Thread: Spokane LEO Encounter |
+1 me too, and I'm still here.Originally Posted by Mainsail
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
Actually you've got the stories a little mixed up. The three year old that shot himself was in Tacoma and his mothers boyfriend was the gun owner. The Marysville cop is the one that a younger sibling (around 7or 8 I think) shot the older sibling of 9 and killed him/her. Obviously there is an issue here that ALL gun owners need to be training their children.....
Guns don't kill people, bullets do!
nope, he was talking about this incident, daughter was shot in leg.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=8616426
Although this case made it beyond the evidentiary hearing, the case was overturned on appeal.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in...name=411857MAJ
There are a lot of parallels to open carry here:
"'[A] police officer's conduct in engaging a defendant in conversation in a public place and asking for identification does not, alone, raise the encounter to an investigative detention.'" .... A person is seized if, when in an objective view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, decline to answer questions, or terminate the encounter with police. ....There is no seizure when police ask questions of an individual as long as the officers do not convey that compliance with their requests is required. ..... In such a case, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.
An encounter may lose its consensual nature and become a seizure for Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 purposes if "'the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.'" .... Examples of police showing authority include "'the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.'" ... "If police unconstitutionally seize an individual prior to arrest, the exclusionary rule calls for suppression of evidence obtained via the government's illegality."
....Then, for no articulated reason, Larsen and Officer Wright drove in separate patrol vehicles toward Young. They stood approximately 5 feet from Young, each at 45-degree angles from her while her back was to a wall, and asked for the last four digits of her social security number. Young gave the officers the numbers, albeit in reverse order, and even opened her bag to show the officers she had not shoplifted. Yet the officers continued to watch Young as she walked away for a second time, and ran the social security number through a statewide warrant check.
These facts are insufficient to justify a Terry stop. There is no evidence in the record before us that the officers had any reason to suspect that Young was or would be engaged in criminal wrongdoing. The State could not articulate a basis for such suspicion during oral argument. Any reasonable person in Young's position, with her back to a wall and police officers on either side of her, would not have felt free to walk away without first answering the officers'questions. ....
Officer Larsen testified that he was suspicious of Young because she was "awkward," had no identification, and walked behind a closed business while talking on a cell phone when he believed "most people" did not walk behind closed businesses and stand against a wall to speak on a cell phone. RP (June 3, 2010) at 21, 23. But Washington law does not require Young to carry identification on her person at all times. Young may also walk on public roads, behind or in front of closed businesses at night, while talking on a cell phone on her way to see a friend. We find no authority holding that "awkward" behavior, alone, is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. .....
Larsen's mere suspicion of Young, wholly unsupported by articulable facts, is insufficient to justify seizing her. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d at 539. Neither does Larsen's testimony that Young's "evasive" attitude made him "suspicious" satisfy the "specific and articulable objective facts" requirement to support a reasonable suspicion that Young had been or was about to be involved in a crime.
Rapgood referenced multiple incidents,
the spokane reference was correct, and brewster didn't comment on that, he was correcting the 2nd "incident" which had some cross over from an non LEO child shooting in Tacoma , a 3yr old in Tacoma, killing himself,(not LEO)
The Marysville LEO incident was a younger son, killing an older sister with the Dad's pistol.
Thank you for reading the whole post!
Guns don't kill people, bullets do!
Bookmarked thanks Mainsail!
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
Inform the uniformed of TRAINING BULLETIN No. 08-007 September 30 , 2008.
..."In the State of Washington it is not illegal to merely “open carry” a firearm in public, provided the firearm is holstered or somehow affixed to an individual’s person and not in their hand available, but not threatening to others."...
I have this info linked in my New to OC thread:
RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)
Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn
Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read
3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained
4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App
Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."
In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).
A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.
Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams
An anonymous tip is not RAS
ID'ing yourself discussion
Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos---FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI
The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788
http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info
I just have a scanned copy that I finally dug up.
What do you mean by what you said?This was handled like a true champ!!!?
It was rude and gives me a bad name as I open carry.Not talking is ok with you guys is nuts.
kthnxbai
Try reading the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments, and get back to us.
Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-02-2012 at 11:27 PM.
Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
OK with me, I recommend silence as a matter of fact so do thousands of lawyers nation wide.
So a person who exercises ALL of their rights afforded to them by the Constitution gives you a bad name? Then 2nd Amendment isn't the only one in there, you know....in fact, the 4th Amendment is what enables you to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, because without the 4th Amendment police could just look for and take your guns away from you from any piddly reason they could make up.
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks. Feel free to disagree but disagree on issues. Do not resort to name calling.
Last edited by John Pierce; 05-04-2012 at 08:03 AM.
I have never had a problem, either...precisely because I know and exercise my rights.
How is it "dumdass" (lol) to simply remain silent? If he had told the cop, "I have nothing to say to you, bye," you, no doubt, would be complaining that he was rude! The only response folks like you will accept is immediate, slavish obedience.Its ok to not give info to cops but to be right out dumdass is most of the problem I see on this forum.
If you don't like it, stay. I find you amusing and entertaining.I know you will say if you dont like it then leave as I will do but no one can get on here and say
whats on there mind and if its not want you want to see then you have a smart ass tude.
You got that right.So big guy get back to me on this OK wow you just cant fix STUPID.
Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-03-2012 at 11:30 PM.
Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
Yep
I've even had a judges recommend that.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attackI have never had a problem, either...precisely because I know and exercise my rights.
How is "dumdass" (lol) to simply remain silent? If he had told the cop, "I have nothing to say to you, bye," you, no doubt, would be complaining that he was rude! The only response folks like you will accept is immediate, slavish obedience.
If you don't like it, stay. I find you amusing and entertaining.
You got that right.
Last edited by John Pierce; 05-04-2012 at 08:05 AM.
He wasn't rude, he does not give open carry a bad name. He simply, efficiently exercised the rights afforded to us by Providence, bound forever by our Founders in the Constitution and beloved by modern day patriots everywhere.
Live Free or Die!
And it worked! It was the first time I actually saw and witnessed someone say that little. It's a good example on how to exercise the right against an unwarranted intrusion of gov.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
the four police that responded to the likely Man with a Gun is interesting, watch the very end, another officer walks by him a cruiser drives by and another is parked on a side street.
Now...now!!!
I thought maybe the one that walked by was tied to the cruiser parked on the right side as he proceeded up the road. Not that it matters, other than he was free to go. I did get a chuckle out of the walking officer's, "Have a good day." statement.
MIB - To be clear, i agree and concede on the presenting ID if not required to issue. I did it only because i'm not as sure of the law in Washington in regards to requirements to identify. Something i need to brush up on and will be sure to exercise my rights about the next time an incident happens. My issue was just with passing the Mil-ID versus, say, a DL...not with passing an ID at all.
Thanks to all for the info. Also, that copy of the training bulletin should be useful. I think i'll print out a copy of that, along with several of the open carry brochures to keep with me for times i am out and about. In fact, one would have come in handy just the other day at wal-mart when i was approached by an odd gentleman who was quite sure i was committing a crime by being in a store with a holstered pistol. Now i know
Guns don't kill people, bullets do!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
