What if a cop thinks my knife is illegal?

joe-bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

pay no attention to anything this guy posts.

most are irrelevant, none offer any useful information.
 
Hand it over and don't argue. I would not ask for a property receipt if it is not offered. There are police officers out there (not the nice ones on the internet) who are planning on sticking that knife in their pocket and leaving it there or even just throwing it out later, figuring they are doing you a favor by not arresting you for having a knife they think is illegal.

If you are right and the knife was completely legal there are ways to deal with that later, whether through a lawyer or contacting the police chief, the side of the road is not the place to have these discussions.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
pay no attention to anything this guy posts.

most are irrelevant, none offer any useful information.
Click to expand...
He is correct about some styles of daggers not having cutting edges, though. Some sword canes also do not have edges; just an acute, sturdy point for thrusting.
 
TOM1960 said:
He is correct about some styles of daggers not having cutting edges, though. Some sword canes also do not have edges; just an acute, sturdy point for thrusting.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but who cares? irrelevant to the discussion.

and anyone can pull up a dictionary or wiki definition.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding as well ... that a 'dirk/dagger' as a practical matter, has much to do with the "readily available stabbing implement" language. So a concealed and open folding knife or a fixed blade (regardless of the details of it's shape or the history of its form) would/could be a dagger.


IMO it's unwise to carry something that may be 'boarderline'.

If you're a civilian and carrying a knife for self defense, don't choose some ninja-looking thing. It may impress your friends, but could land you in the slammer if, God forbid, you ever needed to use it. Use your head and get something that doesn't stand out.
 
Last edited:
Uh yeah... don't use knives for self defense. Over here we got two people sitting in prison as we speak for unintentionally killing their attackers with folding knives. One used a Gerber AF and her attacker was twice her size. Their knives were legal here, but they went to prison for murder 2.

Not to mention I've stabbed, slashed, and poked by many sharp objects (including a sword), usually accidentally, and I never felt a thing until maybe an hour later.

I can think of numerous other options for self-defense. Yeah I love my full-sized Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn, my Cold Steel Ti-lite, and my big scary SOG Pentagon Elite II (for which I have a kydex shoulder rig), and they're SOOOO tempting to carry around (legal in MD) and show off with, and perhaps even fantasize about using. And yes, they'd scare somebody, maybe, into backing off.

But maybe not. Now what? Unless your prepared to kill that person dead, let them bleed all over you with god knows what in their system, and then leave YOU to explain yourself to the authorities why they're dead, pick another option.

I don't mean to beat the point to death or discourage you though. Every jurisdiction, not matter how restrictive, have options for the common man to defend himself with. I sure there are some where you live.
 
lerner said:
What should I google (names, court rulings) to find more about those cases?
Click to expand...

I've give you one better. Here are the rulings from the court's website:

In re Julianna B.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2008/1125s07.pdf

Thornton v MD
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2005/1608s03.pdf
(Note how the defendant was still found guilty of murder but his concealed weapon conviction was overturned)

Note: Justice is blind. The events recounted are the best that can be assembled by law enforcement after the fact..
 
To be fair, neither of the cases are obvious self-defense in the same sense that we, on this board, apply to it.

In both cases the key factor that seems to have allowed prosecution to convict the defendants was that they:

1. engaged in combat willingly while having other options
2. engaged an unarmed person with a weapon

The scenario that WOULD disturb me, would be if someone with a pristine record, was attacked by someone who posed a threat to his/her life, used a knife in self-defense, and was subsequently convicted. While I am sure such a case exists, I would venture a guess that it couldn't be a frequent occurrence, or we really need to re-examine our district attorneys.
 
gnius said:
To be fair, neither of the cases are obvious self-defense in the same sense that we, on this board, apply to it.

In both cases the key factor that seems to have allowed prosecution to convict the defendants was that they:

1. engaged in combat willingly while having other options
2. engaged an unarmed person with a weapon

The scenario that WOULD disturb me, would be if someone with a pristine record, was attacked by someone who posed a threat to his/her life, used a knife in self-defense, and was subsequently convicted. While I am sure such a case exists, I would venture a guess that it couldn't be a frequent occurrence, or we really need to re-examine our district attorneys.
Click to expand...

Correct. The hypothetical you propose would be very unlikely to result in conviction, for obvious reasons. Such a thing would create quite an outcry from the public and media. And there would be appeals in spades. That is of course excluding taking a plea bargain.
However, things are rarely so clear-cut in reality. Statistically speaking, we are more likely to encounter violence from people we know, rather than the strangers. Also ponder this: Thing are alleged to have gone that way in the above cases, but we don't know what REALLY happened. How might perfect strangers perceive a situation you are in? Hard to say.
 
Last edited:
gnius describes my situation well. I didnt read the PDFs yet, but previous suggestions seemed to say:
If you use a "vicious" knife in SD, authorities are more likely to convict you of a violent felony, rather than a weapons charge.
If you use a "tame" design, your claims of SD are more likely to hold.

"Proving your innocence" in a SD case is more scary than an attack.
 
lerner said:
If you use a "vicious" knife in SD, authorities are more likely to convict you of a violent felony, rather than a weapons charge.
If you use a "tame" design, your claims of SD are more likely to hold.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same things about CCW pistol choice and the choice of it's ammunition. A small revolver is likely to be viewed much differently than a full size Glock, and mags dutch loaded with black talons (or similar) alternating with FMJ rounds is going to look much worse to a jury than is something more benign like hydrashock (the ammo alot of PDs use, "good guy" ammo). These are all very important points to consider.

/I carry a glock anyway
//"good guy" ammo though
 
The links you send (glistam) are very educational:). I'm just starting out learning my state's legal system so I've got a question:
When a statute vaugely defines a term, it is clarified in subsequent "case law" (If I understand correctly). How do I identify the "precedent-setting" cases?

You seem to do it so fast; I searched the courts.mo.gov link for "dagger" and got 11 returns. I guess I should read them all?
Supposedly other missourri govt sites will return other court reports.
Aallnet.org/sis/lisp/research.htm even suggests law-school libraries over the web, as many decisions go unpublished.

That Sorrell v. McGuigan ruling is cited throughout MD websites to define "penknife". So I must find the apropriate one for MO and "ordinary pocketknife".

anyway, Big Thanks, again
 
You are correct. Case law fills in where the statute leaves off. Note that it is only appeals from high courts that are published in this readily available way, mainly because lower courts do not set precedent and also because I think those case simply too numerous to fully catalog for the web.

Of course if lower courts are routinely dismissing charges for ordinary pocketknives or find defendant's not-guilty, there's no way to tell from this end. That may take a trip to the local court house or law library in person to find out.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
perhaps, but who cares? irrelevant to the discussion.

and anyone can pull up a dictionary or wiki definition.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in your opinion, but state laws define "possession" and "carrying" as two separate items. In my own very anally-retentive state (Massachusetts) you can own switchblades and double-edged knives but you cannot carry them outside of your home. But then again, your posts indicate that you are from California. Your laws are probably radically different. And here I am thinking that Massachusetts is the most anti-gun/anti-knife state. Silly me!:D
 
TOM1960 said:
Perhaps in your opinion, but state laws define "possession" and "carrying" as two separate items. In my own very anally-retentive state (Massachusetts) you can own switchblades and double-edged knives but you cannot carry them outside of your home. But then again, your posts indicate that you are from California. Your laws are probably radically different. And here I am thinking that Massachusetts is the most anti-gun/anti-knife state. Silly me!:D
Click to expand...

he has a habit of posting either useless or incorrect information. the dictionary type definition he posted has no relevance, regardless of whether simple possession and carry are separate issues.

it would be in your best interest to ignore any and all posts.

and fwiw, i think florida, ny, and ca have mass beat!!
 
lerner said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a great thread and lots of interesting debate. The OP had some specific questions. I am going to give my opinion on each question in turn.

1. I am concerned that the in the fact pattern, the officer is improperly confiscating the knife. Confiscation should include some type of receipt and a procedure of returning the knife. Here, the officer is offering to accept the knife in return for not charging the owner. This is unconstitutional as in taking property without fair compensation. It also may be construed as some type of bribe as in "give me your knife and I won't charge you." If the officer is confiscating the knife for evidence, then he/she must issue some type of ticket.

2. Don't attempt to argue with the officer. If he/she has reached the opinion that it is illegal, you are not going to change his/her mind. If you get charged, the officer will note your attitude (at least they do here in Colorado) and the DA will take that into consideration in any plea bargain.

3. Showing him a photocopy of the law or a letter from Levine, with all due respect, is just stupid. If I were the DA and this went to trial, I would use the letter or photocopy to argue to the jury that you were some kind of knife nut who carries around a dangerous weapon with questionable documentation - a clear indication of your intent to use the knife as a weapon as opposed to a tool. People who use knives as tools do not carry around copies of the law or letters from Levine. As a practical matter, this sort of stuff will raise a big red flag with the cop as well.

3. You are correct the if the officer keeps the knife after confiscating it, he is stealing it. It is also a violation of your constitutional rights and the officer has probably violated his procedures as well. The problem is proof. Unless you have some type of receipt for the confiscated knife, it is his word against yours. If you had a cell phone, you could dial your own voice mail and record the conversation.

4. Ultimately, you have to balance the cost of the knife against the time, expense and risk of being charged. $150.00 is a lot of money. It is probably 10% of what a lawyer would charge (the going rate in Colorado for simple criminal matters is a $1,500.00 flat fee). If you represent yourself, the DA will want you to plead guilty to something, even if it is a lesser charge in a plea bargain as he/she will want to protect the cop. That being the case, you are going to lose the knife anyway.

5. Absent a separate civil trial for malicious prosecution and/or police misconduct and illegal police procedures, there is no way to recover legal fees. What is worse, you would have to pay a lawyer an hourly rate for the separate civil action, with no real chance of recovering those fees. Your court time will not be reimbursed. Do you really want to lose hours and hours of work?

As loath as I am to say it, in your fact pattern by giving up the $150.00 knife in exchange for not being charged, you are actually accepting the officer's offer of a bribe. This is a small bribe amount compared to what it could ultimately cost you. In your fact pattern, the cop seems to know this and is taking advantage of it. I hate to recommend it, but in your fact pattern, the best solution is to give up the knife, buy a new one and you will still be $1,200.00 ahead in legal fees alone.
 
In the OP's fact pattern, in many states the LEO could arrest the person carrying the knife.
Right there, on the spot.

There's no guarantee that the LEO would simply take the knife, or issue a desk appearance ticket.

The bigger issue is that these vague knife laws are IMO too vague or overbroad to be constitutional. Statutes are supposed to be written in such a way so that the citizenry knows if they are being violated.

Overly vague and overbroad statutes are constantly being struck down by the courts.

The problem here seems to be that no one has come forward to challenge these statutes.
"Dangerous knife" is the one that bothers me the most. If an officer feels your knife is "dangerous", s/he can arrest you. You'd be booked, processed, and put in a holding cell.

In my view, there's something very, very wrong with that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top