First LEO Encounter

imported post

kenshin wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I had not quite make it onto my property yet. I was about 20 feet away from my driveway. Shameful that such a small distance can make all the differance. Had I actually been on my property I would have just walked inside and ignored him.

They did say that some had called in a "man with a gun" complaint but I wouldn't think that should make any differance as to whether they can disarm me.

Click to expand...

I'd at least request to hear the 911 tape and get a copy of the transcript. It's likely that they were bluffing that there was a 911 "man with a gun" call. I wouldn't be surprised that they can't produce the tape or transcript. If they do I'll bet it's some calm, cool and collected person stating "there's a man with a gun at [location]". It's rare that you hear an excited person on the 911 call "Come quick, there's a guy minding his own business taking a walk with a gun holstered on his belt."



gf

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

imported post

kenshin wrote:

They did say that some had called in a "man with a gun" complaint but I wouldn't think that should make any differance as to whether they can disarm me.

Click to expand...

I would start the process of gathering the paperwork: audio of any (if any) 911 calls, radio traffic, copies of any CAD report including any MDC (or MDT) terminal messages, related to the contact. No matter what action you take, this information will help you.

Attached is the LESA public records request form.

imported post

FOIA FIRST

COMPLAINT SECOND

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

Click to expand...

But the PCSD deputieswere not on any water.

imported post

Personally i would have called a local news station and draged them into the media and then have the general public demand anaswers. All my life i have seen LEO's bend the law and make there own up....

Its not until someone stands up in the media that the LEO's get to add insult to injury, So ya i would get a lawyer and i would sue them for what they have done to you in your own area.

I was reading something about having and keeping positive control of your weapon while on your person at all times, If a cop takes your weapon then you no longer have positive control over whats yours and thats against the law as a gun owner.

Cop or not i have seen more idiot LEO's that idiot civi's So i would also run your constitutional rights down there thought and sue them for an outragest ammount of money just so they know if u poke a bear with a stick your gunna get bit.

Better yet get a class action law suite lets shoe the LEO comminity that we are not a threat to anyone as long as people leave us alone and let us enjoy our rights. :cuss:

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

Click to expand...

But the PCSD deputieswere not on any water.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, you are correct, the PCSD Deputies were not on the water.

I was pointing out that Semper Paratus was referring to his previous experience in the Coast Guard, and on water, when he posted about what he used to be able to do.

We aren't disagreeing here, you just didn't read what I wrote carefully.

imported post

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

Click to expand...

But the PCSD deputieswere not on any water.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, you are correct, the PCSD Deputies were not on the water.

I was pointing out that Semper Paratus was referring to his previous experience in the Coast Guard, and on water, when he posted about what he used to be able to do.

We aren't disagreeing here, you just didn't read what I wrote carefully.

Click to expand...

I was saying that what happens with the coasties has no bearing on what the deputies can do. Different agencies operating under different circumstances and rules, one Federal and one state.

imported post

And now, to return to the OP's problem, I just chatted with him on the phone, and he is taking the advice to file an FOIA request. He is stopping at the Sheriff's Office on his way home from work.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

Click to expand...

But the PCSD deputieswere not on any water.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, you are correct, the PCSD Deputies were not on the water.

I was pointing out that Semper Paratus was referring to his previous experience in the Coast Guard, and on water, when he posted about what he used to be able to do.

We aren't disagreeing here, you just didn't read what I wrote carefully.

Click to expand...

I was saying that what happens with the coasties has no bearing on what the deputies can do. Different agencies operating under different circumstances and rules, one Federal and one state.

Click to expand...

Yes i operatedunder a separate USC (United states Code). I can not find anything in the WA codes to say one way of another. Personally I think if a leo wanted to use the argument of officer safety if your holstered,buttoned down and not touching your gun the officer is safe. especially on land. lot more cover and places to run.

imported post

Semper Paratus wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

maclean wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Semper Paratus wrote:

Did they call you off of your property? or enter your property? I am a little hazy on local laws or codes. all work I did as a LEO was under USC's and on international waters or US territorial seas. I know when I boarded a boat I could disarm any person that was armed with no reason or cause other than officer safety. By no means do I say what the Leos in your situation was right IMHO. but they might have the right to disarm you if there was a complaint before they questioned you. but if there was no complaint wouldn't that be profiling.

