Firearms Carry

The r/caguns firearms carry megathread.

In California, the laws about conceal carry apply to firearms with a barrel length of less than 16 inches. A firearm with a barrel length of more than sixteen inches is not legally considered concealable. 

Concealed carry is when a firearm is concealed on a person, or concealed within a vehicle. 

**Unlicensed concealed carry** 

Unlicensed concealed carry, regardless of whether the firearm is loaded, is a crime under [Penal Code section 25400] in California. In most circumstances, it's a misdemeanor, but in some cases, it can be charged as a felony.

**Licensed concealed carry**

Penal Code section 25655 says:

Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by a person who is authorized to carry that weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150).

Big bold headings hopefully to make this easy to understand, but it seems OP's questions about about carrying firearms in parks or forests, is probably answered by [this Calguns.net thread](https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457) and not by the following. Short answer is don't try anything inside an incorporated city or where county law prohibits discharge of a firearm.

UNLICENSED CONCEALED CARRY

California [Penal Code section 25400](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=25400.&lawCode=PEN) prohibits unlicensed concealed carry:

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when the person does any of the following:

(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle that is under the person’s control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Carries concealed upon the person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which the person is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(b) A firearm carried openly in a belt holster is not concealed within the meaning of this section.

Note that for unlicensed carry, it doesn't matter whether you're in an incorporated city or not; it's just illegal without a license, unless some legal exception such as residence, place of business, or the locked container in a car, applies.

UNLICENSED LOADED OPEN CARRY

[Penal Code section 25850](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=25850&lawCode=PEN) prohibits having a loaded gun while in an incorporated city or in the unincorporated parts of the county where discharge of a firearm is prohibited:

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[People v. Knight (2004) 121 Cal.App.1568, 1576](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1444128056307887581) held that the above law should be construed as prohibiting

carrying a loaded firearm on one's person or in a vehicle:

(1) while in any public place in an incorporated city;

(2) while on any public street in an incorporated city;

(3) while in any public place in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory; or

(4) while on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[Penal Code section 17030](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=17030.) says:

As used in this part, “prohibited area” means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.

Under [Penal Code section 16840, subdivision (b), paragraph (1)](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=16840):

A firearm shall be deemed to be “loaded” when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm.

[People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.app.4th 1147](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2516749230498815789) clarified that:

"a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired"

Thus, shotgun shells on a buttstock shell holder of a shotgun are not "loaded," because they're not in a position ready to fire. There isn't anything that explicitly says so, but full magazine inserted, but no round chambered is probably loaded, but full magazine not inserted, but somewhere on the body is probably not "loaded" as long you're not doing something stupid like committing a crime or in a government building.

Also note that under Penal Code section 25850, subdivision (b), having a firearm in an area in which loaded carry is illegal is pretty much an invitation for a legal warrantless search for an officer to check if it's loaded. "Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest," which means an arrest and a legal warrantless search incident to arrest.

UNLICENSED UNLOADED OPEN CARRY

For unloaded open carry of handguns, [Penal Code section 26530](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=26350.&lawCode=PEN) says:

(a)

(1) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an exposed and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or on any of the following:

(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county.

(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and county.

(2) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun inside or on a vehicle, whether or not on his or her person, while in or on any of the following:

(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county.

(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and county.

For unlicensed unloaded open carry of long arms, [Penal Code section 26400](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=5.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=7.&article=1.) says:

(a) A person is guilty of carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in any of the following areas:

(1) An incorporated city or city and county.

(2) A public place or a public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county.

Cases about public places and carrying

People v. Overturf (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

"‘Carrying’ and ‘having’ are not synonymous. ‘Having’ relates to an ‘act or state of possessing,’ Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1145, while ‘carrying’ refers to the ‘act or instance of **772 carrying’ and the verb ‘carry’ in relevant definition connotes ‘to convey, or transport . . .’; and ‘to transfer from one place . . . to another.’ (Id. at p. 412.)"

"There is a distinct difference in the two concepts. Speaking generally in the context of statutes concerned with firearms, ‘carry’ or ‘carrying’ has been said to be used in the sense of holding or bearing arms. (In re Bergen (1923) 61 Cal.App. 226, 228, 214 P. 521; People v. Smith (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 878, 164 P.2d 857.)2 We think that ‘having,’ as it appears in subdivisions (f) and (j) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of ‘owning, possessing, or keeping,’ "

People v. Zonver (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

People v. Melton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 580

People v. Marotta (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

Public

Public intoxication - In general  Statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to be “found in any public place under the influence” and “in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others,” did not preempt county ordinance prohibiting persons under age 21 from having blood alcohol level of .01 percent or more while in a public place, since an ordinance creating an offense for having a specified breath-test reading was not interchangeable with a statute proscribing intoxication.  In re Jennifer S. (App. 1 Dist. 2009) 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 179 Cal.App.4th 64, review denied.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 65;  Counties Key Number 24

Where facts when viewed objectively establish probable cause to arrest for public intoxication, and there is no probable cause to arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol or driving with blood alcohol level of .08 or more, arrest is valid even though arresting officer only arrested suspect for driving under the influence or driving with blood alcohol level of .08 or more.  People v. Wolterman (Super. 1992) 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, as modified.  Arrest Key Number 63.1

Offense of public intoxication is complete if arrestee is intoxicated in public place, and either is unable to exercise care for his own safety or for safety of others, or interferes with or obstructs or prevents free use of any street, sidewalk or public way.  People v. Lively (App. 6 Dist. 1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 368, 10 Cal.App.4th 1364, review denied.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 324

Juvenile, who was under the influence of a drug in bedroom of his home in such a condition that he was unable to exercise care for his own safety or that of others and who came to be in a public place only because his mother had called the police and juvenile was taken there by police while handcuffed and while apparently resisting, at least to the extent of cursing the officers, did not violate disorderly conduct statute.  In re David W. (App. 2 Dist. 1981) 172 Cal.Rptr. 266, 116 Cal.App.3d 689.  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 107;  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 134

Police officer's testimony that juvenile was staggering very badly, very unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred, eyes bloodshot, and there was a strong order of alcoholic beverage on his person was substantial evidence to convict juvenile of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor in a public place.  In re William L. G. (App. 5 Dist. 1980) 165 Cal.Rptr. 587, 107 Cal.App.3d 210.  Infants Key Number 2640(4)

The offense of sniffing of poisonous fumes is ended after the sniffing of the poisonous fumes with the required intent taking place;  on the other hand, when act of sniffing is terminated, the actor can, in the particular instance, be in violation of provision of this section prohibiting being in a public place under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., if the actor is in a public place.  In re Alonzo C. (App. 5 Dist. 1978) 151 Cal.Rptr. 192, 87 Cal.App.3d 707.  Controlled Substances Key Number 38

Where there was no conduct of defendant indicating that he was in such condition that he was unable to care for his own safety or the safety of others and he was not obstructing nor preventing the free use of any public way, and where he exhibited symptoms indicating that he was under the influence of an opiate, but not incapacitated as a result, the only crime for which he could be arrested was being under the influence of an opiate, and not disorderly conduct.  People v. Rich (App. 1977) 139 Cal.Rptr. 819, 72 Cal.App.3d 115.  Arrest Key Number 63.4(15)

Whether person under influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug comes into a public place of his or her own volition is without legal consequence in determining whether that person has violated this section.  People v. Perez (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 134 Cal.Rptr. 338, 64 Cal.App.3d 297.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 324;  Controlled Substances Key Number 38

Under this section providing that person should be guilty of offense of disorderly conduct for being found in public place under influence of intoxicating liquor, offense is defined in terms of acts rather than status and this section penalizes act of being in public place while under influence of intoxicating liquor but does not punish person for being intoxicated and does not punish chronic alcoholic because of his alcoholism.  Application of Spinks (App. 4 Dist. 1967) 61 Cal.Rptr. 743, 253 Cal.App.2d 748.  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 101;  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 140

Being in public place under influence of liquor or drugs in such condition that one is unable to exercise care for one's own safety is a public offense.  People v. Murrietta (App. 2 Dist. 1967) 60 Cal.Rptr. 56, 251 Cal.App.2d 1002.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 324;  Controlled Substances Key Number 38

Legislature, by implication, provided that intoxication in place which is not public place but is exposed to public view should not be criminal.  In re Koehne (1963) 30 Cal.Rptr. 809, 59 Cal.2d 646, 381 P.2d 633.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 324

Under California's public intoxication statute, officers may arrest a suspect whenever they have probable cause to believe he violated the statute regardless of whether or not the arrestee could have been properly convicted of a violation.  Willingham v. City of San Leandro, C.A.9 (Cal.)2010, 368 Fed.Appx. 845, 2010 WL 737845, Unreported.  Arrest Key Number 63.4(15)

