Twin Falls, Idaho police have an interesting way to “catch criminals faster.”
Both shops say TFPD is trying to force them to use a program called “LeadsOnline.” They claim the program not only acts as a de facto “gun registration program” because it requires personal information about the customer selling the gun as well as information about the firearm being sold.
The gun store owners maintain that this is a form of backdoor gun/owner registration because, unlike typical pawn shops — where the make model, serial number (and often caliber) of a pawned firearm is reported, and only if it comes back stolen do the police request (maybe with a warrant) the identity of the pawning customer — TFPD is demanding names, addresses, phone numbers of every single seller. In advance; preemptively, so to speak.
Note also that per Joshua Van Dyke of Homestead Tactical, none of these shops are pawnbrokers. That’s going to be important.
Idaho has statewide preemption and a constitution that forbids registration. I suppose the police might claim that this isn’t gun owner registration because they’re collecting data on former owners who sold their firearms. Never mind that such sellers in a gun shop (versus a pawn shop) are often trading them in for newer, pricier guns. On the list you go!
But wait… it is not the police department collecting this data. They use a commercial third party, LeadsOnline. Yep, the reporting is online, and data stored online. Think on that.
The police cite city ordinance Chapter 4, Section 10 as their authority to require this reporting.
3-4-10: REPORTS TO POLICE DEPARTMENT:
The Police Department may, at its discretion, require a written monthly report of said business and during the business hours of every day may require a personal examination of the books or records of such pawnbroker, showing the articles or other property purchased, pledged, traded, consigned, or otherwise received. (Ord. 2591, 9-8-1998, eff. 10-1-1998)
Chapter 4 defines pawnbrokers/pawn shops and “secondhand dealers” as separate entities. Reporting is only mandated for pawnbrokers (as opposed to Section 3-4-11 3-4-11: CLOSING HOURS, which specifically addresses both “Every “pawnbroker” or “secondhand dealer.” See above; neither Quick Response nor Homestead Tactical are pawnbrokers; the requirement doesn’t apply.
Did the police simply decide that all parts of Chapter 4 apply to all pawn shops and secondhand shops?
Not really. Per Homestead Tactical’s Joshua, “[T]he PD is choosing to only enforce this against gunshops-the city ordinance, however, is not specifically limited to retail firearms shops only. In other words, the PD isn’t going after other businesses (small engine repair, used cars, etc.) that handle serialized items. They are being discriminatory in the application of the city ordinance.”
To my mind, that only firearms are being subjected to this snooping turns this into a 2A — and Article 1 Section 11 of the state constitution — issue. Preemption violation.
Twin Falls Police are collecting data — via an online third party of unknown computer network security capabilities — in violation of the state constitution and preemption.
Say; did TFPD vet LeadsOnline’s security to ensure innocent sellers’ data cannot be hacked? Does TFPD incur any liability if data they demanded gets stolen? Who knows? The police did not respond to my inquiry. At all. Not even an automated “out of office” message. Likewise, Idaho Dispatch’s Greg Pruett was unable to pry answers out of TFPD’s media contact, Lieutenant Craig Stotts. I tried Chief Kingsbury, too; -crickets-.
They are also — surprise! — violating Article 1, Section 17 of the state constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue without probable cause shown by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.
If that language seems oddly familiar, then you recognized that the police are also violating the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution by demanding warrantless access to the stores’ customer records.
And in this refreshing post-BRUEN environment, TFPD should be scrambling to find some old laws to show their scheme “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
If the Twin Falls police are talking to anyone about this, for their sake, it had better be attorneys; good ones. What with exceeding their authority, preemption violations, and multiple violations of state and federal constitutions, they’re in trouble.
Added: Another Fourth Amendment aspect to this occurred to me, based on a recent Fifth Circuit case. In United States v. Smith, the Circuit Court found that geofencing — a sweeping identification of everyone in a specified area in a specified timeframe — violated the privacy rights of all those caught up in the net who were not suspects. There was a lack of probable cause to look up everyone.
And isn’t that exactly what the TFPD is doing? ID all your customers, just in case one might have committed a criminal act. We don’t need no steenkin’ probable cause.
The Fourth Circuit has upheld geofencing, so we now have a Circuit split, ripe for SCOTUS review. Perhaps this would be a good time to get the Ninth Circuit involved, potential leading to the Supreme Court.
