Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: Criminal Lawyer .com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Stevens
    Posts
    72

    Criminal Lawyer .com

    Can someone please provide links and RCW's that refute the claim found here:

    ''Frisk'' of a Vehicle and its Occupants

    After stopping a car for a traffic violation or because of a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police are permitted to conduct a frisk for weapons if he or she has, or develops, a reasonable suspicion that the car's driver or passengers might be armed or dangerous.

    If officers have reasonable suspicion for a frisk, they can frisk not only the suspect, but also the areas in the vehicle over which the suspect would have immediate control and which could contain a weapon, such as under the seat or a bag on a seat. Officers can frisk these areas of the vehicle even if the suspect is no longer in the vehicle.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lante's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    122
    Not sure what this has to do with Open Carry....but...

    The difference is that we are in Washington. The Washington Constitution Article 1 section 7 reads: "SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

    This is significantly different than the Federal 4th amendment, which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Some crucial differences are "disturbed" vs "unreasonable searches and seizures"; "private affairs" vs "persons, houses, papers and effects". The framers of the Washington Constitution were concerned that the rapid pace of technological advance at the time might render "papers and effects" moot, as the US Congress was attempting to limit those protections. As well they choose "disturbed" as there were efforts in the US Congress to widen what was "reasonable" - such as Congress demanding private businesses turn over business papers.

    A good case showing the distinction in action comes from education law. In New Jersey v T.L.O. the U.S. Supreme Court said that school officials may search a student or a student’s property without a warrant and without probable cause. The Court ruled that students are under the authority of school administrators and simply must be reasonable. In Washington State the State Supreme Court held that school administrators are public officials and that children were not voluntarily under their authority. Therefore Washington holds searches to a higher standard than the US Supreme Court. In Washington schools must have “individualized reasonable suspicion.” The school exemption for warrants: "Teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds that often requires swift action“ – State v McKinnon (1977).
    Last edited by Lante; 02-08-2014 at 09:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Why wouldn't this be true? The key is reasonable suspicion, which would be something like report of a crime involving a weapon and the subject/vehicle match the description given, etc. A CPL should not be grounds for reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous, though it has been used in other states as grounds for a stop (whether that will hold up in court is another story), if that's what you're getting at.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    I can't post the link from my fone, but I can tell you where to find it.
    Go to the WA Law Enforcement Digest page, down towards the bottom there are a few other guides for prosecutors and whatnot.
    One of them has as an appendix a 15-or-so page table comparing the 4A to A1S7. Among a lot of other interesting information, it explains (I believe this is the term used) that individualized suspicion is needed. Officers are not even allowed to ask a passengers name without an articulable reason to do so, much less frisk passengers just because.
    I'll edit in a link sometime later if no one beats me to it.

    I believe this is the link. It's the last pages of the doc if I recall correctly.

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/im...onfessions.pdf

    This one is good too:

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/im...%2001%2013.pdf

    Recall some states have little to no state constitutional protection against searches and seizures, and the 4A is pretty much neutered at this point. The table points that out on a lot of issues. We have it pretty good in WA state.
    Last edited by 509rifas; 02-11-2014 at 04:00 AM.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    Can someone please provide links and RCW's that refute the claim found here:


    The police (and you) are bound not only by statutory law, but by common law. Do your own research and get back to us.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    The police (and you) are bound not only by statutory law, but by common law. Do your own research and get back to us.[/COLOR]
    I think you miss the point in asking questions.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Stevens
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    I think you miss the point in asking questions.
    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Stevens
    Posts
    72
    Thank you all for you info. I had a run in the other day and am trying to see what options are open to me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by jfslicer View Post
    Thank you all for you info. I had a run in the other day and am trying to see what options are open to me.
    Just remember most courts will error on the side of safety and it depends on what/ how the officer articulates the incident.

    Also I'm sure the officer probably didn't tell you everything he saw/ thought to justify in his head for the stop and incident. Sometimes from the receiving end something seems way out of line but in the other side it seems justified from observations of the person, vehicle, are etc.

    If your being charged criminally you can try and get it tossed on exclusionary grounds. If your just contemplating a civil suit for the detainment and pat frisk then that's a whole different can of worms.

    Obviously your lawyer is the best person to ask or run it by. Just giving you a heads up pat frisks are pretty routine depending on state, city, area, etc.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Routine = "OK"?

    Sounds more like the sowing of the seeds of doubt than any real assistance. Unless of course one's version of "help" is to encourage submission of rights and freedom.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Just remember most courts will error on the side of safety and it depends on what/ how the officer articulates the incident.
    And of course there's the possibility the officer involved is a Brady List cop, or soon to be on that list. Exposing corruption seems to be a favorite pastime here.

    Also I'm sure the officer probably didn't tell you everything he saw/ thought to justify in his head for the stop and incident. Sometimes from the receiving end something seems way out of line but in the other side it seems justified from observations of the person, vehicle, are etc.
    This is where video is your friend. No cop will formulate a story to support YOUR side, and they are "trained" to lie. We nor the courts know where the cut off line for deceit lies. Audio / video can empower us, and take away much of the assigned credibility of those with little earned credibility.

    If your being charged criminally you can try and get it tossed on exclusionary grounds. If your just contemplating a civil suit for the detainment and pat frisk then that's a whole different can of worms.

    Obviously your lawyer is the best person to ask or run it by. Just giving you a heads up pat frisks are pretty routine depending on state, city, area, etc.
    For many of us, half the adventure is the learning. Discovering our protections, recognizing when we're violated, developing methods of exercising our rights without paying someone else to do it for us. I don't seek medical attention every time I get an ouch. I do when it's beyond my scope of treatment. My scope has been expanded through experience. I gained experience by doing. And reaching out to others for guidance when I wasn't sure where to look.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Good luck in your hunt for answers. Beware the distractions of statists that would have you disregard your rights and simply submit to all intrusions by unethical and immoral government sanctioned pirates.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 02-09-2014 at 02:41 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  12. #12
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by jfslicer View Post
    Thank you all for you info. I had a run in the other day and am trying to see what options are open to me.
    Have you got a hold of the officers report already? If not you can go to the courthouse and ask for the reports filed for your case, if it's been forwarded for prosecution. Once you get that you'll know precisely what you're facing. You should also do a public records request under rcw 42.56 for everything involved in the case. It's amazing home some cops will openly talk about using illegal pretext over the radio. A lot of depts communicate mainly though instant messenger so request those too.
    Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions here about the run-in. Not sure if you mean it just happened with no ill effects or your cousin dropped his prescription in your car while you were giving her a ride and now you have felony dope charges.
    In my personal experience I know of several officers that will directly lie about their authority at traffic stops, going so far to say that if they don't sign a consent to search form at a speeding stop they can impound it to wait for a warrant. I know a guy fighting a case right now on "coerced consent."
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Troopers or Sheriff? If Sheriff's the reports are super easy to get and Tara is very cooperative in the sheriffs office.

    If it is the troopers I have a friend who has gotten a few at the state level.

    Primus is wrong courts won't necessarily err on the side of safety especially in Washington and our strong constitution.

    From what I hear you have good reason for a lawsuit, and the officers acted criminally, good luck on getting the state to prosecute the voluminous crimes of the costumed agents though.
    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)

  14. #14
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post



    Primus is wrong courts won't necessarily err on the side of safety especially in Washington and our strong constitution.
    I really wish you'd stop using the term "side of safety" instead of "in a light most favorable to the state," which I believe is what most of the rulings use as well, particularly since many of the incidents have nothing to do with safety.
    Eg, Guy gets ordered out for safety. He gets cuffed for safety, in which case there is no danger of him accessing weapons in the vehicle, or the officer turns his back on an unrestrained man in the name of safety.
    They're just looking for dope!

    But you're right Gunner, the state constitution has some muscle, with the right argument and as long as long as the report isn't falsified. That's why I always advocate recording even with simple traffic stops. There's officers on the dept where I live that do things like search the car without consent on "failure to signal" stops and then claim what they found (or "found" according to some people) was in plain sight. Others, as I mentioned, hold people for lengths of time and threaten them to sign consent forms. I've heard similar stories from a number of different people about the same few officers, so I know it's at least based on a true story. Point is, record what happens, if they do something blatantly illegal, make threats, detain you improperly long, or whatever, you will have proof. In the court of law you vs the officer means the officer wins, so without a recording it all went down the way they say it went down.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    I really wish you'd stop using the term "side of safety" instead of "in a light most favorable to the state," which I believe is what most of the rulings use as well, particularly since many of the incidents have nothing to do with safety.
    Eg, Guy gets ordered out for safety. He gets cuffed for safety, in which case there is no danger of him accessing weapons in the vehicle, or the officer turns his back on an unrestrained man in the name of safety.
    They're just looking for dope!

    But you're right Gunner, the state constitution has some muscle, with the right argument and as long as long as the report isn't falsified. That's why I always advocate recording even with simple traffic stops. There's officers on the dept where I live that do things like search the car without consent on "failure to signal" stops and then claim what they found (or "found" according to some people) was in plain sight. Others, as I mentioned, hold people for lengths of time and threaten them to sign consent forms. I've heard similar stories from a number of different people about the same few officers, so I know it's at least based on a true story. Point is, record what happens, if they do something blatantly illegal, make threats, detain you improperly long, or whatever, you will have proof. In the court of law you vs the officer means the officer wins, so without a recording it all went down the way they say it went down.
    Here's the deal. When I get someone out of a car its for my safety and theirs. My safety so they don't hurt me and theirs so I don't hurt then for trying to hurt me. Period.

    I don't dictate what others guys do. So when I discuss things like exit orders I will always fall back on personal experience of doing the right thing.

    You can revert to any version of whatever you want my friend. I will not present myself as being corrupt or shady when I'm not ,simply to satisfy your preconceived notion based on things you read about on the internet or maybe the one dousche bag officer you met.

    Just like my OPINION about courts. If in tell a court I pulled someone out of a court because they were reaching for something and they are known to be a gang member leaving a crappy neighborhood where they've been caught with guns or drugs or whatever I use to justify my exit order then that's what I mean. And guess what. The courts will side with that more often then not why? Because its reasonable.

    To the op... good luck with your endeavors. As I said talk to a lawyer. Head the only one who knows all the details and every case law pertaining to your specific area.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Stevens
    Posts
    72
    Thanks for the support! I'll release the story of what happened when I think it's wise and safe to do so. In the mean time I appreciate all the information you have provided!

  17. #17
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Here's the deal. When I get someone out of a car its for my safety and theirs. My safety so they don't hurt me and theirs so I don't hurt then for trying to hurt me. Period.

    I don't dictate what others guys do. So when I discuss things like exit orders I will always fall back on personal experience of doing the right thing.

    You can revert to any version of whatever you want my friend. I will not present myself as being corrupt or shady when I'm not ,simply to satisfy your preconceived notion based on things you read about on the internet or maybe the one dousche bag officer you met.

    Just like my OPINION about courts. If in tell a court I pulled someone out of a court because they were reaching for something and they are known to be a gang member leaving a crappy neighborhood where they've been caught with guns or drugs or whatever I use to justify my exit order then that's what I mean. And guess what. The courts will side with that more often then not why? Because its reasonable.

    To the op... good luck with your endeavors. As I said talk to a lawyer. Head the only one who knows all the details and every case law pertaining to your specific area.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    I wasn't referring to anything you said specifically, and I'm not challenging your sincerity in doing what you do how you do it for safety. Officer safety is certainly a real thing, I'm not at all saying that officer safety is never a reasonable justification for an exit order, such as the example you referred to.
    I just meant that the argument of "safety" is often used when safety isn't really at issue, and is often used as a pretext. For example when I got arrested for filming a SWAT raid while standing in a crowd of bystanders the report said I posed a threat to officer safety because I had not been frisked. They still didn't frisk me until they were releasing me, which leads me to doubt the truthfulness of the officer safety claim. None of my notions are based on internet readings, they are based on people I know talking about officers I also know. I'm not lumping them all together, there are certainly very good and professional officers on the department that do their job very well and their work counteracts the general doushebag reputation that others have caused the department. And most fall somewhere in between, in my experience. That's why I recommend recording, since you never really know how it's going to go down in the report, and the recording keeps all parties honest. Same reason I favor dashcams and lapel cams or even those audio recorders that Seattle PD is supposed to carry. No one can argue with a recording, it removes any doubt of officer misconduct and makes sure that the outcome is based on neutral truth and not the courts decision to believe this or that person.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    I wasn't referring to anything you said specifically, and I'm not challenging your sincerity in doing what you do how you do it for safety. Officer safety is certainly a real thing, I'm not at all saying that officer safety is never a reasonable justification for an exit order, such as the example you referred to.
    I just meant that the argument of "safety" is often used when safety isn't really at issue, and is often used as a pretext. For example when I got arrested for filming a SWAT raid while standing in a crowd of bystanders the report said I posed a threat to officer safety because I had not been frisked. They still didn't frisk me until they were releasing me, which leads me to doubt the truthfulness of the officer safety claim. None of my notions are based on internet readings, they are based on people I know talking about officers I also know. I'm not lumping them all together, there are certainly very good and professional officers on the department that do their job very well and their work counteracts the general doushebag reputation that others have caused the department. And most fall somewhere in between, in my experience. That's why I recommend recording, since you never really know how it's going to go down in the report, and the recording keeps all parties honest. Same reason I favor dashcams and lapel cams or even those audio recorders that Seattle PD is supposed to carry. No one can argue with a recording, it removes any doubt of officer misconduct and makes sure that the outcome is based on neutral truth and not the courts decision to believe this or that person.
    I agree with recordings. I'm the kind of guy who just smiles and waves when the local kids video tape me with cell phones to put in their cell phones.

    Unfortunately the few d bags are the one that make it an daily uphill battle for guys like myself. If I could slap them I would.

    Unfortunately with the internet and social media then second a cop yanks a kid out of a car because he had attitude it makes me yanking a a guy from a car because he is legitimate lay bad all look bad and the same.

    Unfortunately web do this to ourselves 90% of the time. I'm glad you do understand and acknowledge officer safety is a real thing used by and for non d bag officers.

    We do exist I promise. Like a friggin big foot.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Officer safety isn't a good enough reason to violate rights and is a misused rationalization over and over again. If you can't do your job within the restrictions put upon you.......find another job.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Officer safety isn't a good enough reason to violate rights and is a misused rationalization over and over again. If you can't do your job within the restrictions put upon you.......find another job.
    No thanks.. I like my job. You obviously missed the part where I said its about safety of the citizen too.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No thanks.. I like my job. You obviously missed the part where I said its about safety of the citizen too.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    No I didn't miss that part. It has no bearing on my statement. Glad you are being honest you don't care about the rights of others as long as "safety" is followed.
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Here's the deal. When I get someone out of a car its for my safety and theirs. My safety so they don't hurt me and theirs so I don't hurt then for trying to hurt me. Period. <snip>
    No, it is not about the citizen's safety, ever. Contrary to what LE desires the citizenry to believe.

    A rational and reasonable citizen will never be safer when a cop removes them from their vehicle. A rational and reasonable citizen will never be safer when a cop cuffs them. A rational and reasonable citizen will never be safer when a cop severely restricts the ability of the citizen to defend themselves.

    I am responsible to defend myself and my family. Cops taking upon themselves that task is anti-liberty and anti-citizen. There are instances where cops are terribly inept and protecting anyone. There have beeen, and will be, incidents where the cops were the greatest threat to a citizen's safety.....Donner incidents. NYC, cop(s) shoot innocent bystanders. In fact, it is the norm that cops cannot protect anyone.

    Any cop who claims "for my safety too" loses my respect, exceedingly so.

    Cops have a right to defend themselves from harm. Cops must not deprive me of the same right simply because the courts allow them to. You display, again, the mindset of the warrior cop and not the mindset of the peace officer. Unfortunate.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No I didn't miss that part. It has no bearing on my statement. Glad you are being honest you don't care about the rights of others as long as "safety" is followed.
    Correct because i hold the right to life above any other. Mine and theirs

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Correct because i hold the right to life above any other. Mine and theirs

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    In your world view, what is the 'proper hierarchy of rights?'

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Any police officer who tells you that they are trying to protect you and that you should trust that is ignoring this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

    The police can decide to "not" protect you whenever they want and the courts will most likely use this precedent later to uphold the action. So if a cop is going to put you in cuffs for your own safety, that is always a crock of crap. it's because they want to.
    Last edited by Alpine; 02-10-2014 at 01:38 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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