• 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.

A funny thing hapened on my way to court today...

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

No, really... it WAS funny.;)

So Grishnav and I decided to meet-up in the parking lot of Lloyd Center Mall and car-pool into downtown to split the cost of parking at the garage. Since traffic was bad and he was running late I decided to get out, and walk to the corner so he could just swoop in and grab me to save time. As I'm approaching the corner I begin to dial my phone to call grishnav to tell him where to find me.

JUST as the phone starts to ring, a Portland Police officer pulls up in the left turn lane to my 4 0'clock:

O: Excuse me, Sir...?
M: Yes?
O: You may want to cover that up.
M: I'm prohibited by law.
O: Really? Do, uh, do you have a permit?
M: Nope! That's why it's prohibited by law...
O: Huh... is it loaded?
M: Nope! (Grishnav answers and I begin to inform him where to find me. While doing so I pivot around so the officr can see the empty hole where the magazine would be)
O: (After waiting for me to finish the call...mebbe 10-15 seconds) so...can I ask you a question?
M: Sure.
O: Why do you carry a gun?
M: Same reason you do...to protect myself.
O: But....what's the point if you don't have it loaded?
M: Um...(thinking here)...I guess the best way to say it is that I'm illustrating absurdity with absurdity!:cool: ( I was prepared at this point to launch into a diatribe about the state recognising my right to carry for self protection, yet mitigating that right by allowing political sub-divisions the ability to force me to keep it un-loaded)
O: (Chuckles) OK. Well... have a nice day! (I'm assuming this meant I he understood what i meant by the absurdity of the above situation)
M: You too!

Light changes, he gives a parting wave, makes his turn and drives away.:p
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

I don’t know if this has been covered, but for suspicion of what crime did they originally detain you in order to discover that you were recording them? Under the rules of Terry, you were seized if you felt obligated to remain with the officer. For the seizure to be legal they had to be able to articulate a crime they suspected you of committing and that your seizure was necessary to the investigation. If the original seizure was illegal, then they have nothing on you even if it is illegal to record them without their knowledge. After all, you wouldn’t have been recording them had they not detained you.

They cannot claim that they saw you recording and detained you for that, they already admitted they didn’t know you were. (If they did know then there was no crime anyway) They cannot say you weren’t seized if you felt, and any reasonable person would have felt, obligated to remain.

It just seems to me like there was a big gap in my understanding of what happened to you. You were kicked off the Metro, then you were speaking to the police, then they arrested you for wiretapping. The gap is at the point that they were talking to you. What crime were they investigating that legally allowed them to detain you?
 

VtCO

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
64
Location
, Vermont, USA
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
I don’t know if this has been covered, but for suspicion of what crime did they originally detain you in order to discover that you were recording them? Under the rules of Terry, you were seized if you felt obligated to remain with the officer. For the seizure to be legal they had to be able to articulate a crime they suspected you of committing and that your seizure was necessary to the investigation. If the original seizure was illegal, then they have nothing on you even if it is illegal to record them without their knowledge. After all, you wouldn’t have been recording them had they not detained you.

They cannot claim that they saw you recording and detained you for that, they already admitted they didn’t know you were. (If they did know then there was no crime anyway) They cannot say you weren’t seized if you felt, and any reasonable person would have felt, obligated to remain.

It just seems to me like there was a big gap in my understanding of what happened to you. You were kicked off the Metro, then you were speaking to the police, then they arrested you for wiretapping. The gap is at the point that they were talking to you. What crime were they investigating that legally allowed them to detain you?
I'm lost, where did this come from? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this post. Does it?
 

SetivaSicWood

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
105
Location
Tigard, Oregon, USA
imported post

VtCO wrote:
Mainsail wrote:
I don’t know if this has been covered, but for suspicion of what crime did they originally detain you in order to discover that you were recording them? Under the rules of Terry, you were seized if you felt obligated to remain with the officer. For the seizure to be legal they had to be able to articulate a crime they suspected you of committing and that your seizure was necessary to the investigation. If the original seizure was illegal, then they have nothing on you even if it is illegal to record them without their knowledge. After all, you wouldn’t have been recording them had they not detained you.

They cannot claim that they saw you recording and detained you for that, they already admitted they didn’t know you were. (If they did know then there was no crime anyway) They cannot say you weren’t seized if you felt, and any reasonable person would have felt, obligated to remain.

It just seems to me like there was a big gap in my understanding of what happened to you. You were kicked off the Metro, then you were speaking to the police, then they arrested you for wiretapping. The gap is at the point that they were talking to you. What crime were they investigating that legally allowed them to detain you?
I'm lost, where did this come from? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this post. Does it?

Perhaps Mainsails post does not pertain to this thread specifically, rather it eludes to an important question; what was the probable causefor the detentionto begin with. If TriMet were a private transportation system they could institute what ever policy they wished. Fact is, it's not and they can't. It's a public system and state law is quite clear that authority rests with the legislature exclusively.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

SetivaSicWood wrote:
Perhaps Mainsails post does not pertain to this thread specifically, rather it eludes to an important question; what was the probable causefor the detentionto begin with.

Yes, I posted here since it was the most recent thread about the incident.

A point though, Probable Cause pertains to arrest, not detainment. They detain (seize) you based on reasonable articuable suspicion that you have, are, or are just about to commit a crime. It’s a very important distinction.
 
Top