sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Criminal Lawyer .com
- Thread starter jfslicer
- Start date
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.
OC for ME
Regular Member
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.
Primus
Regular Member
Correct because i hold the right to life above any other. Mine and theirs
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
In your world view, what is the 'proper hierarchy of rights?'
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_v._District_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.
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:
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Primus's post is a lie. It has nothing to do with safety. That's a distortion they've taken advantage of, kind of like allowing juvenile delinquent detention punks interpret the rules. I believe it is the "gotcha" the majority of thug cops use to suspend all your rights. In the name of officer safety, ya know.
Of course, there is little to support this. Mostly hyperbole and propaganda. They simply act like the surrender of rights because a thug cop is present is a given. It's also a tool of antagonism. Some use the violation to provoke. And they feign bewilderment why people hate them.
Primus
Regular Member
I really don't know Dave but I'd say right to life is at the top. Maybe 4a close second and then 2a and 1a. Just off the top of my head shooting from the hip.
So right to live first and foremost. Right to be free if search and seizure and then right to speak freely.
Just an opinion in response to direct question.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
carolina guy
Regular Member
Sounds like an equal justification for NEVER disarming a citizen that isn't being arrested unless the LEO disarms as well.
Primus
Regular Member
509rifas
Regular Member
Back to the topic at hand...
I have not found anything in WA case law allowing a search for weapons in the vehicle at a routine traffic stop without consent. Even with PC, a warrant is required.
"Traffic Stops. An officer may not extend a traffic stop for an infraction in order to request consent to search the vehicle unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle. See generally, State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997);"
"DRIVERS, BUT NOT PASSENGERS, MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY ORDERED OUT OF, OR BACK INTO, THEIR VEHICLES AT ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOPS
State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208 (1999) March ’99 LED:04"
Here's the whole case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ghtened+awareness+of+danger&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
BUT
"SEARCH OF MOTOR VEHICLE INCIDENT TO ARREST OF OCCUPANT GENERALLY NOT PERMITTED ONCE THE ARRESTEE IS SECURED
State v. Snapp, 172Wn.2d 177 (2012) May ’12 LED:25"
AND
"NO CARROLL DOCTRINE (NO PC CAR SEARCH EXCEPTION)
State v. Ringer, 100Wn.2d 686 (1983) Feb. ’84 LED:01
State v. Tibbles, 169Wn.2d 364 (2010) Sept ’10 LED:09"
"Const. art. I, § 7 bars warrantless searches of automobiles solely based upon probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband. State v. Ringer, 100
Wn.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983). Accord State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364, 236 P.3d 885 (2010) (exigent circumstances exception based upon destructibility of evidence and mobility of vehicle not permitted by Const. art. I, § 7)
AND
"SEARCH WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE “INCIDENT TO ARREST” UNLESS AN ACTUAL CUSTODIAL ARREST PRECEDES THE SEARCH
State v. O’Neill, 148Wn.2d 564 (2003) April ’03 LED:03
State v. Radka, 120Wn. App. 43 (Div. III, 2004) March ’04 LED:11"
(Custodial is actually taking you in.)
For those not familiar with the LED reference, it's the issue of Law Enforcement Digest where the case is discussed.
On this last one I've had experience with. WSP stopped us and my lady had a suspended license for a speeding ticket she didn't pay and was arrested, and the troopers requested consent from both of us. I said "it's her car, it's up to her." They told me I still could consent, I just said "ask her," and the left it at that, asked me which things were mine and removed them from the vehicle without searching them. She had been told they'd release her and let me drive if she consented, which they did. They didn't even ask me for ID until they were going to verify they were releasing the vehicle to a licensed driver since they're not supposed to ask, but asked me my first name when they first spoke to me so they'd have something to call me. I'd never seen cops follow the law so stringently before.
