Fort Worden State Park, Park Ranger interaction (gogodawgs first LE interaction)

sudden valley gunner said:

Good job standing up for the rights guys.

A thought crossed my mind though. Since it wasn't on public property and you were renting your campground and she had no PC/RS to run you guys, does the public view rule for plates count. Unless she stood off your campground to run the plates? Just wondering.

Click to expand...

If they were visible from the road, plain view doctrine comes into play.

If she had to enter the 'rental property' to get the tags, then it might be an issue... but I'm not an attorney so...

Running plates doesn't require RS/PC. Nor does it require notification. It's an unconstitutional means of search as well as a tax collection and enforcement tool.

Odds are, she said she was going to run your plates as a means of reasserting her LE authority on you. If she really thought that any of you were BGs, she would have run the plates before even initiating a conversation.

kparker said:

SVG, "wasn't on public property"? This was in a state park.

Click to expand...

But they were 'renting' it, which makes it theirs, and subject to a privacy interest.

TechnoWeenie said:

But they were 'renting' it, which makes it theirs, and subject to a privacy interest.

Click to expand...

When it comes to National Parks, you lease access and pay for usage privileges, not real estate.

Well played.

My favorite was when you asserted your right to end the consensual encounter, and wished her a good day. Her response: "Oh, serious?!? Really?"

Priceless! Uptight <bleep> gets owned!

Levi said:

When it comes to National Parks, you lease access and pay for usage privileges, not real estate.

Click to expand...

gogodawgs said:

[SUB]While sitting at our campsite at Fort Worden State Park

Click to expand...

[/SUB]

But I believe your basic premise is correct.

Levi said:

When it comes to National Parks, you lease access and pay for usage privileges, not real estate.

Click to expand...

I think that would be for a court to decide.

I think, to a layperson, when you 'pay for spot 184', you are renting 'spot 184'...

Much like renting a hotel room.. You're not 'paying to access the room', you're paying FOR the room.

TechnoWeenie said:

I think that would be for a court to decide.

I think, to a layperson, when you 'pay for spot 184', you are renting 'spot 184'...

Much like renting a hotel room.. You're not 'paying to access the room', you're paying FOR the room.

Click to expand...

The difference, I think, is that you do not dwell in your campsite. You dwell within a tent, a vehicle, a trailer, etc.

Your campsite does not have an expectation of privacy or a prohibition on intrusion by LEOs, while your other, temporary dwellings would.

In other words, the enclosure you sleep in is "your room." Everything else is the hotel lobby.

ManInBlack said:

The difference, I think, is that you do not dwell in your campsite. You dwell within a tent, a vehicle, a trailer, etc.

Your campsite does not have an expectation of privacy or a prohibition on intrusion by LEOs, while your other, temporary dwellings would.

In other words, the enclosure you sleep in is "your room." Everything else is the hotel lobby.

Click to expand...

If I'm renting a site, I expect that site to be 'secure', in terms of a privacy interest.

I don't expect people to come and peek in the windows of my car..

If the vehicles are parked in a manner that requires a person to enter the rented property to view them, I believe it would be a violation of a privacy interest, AKA an unreasonable/unlawful search.

If it's visible from the road, then obviously there's no privacy interest exerted.

Is it reasonable for a person, or LE, to sit outside your tent? Under your position of it being 'access paid for', the answer would be yes, as it'd be public property with no expectation of privacy or exclusive use.

Once exclusive use comes into play, privacy and property rights come into play.

TechnoWeenie said:

If I'm renting a site, I expect that site to be 'secure', in terms of a privacy interest.

I don't expect people to come and peek in the windows of my car..

If the vehicles are parked in a manner that requires a person to enter the rented property to view them, I believe it would be a violation of a privacy interest, AKA an unreasonable/unlawful search.

If it's visible from the road, then obviously there's no privacy interest exerted.

Is it reasonable for a person, or LE, to sit outside your tent? Under your position of it being 'access paid for', the answer would be yes, as it'd be public property with no expectation of privacy or exclusive use.

Once exclusive use comes into play, privacy and property rights come into play.

Click to expand...

I think the courts would hold that it is reasonable for an LEO, especially a state park ranger, to enter a campsite without RAS, perhaps under the guise of hunting for violations of the rules and regulations, which can then be taxed.

However, that is just an opinion, and IANAL.

According to the Washington State official website, you purchase a permit to camp and are assigned a campsite. Also, there's clear rules for allowing rangers full access to campsite for safety inspections, park rules enforcement, or whatever they feel is necessary for public safety and protection of public lands.

While I'm not sure how it'll all play out in court, it seems pretty airtight. I couldn't locate any specific laws or cases in this regard.

ManInBlack said:

I think the courts would hold that it is reasonable for an LEO, especially a state park ranger, to enter a campsite without RAS, perhaps under the guise of hunting for violations of the rules and regulations, which can then be taxed.

However, that is just an opinion, and IANAL.

Click to expand...

So, then it'd be legal to enter property that's for the exclusive use of an individual (or individuals) to conduct a speculative criminal investigation without any articulable suspicion of a crime being committed? (that's what you just said )

ManInBlack said:

The difference, I think, is that you do not dwell in your campsite. You dwell within a tent, a vehicle, a trailer, etc.

Your campsite does not have an expectation of privacy or a prohibition on intrusion by LEOs, while your other, temporary dwellings would.

In other words, the enclosure you sleep in is "your room." Everything else is the hotel lobby.

Click to expand...

This is correct. I dwell in my tent. And park my car in the 'parking space' (Think of a hotel, LEO would need a warrant to come into the room but not to run plates in the parking lot nor walk the common areas of the hotel)

A reasonable person would not believe they have an expectation of privacy while sitting outside in a campground.

Great story. Being rational, calm and polite is always the best way to handle ignorance in your mits.

gogodawgs said:

We don’t see from her or have personal contact with any rangers the remainder of the day nor Sunday. With the exception of a bike patrol ranger who went through the campground about an hour after she left.

I will be following up with a FOI request and further commentary and some suggestions to the State Park Rangers that they inform the complainants that open carry is legal.

Click to expand...

My guess she was already reminded of the legality by a supervisor, or fellow Ranger, and that’s whey you had no further contact.

TechnoWeenie said:

If I'm renting a site, I expect that site to be 'secure', in terms of a privacy interest.

I don't expect people to come and peek in the windows of my car..

If the vehicles are parked in a manner that requires a person to enter the rented property to view them, I believe it would be a violation of a privacy interest, AKA an unreasonable/unlawful search.

If it's visible from the road, then obviously there's no privacy interest exerted.

Is it reasonable for a person, or LE, to sit outside your tent? Under your position of it being 'access paid for', the answer would be yes, as it'd be public property with no expectation of privacy or exclusive use.

Once exclusive use comes into play, privacy and property rights come into play.

Click to expand...

I do not know about that campground but lots of places do not rent or lease facilities they license the use of that camp site, building or empty lot. By doing do the person using the facility has little or no property rights. A good example is the Spokane Convention Center they license the use for an event or certain days and hours.

jbone said:

My guess she was already reminded of the legality by a supervisor, or fellow Ranger, and that’s whey you had no further contact.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope so. Obviously there was no concern as she came to the campsite alone. Obviously we were breaking no laws as no one was cited or arrested.

My one hope is that the hoplophobe that called 911 was there to watch nothing happen.

Campsite hotel tax

gogodawgs said:

I certainly hope so. Obviously there was no concern as she came to the campsite alone. Obviously we were breaking no laws as no one was cited or arrested.

My one hope is that the hoplophobe that called 911 was there to watch nothing happen.

Click to expand...

Too bad it had to happen, but it turned out to be a moment of opportunity to educate a Park Ranger in her LEO role. I wonder if they go over much of that at Park Ranger school as opposed to what an officer candidate goes through to become a LEO.

I don't know if this affords any more expectation of privacy or could be argued or not, but I offer that if you are paying a "hotel tax", then it seems that by extention, your space (excluding your parking space), could be protected.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-20-166

As it turned out, we were able to camp a little closer to home...Kanasket/Palmer from Thursday to Sunday....I OC'd the entire time, met with the Rangers, a number of campers looking at their different set-ups (one who invited my wife and I inside their RV to look at the floor plan with no concern at all even though we were total strangers), a variety of folks on the trails, the Kent Fire department who was there to do some training on the river, and the campground host who is nearly a fixture. He asked me about "what kind of pea-shooter I had", talked about what he carried and his general thoughts that it was a good idea (he and his wife were also from Alaska). ....no issues at all, even when the park went into emergency shut down for the River accident and there were all kinds of official folks around....I was the luckier one this weekend I think.

One thought I had was this very well could have been the first time anyone ever stood up to her like that. Her reaction was a mix of uncertainty, you can't do that to me and what the heck do I do now. The fact that Jim and Bill never faltered probably made her question her self. She then fell back on her training and that caused her to decided to run the plates. In her mind it also gave her the win after all she got a name and address out of it.

I am hoping she has received some on the job training already, RCW 9.41.060 would be a great start.

Orphan said:

I've been thinking about getting one of these:
http://wn.com/The_Official_Speed_Plate®_Automatic_License_Plate_Hider

Click to expand...

Looks like it'd require battery power to stay down; is that available when the car is off, & if so how fast would it drain the battery?
I have these on my car, in part to help stop registration tag thieves & in part to thwart the drive-through-the-parking-lot cop trolling.
I've seen a really scary video where 2 officers just drove through some store parking lot & pointed a video camera at plates as they went by. Their computer read the plates & searched a database.

If you google or search Ebay for [license plate cover red light camera] (without the []) you'll find several brands & prices.
One.
Another.
A third.
Then it's just a matter of parking at an angle to the road, so she would have to come onto your rented property on her fishing expedition... with no RAS.
Of course, the shop rag over the plate is less expensive. Just make sure to remove it before you drive off.
Probably need to make provisions for covering the VIN, too, but that's easier.