Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every



Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.




Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Emilio Rivera, Words Of Wisdom.

OFF THE WIRE
Sometimes the most important life lessons are the ones we end up learning the hard way!
Lots of #Love ❤️& #Respect 👊
to Emilio Rivera
Image may contain: 1 person, text

Monday, July 31, 2017

Terry stop...- In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

OFF THE WIRE
In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]
The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[8] however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.[9]
In some jurisdictions, persons detained under the doctrine of Terry must identify themselves to police upon request. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.

Contents

 [hide

 Traffic stops

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] In the interest of officer safety, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.[16] [17]
Without a warrant, probable cause, or the driver’s consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the “plain view” doctrine may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.[18]
Writing for a unanimous Court in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), Justice Ginsburg gives a comprehensive summary of most of the above-cited jurisprudence relating to traffic stops.
  1. ^ In keeping with common practice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the terms police and police officer are used throughout this article; however, a more appropriate term is peace officer (or sometimes law enforcement officer).[citation needed] In general, peace officers are civil employees charged with preserving the public peace and granted the authority to do so. Peace officers normally include police, sheriffs and their deputies, marshals, and often many other persons; those included vary among the states.
  2. ^ For the Court in Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984), Justice Marshall wrote
    “the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop,’ see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)” (468 U.S. at 439)
  3. ^ For the Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, Justice Kennedy noted
    Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. (542 U.S. at 185)

    ^ For the Court in Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
  4. Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. (392 U.S. at 27)

  5. ^ In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
    And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. (392 U.S. at 21)
  6. ^ For the Court in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), Chief Justice Burger wrote
    Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. Terms like “articulable reasons” and “founded suspicion” are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. (449 U.S. at 417–418)
  7. ^ In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
    He [Detective McFadden] had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.
  8. ^ In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
    Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a ‘full’ search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. (392 U.S. at 26)
    Chief Justice Warren continued:
    The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. (392 U.S. at 29)
  9. ^ For the Court in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), Justice White wrote
    If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context. (508 U.S. at 375–376)
    Justice White continued:
    Here, the officer’s continued exploration of respondent’s pocket after having concluded that it contained no weapon was unrelated to “[t]he sole justification of the search [under Terry:] . . . the protection of the police officer and others nearby.” 392 U.S., at 29. It therefore amounted to the sort of evidentiary search that Terry expressly refused to authorize, see id., at 26, and that we have condemned in subsequent cases. (508 U.S. at 378)
  10. ^ For the Court in Berkemer v. McCarty, Justice Marshall wrote
    “most traffic stops resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.” (468 U.S. 420, 439, n. 29)
  11. ^ For a unanimous Court in Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), Justice Souter wrote,
    When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop. (551 U.S. at 249)
    Justice Souter continued:
    Brendlin was seized from the moment Simeroth’s car came to a halt on the side of the road (551 U.S. at 263)

  12. ^ Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (per curiam) noted
    We hold only that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. (434 U.S. at 111, n. 6)
  13. ^ For the Court in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote
    an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. (519 U.S. at 413)

  14. ^ Pennsylvania v. Mimms (per curiam) held
    Under the standard enunciated in that case [Terry]—“whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate”—there is little question the officer was justified. The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of “reasonable caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down.” (434 U.S. at 112)
  15. ^ For a unanimous Court in Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that police may
    perform a “patdown” of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous (113 U.S. at 117–118, citing Terry)
  16. ^ For the Court in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), Justice O'Connor wrote
    These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. (463 U.S. at 1049)
  17. ^ For a unanimous Court in Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998)), Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that police may
    conduct a “Terry patdown” of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon (525 U.S. at 118, citing Long)
  18. ^ For the Court in Michigan v. Long, Justice O'Connor wrote
    If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile, the officer should, as here, discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. (463 U.S. at 1050, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465 (1971))



