• 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.

Accosted for open carry in Milwaukie, OR

ocman1991A1

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

I was pulled over for speeding on McLaughlin Blvd. According to my ticket he saw that i was going 60 in a 45 by vision. and not with any radar or laser.

transcript to the best of my memory.

officer: Do you know the speed limit here.
me: no
officer: its 45mph, do you know how fast you were going.
me: no
officer: 60... where are you coming from
me: home
officer: where are you going in such a hurry
me: i'm not in a hurry
officer: *sees pistol in center console, clicks radio* gun
officer: i need to see your concealed permit, and license registration insurance
me: *gave him everything
officer: leave that gun where it is and i'll be back.
me: ok

after writing ticket, partner eying me down with hand on pistol

officer: *with hand on pistol* here is your stuff. You need to conceal your gun, or at least tell us you have one, some guys aren't as forgiving as me. next time you're going to get a pistol pointed at your head.
me: that sounds like a huge lawsuit
officer: what
me: pointing a gun at me after i've not done anything illegal.
officer: concealed permit means concealed...
me: *interrupts* you know thats not true
officer: look, i don't know you, you might
me: *interrupts* look, i'd rather just leave now.
officer: ok *walks off*

the entire time officer #2 had her hand on her pistol and staring down the window into my pregnant fiance's face.

i felted very threatened by their attitudes, and i feared for my safety as i knew if i made any sort of move that could be contrived into a reach for my pistol i would be shot or at the very least arrested. and at the very worst my pregnant fiance shot.

these officers were very rude, very condescending, and very authoritarian. i felt that i was threatened and assaulted by him saying next time i would get a gun pointed at my head.

i know the officer knew exactly what he was doing and knew exactly what the law was, because he would've arrested me if he really believed concealed carry permit means concealed only. he deliberately lied to me in an attempt to force his opinions on me.

does anyone here think i have any recourse against the city of Milwaukee and this officer for threatening me? I am going to file a FOIA request for everything having to do with the traffic stop and hopefully a audio recording or video recording of the traffic stop. I will also be sending a email later tonight to the chief of police.

at the very least i will use the officers words against him in traffic court, calling his character and judgment into question and whether or not he should be trusted to visually see me doing "60 in a 45" in the flow of traffic after deliberately lying to me and threatening to point a gun at my head.
 

ocman1991A1

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

is there anyone out there that can review this letter to the chief before i sent it. for any legal errors, or even for better ways to express what happened?

--------------------------------------------

**********
**********
**********
**********

February 1[sup]st[/sup], 2009

Police Chief Bob Jordan
Milwaukie Police Department
Public Safety Building
3200 SE Harrison Street
Milwaukie, OR 97222


Dear Chief Bob Jordan:

At approximately 4:03pm on February 1[sup]st[/sup], 2009 I was stopped and detained while driving on Highway 99E in Clackamas County by one of your Officers by the name of L. Hall (ID: 35452). I was accused of violating ORS 811.111 (Violating a speed limit).
While Officer Hall was at my window he noticed the pistol I was legally carrying in my car in the center console and called out in an alarmed way “gun” into his radio or to his partner I am not sure. (I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun under ORS 166.291 and 166.292). I presented my concealed carry license, driver’s license, insurance, and registration to Officer Hall and he warned me in a harsh tone to “leave the pistol where it is” and returned to his cruiser. In the meantime Officer Hall’s partner was standing beside my car with her hand on her pistol in a threatening manner.
When Officer Hall returned to my car, he had his hand on his pistol in a threatening manner, and began to lecture me about how to carry a firearm. I am paraphrasing his words; he told me that I need to inform him that I was carrying a pistol, that I need to present my carry license as he comes to my window, and that concealed carry permits mean you must only conceal carry. He also told me that not everyone is as forgiving as he is, and that next time I would have a pistol pointed at my head. Which I took to mean that if he were come in contact with me again while I was lawfully carrying he would draw down on me with his pistol. He told all this to me in a very aggressive and condescending manner which I felt was a threat to me physically especially since he had his hand on his pistol at the time. I am particularly concerned about Officer Hall’s threats at the time because my pregnant fiancé was riding in the passenger seat, and I fear any motion by either of us that could possibly be construed into a reach for my pistol would result in my fiancé, our unborn child, or myself being killed or wounded. We both know that I am not required by law to inform an officer I am carrying, and having a concealed license does not mean you must carry concealed. I certainly hope I would not have a pistol pointed at my head for lawfully carrying a firearm.
At the end of my detainment, after Office Hall told me I would have a pistol pointed at my head next time, I informed Officer Hall that we both knew what he told me was not true, and he further raised his voice in a threatening manner saying to me that he did not know who I was. I cut him off at that time and told him I would like to be on my way, and I drove off.
I believe Officer Hall deliberately lied to me in an effort to impose his personal opinions. If he really believed that a concealed carry license meant you could only carry concealed and/or I am required by law to inform him I am licensed to carry concealed he would’ve arrested me.
Officer Hall’s actions and words are very unprofessional, and I believe criminal under ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275.
I would appreciate a response pertaining to what sort of internal department actions will be taken against Officer Hall. I believe Officer Hall is a liability for the Milwaukie Police Department, I believe his attitude and actions will at the very least lead to lawsuits against the department and/or city, or perhaps to Officer Hall himself, and at the most cause an innocent person to be wounded or killed.
I am particularly concerned about Officer Hall’s attitude and actions because it appeared to me that his partner was a rookie and I fear that Officer Hall will be teaching her very dangerous lessons.

