Transcription
[Music] hey you right there. Did you know that you waved your Fourth Amendment the last time you went to the range to shoot? Probably didn't. I did too, but at least I knew what I was doing and I can control it. And at the end of this video, you're going to know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're going to know exactly how to not wave this core constitutional right. We're talking about a Supreme Court case that affects every gun owner out there. So guys, let's get into [Music] it.
So what the heck am I talking about? I'm talking about the single-purpose container doctrine. What is that? In English, it may as well be called the Fourth Amendment waiver of your rights if you're carrying around firearms. What is it? How is it? How do you get around it? Basically, it says this, in a nutshell. I'm going to do a little bit of the deep dive. The single-purpose container doctrine comes from a 1979 United States Supreme Court case called Arkansas V Sanders. I'll be getting into that in a moment, but first, in English, or to be talking about, basically, it's this: If there is a particular type of container that generally only serves a single purpose, then effectively, you may have limited to no Fourth Amendment rights to that container and its contents. Classic example: firearm case. Oh, a firearm case that's meant for firearms. So if someone sees that, someone like, say, an ATF agent or a police officer, you may have reduced to even no Fourth Amendment rights to that container because, after all, if you actually had a reasonable expectation of privacy, you would not be carrying around your firearm in what is distinctly a firearm case. From the United States Supreme Court: "Not all containers and packages found by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers, for example, a kit of burglar tools or a gun case, by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance."
I did not add that example of a kit of burglar tools or a gun case. That is the United States Supreme Court in 1979. So in English, if you are carrying around your firearms in what is distinctly a firearm case, such that it can be inferred that the contents, based on the outward appearance, are firearms, congratulations. You just waved your Fourth Amendment. Did you know that a couple minutes ago? I bet you're now thinking, "Oh, those violin cases, actually hold a gun case, or the guitar actually is a gun case, or those backpacks, or whatever else, huh? Those are suddenly looking a lot better, right?" I thought so. No, I don't have anything to sell you other than free knowledge.
Now, this is closely linked to another doctrine called the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine is another one that if you're a gun owner, you should know because if you leave things in plain view, say you leave something on the dash of your car, something like that, that can constitute a waiver of your Fourth Amendment rights. So classic bad guy example being, "Hey, they left all sorts of drugs on the dash of their car." Well, guess what? The police probably are not going to need a sophisticated search warrant or other legal instruments to get into your car because the drugs are right there in plain view, right? Just like now, if you leave your gun case in plain view inside your car, you now have the plain view doctrine stacking with the single-use container doctrine, and suddenly, congratulations, you could have some issues, particularly if you're in prohibitive states. If you follow me on that. Unlike disco and leisure suits, this doctrine has survived the 1970s.
In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in US versus Gust, we saw a classic defense case here. Mr. Gust gave permission to the cops to search. I always love hearing that as a defense attorney. Then, uh, so just to reframe, when, of course, he had a felony sawed-off shotgun in his car. The cops in the audience, and retired law enforcement, I know are laughing. As an estate prosecutor, I'm laughing. As a defense attorney, I'm laughing and crying. It just is what it is. Thanks for joining on this video. Be sure to hit that like button. My question for you in the discussion in the comment field down below is this: Are you going to change how you carry firearms as a result of this, or anything else for that matter? Does this change anything, or was this just fall under interesting, useful to know information, but I'm not going to go out and rearrange my life? And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you should. Just that you know. Back to the video.
Gus made a pre-trial motion to suppress the sawed-off shotgun, as well as the statements that he made to the officer involved who discovered the firearm, arguing that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his locked gun case without a warrant. After all, he gave permission to search the car, not the contents and the containers inside of it, right? The government responded by arguing that the search was justified under both the single-purpose container doctrine as well as the exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement. What are we talking about there? If you want to see a whole video going into automobile search exemptions, let me know. The government further asserted that Mr. Gust had consented to the search. Now, the trial court, the federal trial court, upheld the search on the ground that Mr. Gust had "no reasonable expectation of privacy to the gun case" because the officer was "able to infer from the distinctive configuration of the case that it contained a gun and it was almost as if the gun was in plain view." So, so you can see how the knowledge of these two doctrines can start to stack.
In Gust, the Ninth Circuit ultimately held that the question of whether a container satisfies this standard, whether it's single-use, should be viewed from the layperson's point of view, not the viewpoint of a trained law enforcement officer, because the issues focus on the defendant's expectation of privacy. And trust me, law enforcement sees the world through an entirely different lens than, well, frankly, those outside the criminal justice system do. The court concluded that the container in this particular case could not be readily identified as a gun case, and therefore, the warrantless search was unlawful.
What are the takeaways on this? Understand that if you are going to be using branded cases, whether it's a handgun case, a rifle case, something that's distinctly in the shape of a firearm, you know those long rifle cases that you always see people carrying out of gun shows and ranges and all that kind of stuff, and they've got the slope to them, they're distinctly in the shape of a firearm. All these can very easily fall under the single-purpose container test. Again, you are waving your rights. Now, I'm not saying go out and replace all of your bags, replace all your cases. I'm 0% saying that. What I am saying 100% is just understand that this is happening. That's it. You don't have to change what you're doing one iota. Don't do it for me, but whatever you do, hopefully you understand that, you know, a little bit more law than you did a couple minutes ago.
This is another user-submitted quote of the day. If you want to see your quote make the cut, be sure to post it up in the comment field down below. Be sure to include the attribution, and we will give you a shout-out and credit for your fantastic work. This one comes from viewer Feain Flynn, who's quoting Clint Eastwood: "Banning guns because criminals have too many is like castrating yourself because your neighbor has too many kids." I mean, he's not wrong. So there you have it. We appreciate you sticking around. Hit that like button, and I'll see you in the next video. Thanks for sticking around to the end of the video. If you enjoyed this one, please feel free to check out some of our other great content, and we'll see you in the next one. [Music]