I got the reference from "Law Enforcement Legal Update Outline: Cases on arrest, search, seizure, and other topical areas of interest to law enforcement officers; plus a chronology of independent grounds rulings under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution. By John R. Wasberg (Retired Senior Counsel, Office of the Washington State Attorney General) " found at https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf
I also incorrectly stated earlier about the chart that shows the differences (which are pretty amazing) between the 4A and A1S7. I imagine people from Cali or NY crap their pants from too much freedom when they get here. That document is found here https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/May 2012 final Search Seizures and Confessions.pdf It's the last dozen or so pages.
I highly recommend reading the LED page, if you don't alreay. Highly informative up to date info on WA and Fed case law. https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80
I have not found anything in WA case law allowing a search for weapons in the vehicle at a routine traffic stop without consent. Even with PC, a warrant is required.
"Traffic Stops. An officer may not extend a traffic stop for an infraction in order to request consent to search the vehicle unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle. See generally, State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997);"
"DRIVERS, BUT NOT PASSENGERS, MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY ORDERED OUT OF, OR BACK INTO, THEIR VEHICLES AT ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOPS
State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208 (1999) March ’99 LED:04"
Here's the whole case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ghtened+awareness+of+danger&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
BUT
"SEARCH OF MOTOR VEHICLE INCIDENT TO ARREST OF OCCUPANT GENERALLY NOT PERMITTED ONCE THE ARRESTEE IS SECURED
State v. Snapp, 172Wn.2d 177 (2012) May ’12 LED:25"
AND
"NO CARROLL DOCTRINE (NO PC CAR SEARCH EXCEPTION)
State v. Ringer, 100Wn.2d 686 (1983) Feb. ’84 LED:01
State v. Tibbles, 169Wn.2d 364 (2010) Sept ’10 LED:09"
"Const. art. I, § 7 bars warrantless searches of automobiles solely based upon probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband. State v. Ringer, 100
Wn.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983). Accord State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364, 236 P.3d 885 (2010) (exigent circumstances exception based upon destructibility of evidence and mobility of vehicle not permitted by Const. art. I, § 7)
AND
"SEARCH WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE “INCIDENT TO ARREST” UNLESS AN ACTUAL CUSTODIAL ARREST PRECEDES THE SEARCH
State v. O’Neill, 148Wn.2d 564 (2003) April ’03 LED:03
State v. Radka, 120Wn. App. 43 (Div. III, 2004) March ’04 LED:11"
(Custodial is actually taking you in.)
For those not familiar with the LED reference, it's the issue of Law Enforcement Digest where the case is discussed.
On this last one I've had experience with. WSP stopped us and my lady had a suspended license for a speeding ticket she didn't pay and was arrested, and the troopers requested consent from both of us. I said "it's her car, it's up to her." They told me I still could consent, I just said "ask her," and the left it at that, asked me which things were mine and removed them from the vehicle without searching them. She had been told they'd release her and let me drive if she consented, which they did. They didn't even ask me for ID until they were going to verify they were releasing the vehicle to a licensed driver since they're not supposed to ask, but asked me my first name when they first spoke to me so they'd have something to call me. I'd never seen cops follow the law so stringently before.
I got the reference from "Law Enforcement Legal Update Outline: Cases on arrest, search, seizure, and other topical areas of interest to law enforcement officers; plus a chronology of independent grounds rulings under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution. By John R. Wasberg (Retired Senior Counsel, Office of the Washington State Attorney General) " found at https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf
I also incorrectly stated earlier about the chart that shows the differences (which are pretty amazing) between the 4A and A1S7. I imagine people from Cali or NY crap their pants from too much freedom when they get here. That document is found here https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/May 2012 final Search Seizures and Confessions.pdf It's the last dozen or so pages.
I highly recommend reading the LED page, if you don't alreay. Highly informative up to date info on WA and Fed case law. https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
+1 Contrary to the "safety" concerns of some.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Primus;2034097[B said:
Please stop being a cop. Your safety does not trump the restrictions put upon you. Maybe you get away with violating rights because your state/locality like many others have put costumed agents of the state on a nondeserving pedestal and you fully buy into the hype, but it is horribly immoral and contrary to the principles of a free society.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
I agree it doesn't trump restrictions. Hence we are allowed to pat frisk. Hence we are allowed to issue exit orders and pat frisk vehicles. Those are within our restrictions. There is balance between safety and rights.
Things like exclusionary rules/ fruits of a poisonous tree are all designed to act as checks on us.
There is no pedestal. As usual someone (this time you unfortunately) are attempting to make this us vs. Them. I've provided the cites and explained how it protects YOU as well as me. You just choose to ignore all of that.
I don't get shot by citizen and I don't have to shoot them for trying to shoot me. Its very basic and straight forward.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
You can provide all the cites that you want that claim why it is so important for you to ignore the restrictions put upon you as a servant, it won't waiver the fact that those restrictions then don't mean a thing if you can ignore them for "safety".
I quoted in context your words, you care more about your job than the constitution or peoples rights. Your continual reliance on statistis judges cites that conform to your sense of entitlement don't mean a wit to those who love liberty over safety.
Primus
Regular Member
Svg... that's a lie. You quoted and bolded where I said the RIGHT TO LIFE trumps everything else. I never said my "job" was more important.
Kind of low of you to twist like that. Leave that to the other guys on here.
Again... no sense of entitlement. What entitlement? What do I supposedly feel I'm entitled to? All I'm entitled to is to go home at the end of the night just like your entitled to go home in the end too.
YOUR putting me on pedestal. YOUR trying to assign me "entitlements" not me. I'm trying as always to to tell you we are no different. For some reason you dont like that.
Finally and most importantly.... "those who love liberty over safety".
That quote can mean a lot and I'm not sure how you meant it. Some hardcore guys like the give me liberty or give me death kind of stuff. That's good for you if you want that. The other 99% of people don't want to die to prove a point they don't have to do something or that they can do something in the name of liberty.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
carolina guy
Regular Member
I think the problem that a lot of people have with the "safety" issues v. liberty is that while the LEO values "going home at the end of the day", a LAC v. LEO encounter that goes sideways (let's focus on one that that properly shouldn't have) does NOT usually result in the LAC going home at the end of the day. Rather, the LAC has days/months/years of legal fights ahead once they have secured their release from imprisonment. Perhaps they get monetary (or other) redress at a LATER date, but the time and effort spent can be devastating for the average LAC. For the vast majority of people, this is NOT a solution and results in people giving up rights because the penalty for thwarting the system, even when the LAC is absolutely correct is just too high.
It is the ATTITUDE of "us v them" on the part of the LEO community in general that really rankles most people, especially since the system seems to be heavily weighted against the LAC (ie the presumption of innocence and correctness given the LEO).
Last edited:
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
If THIS IS TRUE?????
Then dont EVER Cuff me for OUR ,,,,SAFETY!!!!
you dont have the right to decide which of my Unalienable rights are most important...
Endowed by our creator to the RIGHT,,, to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
GET OFF MY LAWN.....
If THIS IS TRUE?????
Then dont EVER Cuff me for OUR ,,,,SAFETY!!!!
you dont have the right to decide which of my Unalienable rights are most important...
Endowed by our creator to the RIGHT,,, to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
GET OFF MY LAWN.....
Primus
Regular Member
Well said Carolina and I understand.
All that I would like to point out about the us vs them thing is take this forum for example. Who is pushing the us vs them idea? Not I. I'm not starting threads discussing out bad citizens are or how much they get away with or saying laws should be tougher on them. Nor are any other current or former leos on here.
I agree that many cops get jaded and fall into the us/them mentality. I see it on a daily basis from the same guys. We've had our words and discussions about it but that doesn't change them or anyone else.
Finally when I refer to safety of officer and citizen and being able to go home I mean exactly that. Living another day. I understand citizens go through quite the process. I've been there myself. But I'm referring to been if they are arrested they will be out on bail or after arraignment and alive to fight the battle in court. That is important to me. Safety of all involved.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
jfslicer
Regular Member
Soooo much citey goodness! Thank you!