Illegal Arrest In Illinois

[GuyWithQuestions]

It is also not a Nuremburg situation. The law is very badly written. The ISP guy that posts here has stated he thinks that fanny packing is probably legal, but I would bet 95% of cops think it is not or (more likely) never even considered it all. This situation stretches the fanny packing thing to its limit.

Yes, it does look like the law was poorly written. However, according to many of the Illinois state websites on the carrying of guns on person (such as the http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf Illinois Gun Laws state website that BGlaze250 posted) say that putting a gun in a container that uses a zipper is ok. These many websites also says that if the zipper doesn't happen to be all the way closed you're not going to get into trouble as long as it's unloaded and none of the Unlawful Use of Weapons law are present. It also says that ammunition can be stored in the same container as the gun container, as long as the gun is unloaded and you have a FOID card. The only part of the law that may be not as favoring is it says that it can't be easily accessible (fanny packs are usually accessible). However, the laws don't seem to exclude a fanny pack out just because it's encased in a compartment with only a zipper to go through and it's on a person.

 

[Don Gwinn]

:banghead:

Why is it so difficult for people to understand? There are three exemptions. ONE of them says you can put the gun where it's inaccessible. If you do that, you don't need to think about the other two exceptions.

OR you can break it down so it's non-functional. Again, if you do that, you don't need to worry about the other two exceptions. It takes care of legality all by itself.

OR you can put it, unloaded, into an enclosed container. If you do that, you do not need the other two exemptions.[i/]



If it's unloaded in a case and you have your FOID, then it makes no difference whether it's accessible or not.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but in between mowing the lawn and demolishing the living room walls and windows I've been checking in on these Illinois threads all day and I'm seeing the same misconception repeated over and over and over.

By the way, the law was not especially poorly written. The author of the bill was asked during public floor debate whether his bill would let anyone grab his gun case and take his gun whereever he wanted, in public.
The author replied that as long as the carrier had a FOID and the gun was unloaded, that's exactly what they were authorizing.

Everyone who voted for this bill either knew that or should have known that.

 

[limbaughfan]

Keep on carrying and resist the PRI.

 

[ilbob]

If the guy isn't doing anything wrong and isn't on parole or probation, then he cannot be legally searched without consent. If it happened to me, I would have just ignored them and walked out the door and called the police. As far as I'm concerned what those guards did is kidnaping.

There was no search. The case was clearly hanging on his belt quite openly.

 

[ilbob]

By the way, the law was not especially poorly written. The author of the bill was asked during public floor debate whether his bill would let anyone grab his gun case and take his gun whereever he wanted, in public.
The author replied that as long as the carrier had a FOID and the gun was unloaded, that's exactly what they were authorizing.

Everyone who voted for this bill either knew that or should have known that.

You would think so. I doubt they seriously considered someone might walk around with an unloaded gun in a case other than too and from specific destinations, but the law does not say that.

I don't see much difference legally between a gun case that hooks on your belt and one does not. The law does not prohibit you from having a gun case that has belt loops, or from using the belt loops. The only definition of gun case is a case designed to carry a gun (paraphrasing the wildlife code). A holster is just about the very essence of such a definition.

In fact, as best I can tell, you would only be in violation of the wildlife code if you put it in a zip lock bag and carried it around in your hand. You would have a good argument for DC, but not UUW.

 

[ilbob]

ONE of them says you can put the gun where it's inaccessible

(a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;
or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card

Interestingly, that particular exception does not require it to be unloaded.

One would be inclined to think that a locked glove box is not immediately accessible. I seem to recall at least one court ruling that a glove box is not a case. Maybe our ISP friend would comment. He seems up on this stuff.

 

[Phenom]

Here's the question, was the gun in open view. If the guards didn't see the gun before stopping the guy then there was a search.

 

[Sistema1927]

Lets not go there. This is not a JBT situation.

It isn't? If not, I really cringe to think about what you would consider to meet the criteria.

The only difference between storm troopers and these mall ninjas/arresting officers/strip search officers is the color of their shirts.

 

[ilbob]

Here's the question, was the gun in open view. If the guards didn't see the gun before stopping the guy then there was a search.

