Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The Winnebago citation

  1. #1
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593

    The Winnebago citation

    At the Night Out a question came up about is an RV a home or a vehicle, this is the WA Supreme Court case that seems applicable to me.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr State v. Vrieling

    tl;dr it is a vehicle and subject to a search, incident to an arrest. Dissent makes interesting reading as well. The case even involves a firearm found by the search.
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 08-08-2012 at 02:25 AM. Reason: added a bit about OC

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    So I would gather that if the RV is one the road, its a vehicle but in a trailer park, its a home..

    Its a retarded ruling, like all other exceptions to the 4th amendment....they can secure the motor home and get a warrant...police can secure a car and get a warrant. If the people are out of a car or RV, then why is not a warrant required? Its bad case law that requires so many twists and turns to get to where they got, you know its bad case law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Squeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard,
    Posts
    827
    That got kind of involved. Thanks for the post.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Another great dissent by Sanders, and another watering down of rights by the majority.

    Vote Sanders!

    I gotta say though the lady was dumb for wandering around during a stop.
    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)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fibresteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Woodland, WA
    Posts
    50
    My wife and I just took the class required to get our Oregon CHL last week. The class included some WA state law. One of the things the instructor told us was once you park your motor home, travel trailer or camper that it is considered your home. Is this not true?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    I expect the answer to that would be ...Maybe. The cited case deals with a traffic stop as the initial encounter, if you mean parked in a campground or RV lot, I expect the answer would be yes,parked at a gas station or some other temporary stop, I doubt it.

    The other question is does anyone have a cite for how long/convoluted your trip to or from a .060 exception can last?
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 08-09-2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason: added .060 question

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    I expect the answer to that would be ...Maybe. The cited case deals with a traffic stop as the initial encounter, if you mean parked in a campground or RV lot, I expect the answer would be yes,parked at a gas station or some other temporary stop, I doubt it.

    The other question is does anyone have a cite for how long/convoluted your trip to or from a .060 exception can last?
    LE is going to have some discretion in this manner...

    StarksResponse8-17-11.pdf
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    The other question is does anyone have a cite for how long/convoluted your trip to or from a .060 exception can last?
    I'm not aware of any rulings on that in Washington. I've run across mention of that from other places, most recently in Washington D.C. (definitely not a good place for gun owners).

    From what I've read, if you're going direct, you're covered. If you stop for lunch on the way, you're probably covered, but might not be; You should be, but not all courts and cops agree. In one of those D.C. examples I mentioned, an emergency trip to the hospital on his way home got a guy in serious hot water.

    If you go in the morning and do two dozen errands "on your way" back home, then you probably are not covered.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    FLETC states that it's both, depending on circumstances.

    If it's mobile, then the mobile conveyance exception to the 4th applies.

    If it's stationary, and not readily mobile (engine not running, or wheel chocks out, or awning deployed, etc etc), it's a 'home'.

    I don't know how WA interprets it, but the feds interpret it as a home when not in motion.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

Posting Permissions

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