Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Clark County Courthouse

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr asked me to post up my experience with regard to checking a sidearm at the Clark County Courthouse. I had posted here previously, but apparently said posts were lost in a recent board crash, so I'm going to recap as best I can from memory.

    There is but one location to check sidearms. The entrance is located on the ground floor entrance on the WEST side of the EAST building (there are two buildings connected east-west by a covered breezeway). Upon entering the door the room is approx 15 feet wide and the metal detectors/security desk is about 8 feet forward. Immediately to your left as you enter the door you will see a rack of 'lockers' that looks like a wall of PO boxes mounted on the west wall of the room (same wall as the door you entered). The keys are located on the south wall behind the metal detectors.

    The last time I attempted to check a sidearm, the courthouse staff (actually the CC sheriff's department) criminally refused to comply with state law by demanding ID before they would check my sidearm. I attempted to inform them of their violation, only to have Deputy Sheriff Dick Butler draw his firearm in response and be kicked out of the building.

    Video HERE

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gilead_Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    mid-world (somewhere between tacoma and seattle)
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    and all this time I thought the legislature made the laws and now I come to

    find out its jst whatever the police say it is.... silly me...
    I aim with my eye... I shoot with my mind... I kill with my heart....
    - The Gunslinger's Litany (paraphrased)

    It has been brought to my attention that the stick figure decals on
    the back windows of vehicles are NOT pedestrian 'kill' scores, but are
    actually meant to represent family members. I'll be removing mine
    ASAP to avoid any further confusion.........

    First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    2008 video.

    What ever became of this violation by the CCSD?

  4. #4
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    We really need a few good lawyers on our side that OC as well, or even CC, but who feel strongly about our 2nd. Woud be nice to have a few that could go to places to test the waters so to speak after an incedence has been reported, and take it further if need be.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    State of Disbelief in King County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    Could we get a official cites i.e. RCW's of those statements cited. I have no doubts as I have heard it many times already.

    Of the no permission needed for videoing public official

    and No ID requird for check in.

    Thanks

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    I dont think that it being a public official makes it ok. I may be wrong but I think the issue is wether or not there is an assumption of privacy.If the interaction was in a public courthouse or on the street there is no assumption of privacy.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    Could we get a official cites i.e. RCW's of those statements cited.
    Washington
    All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if “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.” In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.
    A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
    Consent to recording of real-time conversation using online discussion software is implicit because participants know the conversations will be recorded on the other party’s computer. Washington v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
    Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations “if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.” Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4). Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4).
    Statutory liability exists only for nonconsensual recording or intercepting, not divulging, of private conversations. Kearney v. Kearney. 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). The statutory terms “record” and “intercept” do not encompass the meaning of divulge.
    Whether a communication is considered “private” under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002). The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006).


  8. #8
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    and No ID requird for check in.

    Thanks
    I've not OC'd or CC'd to a courthouse ever, but I still wonder what other folks have experienced in doing so.

    In this specific video had the security guard simply asked for photo ID versus a CPL, so that the right person is receiving his/her checked weapon back, would that have been okay with our OP?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Stretch wrote:
    trofwa wrote:
    and No ID requird for check in.

    Thanks
    I've not OC'd or CC'd to a courthouse ever, but I still wonder what other folks have experienced in doing so.

    In this specific video had the security guard simply asked for photo ID versus a CPL, so that the right person is receiving his/her checked weapon back, would that have been okay with our OP?
    RCW 9.41.300 states in pertinent part:

    RCW 9.41.300Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).

    For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.

    The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;.........




    Since there are indeed lock boxes made available for securing sidearms, and the law clearly provides that the key is to be provided to the weapon owner, there is no need for identifying documents to claim the firearm...the key acts as the claim ticket.


    As I stated in the previous (now lost to the board crash) thread, had there been a designated official instead of lock boxes, I would probably capitulated and provided some identifying information...perhaps a password or a torn dollar bill or something...but not my personal ID...there is no reason for them to know this (aside from the fact that I had no documents ON ME at the time).


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    Could we get a official cites i.e. RCW's of those statements cited. I have no doubts as I have heard it many times already.... No ID required for check in.

    Thanks
    You can see in my post above the requirements established in state law for the checking of sidearms in courthouses. Nowhere in RCW 9.41.300 is there a requirement, nor even a provision allowing for a requirement, to provide ANY form of documentation in order to check a firearm.

    RCW 9.41.290 (below) makes it illegal for political subdivisions of the state to exceed state law in all matters concerning firearms...PERIOD.


    RCW 9.41.290State preemption.
    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.





    By demanding ID and drawing his sidearm while refusing to check my sidearm in accordance with state law, Dick Butler, et al, committed several criminal violations of state law, not the least of which is RCW 9A.36.070:


    RCW 9A.36.070Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.

    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:

    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).

    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr,

    I don't see the porttion about recording of a law enforcement or public official while they are on duty.

    I have searched and can't find it here in the forums although at some point I know it has been cited at least once.

    I also can't find the RCW associated with it.



  12. #12
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    388 F3d 676 Johnson v. Wj Hawe 1-10 Open Jurist

    read this to see that LEO have no expectation of privacy while on official duty.
    i havent looked for RCWs,
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    Could we get a official cites i.e. RCW's of those statements cited. I have no doubts as I have heard it many times already.

    Of the no permission needed for videoing public official

    [snip]
    I think what you are looking for is State v. Flora which speaks to RCW 9.73.030.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    So have you filed a internal affairs complain about Deputy Dog and his quick drawing sidearm? You had better watch out, he was "jerking like an addict".

  15. #15
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    gunna bump this im heading to the cc courthouse tomrrow what should i bring with me tomorrow? should i bring a copy of the state law saying they have to give me the key?
    Last edited by bwboley; 09-16-2010 at 01:54 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    IMHO the absolute most important thing you can bring with you would be a video recorder!

    After that yeah the RCW's might be nice, but will they even pretend to look at them? Probably not. Just make sure that you follow what you KNOW to be the law and that you have their responses recorded....
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  17. #17
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    il be having my cell record so wont be the best at 3.2 but it will work so if they tell me to leave who would i contact to file a complaint and what legal action can i take?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I am not 100% certain as to the complaints process as I have never been through a situation like this myself, however I am sure there are those on here that are EXTREMELY more knowledgeable than I.

    I would assume, however that you would take a complaint to the sheriff, however if I am not mistaken the sheriff was the one who drew a weapon in the video posted above...might not be too receptive.

    Perhaps a city council (or county commisioners) board meeting? (this is just what I would try if there was no other opinions or advice for those more knowledgeable)
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    ...however if I am not mistaken the sheriff was the one who drew a weapon in the video posted above...
    Not to sound nit-picky, but it probably was a deputy of the Sheriff, not the Sheriff himself. I would imagine that a complaint to the Sheriff would be a good first step, and with a response or non response, escalate from there.

    Good luck on going to the courthouse tomorrow. Hope VPD doesn't detain you along the way

  20. #20
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    lol if they do it be my first leo encounter

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by triehl27 View Post
    M1Gunr,

    I don't see the porttion about recording of a law enforcement or public official while they are on duty.

    I have searched and can't find it here in the forums although at some point I know it has been cited at least once.

    I also can't find the RCW associated with it.
    It's not so much spelled out in the RCW as it is the result of a Court of Appeasl decision here:

    http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

    "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. "

  22. #22
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    so they wouldnt give me the key also was gunna kick me out for not gunna give them my id so please tell me were i file a complant

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    It's not so much spelled out in the RCW as it is the result of a Court of Appeasl decision here:

    http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

    "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. "
    Don't forget this, which relies on that but makes it more explicit:
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1344599.html

    Because it was clearly established under Washington law at the time of the arrest that recording a police officer in the performance of his public duties was not a violation of the Privacy Act and it was unreasonable for Chief Nelson to believe otherwise, we hold that the Chief is not entitled to qualified immunity.  
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    I just have to think that if state laws were taught from K - 12, there would be alot less violations of the law on both sides. The more people that know the law, would make it harder for the authorities to violate your rights, and ignorance of the law would have a much stronger meaning. We were barely taught anything pertaining to the US in the mandatory history classes in our school, and the classes were so uninvolved that I only remember small bits and pieces, pilgrams, slaves, the british are coming, north and south fought, custer screwed up big time, Indians got screwed big time, Martin luther King had a dream, So did I until the teacher woke me up, and a rocket blew up with a school teacher. That was about it. Course I just wanted to get out of school so I could have a beer, and get laid. They wouldnt let me do that in school anymore.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I hate to say this as I am 100% CERTAIN it will get miscostrued and turned a complete 180 degrees from my intentions.

    The problem with teaching any semblance of ACCURATE constitutional history in schools is that there is TOO much emphasis placed on "multicultural interacial diversity" or whatever they wanna call it now a days.

    Yes diversity is cool and important, as well as respecting others cultures.

    HOWEVER once you move to this country and obtain citizenship (well you should at least...nother topic, nother time) shouldn't you cease to be a latvian-estonian-croatian-japanese-taiwanese-pakistani-afghani-african-portugese-irish american and become a friggin AMERICAN?

    Yes you can honor your culture and raise your kids to respect your background and their heritage, however shouldn't you raise them to be AMERICANS first????

    Perhaps if we focused just a smidge less on EVERYONE ELSE'S history, and more on the history that brings us all together, that of AMERICA. We might then be able to all understand, to a certain extent, the laws, freedoms, regulations, priveleges and HONOR of America...
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •