Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: State vs Estep Totality of the Circumstances.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    State vs Estep Totality of the Circumstances.

    I hope nobody will be offended if I post something on-topic.

    I see a few problems with this Terry stop, given he was a full mile away from the location where the suspicious activity was reported to have occurred. Nevertheless, it was his furative movements that seems to have tipped the scales to 'reasonable' suspicion. He also consented to be searched.

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in...name=667271MAJ

    At approximately one o'clock in the morning, two King County police officers, Jeff Barden and Koby Hamill, heard a report from Federal Way dispatch of a suspicious person in the area of their patrol. The suspect was described as an unknown race male that was wearing dark clothing including a hood over his head, carrying a flashlight and possibly a backpack....

    The officers responded to the report and arrived in the area within eight to twelve minutes. When they were approximately a mile, or about twelve blocks, from the location where the call was made from, they noticed a man walking on the shoulder of the road. He was wearing a dark hooded jacket, with his hands in his pockets and his hood pulled over his head against the rain. The man was later identified as the defendant, Lyle Estep....

    The officers activated the emergency lights, to get Estep to stop and to alert any oncoming vehicles of their location. Estep turned, began walking back towards the patrol car, and removed his hood. He moved his hands towards his pockets, hesitated, dropped them briefly to his sides, and then put them back into his pockets again. Officer Hamil told Estep why they were contacting him, and asked him if he had a flashlight on his person. Estep was cooperative and responded that he did not have a flashlight.

    Concerned with Estep's movements, Officer Hamil asked him to remove his hands from his pockets. Estep initially complied, though he then put his hands back in his pockets. At that point, Officer Hamil asked Estep if it would be alright if Officer Barden performed a pat-down search of his person for any weapons. Estep said that would be fine. Upon conducting the pat-down, Officer Barden felt a hard object under Estep's waistband, which he believed to be a gun. When he asked Estep if he was feeling a gun, Estep said, yes. The officers placed Estep in handcuffs and removed a fully loaded semiautomatic pistol from his waistband. Officer Hamill asked Estep if he had any other weapons on his person, and he responded that he did, gesturing to his right hip, where Officer Hamill located a buck knife with a six inch blade.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Dont make furtive movements,,, check
    Dont consent to search,,, check
    Dont talk to police,,, check

    Thanks for posting this.
    A very good lesson for all of us to learn from!
    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!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    May I search you? :No.
    Do you have a flashlight? :Why does it matter?
    What is your name?: Am I free to go?
    Why are you out here? :Am I free to go?
    Get your hands out of your pockets when you're talking to me! :I guess you're done here, bye.


    Just a thought. I've been harassed even unarmed at night by cops.
    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)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    A guy shining a light down driveways give rise to a suspicion that a crime was committed? Its a stretch ...

    But he did allow them to search (they would have searched anyway) and the court seemed to think that putting your hands in your pockets is cause for concern and supports a Terry search.

    he is free to appeal ... but courts are weary of 2nd guessing each other.

    What was his punishment 6 mo. probation? Jail time?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs down

    suspicious activity
    Show me the RCW where that law is on the books as a crime.....
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The courts have ruled and I don't have the cite on me that suspicious activity alone is not not reason for detention/arrest.
    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)

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The courts have ruled and I don't have the cite on me that suspicious activity alone is not not reason for detention/arrest.
    Probably fits right in there under "Reasonable Suspicion". It would all depend on what the "activity" was.
    "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?"

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Why is it that a portion, actually an important portion of the case was left out of the posting? as seen bolded in red below? This always makes me suspicious of what the story teller and questions what else was left out and to the credibility.

    We have those who will climb on the band wagon for any criminal activity while bad mouthing law enforcement for doing their job, granted there has been some bad officers and there are bad people who commit crimes as Estep did.

    FACTS
    At approximately one o'clock in the morning, two King County police
    officers, Jeff Barden and Koby Hamill, heard a report from Federal Way dispatch
    No. 66727-1-I/2
    of a suspicious person in the area of their patrol. The suspect was described as
    an unknown race male that was wearing dark clothing including a hood over his
    head, carrying a flashlight and possibly a backpack. The caller who reported the
    suspicious prowling activity also communicated that there had been a recent
    rash of gas thefts and vehicle prowls in the neighborhood.


    The officers responded to the report and arrived in the area within eight to
    twelve minutes. When they were approximately a mile, or about twelve blocks,
    from the location where the call was made from, they noticed a man walking on
    the shoulder of the road. He was wearing a dark hooded jacket, with his hands
    in his pockets and his hood pulled over his head against the rain. The man was
    later identified as the defendant, Lyle Estep. There were no other pedestrians in
    the area. The officers activated the emergency lights, to get Estep to stop and to
    alert any oncoming vehicles of their location. Estep turned, began walking back
    towards the patrol car, and removed his hood. He moved his hands towards his
    pockets, hesitated, dropped them briefly to his sides, and then put them back
    into his pockets again. Officer Hamil told Estep why they were contacting him,
    and asked him if he had a flashlight on his person. Estep was cooperative and
    responded that he did not have a flashlight.

    Concerned with Estep's movements, Officer Hamil asked him to remove
    his hands from his pockets. Estep initially complied, though he then put his
    hands back in his pockets. At that point, Officer Hamil asked Estep if it would be
    alright if Officer Barden performed a pat-down search of his person for any
    weapons. Estep said that would be fine. Upon conducting the pat-down, Officer
    Barden felt a hard object under Estep's waistband, which he believed to be a
    gun. When he asked Estep if he was feeling a gun, Estep said, yes. The
    officers placed Estep in handcuffs and removed a fully loaded semiautomatic
    pistol from his waistband. Officer Hamill asked Estep if he had any other
    weapons on his person, and he responded that he did, gesturing to his right hip,
    where Officer Hamill located a buck knife with a six inch blade.

    The State charged Estep with one count of unlawful possession of a
    firearm in the second degree. At trial, Estep moved to suppress evidence under
    CrR 3.6. After a suppression hearing with argument from both parties, the trial
    court denied the motion. Proceeding by bench trial on a stipulated record, the
    trial court found Estep guilty as charged. Estep timely appeals.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    That is beyond the scope of what I had intended when I posted this. The behavior of the officers is not the topic. The point of posting this thread to was to give some insight into how the court views RAS, because that is the weather-vane for how the individual officer on the street will view RAS. If an officer approaches and asks you about your carry, and you ask if he's detaining you, he may well say yes, based on things like furtive movements.

    Remember, totality of circumstances. Late at night, hooded sweatshirt, hands in pockets, etc, are all individual behaviors that are not, by themselves, enough to justify a Terry stop. Combine them, and add in the officer's experience and other factors like local crime trends, and it is (in the Court's view) enough to detain a citizen.

    It also is meant to emphasize the point we keep trying to make; don't talk to the police. Some people seem to have the desire to debate or otherwise engage an officer in a battle of wits believing they can win, without realizing that the cop's goal wasn't to win in the first place. The longer you talk, the greater the risk.

    Your criticism is baseless because you missed the intent of the thread.
    Last edited by Mainsail; 07-18-2012 at 12:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    That is beyond the scope of what I had intended when I posted this. The behavior of the officers is not the topic. The point of posting this thread to was to give some insight into how the court views RAS, because that is the weather-vane for how the individual officer on the street will view RAS. If an officer approaches and asks you about your carry, and you ask if he's detaining you, he may well say yes, based on things like furtive movements.

    It also is meant to emphasize the point we keep trying to make; don't talk to the police. Some people seem to have the desire to debate or otherwise engage an officer in a battle of wits believing they can win, without realizing that the cop's goal wasn't to win in the first place. The longer you talk, the greater the risk.

    Your criticism is baseless because you missed the intent of the thread.
    Correct. The reason not to talk to Police is because you can not know what RAS they have is and by this example you may create it by talking or moving. Also you do not have the right to know what the RAS might be. The officer must only articulate it to the court after the fact.

    Don't talk to the police.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 07-18-2012 at 12:47 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    i have to run, but there is another case where no consent was given in similar circumstances and the Court threw out the conviction.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117
    I often am in similar circumstances. I take 3-6 mile walks many nights after 11pm or so, and since it is frequently raining, use the hood on my rain jacket. When it's raining, my hands are usually not visible as they are inside the sleeves of my jacket. I'm armed with a pistol, and carry a folding knife (because I always do) and pepper spray (only ever used on aggressive dogs). I carry a flashlight to see and a small bicycle type flashing light for safety. The only ID I carry is a Road ID bracelet, apart from my CPL when needed. I fortunately haven't been stopped yet, but this gives me more to think about. Thanks for posting.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    It also is meant to emphasize the point we keep trying to make; don't talk to the police. Some people seem to have the desire to debate or otherwise engage an officer in a battle of wits believing they can win, without realizing that the cop's goal wasn't to win in the first place. The longer you talk, the greater the risk.
    The coined phrase of "Don't talk to Police" does an injustice to many, you have a couple of points that I believe to be valid but not all in one size fits all.
    Officers do have questions they asked to determine if a crime has or was committed it is not as a trick though some feel so because they do not know the law well enough. Are Officers there to be your buddy, No they are there to serve and protect and yeah I know all the bs replies about not having to which again is twisted out of context.
    Some will want and do argue with Law Enforcement when it would be better off to say as little as possible and knowing your rights and the laws one can avoid making stupid comments or replies, ie Yeah I was doing 72 in a 55mph zone.
    When there are times concerning protecting yourself, your property and neighbors by reporting and providing information on suspicious circumstances as described in this appeal.
    Again, the coined phrase "Don't talk to Police" does more harm then good but knowing how to handle police encounters will help you and your community.

    In the referenced appeal, there was plenty of reason for the officers to engage and move ahead with a Terry Stop and rightfully so.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    If you want to parse it like that, then allow me to be more specific. Don't talk to the police any more than necessary. We assume that if someone is intelligent enough to disassemble a firearm and put it back together again then they are intelligent enough to understand, "Don't talk to the police".

    For something like five years now I've been strongly suggesting, "Are you detaining me?" as question one. The police could very well have a legitimate concern for contacting you, so it's best to find out what they want from the get-go. If it becomes apparent that they're just trying to hassle you, say nothing more. If I need to explain it in more detail than that, just let it drop.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The caller who reported the suspicious prowling activity also communicated that there had been a recent
    rash of gas thefts and vehicle prowls in the neighborhood.
    Hearsay? I don't know. But, it does/can give the cops the excuse they are looking for.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    We assume that if someone is intelligent enough to disassemble a firearm and put it back together again then they are intelligent enough to understand, "Don't talk to the police".
    Are you saying people are not intelligent enough to talk to police?
    I feel the people here are intelligent enough to seek out the information, know the law well enough to keep themselves out of trouble, sometimes talking to police is needed.

    If I need to explain it in more detail than that, just let it drop.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Hearsay? I don't know. But, it does/can give the cops the excuse they are looking for.
    Is it hearsay when they can look back in their recent reports and show the recent calls of illegal activity?
    Not all Officers are out to get you.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    No, is it hearsay that the 'caller' made the statement? Just as it is, I think, that a cop repeating what you said is hearsay.

    Obviously not all cops are out to get you. But, if the only ones that you encounter are out to get you, what would you think?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member jolly__roger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The courts have ruled and I don't have the cite on me that suspicious activity alone is not not reason for detention/arrest.
    If you go to the court case link provided in the OPs post, it has a list of court cases that the defendant cites as reference and I believe the one you are mentioning is cited.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Obviously not all cops are out to get you. But, if the only ones that you encounter are out to get you, what would you think?
    Paranoia...What would you think?
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-18-2012 at 06:13 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Paranoia...What would you think?
    LOL...it's not "paranoia" to fear the government and their street soldiers. Act like they are all out to get you is not being paranoid it's being smart.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-18-2012 at 08:27 PM.
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Correct. The reason not to talk to Police is because you can not know what RAS they have is and by this example you may create it by talking or moving. Also you do not have the right to know what the RAS might be. The officer must only articulate it to the court after the fact.

    Don't talk to the police.
    Some with JD's I have talked to disagree with no reason being needing to be articulated at the scene, without articulated reason you have no reason to cooperate with the detention and what may very well be a false arrest.

    The basis I have brought up before that this may be illegal, by the fourth amendment and our state constitution, Article 1 section 7.

    Must they formally charge you later and before a judge yes. That is a seperate issue than informing you at the scene why you are being detained.

    Either way we see it your way or mine, Absolutely don't talk to cops.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-18-2012 at 08:29 PM.
    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)

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Some with JD's I have talked to disagree with no reason being needing to be articulated at the scene, without articulated reason you have no reason to cooperate with the detention and what may very well be a false arrest.

    The basis I have brought up before that this may be illegal, by the fourth amendment and our state constitution, Article 1 section 7.

    Must they formally charge you later and before a judge yes. That is a seperate issue than informing you at the scene why you are being detained.

    Either way we see it your way or mine, Absolutely don't talk to cops.
    That certainly is an argument in the legal field, there just isn't enough stare decis surrounding it to help out the citizen.
    Live Free or Die!

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Paranoia...What would you think?
    No, not necessarily. Which officer is going to be the next Birk, the next Meade.... due caution is required.
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    No, not necessarily. Which officer is going to be the next Birk, the next Meade.... due caution is required.
    Do you really think if either person in these two situations would have came out any better by refusing to talk to the officer? I don't think so.
    You have the idea correct on a officer not officers along with out of how many contacts that have been made be it investigative to an arrest to use of minimal force to deadly force, lets try and keep it in perspective.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •