• 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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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...

No, no, no.

Police need leeway to do the job the public expects.

And, Terry doctrine makes it clear police can evaluate situations in light of their experience with criminals.

So, under a certain poster's recent rationale, this was a valid stop because police need leeway. And, since prowling is the early stage of burglary, breaking into cars, and stealing lawn clippings, this was clearly both a legal stop and a stop for which the cops had valid suspicion of crime.*

/sarcasm



*Actually, since cops seem always on the prowl, the suspected offense was probably impersonating a police officer. / more sarcasm
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
No, no, no.

Police need leeway to do the job the public expects.

And, Terry doctrine makes it clear police can evaluate situations in light of their experience with criminals.

So, under a certain poster's recent rationale, this was a valid stop because police need leeway. And, since prowling is the early stage of burglary, breaking into cars, and stealing lawn clippings, this was clearly both a legal stop and a stop for which the cops had valid suspicion of crime.*

/sarcasm



*Actually, since cops seem always on the prowl, the suspected offense was probably impersonating a police officer. / more sarcasm

Now. I'm starting to feel itchy from all this straw.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Now. I'm starting to feel itchy from all this straw.

No problem. With all the leeway certain posters want police to have, they'll be able to detain twice the usual number of suspects* for you.



*From one of the early lines in the movie Casablanca. Vichy Capt. Renault is talking to German Major Strasser about finding the killer of the courier, promising to round up lots of people to question them about the murder and try to recover the letter of transit/exit visa taken from the dead courier. The implication being Renault didn't give a rip whether he was detaining and questioning innocent people.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Now. I'm starting to feel itchy from all this straw.

Straw would be putting forth an argument you didn't make and arguing that as if you did........he put forth arguments you have made........remember you feel it's just a slight inconvenience you feel is acceptable.

I hope it doesn't happen to you Eric, but someday you actually might have an encounter that opens your eyes to the nature of "control".
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Was that a coors light on the hood of the car? :lol:

I am under no obligation to answer any questions.

EMNofSeattle said:
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...

I disagree. A call from an individual that someone is prowling their yard is for sure RAS. At a minimum it is a misdemeanor, and it does give them the RAS to investigate if some is, was, or is about to be involved in criminal activity.

PROVIDED the guy they find is the guy doing it. In my case, only the two factors of proximity and same race existed. The officer lit up right when he pulled up, so the detention began there with only those two factors, so in my opinion RAS did not exist.
He did ask me where I was coming from after he lit up (detaining me.) I didn't have to answer that, but I did anyway. Had I said that prior to the detention, the matching race and being in the location of the incident around the same time as the incident would probably hold up in court as RAS.
I think the initial officer actually thought I was the guy... until he ran my name (we've met before in refuse-to-indentify circumstances when he was new... other officers caught up with us down the road. The same road as in both the videos.) Then it was just a fishing trip because the whole shift was tied up with me and blonde James got away.

On another note, they took off to their next call and I noticed a few minutes later I didn't have my knife on me. So I called the police, and they said they'd contact me when they're clear of the call. Then I reached for my flashlight to check the ground for it, same thing. I heard a "whooop" behind me and the guy got out and gave me my knife and flashlight back.

And if you hear at the end when the sgt says "inspect your magazines closely before you put them in your gun." He inserted the top rounds backwards.

Very good in the second Vid. (Curious as to which camera you are using?)

This one.
http://www.amazon.com/Veho-Camcorde...2867446&sr=1-1&keywords=gumball+hidden+camera

I'd got a few of those cheap pen cams before but they only work occasionally. On this one I've had a couple times where it didn't recognize the disk but other than that it's a good camera with a buttload of accessories.

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....

I've always been cynical about complaint filing. It's come out that in Seattle certain officers have had hundreds of excessive force complaints per year and didn't even affect their performance reviews.
What I have done in the past has been to mainly do Public Records Act requests about incidents. It accomplishes the same thing- brings it to the attention of their superiors, and lets them know that you know how the law works and can appropriately respond. Violations are the PRA can be pretty serious. The next town over just nearly got bankrupted for dragging their feet on one guys request. Angry letters pointing out all the violations of law don't help.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Was that a coors light on the hood of the car? :lol:
I am under no obligation to answer any questions.

Though it was in plain site!

SMC 5.58.010 Alcoholic beverages.
Except as permitted by the Washington Liquor Act, RCW Title 66 and SMC 12.04.020(H), and as set forth in this section, no person, group or organization shall open a package containing liquor or consume liquor in a public place, nor building or park owned or operated by the City without complying with the provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 2012-23 § 1, 2012.]

Wouldn't that make their stop! hmm... lawful?
Though they were looking for a white male in the immediate area and behold there is someone that fits a minimal description in the area close to the reported time and drinking a beer while walking down the road where it is illegal to do so.

When going about in a demonstration of supporting ones rights and you pick a late night area, in an area according to your post "half of them are afraid to go out at night because of all the non-white males that live in the area." and drinking a beer in public where it is illegal to do so.

How about going about your Day during Daylight hours and not drinking a beer where illegal to do so and see if you receive the same interaction with citizens or law enforcement, really cruising the streets at night for nothing better to do.
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Though it was in plain site!

SMC 5.58.010 Alcoholic beverages.
Except as permitted by the Washington Liquor Act, RCW Title 66 and SMC 12.04.020(H), and as set forth in this section, no person, group or organization shall open a package containing liquor or consume liquor in a public place, nor building or park owned or operated by the City without complying with the provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 2012-23 § 1, 2012.]

Wouldn't that make their stop! hmm... lawful?
Though they were looking for a white male in the immediate area and behold there is someone that fits a minimal description in the area close to the reported time and drinking a beer while walking down the road where it is illegal to do so.

When going about in a demonstration of supporting ones rights and you pick a late night area, in an area according to your post "half of them are afraid to go out at night because of all the non-white males that live in the area." and drinking a beer in public where it is illegal to do so.


I keep forgetting no one here gets my sense of humor.

Yes it was, it was also closed, and in my pocket, inside my jacket. Notice how it is pulled out during the search, the pat down of the outer layer of clothing to feel for hard objects that may be weapons. And is not mentioned at any point in time, as it was obviously irrelevant, had nothing to do with the cause for the stop. I was not drinking a beer. Did you have the audio on for the stop?

Also, that is under Title 5, which city business regulations. Don't know if that matters, but it's not an offense, even if I had been walking with an open container.


How about going about your Day during Daylight hours and not drinking a beer where illegal to do so and see if you receive the same interaction with citizens or law enforcement, really cruising the streets at night for nothing better to do.
Because my rights are 24/7
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Though it was in plain site!
SMC 5.58.010 Alcoholic beverages.
Except as permitted by the Washington Liquor Act, RCW Title 66 and SMC 12.04.020(H), and as set forth in this section, no person, group or organization shall open a package containing liquor or consume liquor in a public place, nor building or park owned or operated by the City without complying with the provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 2012-23 § 1, 2012.]

Wouldn't that make their stop! hmm... lawful?
Though they were looking for a white male in the immediate area and behold there is someone that fits a minimal description in the area close to the reported time and drinking a beer while walking down the road where it is illegal to do so.

When going about in a demonstration of supporting ones rights and you pick a late night area, in an area according to your post "half of them are afraid to go out at night because of all the non-white males that live in the area." and drinking a beer in public where it is illegal to do so.

How about going about your Day during Daylight hours and not drinking a beer where illegal to do so and see if you receive the same interaction with citizens or law enforcement, really cruising the streets at night for nothing better to do.

If you watch the video the beer is unopened.

Still playing the 'gotcha' game with everyone huh?
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
We only seen what was posted in the video as the early portion of the encounter was likely
edited and it was so dark a majority of it was useless even with the audio.
I expected nothing less when you responded about your conduct 24/7 take stock in
your part of the encounter/s .
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Nick stop being so childish!
He has a point. (that is, Nick has a point)

I expected nothing less when you responded about your conduct 24/7 take stock in
your part of the encounter/s

To clarify, I COMPLETELY reject the notion that my rights end when the sun goes down or the tweakers and cholos come out. I do not accept any interpretation of the Washington or US Constitution that invites that people in nicer areas have more rights, and those rights are at their highest point on sunny days, and that those that live in areas with higher crime rates to suffered diminished expectations of freedom. No freakin' way.

I wasn't out "exercising my rights" as in carrying in the open or just walking for no reason. I was walking to the store several blocks from my house. I don't work a M-F 9-5 so I'm sorry if my schedule doesn't jive with what your idea of when freedom applies and when it's just something that criminals pretend to have.

A self-imposed curfew is far worse that a government imposed one. Implying that people deserve to be stopped because they are in this or that place at this or that time is already headed down the slippery slope of surrendering all your rights. It's just like saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, just give them your ID and tell them your life story." Even the officer in the second video understood that, I don't see how someone on OCDO doesn't. By disparaging the rights of others you ultimately destroy your own.

We only seen what was posted in the video as the early portion of the encounter was likely
edited and it was so dark a majority of it was useless even with the audio
If you listened to it, you would hear the officers explaining why they stopped me. And you also hear them finding out I was not the particular individual they were looking for. Te encounter begins with me walking and activating the camera when the officer slowed, and you can hear the engine revving as he turned around, then he contacted me. If it would make you feel better I can post the version from my phone cam that has about 45 seconds prior to the contact.

And yes, I realized I waived some rights; partly because I was nervous due to two cop cars pulling up, activating the lights, ordering me to the hood and patting me down while I was armed, and, because I tend to co-operate to an extent when it's apparent the cops are actually out on a call and not just fishing. I realize I don't have to, but I do.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
509rifas yes take no responsibility on your own behalf.

The stop was legal, you fit a vague description and were in the immediate area at the time of the incident. It does not matter what you think or feel it meets RAS or not, if you feel you were violated then step up to the plate and find a lawyer.

The officers were fine in their stopping and questioning you ever so briefly and you are just trying to make this out to be something more then it is.
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
509rifas yes take no responsibility on your own behalf.

The stop was legal, you fit a vague description and were in the immediate area at the time of the incident. It does not matter what you think or feel it meets RAS or not, if you feel you were violated then step up to the plate and find a lawyer.

The officers were fine in their stopping and questioning you ever so briefly and you are just trying to make this out to be something more then it is.

You obviously haven't read through all of my posts, or watched the video for that matter.

To wit: I have been saying merely that I was detained initially when only being the same race and in the same area. That's not RAS. I haven't been "making it something it's not", I posted it as an example of what can happen when you are lawfully armed but are mistaken for a suspect, that is all.

And you have shown from your posts that you either watched only a small part of the video or watched it on mute, or perhaps drunk. Many of the questions you posed in your posts were answered in the video.
 
Last edited:

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
509rifas yes take no responsibility on your own behalf.

I'm still trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or serious.
Do you mean take no responsibility because I relinquished rights by answering questions instead of asking if I was free to leave and therefore bear no responsibility for the events?
Or do you mean that as in I have to "take responsibility" for my actions of going to the store in "bad" neighborhood at and accept that we have less freedoms here in the Lower Valley than people in West Valley?
 
Last edited:
Top