Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Lt.Wilson and the Olympia Gangsters

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    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."

    Further,

    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
    n.8.
    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).


    XD45+P

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Thank you for your concern. I am somewhat flattered my incident has been the one that caused your first post...

    Lt. Wilson is Internal Affairs, or rather Office of Professional Accountability. I have made several formal complaints, and have also requested a meeting with Lt. Wilson and several other people, including the Mayor. I have emailed an attorney who was refered to me, but I have not yet heard from him.

    I am scrambling and taking steps to protect my rights and have issued complaints on various matters. Literally the entire city government is aware of what is going on. I will not get into detail about all actions I am taking, but rest assured I am not about to let this one pass unchallenged.

    Steve

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    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."

    Further,

    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
    n.8.
    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).


    XD45+P
    Is this a Washington law type deal....any chance you could provide a citation? Just tryin to learn about other states procedures!

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Welcome and great first post!

    Lt.Wilson may think we're a bunchcollege studentsor out of work pizza deliverymen who like to chat on line about arcane topics like Rights but he should be forewarned about crossing figurative swords with the minds and resources assembled here and get his waywardminions in line quick.



    photo by Oleg Volk:

    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    bayboy42 wrote:
    XD45PlusP wrote:
    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."

    Further,

    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
    n.8.
    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).


    XD45+P
    Is this a Washington law type deal....any chance you could provide a citation? Just tryin to learn about other states procedures!
    Bayboy, it's usually an internal policy.... Sometimes it's in city laws/codes too.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Welcome and great first post!

    Lt.Wilson may think we're a bunchcollege studentsor out of work pizza deliverymen who like to chat on line about arcane topics like Rights but he should be forewarned about crossing figurative swords with the minds and resources assembled here and get his waywardminions in line quick.
    I can tell from his letters that he's top dog in his own mind. He views sv exactly the way you so eloquently said

    He's not the first and won't be the last. But he'll ultimately learn the hard way.

    To his minions: Now, you be good little minions and go tell master what I said, K?



  7. #7
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    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.


    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
    n.8.
    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.


    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.



    XD45+P
    Hi XD45+P,

    Several of your statements are incorrect (at least inWa. State).First off, any procedure follwing an Officer drawing his weapon is determined solely by the dept's own policy. For instance;some Dept'sdo not even require that a report be generated, let alone I.A. be notified. Other Dept's may have different policy.

    Regarding paraphernalia, it is legal to posess it, unless it has been used to ingest an illegal substance. Once "used" (has residue in/on it)it is classified as drug paraphernalia.

    (b) In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia under this section, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:

    (1) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;

    (2) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance;

    (3) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter;

    (4) The proximity of the object to controlled substances;

    (5) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object;


    The Officer does not need to witness the subject "using" the paraphernalia. Posession alone is grounds for arrest.

    9.10.040 Possession of drug paraphernalia.


    A. In addition to the behavior proscribed by the Legislature in RCW 69.50.412 (as now exists or hereinafter amended) it is unlawful for any person to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance, as defined by this chapter and RCW Chapter 69.50, as now or hereafter amended.


    B. Possession of drug paraphernalia shall be a misdemeanor. (Ord. 2002-07 (part))

    Irealize this was only an example, and really doesn't pertain to the subject at hand, but felt it needed corrected.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    How do you deal with gangsters?

    Might be interesting if someone created an Olympia version of what Bill Sheehanhas created at http://thenittygrittyfiles.org/

    Or gathered the Olympia info and 'contributed it' to the Justice Files data.

    Sometimes getting even is the only reward
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Johnny Law wrote:
    XD45PlusP wrote:
    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.


    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
    n.8.
    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.


    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.



    XD45+P
    Hi XD45+P,

    Several of your statements are incorrect (at least inWa. State).First off, any procedure follwing an Officer drawing his weapon is determined solely by the dept's own policy. For instance;some Dept'sdo not even require that a report be generated, let alone I.A. be notified. Other Dept's may have different policy.

    Regarding paraphernalia, it is legal to posess it, unless it has been used to ingest an illegal substance. Once "used" (has residue in/on it)it is classified as drug paraphernalia.

    (b) In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia under this section, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:

    (1) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;

    (2) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance;

    (3) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter;

    (4) The proximity of the object to controlled substances;

    (5) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object;


    The Officer does not need to witness the subject "using" the paraphernalia. Posession alone is grounds for arrest.

    9.10.040 Possession of drug paraphernalia.



    A. In addition to the behavior proscribed by the Legislature in RCW 69.50.412 (as now exists or hereinafter amended) it is unlawful for any person to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance, as defined by this chapter and RCW Chapter 69.50, as now or hereafter amended.



    B. Possession of drug paraphernalia shall be a misdemeanor. (Ord. 2002-07 (part))

    Irealize this was only an example, and really doesn't pertain to the subject at hand, but felt it needed corrected.
    "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"

    So another warrantless search, to make sure there is no residue in the pipe? See where this is going? So you have to actually smoke from the pipe in the officers presence to commit a crime. But this has nothing to do with OC right...

    It's not a bong, but a waterpipe...lol

  10. #10
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    Johnny Law wrote:


    B. Possession of drug paraphernalia shall be a misdemeanor. (Ord. 2002-07 (part))

    "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"

    So another warrantless search, to make sure there is no residue in the pipe? See where this is going? So you have to actually smoke from the pipe in the officers presence to commit a crime. But this has nothing to do with OC right...

    It's not a bong, but a waterpipe...lol
    I see what you are saying, but mere posession of used paraphernalia is an arrestable offense. Residue can easily be seen and tested, and requires no warrant. Believe me, I have arrested and convicted numerous people on this charge, and have never yet had the "pleasure" of watching somenone smoke/ingest dope.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Johnny Law wrote:
    I see what you are saying, but mere posession of used paraphernalia is an arrestable offense. Residue can easily be seen and tested, and requires no warrant. Believe me, I have arrested and convicted numerous people on this charge, and have never yet had the "pleasure" of watching somenone smoke/ingest dope.
    I don't think so. You would have to prove intent to use it again. This is from one of your previous posts on this thread:
    9.10.040 Possession of drug paraphernalia.

    A. In addition to the behavior proscribed by the Legislature in RCW 69.50.412 (as now exists or hereinafter amended) it is unlawful for any person to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance, as defined by this chapter and RCW Chapter 69.50, as now or hereafter amended.

    If I picked up a crack pipe on the street, with residue, and carried it to a trash bin to dispose of it, I would not be guilty of "Possession of drug paraphernalia".

    We now return this thread back to a discussion intended by the OP.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    Johnny Law wrote:
    I see what you are saying, but mere posession of used paraphernalia is an arrestable offense. Residue can easily be seen and tested, and requires no warrant. Believe me, I have arrested and convicted numerous people on this charge, and have never yet had the "pleasure" of watching somenone smoke/ingest dope.
    I don't think so. You would have to prove intent to use it again. This is from one of your previous posts on this thread:
    9.10.040 Possession of drug paraphernalia.

    A. In addition to the behavior proscribed by the Legislature in RCW 69.50.412 (as now exists or hereinafter amended) it is unlawful for any person to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance, as defined by this chapter and RCW Chapter 69.50, as now or hereafter amended.

    If I picked up a crack pipe on the street, with residue, and carried it to a trash bin to dispose of it, I would not be guilty of "Possession of drug paraphernalia".

    We now return this thread back to a discussion intended by the OP.
    Ajetpilot,

    Possession of drug paraphernalia shall be a misdemeanor. (Ord. 2002-07 (part))

    Intent need not be proven, only posession at that point in time of contact. A pipe could be laying on a car seat or floorboard, and the driver and even an occupant may be charged.They do not even need to have it on their person.The prosecutor charges/gets convictions on this.

    With regards to someone finding a pipe, common sense applies her. If someone calls in and says they found a baggie of dope in the street, and wants it picked up by the Police(this happens a lot) they certainly would not be charged. I'm sure you understand the sensibility here.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    Good de-rail job.

    The debate is not about comparing a Constitutionally protected right with a different act that is inherently illegal.

    And frankly, the absolute last person I would take legal advice from is a police officer. Most cops can't shoot worth a darn, and most cops do not actually know the law.

    And I suspect that the druggies Johnny has seen convicted mostly had super competent court appointed attorneys. You get the 'justice' you can afford in this country and an unscrupulous DA will take advantage of that. And I also suspect the 'conviction' is more often than not a plea bargin obtained through coersive use of force (the threat of longer jail times and more charges).

    But like I said, Open Carry is a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right. Night and day difference than any drug stop or drug charge.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

Posting Permissions

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