The gun case was in plain view hanging on his belt. I think it had thigh straps too now that I think about it. The gun was not visible because the case is opaque.

 

[Autolycus]

Good question Phenom. I think that may be the deciding factor in a lawsuit. Hopefully Mr. Kranish knows it to.

 

[ilbob]

The only difference between storm troopers and the mall ninjas/arresting officers/strip search officers is the color of their shirts.

That is just plain not true.

There is a substantial difference between a LEO making an honest mistake (in this case probably after consultation with others) and storm troopers carting people off to death camps by the millions.

There are plenty of cases of LE misconduct you can cite if you so choose. This is not one of them IMO.

 

[DKSuddeth]

There is a substantial difference between a LEO making an honest mistake (in this case probably after consultation with others) and storm troopers carting people off to death camps by the millions.

carting people off to death chambers is not the sole requirement to be a stormtrooper. Do LEO's make mistakes? Sure they do, but making an arrest because they are not sure if said defendant is breaking the law or not is not a mistake, that's pulling otherwise innocent people off the street, in handcuffs, and letting a person of higher authority sort out the mess because the officer in question wants to. That might as well be a stormtrooper.

I think there's a height requirement as well, but that could be just for empirical stormtroopers.

 

[Phenom]

Does the gun case look like a gun case, or does it look similar to a fannypack. If you can't physically see something then you really don't know if anything is in that case People don't have x-ray vision

 

[Gary G23]

Moving out of Illinois was the best decision I ever made.

 

[Don Gwinn]

ISP2605 is either on vacation somewhere or he's avoiding these threads. Can't say I blame him. I wouldn't want to be the guy everybody wants to justify LE's actions in this case, especially when he has no connection to the case and no more idea than you or I what exactly the LEO's in this case were thinking.

It doesn't do any good to get mad at the cops unless they do some grossly unjust stuff--like what happened to John Horstman, when they purposely lied and called him a child molester, knowing he wasnt, or when CPD officers changed their story on Roderick Pritchett and pretended his gun had been loaded.

In this case, the officers apparently thought they were enforcing the law. They were wrong, but if they tell the truth, Shaun will be acquitted.

 

[Mark in California]

Want to Be Cops

First off, I own a private security company in California

It looks like a couple of want to be cops. The police seem to have their own problems since they had the time to research the law before taking it to the next level.

Unless a security officer has a report of stolen property, and or threatening actions by suspect he would not have any basis for an official stop. There is also the complication, in the case of shoplifting, that your client the mall probably does not want you working for someone else (retail store) because of then being liable for the stores actions. (A mall in town will not even allow its security personnel to jump dead batteries for customers for fear of liability)

As to shoplifting, it is a misdemeanor not commit in your presence and you can not arrest or detain anyone in California for a misdemeanor not committed in your presence. (Some exceptions for police officers in Domestic Violence situations) You can talk, and they are free to walk away.

If threatening action was reported and they are leaving you should allow them to leave and report it to the police.

If it had been me, I would just have a said: “Have a good day” as they were leaving.

***

In California only police have Police Powers of Arrest; everyone else is equal with the citizen’s power of arrest. If you fight arrest, it is also resisting arrest. If you are wrong, you can and will be sued. And you will lose.

I have told people to leave their weapons (belt knives, fighting studs) in their car. No it was not a violation of state law. It was a violation of the property owner’s rules allowing public access. Worst case, you are asked to leave or are denied access. If I can not see it (Concealed is Concealed) then no harm, no foul.

At some events (at the clients request) we even use wands to detect possible weapons, either empty your pockets or leave. It up to you, but we can not pat you down if you do not agree, and are free to leave.

As a final word, the job of security is to keep the trouble makers out by personal presences, and when necessary focusing them on us and a way from the public and calling the police. When all else fails some direct measures (like arrest) might need to be taken.

 

[gunsmith]

What Mark says

...I was a security guard in CA and was much better trained then these jerks who give all security guards a bad name.

If IL security guard regs are similar to CA then there will be a great lawsuit for Mr Kravish, he's going to be able to buy himself a few class three weapons and a new car...

 

[Don Gwinn]

he's going to be able to buy himself a few class three weapons

Sadly, not in Illinois unless he gets enough to buy some land in Wisconsin or something along with the NFA stuff.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Despite my protest, the private guards told me to put my hands up and proceeded to forcibly and publicly search me without permission.

After unbuckling and opening my case, they discovered that I was carrying an unloaded gun as Illinois law clearly allows, then handcuffed and detained me on the spot. They called the local police as they dragged me away to a mall “substation,” handcuffed, for everyone to see.

Hmmm. False arrest, false imprisonment, battery, and theft. Am I missing anything?

A non-cop wants to search me, there's going to be a scuffle. Don't know why this guy went along. Unless he was planning to cash in on the lawuit.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

I don't know if this is true, correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but a security guard has no more powers to arrest than a private citizen (powers included in a citizen's arrest - most say you can't unless you catch someone committing a public offense or have probable cause to believe they committed a felony [a felony isn't suspecting someone stole something from the store and is hiding it in the fanny pack, that would be a misdemeanor and it wouldn't even have been probable cause in that case, so they wouldn't have been justified])? A security guard has no more right to search a citizen against their own will than a citizen has authority to search another citizen against their own will. Security guards can say they won't let someone in a bar unless they go through a metal detector, just like any citizen who won't let someone go into their place, but neither can force the citizen. I've also heard that if you perform a private arrest on someone who doesn't fall under those guidelines, you can be charged and convicted with kidnapping, which means some jail time for the security guard. Since in this case they strip searched, that makes it worse. What if I found someone in a store and forced my way into their fanny pack against their own will? I would definitely be arrested. If all of what I've heard about this is true, then what the police did was based on evidence gathered in an illegal way, which means not only bad news for their case, but also that police can get into deep trouble for illegal arrests. Is what I heard correct, or am I missing something? Also, what are Illinois codes for arrests (especially private arrests) and their penalties for kidnapping?

 

[psychophipps]

The worst part about this, in my opinion, is that the end-result will be a big, fat nada. Sure, the guy who was wronged will probably get some cash, some mall guards might get fired and a few officers will get a slap on the wrist but there will be no real changes in things. The police and mall will pay out but it's not BFD to them as they have insurance for this stuff.
The guy who was wronged is still going to have been publicly humilated. His faith in LEOs will still be shattered. He'll still have memories of all the crap they put him through. The lawyers will take their cut of anything he wins, college will be (partially) paid for and this crap will happen again to some other poor slob.

Yay for gun owner's rights,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[panzermk2]

Welcome to my world.
I live In Harvard IL less the half an hour away from Rockford and SAK. I am a member of the IllinoisCarry.com forum also and have been up to speed on the suffering and just plain trashing of the law against SAK. Its bad enough with all the FOID card BS you have to suffer through just to "TASTE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT”
But when you follow the law you still get [Don Gwinn says the word you're looking for might be "screwed"] in IL. If it wasn’t for Grampas and Grandmas we would have been gone along time ago

 

[Sam]

Security Guard, LEO, Dog Catcher, anyone operating under the color of law who violates someones rights immediatly qualifies as hog chow.

Illinois needs to feed their hogs.

Sam

 

[MAURICE]

Wow. This is just plain wrong.
Personally, if a rentacop wanted to search me or my vehicle there would be a physical altercation the second they laid hands on me. They are not police. They do not have search and seizure powers.
I hope all goes well for you. When you win, sue sue sue sue sue. The rentacops themselves, their employers, the police department, anyone and everyone you can. I hope you walk away with a clean record and a new millionaire.

Good luck.

Oh, someone mentioned the possibility that they may be auxillary officers. I do not know IL law regarding that, but in AR an aux officer has no police powers unless he is in radio contact with full time cops, eg. on the PDs clock.

 

[Mark in California]

In California we are allowed to search an arrestee only to determine if they have any weapons on them. I tell my people NOT to search. The suspect is in cuffs, we are standing over them or beside them, and the police will only take about five min. to get there.

Oh, we only arrest about one person every other year. Most of the time the trouble makers decide to leave before the police arrive.