• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Seattle Police Dept Bulletin

aktion

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
226
Location
Bremerton, Washington, USA
imported post

I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently. Thank you!

I received the following email after contacting SPD concerning open carry in Seattle.

To: might@usa.com
CC:
Subject: Open Carry Law -- SPD response
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:12 -0700


Dear Mr. Dorny:
As requested, please see the attached SPD Legal Bulletin. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Renee Clarose
Legal Unit Assistant

desk: (206) 233-5141
fax: (206) 233-5139
Seattle Police Department
610 5th Avenue, Unit A001
PO Box 34986
Seattle, WA 98124-34986

The attached Bulletin:
 

Attachments

  • 20080417152136198_1.pdf
    234.2 KB · Views: 386

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an asshole way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

This is good news. I haven't read the download. I'm talking generally.

They have just told us where to next direct our attention and efforts. If the OP'er hadn't asked, we wouldn't have known.

Go get get boys!! (insert rebel yell here)
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an asshole way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.
I agree with you on this Bear, however the second paragraph in it is the key. They admit that merely open carry in a holster or somehow affixed to the person and is not threatening is not illegal. Having said that I do not care for anything else they say in it other than dispatch is being told to try and identify if it is an "open carry" event or if it is an actual violation of law.

As far as an asshole way to view State v Casad you have to look at who is in charge of the city and police dept.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Their bulleton does not have them truely understanding the law and enforcing it correctly. Just because someone calls does not mean the law has been broken. Rather an asshole way to view the subject with the Casad case out there.
I agree with you on this Bear, however the second paragraph in it is the key. They admit that merely open carry in a holster or somehow affixed to the person and is not threatening is not illegal. Having said that I do not care for anything else they say in it other than dispatch is being told to try and identify if it is an "open carry" event or if it is an actual violation of law.

As far as an asshole way to view State v Casad you have to look at who is in charge of the city and police dept.
You're not implying they might be liberal Assholes are you?
RoflLg.gif
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Cool, hadn't seen this one before! Welcome! Great way to introduce yourself! New bulletins are few and far between of late!

So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?

Oh well, at least they have a reasonable grip on reality and train their dispatch to ask questions.

I should pass this along to OPD, maybe they can learn how to dispatch an OC call from this.

Good work!
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Oh, I would never do a thing like that.;)

After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Oh, I would never do a thing like that.;)

After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
Yeah, but they tell the officers to disarm you, which is illegal.
 

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?

They just don't get it. We carry our guns in peace and the only time WE are confronted is when it is by those who ignore the law - namely criminals, anti's or LEO's that don't know or don't care. All of which are an insult to law abiding citizens and cause more harm to society than good.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

BobCav wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
So some OC'ers were seeking "confrontation" with LEO's eh? Is that how they see things?

They just don't get it. We carry our guns in peace and the only time WE are confronted is when it is by those who ignore the law - namely criminals, anti's or LEO's that don't know or don't care. All of which are an insult to law abiding citizens and cause more harm to society than good.
Now I have to say all of my LEO encounters with SPD were postive. Once it was a simple "howdy" and a couple of times officers just looked me up really good to see what I was up to. I just smiled and went about my business.

I've found a few pro gun LEO's in Oly as well.

I think the problem isn't so much LEO's as, LEO's not having the right tools to deal with this. In so many places OC is still "cutting edge" and there will be confusion and internal cultures to break down. This is what we get for being trailblazers...
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

aktion wrote:
I am new to this forum, but have something to contribute. Any feedback is welcome, and I am eager to learn more from you all. I had no idea open carry was legal here in Washington until only recently. Thank you!

I received the following email after contacting SPD concerning open carry in Seattle.

To: might@usa.com
CC:
Subject: Open Carry Law -- SPD response
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:12 -0700


Dear Mr. Dorny:
As requested, please see the attached SPD Legal Bulletin. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Renee Clarose
Legal Unit Assistant

desk: (206) 233-5141
fax: (206) 233-5139
Seattle Police Department
610 5th Avenue, Unit A001
PO Box 34986
Seattle, WA 98124-34986

The attached Bulletin:

Good reading. Wishwe had something like that here in Utah.

