are making it up as they go, there's no way it's equal. There are others that could apply.

reread your post. the laws confuse you, so they are in violation of the 14th ammendment?

and since when do cops write laws?

are you sure you want to get in to another legal debate?

you really should stop posting in this forum. you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[mp510]

Well, there is that pesky amendment about equal protection under the law (14th, IIRC). If cops are making it up as they go, there's no way it's equal. There are others that could apply.

Even if the police action was an arbitrary, capracious and militious use of power it would not be a violation of the 14th ammendment equal protection clause unless you were targeted specifically for race/religion/sexual orientation/gender/national origin (assuming your not a known illegal, being detained or refused employment due to immigration status) Even if one of those applied the equal protection violation claim would be secondary to a 14th ammendment due process clause claim (essentially claiming that you liberty was deprived without due process).

However, the defendant will raise the defense that the officers were not out to, under color of law, unlawfully deprive you of your freedom. They would claim that the detention/siezure/arrest (choose one or more) were a legitimate use of the state's police power- that they were only acting to enforce the law passed by the state legislature.The fact that the law is vague, or that broad terms exist that could be applied to criminalize carrying a particular implement were written into the statuatory verbiage, would only go to bolster the defense.

I'm not saying that if you retained a good lawyer you couldn't sue- you can sue anybody for anything. Making it stick, and then winning would be a more difficult proposition. Maybe you could end up getting some sort of settlement to make the case go away- because defending against the civil rights claim could be an expensive protracted affair that could cause bad press. However, if I were you, I wouldn't quit my day-job hoping to get a case against da Man.

 

[glistam]

You know, I was just reading the Missouri statute (the state in which the originator of this thread lives), and it isn't that vague really.

In short, it would seem to indicate that a folding knife with a blade less than four inches long, non double edged, is not illegal. An exception of course being "dangerous instrument" which could be anything so to speak, but only if it is used in a clearly unlawful way. For example, sticking a SAK in somebody's face and shouting "Gimme yer wallet!" will make the SAK a dangerous instrument for the purpose of establishing robbery with a weapon. But a cop seeing you opening a box with it would not.

Now, if an officer's actions of confiscation, citation or arrest blatantly violate the above, he becomes liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as opposed to the 14th amendment. An example would be if you were arrested for a Boker Subcom that was just casually riding in you pocket. The SA would probably throw it out within hours of being brought in, and you could initiate a lawsuit under the aforementioned in a federal court.

This being said, given the overwhelming majority of weapon cases where the defendant was clearly up to something, I tend to suspect that the incident being alluded to may not have been so innocent. That is, until it's explained otherwise.

 

[lerner]

Now comes the complications I was hoping to avoid.

...Missouri statute ... would seem to indicate that a folding knife with a blade less than four inches long, non double edged, is not illegal.

The statute illegalizes "dagger" & "stilletto", but doesnt define either. I'm hoping to carry a folder under 4inches (Gerber A-F Covert or ColdSteel TiLite). These both LOOK like a dagger/stilletto, but have a false edge. I'm afraid looks might satisfy an officer.

The statute legalizes "an ordinary pocketknife", under 4inches. It doesnt describe "ordinary", or mention double-edged or single-edged. More complication: I'd like to sharpen or serrate the 2nd edge. In very strict terms, depending on whose dictionary you use, daggers/dirks/stilletos are all fixed-blades. An officer only needs "good faith" to decide if a 2nd edge, or looks, quallifies as "unordinary".

The above technicalities can start such a soapbox-flamewar I figured I would have to leave this part of my issue to a local lawyer.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Now, if an officer's actions of confiscation, citation or arrest blatantly violate the above, he becomes liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as opposed to the 14th amendment. An example would be if you were arrested for a Boker Subcom that was just casually riding in you pocket. The SA would probably throw it out within hours of being brought in, and you could initiate a lawsuit under the aforementioned in a federal court.

.

well said. i highlighted what i believe to be the key word in this situation.

in other words, an officer acting in good faith, and believing what they are doing is correct, would not typically be a blatant violation of rights.

 

[lerner]

...if an officer's actions of confiscation, citation or arrest blatantly violate the above [law], he becomes liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983... ...if you were arrested for a Boker Subcom ... the SA would probably throw it out... and you could initiate a lawsuit...

The heart of my problem was that I figured an officer couldnt be charged with a "blatant" violation of a vague/ambiguous law. Furthermore, I also could be charged under the same law (a la "You should have thought of that before you carried" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", "the oficer gets the benifit of the doubt")

Not to split hairs, glistam, you've already been of great help, but was "SA" a typo? District Attourney? State Prosecutor?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Now comes the complications I was hoping to avoid.



The statute illegalizes "dagger" & "stilletto", but doesnt define either. I'm hoping to carry a folder under 4inches (Gerber A-F Covert or ColdSteel TiLite). These both LOOK like a dagger/stilletto, but have a false edge. I'm afraid looks might satisfy an officer.

The statute legalizes "an ordinary pocketknife", under 4inches. It doesnt describe "ordinary", or mention double-edged or single-edged. More complication: I'd like to sharpen or serrate the 2nd edge. In very strict terms, depending on whose dictionary you use, daggers/dirks/stilletos are all fixed-blades. An officer only needs "good faith" to decide if a 2nd edge, or looks, quallifies as "unordinary".

The above technicalities can start such a soapbox-flamewar I figured I would have to leave this part of my issue to a local lawyer.

there is similar confusion regarding california law.

dirks/daggers are also prohibited, and it is commonly thought a dagger is a double edged blade. however, there is no mention of a dagger being double edged anywhere in the penal code.

your lawyer may have an opinion, but it is only that. even case law is only the opinion of the presiding judge, and citeable but not necessarily binding in other cases.

something else to consider, if you believe your knife may be illegal, or at the limit of what would be legal, would it be prudent to carry it? remember, most cops are not knife nuts like those here on the forums, so their interpretation is likely to be the simplest form and based on a more general definition of what constitutes a dirk or dagger. since it is not specifically defined, they may look to the dictionary or other source.

most officers are not going to have semantic arguments over any specific knife.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

The heart of my problem was that I figured an officer couldnt be charged with a "blatant" violation of a vague/ambiguous law. Furthermore, I also could be charged under the same law (a la "You should have thought of that before you carried" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", "the oficer gets the benifit of the doubt")

Not to split hairs, glistam, you've already been of great help, but was "SA" a typo? District Attourney? State Prosecutor?

probably meant da or ca (city attorney).

you are correct regarding a "blatant violation". even though the officer hasn't violated anyone's rights, any mistake would may likely result in a rejected case or dismissal.

this is not legal advice, just my opinion.

 

[TOM1960]

I've read the Missourri state law, so I'm not asking if my knife is legal. The MO knife law is just as ambiguous & vague as you've all seen in your own states.

The problem is this: What if I made every attempt to carry a legal self-defense knife, but an officer has a differing opinion & says "Hand it over (for confiscation), or you'll be charged..."

Without arguing, I could explain my understanding of the law, and he might get upset.

I could show him a Xerox of the law, or a letter from Bernard Levine. He might get upset.

I could say "You can confiscate it, but please put it somewhere safe (evidence locker?) at the station. A lawyer will contact you soon to retrieve it." If he just takes it home can he (the officer) be charged with stealing?

A quality ($150) knife is not something I'd happily part with. Does the state reimburse me for lawyer's fees if I was innocent all along? (I'm afraid I know this answer...)

For simplicity, let's ignore the possibility of obtaining a Concealed Wepons Permit.

Cops can't confiscate or arrest you for possession of what they cannot see. Keep your knife and/or other weapons well concealed and you should not have any problems. Most of the LEO-hassle problems on this forum occur simply because people cannot resist the urge to reveal the fact that they are "carrying" (ie: visible pocket clip, sheath, etc.). Learn to conceal your weapons well. There are books and DVDS available on this subject. Well worth the investment. The cops are not your friends and they never will be. They make their points with their superiors and the sheeple-dominated public sentiment by felony arrests and getting their names in the newspapers by doing so. Your name will be in the newspaper as well (felony weapon charge arrest) and you could lose your job and your future as well if your employer finds out about it. Yes, your fellow employees will read about it and tip off the boss with a copy of the local newspaper police arrest column. If you dress well and conceal well and you will not have any problems with arrests, felony or otherwise.

 

[lerner]

...given the overwhelming majority of weapon cases where the defendant was clearly up to something, I tend to suspect that the incident being alluded to may not have been so innocent...

No incidednt took place yet, it is a fear in the back of my head, based on exaggerations of previous incidents.

When I was a teen (I'm 35 now) I got searched several times for :jerkit: reasons. I also had a sort of chip on the shoulder (I hope its gone now).
Depending on what I'm wearing in what part of town at what time of night, officers have mistaken me for homeless/loiterer/inebreated. Since I was let go I think those were flimsy pretenses.
After a college party, 3 guys looking for trouble on a Saturday night beat 2 of my friends then decided to break my ribs before I blacked out. Hence I'd REALLY like to carry some protection.

I'm trying to understand the law so as to avoid future problems.
NOTE to other posters: I presented much technical aspects for contemplation, so I dont want this thread blown into a super-argument of flames. Thank you for your future insightful posts.

 

[cmdionne]

there is similar confusion regarding california law.

dirks/daggers are also prohibited, and it is commonly thought a dagger is a double edged blade. however, there is no mention of a dagger being double edged anywhere in the penal code.

I just searched the definition of "dagger" and it seems that the common consensus among about two dozen dictionaries is that a dagger is a short weapon used for stabbing. No mention of fixed blade v folding or edges. Does this mean that any knife or for that matter any rigid object capable of piercing flesh is a "dagger" under California law?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

I just searched the definition of "dagger" and it seems that the common consensus among about two dozen dictionaries is that a dagger is a short weapon used for stabbing. No mention of fixed blade v folding or edges. Does this mean that any knife or for that matter any rigid object capable of piercing flesh is a "dagger" under California law?

short answer, yes, it may be.

concealment and "available for ready use" are also elements of the section.

folders must be locked open to meet the definition and carried within the above requirements.

note: this is the letter of the law, and does not take in to account any mitigating or aggravating cirucumstances.

 

[cmdionne]

Of course other circumstances play in, I was just demonstrating that states without a definition of "dagger" "dirk" "stilleto" within the codes themselves (Like my own state of Michigan) leave a lot of room for interpretation, and thus places were people could be breaking the law without even thinking there's a problem.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Of course other circumstances play in, I was just demonstrating that states without a definition of "dagger" "dirk" "stilleto" within the codes themselves (Like my own state of Michigan) leave a lot of room for interpretation, and thus places were people could be breaking the law without even thinking there's a problem.

yes, that is possible. it is a fundamental concern by the op and many posters in this forum.

officers and judges will likely consider the prima facie facts when dealing with a dirk/dagger. ie,

1. was it concealed?
2. was it readily available?

many laws are open to interpretation. too specific, and a law becomes unenforceable. to vague, and it becomes unenforceable. i believe there is purposeful discretion in the wordings left to those who enforce and those who decide.

arguing the specific characteristics of an item may become moot if other elements are met.

the dirk/dagger definition is vague, to us. we here are well aware of the many attributes a knife may possess or not possess.

 

[glistam]

many laws are open to interpretation. too specific, and a law becomes unenforceable. to vague, and it becomes unenforceable. i believe there is purposeful discretion in the wordings left to those who enforce and those who decide.

arguing the specific characteristics of an item may become moot if other elements are met.

Well put. :thumbup: Per Lerner's urging, we should probably leave it at that.

was "SA" a typo? District Attorney? State Prosecutor?

My mistake. SA is "State's Attorney," that's what they call the prosecutors over here. I forgot it varies by area.

 

[Gunfucius]

No incidednt took place yet, it is a fear in the back of my head, based on exaggerations of previous incidents.

When I was a teen (I'm 35 now) I got searched several times for :jerkit: reasons. I also had a sort of chip on the shoulder (I hope its gone now).
Depending on what I'm wearing in what part of town at what time of night, officers have mistaken me for homeless/loiterer/inebreated. Since I was let go I think those were flimsy pretenses.
After a college party, 3 guys looking for trouble on a Saturday night beat 2 of my friends then decided to break my ribs before I blacked out. Hence I'd REALLY like to carry some protection.

I'm trying to understand the law so as to avoid future problems.
NOTE to other posters: I presented much technical aspects for contemplation, so I dont want this thread blown into a super-argument of flames. Thank you for your future insightful posts.

You're 35 and you live in Missouri. My understanding is that Missouri is a "shall issue" CCW state, and you need to be 23 to get a CCW license. Is there anything preventing you from getting one and carrying a handgun?

 

[joe-bob]

Does this mean that any knife or for that matter any rigid object capable of piercing flesh is a "dagger" under California law?

Historically, daggers didn't necessarily have any cutting edges at all; some did, some didn't. The important part was the tip. Similarly, stilettos had no cutting edges, and many were just triangular or even rectangular spikes with a handle. Again the emphasis was on stabbing--knives were for cutting.

 

[cmdionne]

Historically, daggers didn't necessarily have any cutting edges at all; some did, some didn't. The important part was the tip. Similarly, stilettos had no cutting edges, and many were just triangular or even rectangular spikes with a handle. Again the emphasis was on stabbing--knives were for cutting.

I'm aware of what they historically are, and so are most of us on this board. The point I was trying to make is that when a definition does not exist in the law or in pertinent case law, the dictionary definition is often used when a term is in question. These vague dictionary definitions could bite someone in the ass, so it makes sense to be careful. I never carry anything in any manner that might make it possible to construe that I was carrying the knife as a weapon. I'm also careful with the blades I choose, and rarely carry fixed blades for this very reason.