Click to expand...

Not in the State of Washington you can't. It's not even legal to stop someone just because they are carrying a gun, unless you have more than a hunch they might be doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

Bear,


Semper Paratus was referring tohis service in the US Coast Guard, and even within the State of Washington the US Coast Guard may stop, board, and search any vessel upon navigable waters.

Yes, even in the State of Washington, and yes even without a warrant. The precedent is in maritime law and it is a strange bird. Don't believe me? Give it a try sometime.

As to other LEO's stopping you in Washington, they must articulate reasonable suspicion toimpede you. That is not a mere hunch, but a legal standard that most of you already understand so I won't wander off into that too much. If that is what you meant, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so.

As to the Deputy's behavior in the OP, I have no comment. I was not there.

Click to expand...

Not on dirt they can't. The navigablewaters is a different world.

Click to expand...

Sigh, I said "on navigable waters."

I bolded and italicized the part where I said it.

Sounds like we have little to disagree about.

Click to expand...

But the PCSD deputieswere not on any water.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, you are correct, the PCSD Deputies were not on the water.

I was pointing out that Semper Paratus was referring to his previous experience in the Coast Guard, and on water, when he posted about what he used to be able to do.

We aren't disagreeing here, you just didn't read what I wrote carefully.

Click to expand...

I was saying that what happens with the coasties has no bearing on what the deputies can do. Different agencies operating under different circumstances and rules, one Federal and one state.

Click to expand...

Yes i operatedunder a separate USC (United states Code). I can not find anything in the WA codes to say one way of another. Personally I think if a leo wanted to use the argument of officer safety if your holstered,buttoned down and not touching your gun the officer is safe. especially on land. lot more cover and places to run.

Click to expand...

Have you read the Washington State Supreme Court ruling on Casad? Having a visable firearm is not even grounds to stop anyone not doing something that appears illegal. That would pretty much mean without a 911 call it would be a no contactbecause it is obvious he was doing nothing illegal. With a 911 call and seeing what the officer saw on arrival it also should have been a non-stop and there were no grounds to disarm him because the stop was bogus to start with. Crap don't justify the deputies illegal actions. If he wants a safe job he need to be a ticket taker not a cop.

imported post

Have you read the Washington State Supreme Court ruling on Casad? Having a visable firearm is not even grounds to stop anyone not doing something that appears illegal. That would pretty much mean without a 911 call it would be a no contactbecause it is obvious he was doing nothing illegal. With a 911 call and seeing what the officer saw on arrival it also should have been a non-stop and there were no grounds to disarm him because the stop was bogus to start with. Crap don't justify the deputies illegal actions. If he wants a safe job he need to be a ticket taker not a cop.

Click to expand...

Unless I missed something somewhere, Casad is unpublished.

Unless I missed something else somewhere, Casad was an Appeals Court case, not a Supreme Court case.

Casad does not count yet.

Although the court may have ruled correctly, they did so half assed and did not give you that leg to stand on just yet.

imported post

It really has nothing to do with Casad, butTerry. The rules of Terry are very clear and the police know what those rules are. This deputy knew open carry is legal but made an exception to the rules of Terry to disarm and question the OP.

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

It really has nothing to do with Casad, butTerry. The rules of Terry are very clear and the police know what those rules are. This deputy knew open carry is legal but made an exception to the rules of Terry to disarm and question the OP.

Click to expand...

Bravo!

This is precisely true, regarding any decision to halt or impede the OP.

I've been following your posts and see a consistent well formed knowledge.

Excellent!

On the point of disarming during a legitimate Terry stop, we might differ - but probably only by professional perspective.

imported post

maclean said:

"The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

"This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so."

If an investigating officer feels no need to inform me of his reasonable articulable suspicion and the nature of the crime he's investigating he can do it with my total silence and without my "papers." Since he's already proven "contempt of citizen" by his refusal to enter into a reasonable dialog he can try a monolog and see how far that gets him. Since cops have no compunction about lying to anybody and everybody I have to assume the worst and proceed as if the crime is murder 1. Obiously, any good lawyer would advise, "Say nothing at all. Not one word."

Not very helpful to the investigation is it? Oh well, some unintended consequences to the good old fashioned power trip.

MD

imported post

Machoduck wrote:

maclean said:

"The only issue I will add, because I see it mentioned a bunch without much thought, is that the officer does not need to articulate reasonable suspicion to you at the point of the stop. A reasonable officer will do so, however, because frankly it makes everyone's day alot easier.

"This is an often confusing issue for folks, because they like to ask and get righteous about how the stop is illegal when the officer does not provide the information - and that simply is not so."

If an investigating officer feels no need to inform me of his reasonable articulable suspicion and the nature of the crime he's investigating he can do it with my total silence and without my "papers." Since he's already proven "contempt of citizen" by his refusal to enter into a reasonable dialog he can try a monolog and see how far that gets him. Since cops have no compunction about lying to anybody and everybody I have to assume the worst and proceed as if the crime is murder 1. Obiously, any good lawyer would advise, "Say nothing at all. Not one word."

Not very helpful to the investigation is it? Oh well, some unintended consequences to the good old fashioned power trip.

MD

Click to expand...

Your right to remain silent is, of course, an inviolate right.

As for "doing the monologue and seeing how far that gets him," assuming the officer does have a valid Terry stop, he is going to identify you.

If he can do that with "papers" cool, if not it can be done at the AFIS machine at the jail. Hell, a valid Terry stop can even be performed in handcuffs or at gunpoint. Read your case law.

Now seriously, I've never seen my job as a power trip. I try to do it right as I swore to do, and I pointed out that reasonable officers communicate their reasons, as it makes everyone's day easier.

Shrug, I've learned a long time ago I can reach out to some, but others will always be on the paranoid end of the scale. If you believe every contact with a police officer is the end of your freedoms as you know them, I feel bad for you.

In the mean time, I plan to continue to be reasonable and respectful of the Constitution I swore to uphold.

YMMV

imported post

So what i get is that there is 1 decent cop on the streets, That dosnt say much for the profession.

Why do most cops fail to do there jobs and actually respectfuly act on the oath they took? Why is there never a cop around when i need 1?

Why do most cops assume that they are allowed to disreguard my constitutional rights? In the end a armed society is a polite society, If we had less laws and rules on the books i think there would be less crime and violance because people would not depend on a legal system that does not work.

People would depend on themselfs and people would actually look out for eachother instead of every man for himself. Common sense would suggest to LEO's that if i am OCing and i admit i have a CCL on my person that i am not a wanted fellon and there is no need to remove my weapon or give me any shit about it.

Dont ask me why i am carrying a gun. You and i both know why i have one, For the same reason you do. DUH comes to mind. Dont tell me i am alarming other people as i am not waving it around like a complete idiot and the only person in this convo who is causing attention to the situation is the LEO i am just standing there.

If you make contact with me, TELL ME WHY right off the bat it will save me the trouble of chewing you up one side and down the other and any media coverage that may cause you and whatever department you came from serious problems.

Remember Mr.LEO there are alot of lawyers who dont like cops and just about any of them would bust you in the media just to make a headline somewere. So aslong as you are respectful of my rights both state law and constitutional rights and you tell me why you are talking to me then we have no problem.

imported post

Grrr, I went to the LESA office today to file my FOIA request but got there just a little after they closed.

Have to head there tomorrow morning now. Dang it, now I have to cross that $@% bridge again. :X j/k

Thanks to everyone for they're advise and support. It's been a big boost to my confidence.