• 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.

Hidden Camera Video: stopped for matching suspect descriptin while CCing

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
This is something I'd always been afraid of: looking like a suspect while carrying all my gear (gun, knife, flashlight, extra mag, camera, etc) and dealing with trying to explain it. While in a "gang neighborhood," being in your 20s, etc.
I was stopped about 12:30 or 1 am for ostensibly matching the description of a suspect.
It was an overall OK encounter.
For those of you that will tell me that I could have asserted my rights at the moment the dispatch asked if I was "blonde, first of James" and they knew I had a CPL, I realize that. (it was after they ran the gun.)
He barely had the CPL before they called in with the next call and they gave me my stuff back in a hurry. I'm pretty sure the two officers were the entire shift in my town at the time. If not, there was one other (judging by what I can hear in the background for the radio transmissions.)

And please, before anyone says anything about them stopping me for being a "white male," I realize that is not RAS, but there are not many white males in my neighborhood. (According to statistics I've found through electoral stuff, my area is 10% white. So as far as the police's motives are concerned, it would be like if they got a call that a black male was prowling a house three blocks from where they ran into black male at 1 a.m. in Mercer Island, he'd be lucky to not get tazed (until they get the description of "bald, first of James" and the guy they have is dreadlocks, first of something else.) Both of the officers were white. I live in a primarily Chicano neighborhood in a primarily Chicano agricultural town. I don't feel infringed upon for being white. The officer did ask where I was coming from, and I answered "12th Street" and the incident was at 9th St which gave them me in the are. In the future I may decline to tell them where I was coming from because "last time I did that I ended up in handcuffs and it turned our I was the wrong guy", but I don't believe there was misconduct here. The only reason I'm going on about this is I remember extreme jerk-ish views from a number of angles when I was here before and I would like to pre-empt those and just focus on what happened.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-nqPRGgh9a8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I can't seem to embed, se here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqPRGgh9a8
This happened in mid Feb 2013.

Here is one that happened about two weeks after that. A surprisingly positive experience.
http://youtu.be/LhWC0k3IoTU
 
Last edited:

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
What they did is racist. The only real description they had was white male. They stopped you because you were white. Everything was based on race. That is racist.

Ask yourself how they would've handled the situation if the description was "a black male". Same thing!
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
What they did is racist. The only real description they had was white male. They stopped you because you were white. Everything was based on race. That is racist.

Ask yourself how they would've handled the situation if the description was "a black male". Same thing!

I wouldn't say racist. After reading about cops and the problems in the policing industry for six years, I would say he was seized on a fishing expedition. If the call had been about a suspect of a different race, another person of that different race would have been seized and fished.

The pretext was "matching the description". You can't possibly match a description if there is only one characteristic--in this case being white. The problem isn't with the word match--white is white. The problem is that one or two characteristics is not an adequate description to go around seizing people. Unless the person is described as having some very unusual characteristic like wearing an Easter bunny costume, one or two characteristics is nowhere near enough to identify an individual--to single him out from most other people.

"He was white and wearing jeans." "We got him, Sarge!" "That's the mayor, you idiot!"

I've read too many reports of police claiming the detainee "matched the description" when the description only had a few characteristics that would come no where near distinguishing the suspect. Some of those reports were in court cases where the appellate courts rejected the seizure. Some cops seem to want to bolster their argument by focusing on the word match, hoping nobody will look too close at the adequacy of the description. Basically its just another form of lying. Call it deliberate misdirection.
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Very good in the second Vid. (Curious as to which camera you are using?)

The first vid is just wrong. A white male is not enough to stop every white male in the area. From what we heard on the audio they had a prowler in the front yard... not sure if there is enough evidence of a crime being committed. The caller could of just seen someone retrieving a baseball from the yard, or any other innocent act....

