Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Unmarked patrol cars in Wa State

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Unmarked patrol cars in Wa State

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtudZ3R6U4#t=260

    Wa police breaking the law with impunity. Because they're more equal than us.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtudZ3R6U4#t=260

    Wa police breaking the law with impunity. Because they're more equal than us.
    The legislation is clearly against using unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. It contains some reasonable exceptions, such as uses for undercover work or "traffic control", like if a police chief in his unmarked car has to shut off a lane during an emergency.

    Law enforcement, and the WA State Patrol in particular, have twisted this around and basically thumbed their noses at the legislature. And the legislature has proven too cowardly or beholden to do anything about it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    The legislation is clearly against using unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. It contains some reasonable exceptions, such as uses for undercover work or "traffic control", like if a police chief in his unmarked car has to shut off a lane during an emergency.

    Law enforcement, and the WA State Patrol in particular, have twisted this around and basically thumbed their noses at the legislature. And the legislature has proven too cowardly or beholden to do anything about it.
    I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.

    RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  4. #4
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.

    RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
    Er... how exactly does "RCW 46.61.025: Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles." have anything to do with police vehicles? >.>
    http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.025

    Ok... it took me a second... but I got the joke lol

    And if you didn't intend that to be a joke then I just made it into one :P
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 10-14-2014 at 03:11 PM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.

    RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
    Is it a joke or is it serious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Er... how exactly does "RCW 46.61.025: Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles." have anything to do with police vehicles? >.>
    http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.025

    Ok... it took me a second... but I got the joke lol

    And if you didn't intend that to be a joke then I just made it into one :P
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  6. #6
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Er... how exactly does "RCW 46.61.025: Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles." have anything to do with police vehicles? >.>
    http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.025

    Ok... it took me a second... but I got the joke lol

    And if you didn't intend that to be a joke then I just made it into one :P
    Sorry, I meant 46.61.024
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    Sorry, I meant 46.61.024
    Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.

    I'm curious where the statute is that says they CANT have unmarked cars.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.

    I'm curious where the statute is that says they CANT have unmarked cars.
    This one:

    http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.08.065
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  9. #9
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    WSP is above the law...

    http://youtu.be/Q3qe5g2gmfk

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    The mrs. wanted to stop by the jewelry store last weekend. Pulled next to a dark grey explorer. Then I noticed the lights behind the dark glass. Then on the door, a black KC insignia. Nice, fellas.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.

    I'm curious where the statute is that says they CANT have unmarked cars.
    Items not prohibited are allowed is not for the state and government agencies.
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    fighting a ticket by unmarked vehicle:

    http://youtu.be/AQVTbzyOmvg

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Items not prohibited are allowed is not for the state and government agencies.
    Then why did they need this law saying they CANT if they couldn't in the first place?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Then why did they need this law saying they CANT if they couldn't in the first place?
    Because obviously they were doing it....duh....doesn't mean it was legal.
    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)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Because obviously they were doing it....duh....doesn't mean it was legal.
    So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  16. #16
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    The mrs. wanted to stop by the jewelry store last weekend. Pulled next to a dark grey explorer. Then I noticed the lights behind the dark glass. Then on the door, a black KC insignia. Nice, fellas.
    I've seen a Chevy Astro, a couple of trucks, and a couple other cars. All totally unmarked. Didn't even have the exempt plates.
    On one of the subaru forums is a picture of a supposed Wa State Trooper in a 2011 STI.
    After I came back from my last tour we were briefed that wa state patrol had purchased some gixxers.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  17. #17
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    If one of these cars ever tries to pull me over I'm not stopping. I'll dial 911 and inform them I'm driving to the nearest police station and why.
    It's not worth the risk of getting killed and/or car jacked.
    I knew a kid in high school that had the same lights in his s10.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    7

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?
    I just wanted to clarify whether police are required to drive in marked vehicles (except undercover)? A plain reading of the law suggests that they must drive marked vehicles, except one turn of phrase that's confusing.

    Summary (potentially inaccurate): It is unlawful for any public officer having charge of any vehicle to operate the same upon the public highways of this state unless and until there shall be displayed letters of contrasting color in a conspicuous place (with) name of the department of which the said vehicle is used.

    RCW 46.08.065:

    It is unlawful for any public officer having charge of any vehicle owned or controlled by any county, city, town, or public body in this state other than the state of Washington and used in public business to operate the same upon the public highways of this state unless and until there shall be displayed upon such automobile or other motor vehicle in letters of contrasting color not less than one and one-quarter inches in height in a conspicuous place on the right and left sides thereof, the name of such county, city, town, or other public body, together with the name of the department or office upon the business of which the said vehicle is used. This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

    I'm not clear about is the phrase "other than the state of Washington". Is this saying the state itself is exempt?

    There are also further exceptions mentioned in section 2: the chief of the Washington state patrol may exempt traffic control vehicles from section 2. However, that doesn't seem to exempt from the requirements above (section 1).

    Hem

  19. #19
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    The WSP claims that these unmarked vehicles are exempted because they are traffic "control" vehicles, not because they are undercover. Reading RCW 46.08.066, they are still required to have official plates on traffic "control" vehicles. Most of the unmarked cars have confidential plates, at least one is being driven with no plates at all
    Last edited by J1MB0B; 10-15-2014 at 01:53 AM.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    fighting a ticket by unmarked vehicle:

    http://youtu.be/AQVTbzyOmvg
    I believe that in WA you have the right to conduct an "investigation" under the discovery rules [normal discovery is limited].

    If you get a ticket, I would start an "investigation" and when denied access to people and places and things then file a motion for default/dismiss for failing to follow the discovery rules of the court.


    I've never lost a traffic (speeding) ticket case...they are not easy to win just because they usually take multiple trips to the courthouse...its a stacked deck for sure.

    I'm familiar with WA, IL, and CT traffic stuff...anyone who got a ticket can pm me BEFORE they plead...many of the best defenses are had prior to pleading not guilty.

  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
    So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?
    Again you either don't understand how law works.

    You are straying from the main point.

    Government is restricted with limited authority, it doesn't get to do what ever it wants........I know this isn't the current state of things, I know statist like it that way.

    The burden of proof in this type of legal system would be you to cite were the cops are allowed to do something.
    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 J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I believe that in WA you have the right to conduct an "investigation" under the discovery rules [normal discovery is limited].

    If you get a ticket, I would start an "investigation" and when denied access to people and places and things then file a motion for default/dismiss for failing to follow the discovery rules of the court.


    I've never lost a traffic (speeding) ticket case...they are not easy to win just because they usually take multiple trips to the courthouse...its a stacked deck for sure.

    I'm familiar with WA, IL, and CT traffic stuff...anyone who got a ticket can pm me BEFORE they plead...many of the best defenses are had prior to pleading not guilty.
    Simply getting out of a speeding ticket was never the goal here.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    Simply getting out of a speeding ticket was never the goal here.
    Well, it would not have hurt to do some other defense..he still might have been found guilty

    I understand..he wants to focus on this point alone....

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.

    RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
    RCW 46.61.025
    Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles.


    Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter except those provisions of this chapter which by their very nature can have no application.
    How is this applicable to this discussion?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 10-15-2014 at 03:40 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    How is this applicable to this discussion?
    Aren't police cars "animal driven" vehicles? :P
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •