Requesting property after investigation?

There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.

Cite please

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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. 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]

Click to expand...

There is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC.

Click to expand...

Cite please

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

killchain wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Apparently they needed to put the permit into evidence while they were investigating an incident.

I would go get a copy, the problem is, in Washington State, if your permit is taken into evidence, you can not get a duplicate, copy, etc. You have to requestthe permitfrom the investigating officer. When you go to the courthouse to fill out paperwork for a copy/duplicate, they have you sign a paper swearing that the permit was not taken from an officer as part of an investigation; obviously I didn't sign it.

I would prefer to keep the "reason" out of this, although, I will say that the investigation was closed about a month ago (ruled in my favor), and they are still withholding my property, including my permit (which is still active, but no good to me if I don't have it on my person). I have made many requests, but seem to be getting the run-around.

I hope they haven't lost my handgun.....that would really piss me off.

Click to expand...

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police

Click to expand...

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police

Click to expand...

I did think about this a little bit:

They CAN take it if you're under investigation for something similar to brandishing.

But I would still file for a replacement.

Click to expand...

killchain wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police

Click to expand...

I did think about this a little bit:

They CAN take it if you're under investigation for something similar to brandishing.

But I would still file for a replacement.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't for brandishing...I would never brandish a firearm, it either stays holstered or I shoot.

That is the thing, I can't file for a replacement because it was taken. This is one big.....ing mess. I am going to sort it out, and keep everyone up-to-date.

Click to expand...

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police

Click to expand...

I did think about this a little bit:

They CAN take it if you're under investigation for something similar to brandishing.

But I would still file for a replacement.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't for brandishing...I would never brandish a firearm, it either stays holstered or I shoot.

That is the thing, I can't file for a replacement because it was taken. This is one big.....ing mess. I am going to sort it out, and keep everyone up-to-date.

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying anything, just mentioning it.

The GOOD NEWS is that you can open carry in Washington. So bust out another pistol and strap it to your side.

Click to expand...

LOL, yea, I know I can....I just like CC'ing. I am probably going to start open carrying if this mess isn't cleared up soon. I have kids, and have not carried for months now when we are out, and about, and that bothers me very much.

Click to expand...

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police.

Click to expand...

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police.

Click to expand...

If the investigation is closed then the "exclusion", that a police officer has taken it for an investigation is no longer true. If they haven't returned it after the investigation was closed means that it is either illegally held by the Police (stolen) or merely lost because they can't find it to return it to you. It sure sounds like you would have an affirmative defense if anyone wanted to call you on the issue.

Click to expand...

amlevin wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

killchain wrote:

Really. I thought you could always get a replacement state/govermnet ID if it was lost, stolen or destroyed. I mean, I sure did when my Social Security card was destroyed in a fire, and my Army ID was replaced after I lost it on a weekend pass.

Which yours is technically "stolen" because they don't need the physical copy, never did, and never should.

I'd file for a replacement, mark it as "stolen", and talk to your attorney.

This is crap. They're messing with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that IMO it was stolen, but signing a document that specifically says that you are stating that a LEO has not taken your permit for evidence would be criminal...it is a legal document I am signing.

You can get a replacement, as long as it wasn't confiscated by police.

Click to expand...

If the investigation is closed then the "exclusion", that a police officer has taken it for an investigation is no longer true. If they haven't returned it after the investigation was closed means that it is either illegally held by the Police (stolen) or merely lost because they can't find it to return it to you. It sure sounds like you would have an affirmative defense if anyone wanted to call you on the issue.

Click to expand...

That is what I am actually worried about, that they lost my permit, and that they lost my handgun....everytime I call the detective he asks me to remind him what it was I am requesting back, and then he says he has to look for the items.

I am curious, do they lose firearms during investigations?

Click to expand...

*sitting on a park bench at Greenlake, watching the kidsplay*.....*looks to her right where she is resting her arm* Stamped on the park-bench arm-rest "refurbished 9mm Smith & Wesson"

Click to expand...