Personally, I would follow up with a complaint. Yes, you did voluntarily give up some rights, but that does not excuse their behavior... I believe they overstepped their "Terry Stop" bounds....
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
A person's presence in a high-crime area at a “late hour” does not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion to detain that person. State v. Ellwood, 52 Wn. App. 70, 74, 757 P.2d 547 (1988) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21-22). Similarly, a person's “mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not justify the stop.” State v. Thompson, 93 Wn.2d 838, 841, 613 P.2d 525 (1980). A traffic stop is a seizure for purposes of constitutional analysis. State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 350, 979 P.2d 833 (1999).
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Which Agency stopped you?

As far as I can tell the description the officers told you about would not be adequate, just being a white guy should not be PC.... now if it was white guy 5'7'' 200 pounds with brown hair and you happen to meet that description then maybe.... but not just being white....

"it's probably not you, so we're going to run your gun and send you on your way"

huh? my response would've been "well that sounds like I'm not a suspect anymore, I want my gun now and I'd like to go on my way"
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Does anyone happen to know the case law that says when they activate their lights it is a detention because a normal person would not feel free to leave? I read it in the news a couple years ago, can't find it now.
The officer hit the lights before he spoke with me.

I'm declining to state what agency it was.
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
HMMM did this really happen to our troll suspect?
Are you always this paranoid or do you just have a weird sense of humor? You think I used actors? Maybe I'm a UN spy sent to spy on and expose OCers as naughty naughty men? :banghead:


As far as I can tell the description the officers told you about would not be adequate, just being a white guy should not be PC.... now if it was white guy 5'7'' 200 pounds with brown hair and you happen to meet that description then maybe.... but not just being white...

True. I don't know what the full description given to the officers was though. Definitely not PC, there is at least a case for good faith but mistaken RAS. He hit the lights and ordered me to put my hands on the vehicle a little early.

I've read too many reports of police claiming the detainee "matched the description" when the description only had a few characteristics that would come no where near distinguishing the suspect. Some of those reports were in court cases where the appellate courts rejected the seizure. Some cops seem to want to bolster their argument by focusing on the word match, hoping nobody will look too close at the adequacy of the description.
Do you happen to know what any of those cases are?
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Just a friendly tip, in your last post you quoted trigger doctor, then put statements from me and another user in quotes under that with no attribution, gives the impression that trigger doctor said the other two quoted statements which is misattribution and against forum rules... just a heads up.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Are you always this paranoid or do you just have a weird sense of humor? You think I used actors? Maybe I'm a UN spy sent to spy on and expose OCers as naughty naughty men? :banghead:

No, not paranoid, I just am doubtful of anyone who had an encounter with PD, that had the ear marks of a bad stop. Not wanting to ID the pd makes me wonder why not? It would be of benefit to the rest of us in the event we should happen upon the same PD.
Maybe you are working with the PD to find out what we would do in a similar circumstance. There are many more reasons that the PD should be identified than not.
I do wonder if you are sincere or a troll. Maybe a sincere troll.:lol:
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Just a friendly tip, in your last post you quoted trigger doctor, then put statements from me and another user in quotes under that with no attribution, gives the impression that trigger doctor said the other two quoted statements which is misattribution and against forum rules... just a heads up.
Sorry, the quoty thingy is different than it used to be. Won't happen again.
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
WA LEO Digest, The Law Enforcement Digest is prepared by Ms. Shannon Inglis of the Washington State Attorney General's Office as a service to criminal justice practitioners. Each month Ms. Inglis selects court cases she feels are significant to the law enforcement community.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf


State v. Gantt, 163 Wn. App. 133 (Div. III, 2011) Nov. ’11 LED:10 (Turning on overhead flashers and asking person near to and apparently associated with vehicle to explain his presence was seizure); State v. Stroud, 30 Wn. App. 392 (Div. II, 1981) Feb. '82 LED:05 (Turning on overhead flashers was a seizure)
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
The other thing....

it doesn't appear there was allegation that the OP actually violated a law.

"prowling" may be a suspicious activity, but unless he's prowling on their private property it's not a crime... even then second degree trespass is only a misdemeanor and it's unlikely one would go to jail for a first time misdemeanor....

so not only was it a bad detention, it wasn't even a detention on nessecarily violating the law...
 
Top