• 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.

Medford Open Carrier Arrested - Speed Trap Warning

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
BREAKING NEWS:

Yesterday a Medford Open Carrier who is a member here (though not a rabid poster) was arrested today and charged with violation of city ordinance on disorderly conduct. He was protesting the speed enforcement radar/photo van 150 yards or so from his house. Het set up a tripod with video and proceeded to protest the van with a sign (and while open carrying of course). The occupant of the van (apparently he's not a cop) confronted him verbally from inside the van and then apparently called the police.

Police response was multiple units and they performed a "felony stop" (i.e. weapons were drawn). After cuffing and stuffing him, they apparently started working on what to charge him with and decided on the disorderly charge, apparently with comments that he had impeded traffic or some such.

He is out on bail and beginning to work the issue. No police report in hand yet and his video, firearm, Oregon CHL and Utah permits are still in police custody "as evidence".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

01rednavigator

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Oregon
BREAKING NEWS:

Yesterday a Medford Open Carrier who is a member here (though not a rabid poster) was arrested today and charged with violation of city ordinance on disorderly conduct. He was protesting the speed enforcement radar/photo van 150 yards or so from his house. Het set up a tripod with video and proceeded to protest the van with a sign (and while open carrying of course). The occupant of the van (apparently he's not a cop) confronted him verbally from inside the van and then apparently called the police.

Police response was multiple units and they performed a "felony stop" (i.e. weapons were drawn). After cuffing and stuffing him, they apparently started working on what to charge him with and decided on the disorderly charge, apparently with comments that he had impeded traffic or some such.

He is out on bail and beginning to work the issue. No police report in hand yet and his video, firearm, Oregon CHL and Utah permits are still in police custody "as evidence".



Let me guess, Warren ******
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
would be wise to have a second hidden camera videotaping as im sure the first tape will be "lost" somehow...

sucks that these cops get power trips. Hope he wins the case.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Good luck to your/our friend with this. Please keep us updated as you can w/o compromising his case - will presume that proper requests have been/will be filed.

I will refrain from speculating on this from afar and await further details as they may be released.

***********************
Explanation for my "edits" being on these posts: 1st moved the post from another thread, then edited out a surname - please do not post public/personal identifiers w/o that person's permission.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Grapeshot: Warren's username is his full name, so presumably he's fine with people knowing it online.

Charged with impeding traffic? If he stayed on the sidewalk that will be a hard case to win. This is Oregon's disorderly text:

166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

Here is Medford's:

5.120 Disorderly Conduct

(1) No person, acting with intent to cause public alarm or a breach of the peace or with reckless disregard for creating a risk thereof, shall:
(a) Engage in fighting or violent behavior; or
(b) Obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way; or
(c) Fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse from a public place; or
(d) Create a hazard to person or property by any act which the actor is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) For purposes of this section, a breach of the peace means a disturbance where there is both a threat of bodily harm or damage to property and the immediate power to carry out the threat, or where there is an unlawful act of violence.

There must not be enough real crime in Medford if the cops go out of their way to arrest a guy protesting a speed trap and the DA has time to prosecute such a difficult-to-win case.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
My guess is they don't care if he's convicted. The officer's lose nothing if he's not convicted, the officer's lose nothing if the district attorney drops the charges. The officers even get paid to testify if the case goes to court - win or lose.

I would posit that this is just the latest case of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
 

Ironbar

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
385
Location
Tigard, Oregon, USA
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what exactly he was protesting against? I mean, was it because the van was so close to his house, or does he just hate photo radar? Either way it seems sort of silly.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what exactly he was protesting against? I mean, was it because the van was so close to his house, or does he just hate photo radar? Either way it seems sort of silly.

He was protesting the use of speed traps (radar/photo van) for generating revenues rather than our servants keeping the peace.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
He was protesting the use of speed traps (radar/photo van) for generating revenues rather than our servants keeping the peace.

Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.

Yup, it really doesn't matter what the protest was about. A right is a right regardless of whether anyone else agrees. I think burning the flag should be illegal but it's not. So if you burn a flag and they arrest you, I'll support you as having the "right" under the law to burn that flag even if I don't support the cause you're protesting!
 

David West

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
36
Location
State of Jefferson
I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency. It was free-speech target of opportunity because they just happened to be right down the street from my house, and the open carry was incidental; not part of the protest, just what I do all the time. I was carrying a Taurus 608 .357 magnum as I'd just gotten done doing some roofing work for a friend and that's the gun I usually leave in my Jeep while I'm on the roof.

I'm trying to figure out what to do at this point and will be seeking legal counsel soon, but I'm OK with all of this being public at this point. It's already been fairly publicized on Facebook. I'm a bit swamped with my little brother's wedding this weekend, though, so I won't have much time to deal with it until after the weekend. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges never even made it past my court date in a couple weeks as I'm pretty sure the prime motivation of the cops who responded was simply to punish me any way they could. I was mostly on the sidewalk but I did cross the street a couple of times (this was on the corner of Garfield and Jasper) to get in a better position for traffic depending on which way it was coming. I don't see how anything I ever did could be considered impeding traffic, though. I always crossed when cars were still well down the road and none of them were ever even close to slamming on their brakes or even slowing down for me.

I'll try to let you guys know more details as I can.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency.

+100 to you, sir!!! Keep us updated!
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Sorry to hear that David. Any thoughts on filing a deprivation of rights under color of authority lawsuit?
 

Jay Jacobs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
100
Location
Canton, GA
I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency. It was free-speech target of opportunity because they just happened to be right down the street from my house, and the open carry was incidental; not part of the protest, just what I do all the time. I was carrying a Taurus 608 .357 magnum as I'd just gotten done doing some roofing work for a friend and that's the gun I usually leave in my Jeep while I'm on the roof.

I'm trying to figure out what to do at this point and will be seeking legal counsel soon, but I'm OK with all of this being public at this point. It's already been fairly publicized on Facebook. I'm a bit swamped with my little brother's wedding this weekend, though, so I won't have much time to deal with it until after the weekend. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges never even made it past my court date in a couple weeks as I'm pretty sure the prime motivation of the cops who responded was simply to punish me any way they could. I was mostly on the sidewalk but I did cross the street a couple of times (this was on the corner of Garfield and Jasper) to get in a better position for traffic depending on which way it was coming. I don't see how anything I ever did could be considered impeding traffic, though. I always crossed when cars were still well down the road and none of them were ever even close to slamming on their brakes or even slowing down for me.

I'll try to let you guys know more details as I can.

GL with your case Mr. West.
 

David West

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
36
Location
State of Jefferson
Scratch the part about them having my Utah CHL. Upon talking to the Sheriff's department about my permits and finding out that they didn't have my Utah permit, I looked through my wallet and found it behind a Cold Stone Creamery gift card instead of in the ID slot, so that was just a mistake on my part. They did tell me, though, that if I don't get this dropped within 30 days, I'll have to re-apply and spend $50 to get my Oregon Permit back. So even if I'm innocent, they can steal my money from me.

Man I hate the government...
 

Dogbait

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
155
Location
Oregon
Scratch the part about them having my Utah CHL. Upon talking to the Sheriff's department about my permits and finding out that they didn't have my Utah permit, I looked through my wallet and found it behind a Cold Stone Creamery gift card instead of in the ID slot, so that was just a mistake on my part. They did tell me, though, that if I don't get this dropped within 30 days, I'll have to re-apply and spend $50 to get my Oregon Permit back. So even if I'm innocent, they can steal my money from me.

Man I hate the government...

They're full of it. IIRC they must send you a certified letter informing you of revocation of license and allow an appeal. (Don't have ORS available on phone)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.

Courts have this viewpoint as well ... its one of those "isolated" incidents .. that happen almost every day.

He should sue and get some jingle out of it , maybe 5-10K.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
They're full of it. IIRC they must send you a certified letter informing you of revocation of license and allow an appeal. (Don't have ORS available on phone)

Right you are:

166.293 Denial or revocation of license; review. (1) If the application for the concealed handgun license is denied, the sheriff shall set forth in writing the reasons for the denial. The denial shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail, restricted delivery, within 45 days after the application was made. If no decision is issued within 45 days, the person may seek review under the procedures in subsection (5) of this section.
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.291 (1), and subject to review as provided in subsection (5) of this section, a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.
(3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.
(b) A sheriff may revoke a concealed handgun license by serving upon the licensee a notice of revocation. The notice must contain the grounds for the revocation and must be served either personally or by certified mail, restricted delivery. The notice and return of service shall be included in the file of the licensee. The revocation is effective upon the licensee’s receipt of the notice.
(4) Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff if the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(5) A person denied a concealed handgun license or whose license is revoked or not renewed under ORS 166.291 to 166.295 may petition the circuit court in the petitioner’s county of residence to review the denial, nonrenewal or revocation. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of denial or revocation.
(6) The judgment affirming or overturning the sheriff’s decision shall be based on whether the petitioner meets the criteria that are used for issuance of a concealed handgun license and, if the petitioner was denied a concealed handgun license, whether the sheriff has reasonable grounds for denial under subsection (2) of this section. Whenever the petitioner has been previously sentenced for a crime under ORS 161.610 or for a crime of violence for which the person could have received a sentence of more than 10 years, the court shall grant relief only if the court finds that relief should be granted in the interest of justice.
(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 9.320, a corporation, the state or any city, county, district or other political subdivision or public corporation in this state, without appearance by attorney, may appear as a party to an action under this section.
(8) Petitions filed under this section shall be heard and disposed of within 15 judicial days of filing or as soon as practicable thereafter.
(9) Filing fees for actions shall be as for any civil action filed in the court. If the petitioner prevails, the amount of the filing fee shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner and may be incorporated into the court order.
(10) Initial appeals of petitions shall be heard de novo.
(11) Any party to a judgment under this section may appeal to the Court of Appeals in the same manner as for any other civil action.
(12) If the governmental entity files an appeal under this section and does not prevail, it shall be ordered to pay the attorney fees for the prevailing party.

Regarding section 4, I'm not sure what crimes constitute a disqualification of a CHL, but I sincerely hope disorderly conduct doesn't count. Disorderly is about the weakest "crime" there is.

Regarding section 3b, I wouldn't accept any certified mail that you're not expecting. If you don't sign for it, then you can't receive it, and you can't have your license revoked.
 
Last edited:
Top