Opinion ID: 740573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The starter pistol

Text: 29 It was clearly established in 1993, at the time of the search of Perkins' home, that a starter pistol is not automatically a firearm or deadly weapon. In United States v. Dishman, 486 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1973), this circuit held that carrying a starter pistol that would require retooling to convert it into an operating weapon likely to cause great bodily harm was not carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon per se, as described in air safety law. Id. at 732. We added, however, that [o]f course, the situation would be different if use were made of a starter pistol on an airplane. Id. Under those circumstances, its use might convert it into a dangerous weapon. Id. at 731-32. 30 The officers in this case do not claim that this particular starter pistol was a deadly weapon. Instead, an officer present at the search (but not individually named), submitted an affidavit stating that gang members sometimes brandish starter pistols during the commission of crimes, then claim that they had no intention to harm. 31 Perkins cites no authority clearly establishing that a starter pistol could never be a firearm. Even considering that some starter pistols would not fall into that classification, it is reasonable to seize a starter pistol in plain view when an officer has a reason to believe that it has been or could be used in criminal or gang activity to frighten a victim. See, e.g., United States v. Dzielinski, 914 F.2d 98, 102 (7th Cir.1990) (display of starter pistol during bank robbery justified upward departure at sentencing for apparent possession of dangerous weapon). 32 We affirm the district court's finding of qualified immunity.