Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: Mad at myself and the snohomish county sheriff's

  1. #1
    Activist Member SigGuy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    323

    Mad at myself and the snohomish county sheriff's

    So it's 11:30 P.M. Tuesday night. I'm watching some lame low budget movie I got from redbox. All the sudden I hear a pounding on my front door. I ask myself who the hell is knocking on my door so late? I walk to the door and peek through the window to see it's a Snohomish County Sheriff's deputy. I open the door.

    SD: Keep your hands up where I can see them.
    ME: Ok what's the problem?
    SD: I see that you're armed. I'm going to take it for my saftey.

    He proceeds to reach is arm into my house without permission and takes my firearm from the holster. He then releases the magazine and ejects the round (wich went flying under the bush along the siding of my house.)

    SD: Put your hands against the wall while we talk and don't make any rash movements. I'm here for a DV.
    ME: DV?
    SD: Domestic violence. Someone called 911 reporting a DV. Is everthing ok? Who's in the house with you?
    ME: I honestly have not a clue what you're talking about. I live alone and there is no one here.
    SD: I heard you talking to someone when I came to the door.
    ME: I was watching a movie when you showed up. I have a Surround Sound System set up. That's what you were hearing. I wasn't talking to anyone.
    SD: So just to clarify there is no one here besides you? Can I come in and look around?
    ME: No you can't I'm telling you the truth.
    SD: The neighbors said they heard screaming.
    ME: I heard something next door about a half hour ago. It only lasted for like 30 seconds. I didn't think much of it.
    SD: Ok Thanks for your help I'm going to give you your gun back and the mag and round are on the ground. You can grab them when I walk away.

    He left and I had to search for my round for a few minutes due to the low light. I found it. I then reloaded my firearm and put it back in the hoslter.

    I have been beating myself up for 2 days now because I didn't say much and that I let him take my firearm. I wasn't assertive enough. All I can say was it's like the words just escaped and I couldn't say anything. I've been telling myself I should of got his name and badge number. I'm was thinking about emailing the sherif, but with what information? I didn't get anything. I'm just going to have to chop this up to a learning experience for next time I come in contact with a LEO like that.

    Let the shoulda, woulda, coulda's begin.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by SigGuy23 View Post
    So it's 11:30 P.M. Tuesday night. I'm watching some lame low budget movie I got from redbox. All the sudden I hear a pounding on my front door. I ask myself who the hell is knocking on my door so late? I walk to the door and peek through the window to see it's a Snohomish County Sheriff's deputy. I open the door.

    SD: Keep your hands up where I can see them.
    ME: Ok what's the problem?
    SD: I see that you're armed. I'm going to take it for my saftey.

    He proceeds to reach is arm into my house without permission and takes my firearm from the holster. He then releases the magazine and ejects the round (wich went flying under the bush along the siding of my house.)

    SD: Put your hands against the wall while we talk and don't make any rash movements. I'm here for a DV.
    ME: DV?
    SD: Domestic violence. Someone called 911 reporting a DV. Is everthing ok? Who's in the house with you?
    ME: I honestly have not a clue what you're talking about. I live alone and there is no one here.
    SD: I heard you talking to someone when I came to the door.
    ME: I was watching a movie when you showed up. I have a Surround Sound System set up. That's what you were hearing. I wasn't talking to anyone.
    SD: So just to clarify there is no one here besides you? Can I come in and look around?
    ME: No you can't I'm telling you the truth.
    SD: The neighbors said they heard screaming.
    ME: I heard something next door about a half hour ago. It only lasted for like 30 seconds. I didn't think much of it.
    SD: Ok Thanks for your help I'm going to give you your gun back and the mag and round are on the ground. You can grab them when I walk away.

    He left and I had to search for my round for a few minutes due to the low light. I found it. I then reloaded my firearm and put it back in the hoslter.

    I have been beating myself up for 2 days now because I didn't say much and that I let him take my firearm. I wasn't assertive enough. All I can say was it's like the words just escaped and I couldn't say anything. I've been telling myself I should of got his name and badge number. I'm was thinking about emailing the sherif, but with what information? I didn't get anything. I'm just going to have to chop this up to a learning experience for next time I come in contact with a LEO like that.

    Let the shoulda, woulda, coulda's begin.
    Don't open the door more than a few inches, if needed get one of those flimsy chains. I have opened the door for LE before, with firearm on my right hip and my right foot blocking the door at about 3 inches. Conversation was made and encounter ended.

    The officer did have RAS to contact you (although the information proved erroneous), which just goes to show that LEO often get's it wrong (or the 911 complainant got it wrong). As to taking your firearm, the courts have backed this up when RAS is present. However, refer to my first comment and the officer would of had no access to your firearm.

    I really think you did fine other than opening the door too far and not returning his discussions with more and more questions. Why are you here? Who called? etc...

    You did a great job by refusing entry.

    It is your responsibility to assert your rights. It is the SCSO job to investigate the claims of the caller.
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Stop the flogging - it won't help.

    Consider that you might improve your tactical door-answering skills. Ever wonder why cops never stand full on in the doorway when knocking on the door? Or when actually engaging you in consensual conversation at your door?

    First, if you have a screen or storm door consider locking/latching it at night so that even if you open the main door there is still a barrier between you and whoever is at your door.

    Either stand behind the door so that you can put a shoulder to it to stop someone from pushing in past you, or to the side of the door frame on the other side of the door so that if someone pushes past the door you will be behind them. Especially good if you do not have a screen/storm door.

    Cop wants to reach in without permission all you need to do is step backwards. Keeping your hands raised and saying you do not give permission to enter is also helpful. Cop wants to disarm you for his safety? Tell him you will step outside, and close the door behind you. (BTW, based on the alleged responding to DV complaint explanation, this might in fact qualify as a Terry stop. In that case he can take your sidearm temporarily.)

    I'm going to guess you may have never sat down and thought this all out before, and have not practiced it a few times. Not a problem - now you have the impetus to do so.

    You did OK - and you came away with exactly the same number of openings in your body as you had before the cop knocked on your door. The cop did not decide to ignore your refusal to allow him to come in and snoop around. You got your sidearm and ammo returned undamaged. I'd call it all good.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    So does an officer ever need a warrant to enter your house at all? From what people are saying in this thread, the answer is no.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    There are six major exceptions to the warrant requirement. Some will not apply to homes (obviously).
    - Courtesy of National Paralegal.Edu


    1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
    A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure.

    EXAMPLE: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a red light. A search of his car reveals 8 bags of heroin in the glove compartment and an illegal handgun in the trunk. The heroin is admissible evidence for which no warrant was required as the glove compartment is certainly within John’s wingspan. The gun found in the trunk, however, was not within his wingspan, and was the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence will be excluded.

    2. Plain View Exception
    No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed. For example, an officer cannot illegally enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize an illegally kept alligator living in the pool. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can rightly (though by no means easily) be seized.

    EXAMPLE: The police are called to Donald’s house by neighbors who see him beating up his wife, Victoria. After properly entering the house (without a search warrant – see emergency exception below), police notice Donald’s prized gun collection hanging on the wall. Fortunately for the officers, the guns are not loaded. Unfortunately for Donald, many of them are illegal and Donald is arrested for battery as well as for the illegal guns, which are seized.

    3. Consent
    If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority to consent, . See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).

    EXAMPLE: Officer Warren knocks on a murder suspect’s door. the door is answered by the suspect’s 6 year old child, Timmy. The officer asks Timmy “Is it okay if I come in and talk to your Dad? He’s expecting me.” And then walks into the apartment. He then sees the suspect, Roland, sitting on the sofa oiling his illegal Tommy-gun, the suspected murder weapon. He arrests Roland for possession of the gun and seizes the evidence. Because Timmy, being a small child, was not legally able or authorized to give consent, the entry was illegal and the evidence will be excluded.

    4. Stop & Frisk
    Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. The evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

    EXAMPLE: Officer P. Harker’s peers often joke that he has something akin to a “spidey-sense” which tells him when folks are up to no good. While enjoying a cup of coffee at his favorite donut shop, Officer Harker’s neck hairs stand up straight. He immediately goes outside where he sees Ivan walking down the street, carrying a small duffel bag. He orders Ivan to stop and drop the bag. When the bag falls, Officer Harker hears the clanging of metal against metal. He then frisks Ivan and discovers a hidden pistol in Ivan's pocket. He then searches the duffel bag and discovers ammunition and several illegal hunting knives. Despite the fact that Officer Harker’s “spidey-sense” proved accurate once again, the evidence will be excluded as he can not articulate any reason why he stopped Ivan, other than his unusually active neck hairs.

    5. Automobile Exception
    Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).

    EXAMPLE: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the corner contains illegal drugs in the trunk. The car is missing all four wheels and is up on cinder blocks, and the engine was stolen long ago. Assuming that the automobile exception applies, Officer Demidum uses a crowbar to force open the still-working lock on the trunk. There, he finds 10 kilos of cocaine. Rushing back to the station house to show off the evidence to his Captain, Officer Demidum runs into Judge Sosad. Judge Sosad says “You should have called me first. While it’s great to get the drugs off the street, unfortunately we can’t use this as evidence against anyone. The search was illegal, as the automobile exception to the warrant requirement only applies when the vehicle is actually capable of being moved. That’s the whole point of the exception!” A dejected Demidum continues on to the station, where he has to tolerate cars drawn in shaving cream on his locker for the next month.

    6. Emergencies/Exigent Circumstances/Hot Pursuit
    The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.

    EXAMPLE: While running from police, Fred enters Joe’s garage and the police follow Fred in. (They are not required to give up pursuit until such time as they can obtain a search warrant for the premises.) While in Joe's garage, police notice illegal drugs in plain view. They can arrest Fred for his crimes, and they can also seize the drugs and arrest Joe for possession of the drugs, even though Joe had nothing to do with Fred and the police were in Joe’s garage only because of the hot pursuit of Fred!

    Unless the fact-pattern fits one of the six exceptions discussed above, a warrant is required for police to conduct a search or seizure. Note that for Exception 1, search incident to a lawful arrest, and Exception 5, the automobile exception, although no warrant is required, there is a probable cause requirement. For a search incident to a lawful arrest, the officer must have had probable cause for the original arrest. If the original arrest was unreasonable or unlawful, the evidence discovered from the search will be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree (see the subchapter on the Exclusionary Rule). For the Automobile Exception, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, contraband, or fruits of a crime, whether the vehicle is moving or already stopped. Exception 4 ("stop and frisk") does not require probable cause, but does require "reasonable suspicion." Only Exception 3 (consent) requires no grounds on the part of the police for making the search.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-28-2012 at 11:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    So does an officer ever need a warrant to enter your house at all? From what people are saying in this thread, the answer is no.
    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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    We often forget the language the founders provided.

    'unreasonable'

    Would it be unreasonable to search the house if someone was screaming from inside the house for help?
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    So does an officer ever need a warrant to enter your house at all? From what people are saying in this thread, the answer is no.
    To enter your house, a police officer has to have a warrant or have PC/RAS that there is an immediate risk of harm coming to someone. A DV call does give the RAS for a home entry.

    OP, you made a couple of mistakes but otherwise you came out good. I echo that you should turn the conversation on the LEO. Ask him questions, ask him what his RAS is, ask him for his identification.
    What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.

    I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.

    The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail. - Going Postal, Terry Pratchett

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    There are six major exceptions to the warrant requirement. Some will not apply to homes (obviously).
    - Courtesy of National Paralegal.Edu


    1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
    A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure.

    EXAMPLE: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a red light. A search of his car reveals 8 bags of heroin in the glove compartment and an illegal handgun in the trunk. The heroin is admissible evidence for which no warrant was required as the glove compartment is certainly within John’s wingspan. The gun found in the trunk, however, was not within his wingspan, and was the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence will be excluded.....................................
    The rules on Search Incident To Arrest, have changed a bit. The search must be limited to evidence of the crime for which the suspect was arrested, or another crime for which the officer has PC he committed.

    See Arizona V. Gant
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
    A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure.

    EXAMPLE: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a red light. A search of his car reveals 8 bags of heroin in the glove compartment and an illegal handgun in the trunk. The heroin is admissible evidence for which no warrant was required as the glove compartment is certainly within John’s wingspan. The gun found in the trunk, however, was not within his wingspan, and was the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence will be excluded.
    No arrest made, nor grounds for one in the OP's situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    2. Plain View Exception
    No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed. For example, an officer cannot illegally enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize an illegally kept alligator living in the pool. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can rightly (though by no means easily) be seized.

    EXAMPLE: The police are called to Donald’s house by neighbors who see him beating up his wife, Victoria. After properly entering the house (without a search warrant – see emergency exception below), police notice Donald’s prized gun collection hanging on the wall. Fortunately for the officers, the guns are not loaded. Unfortunately for Donald, many of them are illegal and Donald is arrested for battery as well as for the illegal guns, which are seized.
    While the gun was in plain view, bearing arms in your own home is not illegal. Nor is bearing arms outside the home, for the most part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    3. Consent
    If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority to consent, . See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).

    EXAMPLE: Officer Warren knocks on a murder suspect’s door. the door is answered by the suspect’s 6 year old child, Timmy. The officer asks Timmy “Is it okay if I come in and talk to your Dad? He’s expecting me.” And then walks into the apartment. He then sees the suspect, Roland, sitting on the sofa oiling his illegal Tommy-gun, the suspected murder weapon. He arrests Roland for possession of the gun and seizes the evidence. Because Timmy, being a small child, was not legally able or authorized to give consent, the entry was illegal and the evidence will be excluded.
    Simply opening the door is not consent to a search or seizure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    4. Stop & Frisk
    Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. The evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

    EXAMPLE: Officer P. Harker’s peers often joke that he has something akin to a “spidey-sense” which tells him when folks are up to no good. While enjoying a cup of coffee at his favorite donut shop, Officer Harker’s neck hairs stand up straight. He immediately goes outside where he sees Ivan walking down the street, carrying a small duffel bag. He orders Ivan to stop and drop the bag. When the bag falls, Officer Harker hears the clanging of metal against metal. He then frisks Ivan and discovers a hidden pistol in Ivan's pocket. He then searches the duffel bag and discovers ammunition and several illegal hunting knives. Despite the fact that Officer Harker’s “spidey-sense” proved accurate once again, the evidence will be excluded as he can not articulate any reason why he stopped Ivan, other than his unusually active neck hairs.
    A lawfully carried firearm in a home. The officer had to illegally enter the home (at least his arm) to seize the firearm. I know Terry stops are (mostly) legal on the street, but is there any justification to enter someone's home to conduct a Terry stop? How would such a stop inside someone's own home be any different from any other warrantless search and seizure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    5. Automobile Exception
    Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).

    EXAMPLE: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the corner contains illegal drugs in the trunk. The car is missing all four wheels and is up on cinder blocks, and the engine was stolen long ago. Assuming that the automobile exception applies, Officer Demidum uses a crowbar to force open the still-working lock on the trunk. There, he finds 10 kilos of cocaine. Rushing back to the station house to show off the evidence to his Captain, Officer Demidum runs into Judge Sosad. Judge Sosad says “You should have called me first. While it’s great to get the drugs off the street, unfortunately we can’t use this as evidence against anyone. The search was illegal, as the automobile exception to the warrant requirement only applies when the vehicle is actually capable of being moved. That’s the whole point of the exception!” A dejected Demidum continues on to the station, where he has to tolerate cars drawn in shaving cream on his locker for the next month.
    OP was not operating a car. Nor was his home mobile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    6. Emergencies/Exigent Circumstances/Hot Pursuit
    The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.

    EXAMPLE: While running from police, Fred enters Joe’s garage and the police follow Fred in. (They are not required to give up pursuit until such time as they can obtain a search warrant for the premises.) While in Joe's garage, police notice illegal drugs in plain view. They can arrest Fred for his crimes, and they can also seize the drugs and arrest Joe for possession of the drugs, even though Joe had nothing to do with Fred and the police were in Joe’s garage only because of the hot pursuit of Fred!
    And here's a problem. Unless there is strict oversight of exigency claims, the Fourth Amendment evaporates here. All an officer needs to do to negate a need for a warrant is to think he smells pot, or similar illegal substance. If the officer phrases it in a way that leaves open the possibility he was mistaken about where it was coming from or that he smelled it at all, there is no way to prove he is lying. And then he can go wherever he wants and search whatever he wants and seize whatever he wants as evidence, without needing a warrant at all.

    Yes, I agree, if he hears a fight going on, or sees someone waving a gun around through the door, he ought to enter without a warrant. But if even the flimsiest excuse is upheld, then the Fourth Amendment has effectively been abolished, since it cannot exist in such a situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Unless the fact-pattern fits one of the six exceptions discussed above, a warrant is required for police to conduct a search or seizure. Note that for Exception 1, search incident to a lawful arrest, and Exception 5, the automobile exception, although no warrant is required, there is a probable cause requirement. For a search incident to a lawful arrest, the officer must have had probable cause for the original arrest. If the original arrest was unreasonable or unlawful, the evidence discovered from the search will be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree (see the subchapter on the Exclusionary Rule). For the Automobile Exception, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, contraband, or fruits of a crime, whether the vehicle is moving or already stopped. Exception 4 ("stop and frisk") does not require probable cause, but does require "reasonable suspicion." Only Exception 3 (consent) requires no grounds on the part of the police for making the search.
    Of all those six situations, only the sixth would seem to apply to the OP. But aside from the DV call to 911, there is literally no evidence of actual domestic violence, and if someone the cop doesn't know being armed around a cop is sufficient justification to lawfully infringe upon unalienable rights, then we ought to see cops disarming eachother all the time. Every new officer hire at a police station would be carrying a firearm in a manner that warrants alarm until all the other officers knew him well. The same for an officer from another department. Open carry would become illegal by default.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    We often forget the language the founders provided.

    'unreasonable'

    Would it be unreasonable to search the house if someone was screaming from inside the house for help?
    The warrant was to prove that it was not unreasonable.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Meet my new Door Bell

    http://www.staples.com/Defender-GK30...2035:GK300-7M2



    No need to open the door. Especially good at night.

    Even if it pisses off the Deputy in a case like this, at least they'll call a supervisor before taking more action. Also gives you time to call 911 and make sure your side is recorded. Just keep the line open as you continue your video/audio encounter with the officer on the front porch. That way his words are part of the record too.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    amlevin

    Thanks for the heads up on that product.

    I have learned some, rather extreme, legal activities. It's legal to draw a gun at someone on your porch so long as you're in your house. It does not matter who they are.

    NEVER trust the Snohomish County Sheriff's department when they say it's a DV case. They are not to be trusted. I was charged with DV once and the Sno Co Sheriff boys were the ones who arrested me. Charges had to be dropped much later but still had to be dropped. They got rather asinine after I told them I was not going to talk to them.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member FMJ 911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    People's Republic of Snohomishia
    Posts
    351
    You know what I thought just today, How do we know that someone is uniform is really who they say they are? I know, It's off base, but there's been reports of Criminals disguised as Authority Figures and they use that tactic to burglarize People's homes, and in some cases, commit other horrendous crimes (Assault, Rape, Murder, Etc.).

    So that's why I think it may be a good idea to have a barrier between yourself and someone outside the door. Or at the very least, a Chain so the door only opens a few inches.

    Now don't anyone ridicule me, but it was just a thought that entered my head and decided to share it.
    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." — George Patton

  14. #14
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    amlevin

    Thanks for the heads up on that product.

    I have learned some, rather extreme, legal activities. It's legal to draw a gun at someone on your porch so long as you're in your house. It does not matter who they are.

    NEVER trust the Snohomish County Sheriff's department when they say it's a DV case. They are not to be trusted. I was charged with DV once and the Sno Co Sheriff boys were the ones who arrested me. Charges had to be dropped much later but still had to be dropped. They got rather asinine after I told them I was not going to talk to them.
    Im pretty sure that if you draw your gun on a cop wether you are in your house or not, its not going to end well for you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    I have learned some, rather extreme, legal activities. It's legal to draw a gun at someone on your porch so long as you're in your house. It does not matter who they are.
    Citation, please?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    Im pretty sure that if you draw your gun on a cop wether you are in your house or not, its not going to end well for you.
    Depends on the circumstances. Washington state is just about the best place to do it, legally speaking, providing the cop is breaking the law when you draw. A cop committing crimes in uniform doesn't have any sort of legal shield against being arrested or even being shot. Google "John Bad Elk vs The United States" some time. SCOTUS has never reversed their ruling, and the laws they ruled on have not changed since the ruling. There are some circumstances where resisting the police, even with lethal force, is perfectly legal.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Citation, please?
    read RCW 9.41.270
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    read RCW 9.41.270
    Huh? If you're thinking about 3(c), it says:

    ...for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another
    so drawing a gun at someone on your porch who does not pose a credible threat to you under the reasonable-person standard is not covered here. In addition, this section of the RCW says absolutely nothing about location of the defender and the threat--nothing at all about inside houses or porches.

    I'm still waiting...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235

    Door security

    In regards to the early posts about a flimsy chain so that you don't have the door opened too far.

    This is available for $21 (+S&H) from Amazon and way better than a chain. It'll take a real effort to defeat that.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Club-20CA-...nti+theft+club

    Some more info on it from The Club http://www.theclub.com/catalog/the-door-club-p50.htm

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Huh? If you're thinking about 3(c), it says:



    so drawing a gun at someone on your porch who does not pose a credible threat to you under the reasonable-person standard is not covered here. In addition, this section of the RCW says absolutely nothing about location of the defender and the threat--nothing at all about inside houses or porches.

    I'm still waiting...
    rcw 9.41.270 3a covers anything you do while inide your house or business.
    it is more of less our version of Castle Doctorine.

    rcw 9.41.270 3c covers your defense against unlawfull force, against you or others, any other place you legally may be.
    it is more of less our version of Stand Your Ground.
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 07-01-2012 at 01:20 PM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by FMJ 911 View Post
    You know what I thought just today, How do we know that someone is uniform is really who they say they are? I know, It's off base, but there's been reports of Criminals disguised as Authority Figures and they use that tactic to burglarize People's homes, and in some cases, commit other horrendous crimes (Assault, Rape, Murder, Etc.).

    So that's why I think it may be a good idea to have a barrier between yourself and someone outside the door. Or at the very least, a Chain so the door only opens a few inches.

    Now don't anyone ridicule me, but it was just a thought that entered my head and decided to share it.
    "Bzzzz. Bzzzzz"

    "Who's there (while observing on LCD video screen)"

    "It's Snohomish County Sheriff's Department" (or any other law enforcement agency)

    "Please State Your Name and hold out your ID and show it toward the speaker"

    (officer complies)

    "Please State Your Business"

    At that point you have a choice to open up or say "I have nothing to say".

    Let them return with a warrant if they feel they have a legitimate reason.

    As for pointing a gun at a LEO who's on your front porch, even if he's in the wrong the only ones who'll be able to make that case will most likely be your heirs.
    Last edited by amlevin; 07-01-2012 at 11:00 AM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Citation, please?
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

    RCW 9.41.270
    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;



    I had a lawyer look up the cases about this.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    "Bzzzz. Bzzzzz"

    "Who's there (while observing on LCD video screen)"

    "It's Snohomish County Sheriff's Department" (or any other law enforcement agency)

    "Please State Your Name and hold out your ID and show it toward the speaker"

    (officer complies)

    "Please State Your Business"

    At that point you have a choice to open up or say "I have nothing to say".

    Let them return with a warrant if they feel they have a legitimate reason.

    ~~ snip
    So far IMHO this is the best response I have seen.
    The OP did not state if there had been any house-guestss at any time that evening, but if there had not been, and if I were in the OPs situation, I might tell them: I live & have been alone all evening and only have one more thing to say.. Good Night.

    By telling them you live and have been alone all evening, you have stated something that should help to preclude their getting a warrant and returning to disturb you further as it completely negates any PC they may have had.
    Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    So far IMHO this is the best response I have seen.
    The OP did not state if there had been any house-guestss at any time that evening, but if there had not been, and if I were in the OPs situation, I might tell them: I live & have been alone all evening and only have one more thing to say.. Good Night.

    By telling them you live and have been alone all evening, you have stated something that should help to preclude their getting a warrant and returning to disturb you further as it completely negates any PC they may have had.
    Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.

    Let's look at it another way. If you tell "them you live and have been alone all evening." You now have admitted to having no alibi. This will be used against you.

    Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.
    No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.
    +1, we should always remember it's not about what we got to hide as some would try to argue.
    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)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •