• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

State vs Estep Totality of the Circumstances.

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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:

geojohn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Snohomish County, Washington, USA
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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. :lol:
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 

jolly__roger

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
43
Location
WA
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.
 
Top