San Diego Defense Attorney Explains 10 Ways Cops Are Allowed to Lie

OFF THE WIRE
An informative essay titled 10 Ways the Police Can Lie to You appeared on the website of San Diego criminal defense attorney Nicholas J. Moore. The essay details a number of deceits and tricks investigators may attempt to get a confession — true or otherwise — out of a suspect.
From the essay:
As a general proposition, police are allowed to lie. The lies told by the police to a suspect under questioning do not render the confession involuntary per se. Mere trickery alone does not invalidate a confession. The court must look to see whether the deception is reasonably likely to produce a false confession. People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107;Hawkins v. Lynaugh (5th Cir. 1988) 844 F.2d 1132
The list begins by explaining that police can even lie about having already obtained physical evidence — such as DNA or fingerprints — from a crime scene, and expounds on a number of other police bluffs, complete with actual example cases:
(1) They Can Lie About Physical Evidence
“We have your fingerprints.”
“We have your DNA.”
Fingerprint and DNA analysis requires time, and county crime labs are notoriously backlogged. If you have been arrested as a suspect for a crime that was recently committed, it is highly unlikely that police have fingerprints from the scene of the crime, at the time of interrogation.
Consider the following true story:
The defendant voluntarily came to the police station and was told he was not under arrest. The officer told the defendant that his fingerprints were found at the scene, a lie. The defendant then confessed to taking the property. Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492
The 6th District described the practice of police lying about having DNA, “a regrettable but frequent practice of law enforcement was not unconstitutional,” citing to People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299 – which allow police deception as long as it is not unlikely to produce an untruthful confession.
(2) They can trick you into giving up your DNA
“Would you like something to drink?”
If you are arrested for a serious crime (read: violent crime), a DNA swab is now part of the normal booking routine. However, the police may also try and trick you into surrendering your DNA by offering you a soda, cup of water or coffee. A positive DNA match to an active crime scene is usually sufficient for an arrest and a charge. Police are even allowed to go through your garbage to obtain your DNA and other evidence. Maryland v. King (2013) 133 S.Ct. 1958; California v. Greenwood (1988) 486 U.S. 35

(3) They can give you fake tests to “prove you’re guilty”
“You failed the polygraph.”
“You failed a chemical test.”
Consider the following true story:
A suspect requested a polygraph test, and the police hooked the suspect up to a fake machine. During the questioning, the suspect denied any involvement in the crime, then the police show the defendant a fake graph from the fake machine, and say the suspect is lying. The suspect thereafter admits being present at the scene of the crime – The court ruled the defendant’s admission is a voluntary and admissible confession. People v. Mays (2009) 173 Cal App. 4th 1145.
Another true story:
“In the first step of the “test,” the detectives sprayed defendant’s hands with soap and patted them with a paper towel. In the second step, they used a field test kit used for testing substances suspected of being cocaine, which the detectives knew inevitably would turn color. The detective told defendant that the test had provided proof that defendant had recently fired a gun.” People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483; People v. Parrison (1992) 137 Cal.App.3d 529, 537
(4) They can lie about having an eyewitness to the crime
“An eyewitness identified you.”
True Story:
A defendant was brought to a police station and advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant waived his rights, gave a statement, and then asked for an attorney. As the detectives picked up their books to leave the room a detective tells the defendant that the victim identified a picture of the Defendant as the one who stabbed and raped her. At the time, the victim had not seen any photographs. The defendant subsequently confessed. People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. Ap. 3d 1174.
(5) They can lie about recording your conversation
“I’m turning the recorder off, this is just between you and me.”
“This is off the record.”
There is nothing requiring a police officer to disclose the presence of an already-activated tape recorder. In fact, there may be more than one recording device in the room, and the police may turn one of those devices off and say, “this is just between us,” or “this is off the record.” Remember that when speaking with the police, there is no “off the record.” People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 405.
(6) They can lie about having an accomplice’s confession
“Your friend sold you out and told us everything”
The police are permitted to lie and tell you that your accomplice confessed. Detectives could place both Frazier and his cousin at a bar where a victim was last seen alive. Both Frazier and the cousin were arrested. Police lied to Frazier during the interview that his cousin confessed and told them everything. Frazier made statements that he and his cousin were at the bar. Those statements were used to convict him. Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731.
The police are even permitted to show you a forged confession from your friend/accomplice to try and trick you into confessing. People v. Long (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 741
(7) The police can imply that co-operation will lead to leniency
“We already know what happened, but if you obstruct our investigation the DA will be a lot tougher on you.”
Police cannot make threats or a promise of lieniency. It’s a true statement – you can be criminally charged for lying to the police. The police are prohibited from making threats or promises to induce a confession – but that does not mean that they will not threaten you or make you false promises. Police break the rules all the time. Your best defense is to remain silent and wait for a lawyer.
What most people don’t realize is that the police do not charge you with a crime – only the district attorney can make that decision. In the vast majority of cases a DA does not know anything about the case until the date of arraignment where they first pick up the file and read a police report. When a DA reads the file for the first time one of the key pieces of evidence they are looking for is if you made any statements (that is the one thing that makes their job the easiest). United States v. Santos-Garcia (8th Cir.2002) 313 F.3d 1073, 1079 (noting that raised voices and suggestions on how to gain leniency do not render a confession involuntary).
(8) They can lie about what will happen to other people.
“Your friend will spend their life in jail if you don’t tell us what happened.”
The police can lie to you and say that your friend will go to jail for the rest of their life. HOWEVER, they cannot threaten a family member with harm or removal from the home. While the court permits a number of coercive tactics, threatening your family is considered the type of threat that is likely to produce a false confession. “A threat by police to arrest or punish a close relative, or a promise to free the relative in exchange for a confession, may render an admission invalid.” People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 550.
(9) They can lie about your ability to defend yourself from a criminal charge.
“We know what happened, the best thing for you is to tell us how write it up in your favor and we will help you out.”
“We have enough evidence to charge you – this is your only opportunity to tell your story.”
Police do not “charge” you with a crime. They write a report and the District Attorney reads the report. The district attorney then decides to either file a charge, or not file a charge depending on the strength of the case. The hardest cases to prosecute are the ones where the Defendant has said NOTHING. The less you say to the Police, the better off you are at avoiding a charge.
Defendant and his accomplice were wanted for a murder. Officers already had a full confession from defendant’s accomplice, blaiming the killing on defendant. Police lied and told the Defendant they have enough evidence to charge him with murder. The defendant told the police his friend actually did the murder. His statements were used against him to place him at the scene of the crime, and as an accomplice. Defendant was ultimately convicted of murder. When the police tell you they will help you out, they are lying. Their only job is to investigate a case. The police will never help a suspect/person do anything but incriminate themselves. People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557
(10) They can ignore your request for a lawyer
There is an evidentiary loophole that allows voluntary statements, given in violation of Miranda, to be useable in court for impeachment purposes (challenging the defendant’s credibility).
True story:
Strategically, police officers made an agreement prior to interviewing the defendant, that they would continue questioning Defendant if he invoked his right to an attorney. They knew that anything the Defendant said could not be used to prove his guilt, however anything the defendant said is admissible as “impeachment evidence,” – which is evidence that tends to show that the Defendant is falsely testifying.

Defendant requested a lawyer 11 times over the course of a 4 hour interrogation, but each time after requesting a lawyer, the police ignored the request and asked another question to which the Defendant answered – and then resumed questioning. He then later admitted a rape and double homicide to police. He never saw a lawyer. Court found the defendant was not subjected to physical or psychological mistreatments and is mature and has had past criminal experience and that his statements were therefore voluntary and admissible. People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774

Sunday, July 30, 2017

California State Knife Laws (2017 revision)

OFF THE WIRE
Unfortunately laws are always complicated and there can be multiple penal codes related to any given issue. On this page I've attempted to collect California State penal codes pertaining to knives and knife carry.

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer. The following information is for reference only. The discussion and interpretation is my own. So, please keep that in mind. If you need qualified consultation or legal advice, please contact a licensed criminal attorney and/or local Sheriff's office. The discussion is regarding the lawful knife carry, nothing else!

Like I said above, the laws are complicated. In US to make things more complicated we have Federal and State laws, and in addition to that local counties and cities can have their own laws. Which particular law takes priority for any given issue depends on the laws and I guess particular case as well. In relation to knife carry, the state law is generally more or less universal, however, particular cities and towns have their own, as usual more strict laws regarding the knife possession and carry. I'll discuss that below, but as a rule of thumb, just because California state law allows particular blade doesn't mean it is legal in all places. Always check your local town/city penal code. E.g. San Francisco and Oakland have 3" blade length limit, which isn't in the state law. Same is true for Los Angeles.

One more thing to keep in mind is that not all the law enforcement officers know penal code all that well. For starters, if you get asked whether or not you have a knife on you, tell the truth, but better yet, state that you have a blade legal under California law. You may get some problems, because the officer thinks you have violated the law. In other words, LEO doesn't know the knife carry law in details. In that case, better not to argue the point, calmly explain they you believe you're not in violation of the law, that your knife is legal under California law, including citing penal codes we're discussing here and either ask the officer to contact superiors or get the receipt if he/she is confiscating the knife and later contact the department. Aggravating the situation will most likely result in additional charges against you and possible arrest. However, if your piece gets confiscated you must be issued a receipt. If the officer is refusing to do so(i.e. issue a receipt) or threatening with additional problems he's in the wrong, not you. Without confrontation, ask for the receipt and if he(or she) still refuses, write down his/her badge number, name, time and place where the incident took place and report it to the nearest police station. For more details on dealing with law enforcement and various situations involving knives including their use please visit Jim March's excellent article California Knife Laws: A Comprehensive Guide.

Knife Carry Related Laws 2012 revisions - In 2012 California state legislature revised penal code. In short, no major changes to the knife carry laws, however the numbers to the existing penal codes have been changed completely. California penal code has several sections interesting to us in this discussion: sections 16100-17360 (formerly 653K), and pretty much everything under Part 6/Title 3/Division 5 (all formerly under 12020). Basically many types of knives got their own sections in definition and carry law parts. Sections 171.b and 626.10 remain unchanged.
16100-17360 - Since 2012, belongs to the Part 6 - Control Of Deadly Weapons, Title 1 - General Provisions, Division 2 - Definitions; Old 653K is completely removed.
Chapter 6 of PC - Since 2012 covers Deadly Weapons, where Title 3 covers - Weapons And Devices Other Than Firearms, and the parts we're specifically interested in are under Division 5 - Knives And Similar Weapons, which in turn contains several chapters, including dedicated articles to several types of knives under Chapter 2 - Disguised Or Misleading Appearance;
Penal code Part 6/Title 3/Division 5 - Defines what is a legal pocket knife and what is illegal, by types, e.g. a switchblade and gravity or ballisong knife(PC 17235). Pocket knives, most likely those would be the folding knives are legal, while switchblades, gravity and ballisong knives are illegal.
PC 16470 - Deals with the street carry laws. Basically, you can not carry a dirk or a dagger, definitions below, and more importantly, can't carry folding knife in open/locked position - ...only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position. Therefore folders, carried closed and concealed are legal. No length limitation.
PC 21510 - deals strictly with switchblades, making it a misdemeanor to carry upon a person, or possess in a car, or in a public place, sell, loan, transfer, give, expose for sale, a switchblade knife.
There are other penal codes dealing with knife carry in specific places. Those are: penal code 626.10 which deals with the knife school carry rules. There is also penal code 171.b which deals with the knives in public buildings.

Simply put, the law defines what is illegal, so if your knife and carry isn't what the law defines as illegal you should be fine. Once again, keep in mind the local laws. Details below.

Very Short Summary

State California allows for concealed carry of the folding knives and there is no limit to the blade length. As long as the knife is not banned by PC 16100-17360 or in Part 6/Title 3/Division 5, it is legal. Division 6 of the same title bans knuckles, division 7 bans nunchakus and so on. 17235 does not make Assisted Openers(AO) illegal. However, depending on the particular AO mechanism and other details some AOs may fall under switchblade category. Kershaw Speed Safe is not one of them, it is perfectly legal, details further down. As far as the state law goes, fixed blades must be carried openly, in the sheath, on the waist. I can't find where does the law ban either double edged blades or dirks and daggers. As the wording is, those are ok for open carry. No knives longer than 2.5"in the school, but folders are ok in the Universities and Colleges, unless, they were banned by local authorities. CCR(California Code Of Regulations) has a separate provision prohibitins any non employee and non student from carying any knife with a locking blade, dirks, daggers etc, and anything that can be used to inflict serious bodily injury. Needless to say it's way too vague, although if you had aforementioned dangerous object on you to do your lawful work, then you're ok. No knives longer than 4" in public buildings or buildings open to public meetings, e.g. courts, city halls, police stations, city council meetings, etc.

Penal Codes


PC 20200 - Defines open carry as A knife carried in a sheath that is worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer is not concealed within the meaning of Section 16140, 16340, 17350, or 21310. The handle shouldn't be covered by clothing.
Part 6/Title 3/Division 5 - Defines legal and illegal pocket knives. Full text of the penal code 17235. The most interesting part of the penal code is the following definition of the switchblade knives:
As used in this part, "switchblade knife" means a knife having the appearance of a pocketknife and includes a spring-blade knife, snap-blade knife, gravity knife, or any other similar type knife, the blade or blades of which are two or more inches in length and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, flip of the wrist or other mechanical device, or is released by the weight of the blade or by any type of mechanism whatsoever.

Basically, this section outlaws switchblades, or automatic knives, plus ballisongs, or butterfly knives. Also whatever else can be opened with the flick of the wrist. However, there are lots of legitimate knives that also fall under that category. Next section clarifies that part:

"Switchblade knife" does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position.

The paragraph above was added to the PC 17235 (to the original 653K) thanks to SB 274, or Karnette amendment(California state Senator Betty Karnette of the 27th district introduced it in 2002). This is an important clause that makes legal regular folding knives which can be opened with one hand. The knife must have some sort of thumbstud to move the blade into the open position and has to have some sort of mechanism to keep it in the closed position and provide some sort of resistance to overcome when opening it. For the record, a thumbstud doesn't necessarily has to be affixed to the side(s) of the blade, but can be on the top like on Kershaw Shallots.

Kershaw Speed Safe AO - The Karnette amendment is also what makes Kershaw Speed Safe assisted opening knives perfectly legal in California. Speed Safe satisfies 3 conditions instead of minimum two, not to be a switchblade, i.e. it has a thumbstud on the blade, which the knife operator has to push to open the knife, second Kershaw AOs have a detent, and just those two would be enough to comply switchblade law, but the torsion bar of the Speed Safe mechanism also forces the blade to stay in closed position, i.e. provides bias towards locked position.

Blade Length Limit - As you can see there is no length limit ever mentioned in this code. So, normally unless there is a specific law restricting the blade length in any given local area, you can carry folding knives of pretty much any length, not outlawed in 16100-17360 or in Part 6/Title 3/Division 5.

Part 6/Title 3/Division 5 - Deals with knife carry and prohibits several types of knives. It is way too long to cite it here completely, thus only the most relevant parts here. For The reference - full text of the penal code Part 6, Title 3.
General - Division 5 and subsequent divisions outlaw several types of knives and other weapons/devices. Violating any of the rules carries out the same punishment: is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.. I.e. same penalty for Lipstick, Undetectable, Belt buckle knives, etc.

Division 5 of Title 3 of Part 6 prohibits and bans several different types of knives, before 2012 they were all in the same section(12020), listed by name:
Old version in section 12020, pre 2012 - (1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses ... any ballistic knife, ... any belt buckle knife, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, ...
After 2012 each type listed above got its own article under Division 5, including 1 year prison punishment.
So, not only you can't carry, but you can't even posses any of the listed in above. Some of it makes sense, some not so much. The section 22210 bans slungshots, but slingshots are ok. Half of those things are most likely unknown to general public and probably knife enthusiastas as well. For your information, Shurikens are also included in Division 9 of the Title 3, section 22410-22490. They are not exactly knives, but still edged weapons. Ok, moving on.

PC 21310 - any person in this state who carries concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison - We'll go through definitions later, but this one says no to concealed dirks and daggers. By the way as this one is, it doesn't prohibit them, just states they have to be carried openly, on the waist as we saw open carry definition. Sad part is that dirk (and dagger) definition in the law, see Dirk Or Dagger in PC 16100-17360 definitions, covers pretty much anything, because ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death applies to the screwdrives and pens just as well. And those things do get used in crimes as a stabbing weapon.
Ref - Definitions of terms in Penal Code Part 6/Title 3/Division 5