Respectfully,
**********
 

LanceOregon

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
27
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

I can see the initial need of the officers to protect themselves until they can call in and verify there are no warrants out for you. After they checked and found nothing on you, though, they should have been more relaxed after that. If they never changed their aggressive stance, then that does not really seem right.

As far as announcing that you have a gun and a concealed carry permit, that is probably smart to do. If the gun is visible, it is going to cause concern and alarm, and you will get asked for your concealed carry permit anyway.

Proactively assuring the officer up front that you are a good guy, and have a concealed carry permit is probably a good thing to do, in my opinion.

Besides emailing your letter, I would also recommend that you mail a hard copy of the letter Monday as well.

In order to initiate an internal investigation into this incident, you probably need to fill out a form and lodge an official complaint against the officer. I doubt that they will take action based on just an email. Remember how recently Portland Metro Police said that they could not investigate the Mayor for sex abuse, since no one had filed any formal complaint against him.

I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

ocman1991A1 wrote:
officer: *sees pistol in center console, clicks radio* gun
officer: i need to see your concealed permit, and license registration insurance
me: *gave him everything
Sounds like you more than bent over backwards for the officer as there was no reason for you to provide your concealed permit unless you had a concealed gun.

In writing letters and communicating generally, it is important to write very concisely and to highlight the critical facts in your favor, and get to the point you want to the addressee to focus on. This takes time and many revisions.

I would follow up with the Chief or hire a lawyer to write another letter, asking for an official statement that officer X is not in fact going to point a gun at your head for mere open carrying. You can always make an online poll or talk to city concil members/mayor - you have plenty of options but keep your theme simple - e.g., I was open carrying during a routine trfffic stop - I provided concealed license which I happenned to have as favor to officer even though not required - officer then responded by telling me next time he saw me he would point a gun at my head.
 

ocman1991A1

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

LanceOregon wrote:
I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.
thats fine with me, i don't go to that shit hole very often. i was looking for a corvette ;)
 

LanceOregon

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
27
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

ocman1991A1 wrote:
LanceOregon wrote:
I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.
thats fine with me, i don't go to that @#$% hole very often. i was looking for a corvette ;)

Alas, the one metro area where we have the greatest need to carry in, is also the most difficult one to carry in.

.
 

Cremator75

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
imported post

You very well could have refused to show him your CHL as you were not CC'ing. He had no need to see it and there was no requirement to show it for carrying in your car unless Milwaukee is one of those cities that requires a CHL to carry loaded.

Also, next time they ask if you know how fast you were going, just say "Yes, do you?" Otherwise they can make up whatever speed they want.
 

ocman1991A1

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

Cremator75 wrote:
You very well could have refused to show him your CHL as you were not CC'ing. He had no need to see it and there was no requirement to show it for carrying in your car unless Milwaukee is one of those cities that requires a CHL to carry loaded.

Also, next time they ask if you know how fast you were going, just say "Yes, do you?" Otherwise they can make up whatever speed they want.
well what i was trying to do was not admit to violating any statute

i got a response from Chief Bob Jordan

_________________________

Mr. ********, I am in receipt of your letter re the actions of Officer Hall of this Police Department. As the Chief of Police for the Department, I take seriously any allegation of unprofessional or threatening conduct on the part of any of our employees. I will cause an inquiry to be made relative to your allegation, and if appropriate, you will be contacted. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Bob Jordan
Chief of Police
Milwaukie Police Department
3200 S.E. Harrison St.
Milwaukie, OR 97222
(503) 786-7405
jordanr@ci.milwaukie.or.us

[line] PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE:
This e-mail is a public record of the City of Milwaukie and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records law. This email is subject to the State Retention
Schedule.
 

NaT805

Opt-Out Members
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
98
Location
Oregon
imported post

That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder :).
 

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

NaT805 wrote:
That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder :).


Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

-adamsesq
 

ocman1991A1

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

adamsesq wrote:
NaT805 wrote:
That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder :).


Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

-adamsesq
whats your opinion on if my story is accurate, and there is proof.

of the officer breaking ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275

seems to me like he did, and there are no exemptions for officers on official business or on duty
 

NaT805

Opt-Out Members
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
98
Location
Oregon
imported post

adamsesq wrote:
NaT805 wrote:
That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder :).


Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

-adamsesq
You do not have to notify them for video recording.
 

Orygunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
737
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

Standard Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer...

I believeNaT805is correct, you do not have to notify for video recording, but if you are recording video AND audio, you do have to notify.

Note:Oregon law only states you must only notify,not get consent to obtain a recording of conversation. Notification is required by ORS 165.540 (1) (c)
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/165.html

I'm hoping the legislature will allow audio recording of Law Enforcement without notification soon... I think I'll write my Legislator...

...Orygunner...
 

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

ocman1991A1 wrote:
whats your opinion on if my story is accurate, and there is proof.

of the officer breaking ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275

seems to me like he did, and there are no exemptions for officers on official business or on duty
I don't mean to be rude but that specifically calls for a legal opinion that I am not willing to give here.

Both Nato and Ory are correct, video ONLY is legal without notice but I don't think that is what was meant when someone suggested having their video camera handy... And I don't think it would help your situation very much in most cases to only have video and no audio.

-adamsesq
 

Orygunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
737
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

I'm not sure how to go about it, but you can request a copy of the officer's dashcam footage of your stop under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Some notes about that, if the stop was recorded (or if the footage wasn't accidentally "erased"):

1. It would provide evidence of the officer's alleged menacing & coercion against you, plus some good watching on YouTube.

2. If the officer is using a dash-cam to record conversations, they are also supposed to notify YOU they are recording, otherwise they are in violation of 165.540 (5)(b) (a Uniformed, Badged LEO can record without notifying you unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform you they're recording).

All that being said, If it were me, I'd perhaps just ask for a written apology from the police officer, and request that officers be better trained in the rights of law-abiding gun owners. See where that gets you...

...IANAL...
...Orygunner...
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

adamsesq wrote:
NaT805 wrote:
That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder :).


Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

-adamsesq
1. I'm not a lawyer, but under my reading of the law, informing is only required so long as it meets a bunch of very specific criteria that basically establishes a "private conversation."

2. About 10 days before my arrest, local journalist/videographer Mike Tabor was given a misdemeanor citation for taping. His charges were dropped immediately (or, declined to prosecute), and his camera was given back right away. (Mine were only dropped after some slavery, and my recording device was outright stolen at gun point -- I still haven't received it back). He, being a left-leaning journalist and having a case that didn't involve guns as well, was able to find an attorney to take on the case pro-bono. They sued for $100 and a policy change on how Portland Police enforce the law -- and won. It makes me freaking sad I let my case go with some mild slavery, because the "exhibition that the communication was private" requirement comes directly from the definition of Oral Communication in ORS Chapter 122 -- some 40 chapters before the interception laws -- that even my lawyer was confused enough about to think were unrealted or easily argued away. :(

http://www.joe-anybody.com/id116.html
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/12/383133.pdf

If you follow the flowchart in the bulletin, you hit, "Was the intercepted communication part of an event?" Since the police contact was part of our open carry event, the answer is yes. It then goes to, "Was the device concealed?" In my case, no, which flows to "no violation." In mikes case, "Yes," which flows to "Was the communication private?" The answer was no, which flows to "no violation."
 

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

The fact that a case was not prosecuted or was dropped does NOT mean that it was still not a crime.


165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not:[/b]

(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.

(b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant.

(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

(d) Obtain the whole or any part of a conversation, telecommunication or radio communication from any person, while knowing or having good reason to believe that the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication was initially obtained in a manner prohibited by this section.

(e) Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section.

(2)(a) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to:

(A) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

(B) Public officials in charge of and at jails, police premises, sheriffs’ offices, Department of Corrections institutions and other penal or correctional institutions, except as to communications or conversations between an attorney and the client of the attorney.

(b) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who obtain information under paragraph (a) of this subsection may not use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, the information except for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

(3) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.

(4) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a) of this section do not apply to the receiving or obtaining of the contents of any radio or television broadcast transmitted for the use of the general public.

(5) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to:

(a) A person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life;

(b) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating a vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained; or

(c) A law enforcement officer who, acting in the officer’s official capacity, deploys an Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device that contains a built-in monitoring system capable of recording audio or video, for the duration of that deployment.

(6) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept with an unconcealed recording device the oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings:

(a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;

(b) Regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or

(c) Private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made.

(7) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to any:

(a) Radio communication that is transmitted by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the amateur or citizens bands; or

(b) Person who intercepts a radio communication that is transmitted by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public provided that the interception is not for purposes of illegal activity.

(8) Violation of subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” means a device that uses a high-voltage, low power charge of electricity to induce involuntary muscle contractions intended to cause temporary incapacitation. “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” includes devices commonly known as tasers.

(b) “Law enforcement officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.726. [1955 c.675 §§2,7; 1959 c.681 §2; 1961 c.460 §1; 1979 c.744 §9; 1983 c.693 §1; 1983 c.740 §35; 1983 c.824 §1; 1987 c.320 §87; 1989 c.983 §14a; 1989 c.1078 §1; 2001 c.104 §54; 2001 c.385 §4; 2003 c.14 §62; 2007 c.879 §1]


None of these exceptions apply to the violation (in red) that would occur in an encounter with the police unless that encounter is at a rally.

I'm going from memory here (which can be very dangerous) but I think there is a fairly recent ruling that held, in Oregon, it is illegal to audio tape a police officer even though that police officer is acting in their official capacity in public.

-adamsesq


PS - there is no ORS 122... I think you mean 133.721?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

adamsesq wrote:
165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person maynot: (except)...
(b) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating a vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained...
So... the police can record the conversation, but you can't?

The STATE must have power over its subjects!
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

adamsesq wrote:
The fact that a case was not prosecuted or was dropped does NOT mean that it was still not a crime.

(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

However, in Chapter 133, the definition is given, but not specifically applied to the words in Ch. 165. Nor to the words in 165 tell us to look to 133 for the definitions.

So how can you charge me with intercepting "oral communications" between two or more persons if you don't define what an "oral communication" is? Do you pull a definition of oral and communication out of the dictionary and splatter them together in such a way as to further your cause? Which dictionary do you use? Do you just rely on the prosecutor to pull something out of their ass?

I'd argue that, even though it's not specifically applied to Ch. 165, the states own definition of what an Oral Communication is in Ch. 133 is superior to whatever the prosecutor might find convenient to define it as for the purpose of putting your ass in jail.

And the state defines it as (still paraphrasing from memory, I'm at work) an utterance where there person making the utterance has demonstrated an expectation that his communication is private (or not subject to interception), and where such expectation is justified under the circumstances!

Furthermore, even though the definitions aren't clearly shared, they are clearly related bodies of law. Ch. 133 deals with legal intercept, and Ch. 165 deals with illegal intercept. Unless they specifically redefined a word later on, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic to assume that they might have meant for the definitions from 133 to apply to the sanctions in 165, and really, in any chapter coming after chapter 133.

PS - there is no ORS 122... I think you mean 133.721?

Sorry, yes, Chapter 133. The keys are right next to each other!
[/quote]
 
Top