• 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.

Clark County Courthouse

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 

triehl27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
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
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
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).
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
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?
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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).
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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.

 

triehl27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
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.
 

bwboley

Activist Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Portland/Vancouver, ,
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:

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
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....
 

bwboley

Activist Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Portland/Vancouver, ,
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?
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
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)
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
...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 ;)
 
Top