Officers had probable cause to arrest pedestrian for public intoxication under California law; pedestrian admitted he was intoxicated and in public and pedestrian was in way of oncoming traffic after light changed and before he returned to median area.  Washburn v. Fagan, C.A.9 (Cal.)2009, 331 Fed.Appx. 490, 2009 WL 1455525, Unreported.  Arrest Key Number 63.4(15)

26.Protective custody, public intoxication  Also listed as Public intoxication - Protective custody 

Officer considering whether it is reasonable to place an intoxicated minor arrestee in a civil commitment may consider the distance to the nearest detoxification facility, the availability of bed space, the arrestee's disposition and willingness to cooperate, police department resources to transfer the arrestee to facility, and whether it better serves the minor to take the minor home and deliver him or her to the custody of a parent or legal guardian; in making this determination, an officer may consider the circumstances of the encounter, whether the minor has committed other offenses, the minor's intoxication level, the minor's criminal history, and any other encounters the officer may have had with the minor, and may also consider the parent's or legal guardian's receptiveness and ability to address the intoxication issue.  In re Jorge D. (App. 4 Dist. 2016) 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 878, 246 Cal.App.4th 363.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 11.1;  Infants Key Number 2514

Officer who released allegedly intoxicated juvenile to mother at home failed to make required reasonable decision that he was unable to place juvenile in civil protective custody, which was an alternative to juvenile court proceedings, as officer was unaware of that option.  In re Jorge D. (App. 4 Dist. 2016) 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 878, 246 Cal.App.4th 363.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 11.1;  Infants Key Number 2513

Subdivision (ff) of this section requiring officer to place person found publicly intoxicated in civil protective custody, if officer is reasonably able to do so, did not preclude officer from making arrest of person for public intoxication under subdivision (f) of this section.  People v. Boren (App. 5 Dist. 1987) 233 Cal.Rptr. 859, 188 Cal.App.3d 1171, review denied.  Arrest Key Number 63.1

Provision of this section pertaining to protective custody for public inebriates is aimed at treatment of the public inebriate after he is in the arms of the law, and minimizing of dangers of the street is not the principal purpose of the section, and thus this section did not provide a negligence cause of action for plaintiff who alleged that police officer breached a mandatory duty pursuant to this section when officer did not take plaintiff into protective custody, and that such failure caused subsequent injuries he suffered when he was later struck by a vehicle.  Stout v. City of Porterville (App. 5 Dist. 1983) 196 Cal.Rptr. 301, 148 Cal.App.3d 937.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 1

Compliance with provision of this section requiring arresting officer to place an inebriate in civil protective custody if he is reasonably able to do so is not an element of misdemeanor offense of being drunk in public and need not be shown for a prosecution to proceed under provision proscribing offense.  People v. Ambellas (Super. 1978) 149 Cal.Rptr. 680, 85 Cal.App.3d Supp. 24.  Alcoholic Beverages Key Number 324;  Chemical Dependents Key Number 5

The factors which a court in a prosecution for misdemeanor offense of being drunk in public may take into account in determining the ability of the people to comply with provision of this section requiring a peace officer to place an inebriate in a detoxification center if he is reasonably able to do so, include the number of beds available, the time and cost involved in transporting the individual to a center, and the manpower available for the task.  People v. Ambellas (Super. 1978) 149 Cal.Rptr. 680, 85 Cal.App.3d Supp. 24.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 18

A defendant who is on trial for misdemeanor offense of being drunk in public and who raises defense of noncompliance with provision of this section requiring a peace officer to place an inebriate in civil protective custody if he is reasonably able to do so should at least be required to call the court's attention to that defense and, once the people produce evidence of the reasons for noncompliance, bear the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact by a preponderance of evidence that defense is well taken.  People v. Ambellas (Super. 1978) 149 Cal.Rptr. 680, 85 Cal.App.3d Supp. 24.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 5

Equal protection was not denied to those who, when apprehended for intoxication in a public place, could not be accommodated, for lack of space, in detoxification facility operated under program of civil protective custody for inebriates, since there was no singling out or discrimination and each violator was sent to the civil facility if space for him was available.  Johnson v. Municipal Court, Oakland, Piedmont Judicial Dist. (App. 1 Dist. 1977) 139 Cal.Rptr. 152, 70 Cal.App.3d 761.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 10;  Constitutional Law Key Number 3788

Upon arrest for public intoxication, the arresting police officer, in his discretion and if he deems no further proceedings are desirable, may release arrested person from custody and from any other penal proceedings or may reject criminal procedure and place person in sole protective custody for 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates.  People v. Knutson (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 131 Cal.Rptr. 846, 60 Cal.App.3d 856.  Arrest Key Number 70(1)

There is nothing arbitrary about criteria for establishment of facilities such as detoxification centers by means of which certain violators of this section may be diverted out of criminal process into a therapeutic setting, inasmuch as availability of facilities depends on judgment of local authorities who, presumably, are most familiar with local conditions.  People v. McNaught (App. 2 Dist. 1973) 107 Cal.Rptr. 566, 31 Cal.App.3d 599.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 22

A person arrested for being in a public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor does not have fundamental right to be treated for his drinking problem in identically the same manner in every county.  People v. Superior Court for Monterey County (App. 1 Dist. 1972) 105 Cal.Rptr. 695, 29 Cal.App.3d 397.  Chemical Dependents Key Number 22

26.Public intoxication - Protective custody  See Protective custody, public intoxication

27.Public intoxication - Vehicles  Also listed as Vehicles, public intoxication 

Being found asleep in a vehicle does not prevent an arrest for disorderly conduct based on public intoxication.  People v. Cruz (2008) 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 126, 44 Cal.4th 636, 187 P.3d 970, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 129 S.Ct. 1531, 555 U.S. 1215, 173 L.Ed.2d 661.  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 136

Sitting in an automobile while intoxicated does not, as a matter of law, prevent one from being arrested for disorderly conduct, based on intoxication in a public place.  People v. Cruz (2008) 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 126, 44 Cal.4th 636, 187 P.3d 970, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 129 S.Ct. 1531, 555 U.S. 1215, 173 L.Ed.2d 661.  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 136

Police officers who discovered defendant's parked vehicle partially blocking lane of traffic, noticed that defendant had strong odor of alcoholic beverage, and formed opinion that defendant was under the influence of alcohol after defendant performed series of field sobriety tests had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication.  People v. Wolterman (Super. 1992) 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, as modified.  Arrest Key Number 63.4(15)

The legislature has not made the driving of bicycles while under the influence of intoxicants subject to criminal sanctions, but if cyclist on a public highway is so drunk that he is unable to exercise care for his own safety or the safety of others, cyclist is guilty of violation of subd. (f) of this section.  Clingenpeel v. Municipal Court of Antelope Judicial Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 1980) 166 Cal.Rptr. 573, 108 Cal.App.3d 394.  Disorderly Conduct Key Number 138

27.Vehicles, public intoxication  See Public intoxication - Vehicles

28.Chronic alcoholics, public intoxication  Also listed as Public intoxication - Chronic alcoholics 

State prisoner, alleged chronic alcoholic, convicted of public drunkenness was not punished for being a chronic alcoholic nor for drinking but for the performance of an act forbidden to one while in the state of extreme intoxication and infliction of criminal penalty did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in absence of showing that on occasion in question petitioner suffered from such an irresistible compulsion to appear in public places when in a state of intoxication that he was utterly unable to control his performance in such respect.  Budd v. Madigan, C.A.9 (Cal.)1969, 418 F.2d 1032, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1394, 397 U.S. 1053, 25 L.Ed.2d 669.  Sentencing And Punishment Key Number 1454

Claim that arrest and incarceration of chronic alcoholics for crime of public inebriation lacked penological justification did not serve as basis for enjoining enforcement of subdivision (f) of this section for Eighth Amendment violation, even assuming argument was meritorious, absent evidence that statute could not deter nonalcoholics from appearing in public in state of severe intoxication.  (Per Curiam, with two Justices concurring in judgment and Chief Justice and one Justice concurring in part.)  Sundance v. Municipal Court (People) (1986) 232 Cal.Rptr. 814, 42 Cal.3d 1101, 729 P.2d 80, rehearing denied.  Injunction Key Number 1199

Criminal prosecution of chronic alcoholics under subdivision (f) of this section, to extent it had rehabilitative effect, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment;  incarceration of public inebriates in enforcement of subdivision (f) was for short period of time in county jails, which served primarily as detention centers, and which were neither intended nor equipped to provide rehabilitative services.  (Per Curiam, with two Justices concurring in judgment and Chief Justice and one Justice concurring in part.)  Sundance v. Municipal Court (People) (1986) 232 Cal.Rptr. 814, 42 Cal.3d 1101, 729 P.2d 80, rehearing denied.  Sentencing And Punishment Key Number 1454;  Sentencing And Punishment Key Number 1527

Punishment of chronic alcoholics for repeated violations of subdivision (f) of this section did not amount to excessive punishment in violation of State or Federal Constitutions, where there was no contention that actual or statutory penalties for individual violations of statute were so excessive as to shock conscience or offend fundamental notions of human dignity.  (Per Curiam, with two Justices concurring in judgment and Chief Justice and one Justice concurring in part.)  Sundance v. Municipal Court (People) (1986) 232 Cal.Rptr. 814, 42 Cal.3d 1101, 729 P.2d 80, rehearing denied.  Sentencing And Punishment Key Number 1454

28.Public intoxication - Chronic alcoholics  See Chronic alcoholics, public intoxication

29.Public intoxication - Tests and examinations  Also listed as Tests and examinations, public intoxication 

Probable cause to arrest for public intoxication will support administration of blood alcohol tests, and subsequent receipt into evidence of their results.  People v. Wolterman (Super. 1992) 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, as modified.  Automobiles Key Number 419

29.Tests and examinations, public intoxication  See Public intoxication - Tests and examinations

30.Public intoxication - Searches  Also listed as Searches, public intoxication 

Where officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant was intoxicated in public, officer could arrest defendant and transfer her to women's jail for full-body search incident to arrest;  officer's failure to place defendant in civil protective custody, as required by subdivision (ff) of this section, did not render search invalid.  People v. Boren (App. 5 Dist. 1987) 233 Cal.Rptr. 859, 188 Cal.App.3d 1171, review denied.  Arrest Key Number 63.4(5);  Arrest Key Number 71.1(6)

A full body search of an individual arrested for public intoxication is forbidden until such time as the arrestee is actually incarcerated in a jail or committed to a civil detoxification center.  People v. Maher (1976) 130 Cal.Rptr. 508, 17 Cal.3d 196, 550 P.2d 1044.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(6)

Full body search of public inebriate is permissible prior to placement of inebriate in civil detoxification center.  People v. Longwill (1975) 123 Cal.Rptr. 297, 14 Cal.3d 943, 538 P.2d 753.  Searches And Seizures Key Number 55

One arrested for public drunkenness may be detained and, as an incident to lawful arrest, may be searched irrespective of place of confinement, whether in jail or detoxification facility.  People v. Superior Court for Monterey County (App. 1 Dist. 1972) 105 Cal.Rptr. 695, 29 Cal.App.3d 397.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(8)

When a person is found in a public place apparently under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic and is in such a condition that his arrest for disorderly conduct is lawful, a search of his person by the arresting officer for the purpose of finding either weapons or evidence of the offense for which the arrest was made is reasonable and proper, and any contraband found in the course of such a search may be seized and received in evidence at a trial of the arrested person charged with its possession.  People v. Steeples (App. 2 Dist. 1972) 99 Cal.Rptr. 883, 22 Cal.App.3d 993.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(6);  Criminal Law Key Number 392.17(2);  Searches And Seizures Key Number 52

Where officer who had arrested defendant for disorderly conduct had probable cause to believe that defendant's intoxication in public place was induced by illegally obtained drugs or narcotics, and where, therefore, officers could not have simply released defendant, search incident to arrest was not objectionable for failure to show that arresting officer had made a decision to actually book the defendant at time of search.  People v. Blatt (App. 2 Dist. 1972) 99 Cal.Rptr. 855, 23 Cal.App.3d 148.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(7)

Officer who determined that defendant was intoxicated in public place but did not detect odor of alcohol about him was entitled to believe that defendant's intoxicated condition had been caused by easily concealed substances such as drugs and warrantless search of defendant's person incident to arrest for intoxication and seizure of drugs were proper.  People v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (App. 2 Dist. 1971) 99 Cal.Rptr. 338, 22 Cal.App.3d 227.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(3)

In absence of evidence showing whether, prior to officer's discovery of marijuana, officer who arrested defendant in department store for intoxication intended to jail defendant or release him, warrantless search of defendant's person for evidence of identification and seizure of marijuana found in such search were not justified.  People v. Millard (App. 2 Dist. 1971) 93 Cal.Rptr. 402, 15 Cal.App.3d 759.  Arrest Key Number 71.1(7)

30.Searches, public intoxication  See Public intoxication - Searches