TJ
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Oh, I would never do a thing like that.;)

After reading it through a few times I am beginning to see that it is not as harsh as it was after the first read. They are actually telling the officer to make contact with and ID the complaintant first to verify if there was an actual crime. This is good news as they are indicating they do understand Casad and a Terry stop. They also tell the officers to consider and document any claims of self defense by the person with a firearm.

All in all I might have been a little hasty in my initial opinion of it. That still doesn't change my mind of the two guys running the department though.
Yeah, but they tell the officers to disarm you, which is illegal.
Actually it says to disarm "as necessary", so it's up to the discretion of the officer. They're mainly talking about responding to "oh-hand" encounters which they consider illegal and, I believe, is a correct interpretation unless the person OC'ing felt threatened.

Also, this bulletin puts a whole new spin on my encounter with SPD: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/9593.html
That Patrol officer should have known better. I think I'll be printing this out and keeping it with me... may even have to eat at that Denny's again (and it's the worst Denny's I've ever been to).

Thanks aktion, great contribution!
 

nathan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
227
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
imported post

"Trespass:
...the court was clear that managers of public..buildings..may adopt rules and enforce policies restricting the "open carry" of firearms. ..."

What do they mean by public buildings? Buildings open to the public or state, county, city buildings?
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

nathan wrote:
"Trespass:
...the court was clear that managers of public..buildings..may adopt rules and enforce policies restricting the "open carry" of firearms. ..."

What do they mean by public buildings? Buildings open to the public or state, county, city buildings?
I am assuming they mean privately owned buildings open to the public. If starbucks wants you to leave over OC, you leave, whereas city hall can't do jack unless you are in a secure area.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

I think it's great progress and thanks to all (Lonnie) who helped make it happen. I am a bit concerned about the procedures though. Instead of the 911 operator asking "Was it in the holster?" it seems like they're just trying to get their ducks in a row so they can make charges stick better. First approach the complainant and ask a few leading questions (Were you scared? Did he seem threatening?) and then use those responses to nail you. Having the patrol sargeant involved adds reliable testimony and weight to the report. This is not my favorite bulletin.
 

Shy_Panda

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
336
Location
Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
imported post

Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

"Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Shy_Panda wrote:
Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

"Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.
I didn't see it that way. The way I saw things, was the legality of OC is laid out, and then it goes on to explain what they can do depending on if the incident is legal or not. I think though some letters to SPD are in order asking for clarification.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Jim675 wrote:
I think it's great progress and thanks to all (Lonnie) who helped make it happen. I am a bit concerned about the procedures though. Instead of the 911 operator asking "Was it in the holster?" it seems like they're just trying to get their ducks in a row so they can make charges stick better. First approach the complainant and ask a few leading questions (Were you scared? Did he seem threatening?) and then use those responses to nail you. Having the patrol sargeant involved adds reliable testimony and weight to the report. This is not my favorite bulletin.
Actually having a Sgt. respond goes both ways. It adds more credibility to an arrest but it also will make them handle it within thier authority of the law because a Sgt is liable for the officers under thier direct supervison. Most of the Sgt's didn't make the rank because they are idiots, they made it because they know how to do thier job.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Shy_Panda wrote:
Great posting. I don't like the first line of the last paragraph, it makes it sound as if the department is instructing officers in how to get arround the open carry problem and find another offence with which to arrest the individual.

"Officers do have some options on how to handle an open carry incident depending on the circumstances, e.g., trespass, assault, intimidation, and unlawful display of a weapon."

This sounds like the first in a series of potential retaliations against individual's civil rights should they choose to OC.
I didn't see it that way. The way I saw things, was the legality of OC is laid out, and then it goes on to explain what they can do depending on if the incident is legal or not. I think though some letters to SPD are in order asking for clarification.
+1. That is exactly how I am reading it too. As far as letters go it would not hurt but I do not think they will clarify anything in it because every incident is different and they do not want to take officer discretion out of the picture.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Very very interesting. You know what's really funny is that two months after that bulletin was published, I put in a PRA for exactly that document, but it was declined saying it didn't exist.

Ca-Ching$$$$
 
Top