Harrassment by a state police officer

imported post

My father is currently out on bond, and has only been out for 2 days. There is a state police officer harrassing him and threatening to take him back to jail. Everyday it is something small. For instance he had not changed his address over to where he was staying at yet, so he was still receiving some mail at another address. He had not changed the address on his drivers lic yet. He had not shut off the phone at the place where he was staying before he got arrested. It is all stupid, and they have not given him time to take care of it. In fact they have called him to the state police headquarters everyday for something else. They are following him around when he goes to town. They are actually following me and my husband around as well, because we are driving another vehicle that is in his name. What can we do?

imported post

Was this some how Firearms or Open Carry related? Sounds more like you need to call an attorney.

imported post

well the reason he was arrested in the first place was dealing with firearms.

imported post

Same answer..... Consult an attorney for legal advice.

imported post

+1 on getting an attorney.



Document interactions and also take pictures. Make a log of all the times you see them following youand write down license plates, location, date and time and a brief description of the officer (unless it's the same one). When they called and why and so forth.

Make sure you get names when you can.



Good luck to you!

imported post

Carrya voice recorder and digital camera with video. Record interactions and videotape them following and committing other harassing behavior.

Under Washington law you can record police without their knowledge or consent. I've been there and done that. Whip out a secret recording in court and they typically leave you alone afterward.

imported post

kschmadeka wrote:

Carrya voice recorder and digital camera with video. Record interactions and videotape them following and committing other harassing behavior.

Under Washington law you can record police without their knowledge or consent. I've been there and done that. Whip out a secret recording in court and they typically leave you alone afterward.

Click to expand...

Or your house mysteriously catches on fire. Or your car is the surprising target of gang vandalism.

imported post

kschmadeka wrote:

Carrya voice recorder and digital camera with video. Record interactions and videotape them following and committing other harassing behavior.

Under Washington law you can record police without their knowledge or consent. I've been there and done that. Whip out a secret recording in court and they typically leave you alone afterward.

Click to expand...

Yay, weighted voting ftw! :dude:

Step 1: Get an attorney that is familiar with harassment laws.
Step 2: Get an audio recorder.

Video isn't necessary. Audio is a must. This is one reason why no one relies on stupid security cameras in public places. You can see what's going on but you have no proof of what is said. Personally, I believe I am under constant surveillance(because I am). To continue the idea for my own personal protection is just one way I exercise my legal rights. Learn to do the same.

imported post

oldkim wrote:

+1 on getting an attorney.



Document interactions and also take pictures. Make a log of all the times you see them following youand write down license plates, location, date and time and a brief description of the officer (unless it's the same one). When they called and why and so forth.

Make sure you get names when you can.



Good luck to you!

Click to expand...

+2

Document, document, document.....and when your tired of that....well...you know.

imported post

You can file harassment charges against anayone including the POTUS. Just how far and what action you will get is all dependent on what they are doing to harass you. Doesn't make any difference whether it is a state police officer or your ex-wife, same process to go through. Consult an attorney.

imported post

If you want to start it yourself then go here http://www.wsp.wa.gov/information/commend.htm

If you prefer to address your compliment in writing, send it to WSP Headquarters at:
Washington State Patrol
General Administration Building
PO Box 42600
Olympia WA 98504-2600
(360) 753-6540

Or utilize our WSP Directory to locate the address and telephone number of WSP offices across the state.
Your written comments will be treated in the same manner as those received by electronic mail (see above).
The Washington State Patrol is committed to providing the highest level of law enforcement services to our citizens and stakeholders. Thank you for recognizing the efforts of a WSP employee.
opsmail@wsp.wa.gov. Please include a daytime telephone number where you may be reached.
Further information regarding the Washington State Patrol Complaint Process may be obtained by calling the Office of Professional Standards at (360) 704-4220.

imported post

Melaniell25 wrote:

In fact they have called him to the state police headquarters everyday for something else. They are following him around when he goes to town.

Click to expand...

Where do you live? This sounds strange. Here in Washington "they" don't call you to State Police Headquarters for anything. The Washington State Troopers issue citations and they are forwarded to the court. The Court may call but not State Troopers unless there is an ongoing investigation for a serious offense like Hit/Run, Vehicular Homicide, Etc. In that case you aren't called in, they come to you.



As for legal advice, the best is available from a lawyer, not the internet.

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

Or your house mysteriously catches on fire. Or your car is the surprising target of gang vandalism.

Click to expand...

I have my fair share of complaints about police, but to date arson isn't one of them. Besides, the looks of panic on their faces when I pulled it out, right after I'd gotten perjurous statements out of them, was just priceless.

Of course, something else I learned at that time (though I already knew it)was that criminal complaints against police just get swept under the mat, unless it's a case of murder with video or lots of witnesses, in which case they get charged and then the case purposely blown. That pretty much just leaves the lawsuit route.

imported post

Under Washington law you can record police without their knowledge or consent.

Click to expand...

I'm really sick and F'in tired of hearing this.

The court case that everyone is using as their case law has to do with recording ON A PUBLIC STREET.

There is ZERO privacy in public sans a bathroom, changing room, or other 'private' public area....

I'm getting really tired of having people quote shit without knowing the meaning.

If you have another cite, do it.

Otherwise you're giving bad advice that MAY get someone jacked up...

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

The court case that everyone is using as their case law has to do with recording ON A PUBLIC STREET.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was referring to, public stops and otherofficial businessconducted on the public clock. http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

imported post

Get Jessie.

imported post

I love this part:

We decline the State's invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.

Click to expand...

imported post

kschmadeka wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

The court case that everyone is using as their case law has to do with recording ON A PUBLIC STREET.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was referring to, public stops and other official business conducted on the public clock.  http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm 

Click to expand...

NO, it does not say ANYWHERE that any officers actions are fair game.

It merely says that the conversation NEVER was private. The officers were contesting that EVERY arrest/action they do is 'private', hence why the judge said 'BS, we're not carving out an exemption so you can use it against citizens'..

So, being that the law says you can't record PRIVATE conversations, and the conversation WAS NOT PRIVATE, the case was dismissed.

Has nothing to do with an officer being on duty or not.

Has to do with it BEING IN A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS.

...


..


The State urges us to adopt the view that public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute. We reject that view as wholly without merit.

....





It is clear, however, that there must be something in the nature of prying or intrusion, . . . It is clear also that the thing into which there is intrusion or prying must be, and be entitled to be, private.

Jeffers v. Seattle, 23 Wn. App. 301, 315, 597 P.2d 899 (1979) (quoting W. Prosser, Torts 808 (4th ed. 1971)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967).

The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private. 1


1 We note, incidentally, that the police officers testified at trial that they did not consider the conversation private.


Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only.

Click to expand...

AGAIN, absent other case law, there is NO 'public official' exemption.

State v. Flora is simply a case in which an error was corrected, as the recording was never PRIVATE, which is required in order to commit the crime.

imported post

Technoweenie, the subject here is HARASSMENT by PUBLIC OFFICIALS in PUBLIC PLACES on the PUBLIC CLOCK. In that context, IT IS LEGAL IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO RECORD POLICE WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.

Personally been there, done that, and hauled out the State V. Flora decision to get my recording admitted, so I think I know what the hell I'm talking about. If you're making the case that I was referring topolice officer'spersonal conversations, please cite. If you just want to split hairs and start arguments over petty details, then PM me and quit wasting space for everyone else.

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

kschmadeka wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

The court case that everyone is using as their case law has to do with recording ON A PUBLIC STREET.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was referring to, public stops and otherofficial businessconducted on the public clock. http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

Click to expand...

NO, it does not say ANYWHERE that any officers actions are fair game.

It merely says that the conversation NEVER was private. The officers were contesting that EVERY arrest/action they do is 'private', hence why the judge said 'BS, we're not carving out an exemption so you can use it against citizens'..

So, being that the law says you can't record PRIVATE conversations, and the conversation WAS NOT PRIVATE, the case was dismissed.

Has nothing to do with an officer being on duty or not.

Has to do with it BEING IN A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS.


AGAIN, absent other case law, there is NO 'public official' exemption.

State v. Flora is simply a case in which an error was corrected, as the recording was never PRIVATE, which is required in order to commit the crime.

Click to expand...

RCW 9.73.30
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.


For that to make any sense, you would have to be able to record interactions with the police, public or private, but may not keep the recording if no such exception under (2) occurs therein.

There is a lot of evidence in Flora that the court didn't want to go too far, but did want to make it clear that the recording act was meant to protect the public, not law enforcement, in that it "expresses a legislative intent to safeguard the private conversations of citizens from dissemination in any way. The statute reflects a desire to protect individuals from the disclosure of any secret illegally uncovered by law enforcement."

Essentially, an official acting in their official duty in a public venue, even if they are the only person present with you, should not be considered in private and protected. I would go so far as to argue that anything which would be legally "publicly available" under FOIA qualifies as not-private, but that is an argument for the courts.

In short, this person should definitely be in the clear recording the claimed instances of harassment, both under Flora and under 9.73.30 (2)