171.b - Tells you what you can and can not carry in public buildings and meetings. For the reference - Full Text Of Penal Code 171. 171.b starts with:
(a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison:
   (1) Any firearm.
   (2) Any deadly weapon described in Section 653k or 12020.
   (3) Any knife with a blade length in excess of four inches, the blade of which is fixed or is capable of being fixed in an unguarded position by the use of one or two hands.
...
Thus no knives longer than 4" in state and public buildings. Exact definition of the state or local public meeting and open to public buildings can be found in 171.b(c). In short, those are state or local government owned or leased buildings such as courts, police stations, city halls, etc. Meetings mean wherever those officials get together to conduct regular or irregular work, e.g. city council meetings.
626.10 - As stated above defines knives school carry. Again, this one is way too big. For the reference - full text of the penal code 626.10. Subdivision a prohibits you can not bring a fixed blade knife longer than 2.5", a folding knife, ice pick, etc to the school. Subdivision b is pretty much identical, applies to universities and colleges, same restrictions, but folding knives are ok. Subdivisions c, d, e, f make exemptions. E.g. Knives for food preparation and other work places are ok. Students can bring knives if directed so by school or university employees. Subdivision a is below:
(a) Any person, except a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in this state, a person summoned by any officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is actually engaged in assisting any officer, or a member of the military forces of this state or the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, who brings or possesses any dirk, dagger, ice pick, knife having a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches, folding knife with a blade that locks into place, a razor with an unguarded blade, a taser, or a stun gun, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 244.5, any instrument that expels a metallic projectile such as a BB or a pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO 2 pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun, upon the grounds of, or within, any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

Ref - Definitions of terms in Penal Code 171b

California Code of Regulations

CCR is a bit more complicated. By definition it is: The California Code of Regulations (CCR), is the official compilation and publication of the regulations adopted, amended or repealed by state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Properly adopted regulations that have been filed with the Secretary of State have the force of law. In practice, it's quite difficult to tell who or which agency proposed what, and what if it conflicts with other laws. Still, let's have a look at the provision we're interested in. My sincere thanks to the reader who brought this CCR provision to my attention.

Title 5/Division 10/Chapter 1/S 100015 - Specifically deals with non-affiliates in buildings and on the grounds of the University of California, violation of which is a misdemeanor. Since the online page won't link directly I'll quote most of the section:
No non-affiliate shall, on University property, carry upon his/her person or have in his/her possession or under his/her control any Dangerous Weapon. For purposes of this Section, "Dangerous Weapon" means and includes, but is not limited to:
A. Any firearm in violation of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, California Penal Code section 626.9.
B. Any knife having a blade two and one-half inches or more in length.
C. Any folding knife with a blade that locks into place.
D. Any ice pick or similar sharp tool that can be used as a stabbing implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
E. Any razor with an unguarded blade.
F. Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
G. Any dirk or dagger.
H. Any taser, stun gun, or other similar electronic device.
I. Any instrument that expels a metallic projectile such as a BB or a pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO2 pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun.
And then there's another interesting part: This section shall not apply if, at the time of the alleged violation, the instrument or device alleged to be a Dangerous Weapon was in good faith carried upon the person or in his/her custody or control for use in his/her lawful occupation or employment.

Summary - All of the above means that unless you are an employee or a student of the University of California, you can not carry any fixed blades or any locking knives. Non locking knives are also prohibited, as they fall under section F. Unfortunately, F is so vaguely phrased that it can cover pens, pencils baseball bats, bricks and whatever else. However, if you are able to prove that you had any of those dangerous objects to do your lawful work, then none of the above applies.
Related Information:

California Penal Code
Bladeforums Knife Laws Subforum
California Knife Laws: A Comprehensive Guide by Jim March
SB 274 Analysis
AKTI On California Knife Law
Spring Assisted Knife Laws
Last updated - 12/9/16

List Of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Patches

OFF THE WIRE

list of outlaw motorcycle clubs patches
This is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including those current, defunct, or historic. An outlaw motorcycle club is a motorcycle subculture The following is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including current, defunct, or historic. Clubs on this list do not necessarily meet Top 10 Notorious American Biker Gangs^Top 10 Notorious American Biker Gangs^When was the international president of The Outlaws Motorcycle Club and The following is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including current, defunct, or historic. Clubs on this list do not necessarily meet List of outlaw motorcycle club patches This patch is associated with any bikers who consider themselves part of the “outlaw” biker community.Membership. Motorcycle clubs vary a great deal in their objectives and organizations. Mainstream motorcycle clubs or associations typically have elected Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs) are organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises. There are more than 300 active OMGs in Outlaw motorcycle club patches are patches and pins worn by outlaw motorcycle club members to express attitudes, display rank, show affiliation, commemorate events The Outlaws Motorcycle Club has 700 members in 86 chapters and is centered in the upper Midwest, where they compete with Hells Angels for members.Outlaw or “one-percent” motorcycle gangs have been a scourge to the federal government since the 1960s. To this day, there are formidable motorcycle clubs

Images Of List Of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Patches