Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Requesting property after investigation?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    If you have an LEO confiscate property for an investigation, and the investigation is then found in your favor *meaning you are not at fault*, how long can "they" hold onto your property, legally?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    File a Section 1983 action for failure to provide due process.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    OK, so I have been trying to get my property back for over a month now from Seattle Police. The investigation has been closed, I have talked to the person who is in charge of releasing my property, and they tell me they will look into it, and I have heard nothing.

    I also requested a police report, which I have to wait until the 12th of January for some reason.

    Thank you for the above reply, but I am not sure what you are referring to or how I go about making that request.



    If someone could help me; I am obviously doing something wrong, because I have yet to get my property back.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    Thank you for the above reply, but I am not sure what you are referring to or how I go about making that request.
    Yu contact a lwyer and discuss a civil action - I suggest considering suing for failure to provide due process insteread of suing directly for return ofproperty - the indirect approach often has some advantages.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    I contacted an attorney today, who put me in contact with someone that should be able to help me out. It is frustrating to say the least. Hopefully my property isn't in the form of a park bench at Greenlake by now
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    When dealing with beauracracy it is always frustrating. Keep incontact with your attorney and follow Mike's advise, he is a lawyer too, and is steering you in the right direction.

    Your staying the course will make it easier for others who may be in a similar situation in the future. Keep up the fight.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Did you fill out or write up a formal request for a return of the property? if not, do so.
    They only way for them to keep it is if they do a hearing in civil court and determine that it was used in a felony.
    If they found that there was nothing done wrong with it, or even if it was, that you are an "innocent owner," then they have to give it back. I'm not sure what the time limit is, but they have to give it back.
    However, a lot of LEOs have this sense that they have an arbitrary authority over you, and can do whatever they want, and you really have to work hard to convince them otherwise.

    Keep calling people, getting their names and numbers, etc.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Yesterday consisted of me going to the CC office, and they told me they can't give ma duplicate CC permit, and isntructed me to go to the SPD investigation unit, and mae the request; I went there, and they directed me to go to the SPD property division, so I went there; then they directed me to call the investigator. I asked all of them how I would make a formal requesdt for property, and every one of them told me that they don't know how I would do that.


    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Record your conversations. And ask your attorney for advice.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    Yesterday consisted of me going to the CC office, and they told me they can't give ma duplicate CC permit, and isntructed me to go to the SPD investigation unit, and mae the request; I went there, and they directed me to go to the SPD property division, so I went there; then they directed me to call the investigator. I asked all of them how I would make a formal requesdt for property, and every one of them told me that they don't know how I would do that.

    So they confiscated your CC permit?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Yes, they confiscated it for an investigation, but the investigation is over, and I am "clear." My permit was active all the time the investigsation was going on, but without the permit I couldn't CC. I had no restrictions or anything. There is no reason they have to hold my property.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    Yes, they confiscated it for an investigation, but the investigation is over, and I am "clear." My permit was active all the time the investigsation was going on, but without the permit I couldn't CC. I had no restrictions or anything. There is no reason they have to hold my property.
    You can alway OC. OC down to the station to ask for you permit back that might get their attention a little better. If I was down that way I would go with you, maybe you need a fellow OCer to be your witness to thier actions.

    I think you still need to file the paperwork Mike advised you too file. They are depriving you of what is yours.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    If I remember correctly, there is a penalty of $1000 per day for failure to return property after it has been established the property was legal to have and the case concluded. You might want to ask your attorney about this as well.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Record your conversations. And ask your attorney for advice.
    Sylvia When it comes to recording conversation, you must have their consent to record as provided for in RCW 9.73.030 although seeing an attorney is always a good idea who knows they might want to argue the issue of a conversation with an Officer is not considered private ?? http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030


    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    If I remember correctly, there is a penalty of $1000 per day for failure to return property after it has been established the property was legal to have and the case concluded. You might want to ask your attorney about this as well.
    I am going to contact, and discuss this with an attorney.


    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    Sylvia When it comes to recording conversation, you must have their consent to record as provided for in RCW 9.73.030 although seeing an attorney is always a good idea who knows they might want to argue the issue of a conversation with an Officer is not considered private ?? http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    Sorry Dave but there is ample Case Law to support the recording of a conversation with a Law Officer or official.

    http://openjurist.org/388/f3d/676/jo...v-wj-hawe-1-10

    The most common decision cited in Washington is the Flora decision.

    This being said, the presence of a recorder may cause a sudden case of "Lock Jaw" on the part of any Police Officer or Official and any attempt at conversation could end.

