Hello sv_libertarian, my first post here but I have been reading the threads here for months. I have OC'd in Eastern WA. I couldn't help but respond. I believe that these officers actions violated the WA State Constitution, (WA State Const. has stronger protections than the US one does.). Furthermore, I would quit talking to Mr.Wilson without legal representation (Get an attorney, like yesterday) there with you, meaning keep it in person with your attorney. Stop being nice, file a complaint, request FOIA documents, 911 calls etc... To be on the safe side I would let your attorney make all the requests.
Furthermore anytime a police officer draws his weapon on anyone, it must be investigated by IA, and I stress the word must, but not every dept handles it that way.
Here is your caselaw.....
When a police officer observes someone engaged in unlawful behavior,
probable cause exists to stop the individual. State v. Larson, 93 Wn.2d 638, 641,
611 P.2d 771 (1980). But when the officer stops the individual not to enforce the
law, but to conduct an unrelated criminal investigation, the stop is a pretext. State v.
Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 349, 979 P.2d 833 (1999). Pretextual stops violate article
I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution "because they are seizures absent the
'authority of law' which a warrant would bring. When determining whether a given
stop is pretextual, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances,
including both the subjective intent of the officer as well as the objective
reasonableness of the officer's behavior."
Only a few jealousy guarded exceptions to the warrant exception exist.
State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 349, 979 P.2d 833 (1999). Under one
exception, the police may make a warrantless search of a person and his or
her belongings after a valid, custodial arrest. State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d
144, 147, 720 P.2d 436 (1986). Under this exception, an officer may
conduct a warrantless search of an arrestee and the area that was within
the arrestee's immediate control at the time of a valid custodial arrest.
Stroud, 106 Wn.2d at 147.
When Willms saw what he thought was a gun, Wilson ordered Pierce to step
out of the car. A police officer may order a person to get out of the
vehicle, regardless of whether the driver is suspected of being armed or
dangerous or whether the offense under investigation is a serious one.
State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582, 62 P.3d 489 (2003). While patting
Pierce down for weapons,3 Wilson saw openly displayed glass pipes. On
retrieving the pipes, Wilson could smell burnt marijuana. Wilson then
arrested and handcuffed Pierce.
Possession of drug paraphernalia is not a crime. Using the paraphernalia
to ingest drugs is a misdemeanor. RCW 69.50.412. However, a police
officer cannot arrest for a misdemeanor unless the arrestee commits that
crime in the officer's presence. RCW 10.31.100; O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d at 584
Here, nothing shows that Pierce used the paraphernalia to ingest drugs in
Wilson's presence. This calls into question the legitimacy of the arrest
and the legality of the search incident to it.
Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution prohibit
unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Davis, 86 Wn. App. 414, 420,
937 P.2d 1110, review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1028 (1997). Warrantless searches
of constitutionally protected areas are per se unreasonable. Davis, 86 Wn.
App. at 420; State v. Ridgway, 57 Wn. App. 915, 918, 790 P.2d 1263 (1990).
In the absence of a search warrant, the burden falls on the State to
overcome the presumption of an unreasonable search. State v. McAlpin, 36
Wn. App. 707, 716, 677 P.2d 185, review denied, 102 Wn.2d 1011 (1984)
There was no crime being commited, as OC is "Lawful" so the Pretextual stop, was an Unreasonable Search, and a Warrantless search was performed, even though you say that you gave consent, it doesn't matter.
"A consent to search may be tainted by illegal detention. State v. Tijerina, 61 Wn. App. 626, 630, 811 P.2d 241 (1991).