    The best way to obtain property that was siezed and not returned within the statutory time is to obtain the services of an Attorney. They will take the necessary action and make claim for any damages allowed. Just make sure that ALL the facts are revealed to the Attorney first.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    Sylvia When it comes to recording conversation, you must have their consent to record as provided for in RCW 9.73.030 although seeing an attorney is always a good idea who knows they might want to argue the issue of a conversation with an Officer is not considered private ?? http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    Sorry Dave but there is ample Case Law to support the recording of a conversation with a Law Officer or official.

    http://openjurist.org/388/f3d/676/jo...v-wj-hawe-1-10

    The most common decision cited in Washington is the Flora decision.

    This being said, the presence of a recorder may cause a sudden case of "Lock Jaw" on the part of any Police Officer or Official and any attempt at conversation could end.

    The best way to obtain property that was siezed and not returned within the statutory time is to obtain the services of an Attorney. They will take the necessary action and make claim for any damages allowed. Just make sure that ALL the facts are revealed to the Attorney first.
    Don't be sorry when you provide good information and for the ease of reference material.
    When I made my post I felt also that there should not be a privacy question when it comes to law enforcement in public.

    It is pretty clear here

    23 "It is not a violation of the Washington Privacy Act to tape-record a police officer in the performance of an official function on a public thoroughfare. Such conversations are not `private' under the Privacy Act. This rule of law was clearly established by Washington Courts in 1992 in the case of State of Washington v. Flora."

    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Record your conversations. And ask your attorney for advice.
    Sylvia When it comes to recording conversation, you must have their consent to record as provided for in RCW 9.73.030 although seeing an attorney is always a good idea who knows they might want to argue the issue of a conversation with an Officer is not considered private ?? http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    Amlevin beat me to it.

    Plus the afore mentioned State vs Flora. That you brought out Dave. I had ran into this years ago when I bought a video camera to record unruly inspectors on my jobsites they started refusing to come out. I told them that if they don't they will be getting a lawsuit or delaying my jobs and costing me money.

    The city lawyer told them they were up SOL and had better start my inspection, which have all gone as smooth as silk since. Well except for one newbie, but that was another matter.

    I can't wait for work to pick back up watch their mouths drop when they come to inspect and I am open carrying. Not that, that would be my intention. I just open carry everywhere. Unless private property owner tells me not too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    It is not a violation of the Washington Privacy Act to tape-record a police officer in the performance of an official function on a public thoroughfare

    Read people!

    There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.

    I have YET to see anything that says 'you can record any official any time and any where'


    You don't need explicit consent (IMO) just implied consent. You telling them that you're recording is enough, as you're not hiding it, and if they don't want to be recorded then they can ****.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.

    Cite please

  21. #21
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Why in the hell did they take your concealed carry permit for an investigation?

    Isn't that why we invented copy machines?

    In the meantime I would request a replacement from the issuing agency, and call your lawyer. The last time a government agency kept people's "papers" they wore swastikas.

    Ridiculous.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  22. #22
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.

    Cite please

    Well, WA RCW states...


    RCW 9.73.030
    Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication — Consent required — Exceptions.


    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

    (..)

    (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

    (...)

    (3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

    As far as expectation of privacy goes....

    State Vs. Glas

    the Supreme Court in Washington state examined this question, and held that no privacy expectations exist in public places. In State v. Glas, the court overturned the criminal conviction of two defendants charged under Washington's voyeurism statute. [1]* The court focused on the plain language of the statute, finding it did not criminalize hostile intrusions of a person's privacy interests, but only images taken in a place where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Enacted in 1998, section 9A.44.115 of the Revised Code of Washington, classifies voyeurism as a felony that occurs when a person:

    [F]or the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. [2]*

    This statute limits the places where individuals could expect privacy to places where a reasonable person would believe that (i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or (ii) a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. [3]*

    The case against Sean Glas and Richard Sorrells began after each was convicted of voyeurism for secretly taking pictures underneath women's skirts.

    Mr. Glas was spotted in a local mall acting suspiciously while walking near two women. Both women reported seeing a flash, hearing a click, and noticing a small, silver camera in Mr. Glas' hand.

    Mr. Sorrells's arrest came after witnesses reported seeing him standing in a concession line videotaping underneath the skirts of young girls. Appealing their convictions, both Mr. Glas and Mr. Sorrells argued that section 9A.44.115 was misapplied to them because the victims did not have reasonable privacy expectations in public places.

    The court agreed, finding section 9A.44.115 did not prohibit up-skirt photography in a public place:

    Considering that casual intrusions occur frequently when a person ventures out in public, it is illogical that this subsection would apply to public places. Casual surveillance frequently occurs in public.

    Therefore, public places could not logically constitute locations where a person could reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. [B]oth Glas and Sorrells engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior. Nevertheless, we hold that Washington's voyeurism statute does not apply to actions taken in purely public places and hence does not prohibit the 'up-skirt' photographs they took. [4]
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    OK that covers photography when you cite State vs Glas. It is not applicable to audio

    recording. No further comment from me re this.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    It covers what is "privacy".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.
    Cite please
    "Privacy in a Public Place" is an oxymoron. It kind of provides its' own cite.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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