Pierce County Breaking the Law Starting June 16th:

Bobarino · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2010/06/03/fyi-county-wont-hold-your-knives-mace-while-you-visit-courthouse/comment-page-1/#comment-17924

FYI: County won't hold your knives, Mace while you visit courthouse Posted By Adam Lynn on June 3, 2010 at 11:43 am var addthis_pub="tacoma"; Share this
Pierce County is discontinuing its practice of temporarily holding onto inappropriate items people try to bring into the County-City Building and other secured locations.
Prohibited items include but are not limited to:
• Firearms and ammunition
• Edged weapons
• Impact weapons
• Explosives/improvised explosive device components
• Flammable liquids
• Chemical agents
• Hazardous Materials
• Handcuffs/handcuff keys
• Electronic self defense devices
• Toy guns or replicas
Leave that stuff at home or in the car, county officials say.
The new rules go into effect June 16.

This is, of course in direct violation of 9.41.300(1)(b)

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;

http://www.piercecountywa.org/cfapps/internet/news.cfm?node_id=102652

MEDIA CONTACTS:
Mike Dorman, Pierce County Facilities Management security manager
253-798-6184
mdorman@co.pierce.wa.us
Hunter George, Pierce County Communications director
253-798-6606
hgeorge@co.pierce.wa.us

gogodawgs · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

This change in court security screening procedures does not affect procedures applicable to citizens who possess valid concealed weapons permits.
Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers

According to the Pierce County website. http://www.piercecountywa.org/cfapps/internet/news.cfm?node_id=102652

However, that would exclude someone in a position of open carry and/or sterile carry.

Bobarino · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

it also excludes people that got a ride and got dropped off, rode a bike, walked, took the bus, took a cab etc etc etc. the law doesn't state you have to have a CPL to get a lockbox, nor does it exclude "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."

that includes pepper spray, impact weapons and the like.

They are setting themselves up for a lot of charges dropped and dismissed cases due to being illegally denied entry into their scheduled court proceedings.

Bobby

gogodawgs · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

Email sent to the entire County Council and City Council:

Regarding your updated courthouse security procedure effective June 16, 2010. ]http://www.piercecountywa.org/cfapps/internet/news.cfm?node_id=102652]http://www.piercecountywa.org/cfapps/internet/news.cfm?node_id=102652[/url]

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you review the policy in regards to firearms and specifically in regards to Washington state preemption. RCW 9.41.290 ]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290[/url]

"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 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=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."

Pierce County does not have authority to exclude someone in possession of a firearm from the courthouse premiseswho is not a CPL holder but instead prefers to 'open carry' their firearm. Open carry is legal in the state of Washington and no CPL is required. Therefore, the same lock box requirement without a CPL or ID is required for someone wishing to check a firearm in direct concurrence with RCW 9.41.300 which states:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

"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."

As you can see in 9.41.300 there is no requirement for a citizen to be a CPL holder when visiting a restricted building. I would be more than willing to assist you in understanding open carry and how it applies in this matter.

Regards,

Click to expand...

TheJeepster · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

City of Tacoma: But...but! You don't understand!!!! It's necessary for us to do this to save time and (really) not have to deal with these little annoyances you people from the public wish to heap on us.

Our response: TOUGH SHIT!!! The law is the law!

Notice they are even being hard-assed to other LEOs:

This change in court security screening procedures does not affect procedures applicable to citizens who possess valid concealed weapons permits.
Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers

Effective June 16, the following procedures apply to commissioned law enforcement officers who wish to retain their weapon while in a Pierce County courthouse.

All commissioned local, state and federal law enforcement officers who wish to carry their weapon in a Pierce County courthouse shall provide their departmental photo ID to court security staff when entering the courthouse for verification of identity and status as a commissioned law enforcement officer. Officers shall advise court security staff of the purpose of their visit, affirm they are acting in their official capacity and disclose their destination in the courthouse. Pierce County Sheriff's Department commissioned officers are exempt from this requirement when on duty and acting in an official capacity.

Additionally, you will notice the article is missing something very important. LEOs are required to show ID and verify who they are. Nothing was said was said about JQ Public at all. This leads me to believe they will deny the public citizen any kind of access, regardless of CPL.

Son_of_Perdition · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

gogo, well played old man. I particularly like the wording they used "inappropriate items" .It sure is a good thing a hand gun is a very appropriate item.

END_THE_FED · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

Maybe a few people should get together to go to a courthouse on the 16th or 17th, with copies of the RCW and try to check weapons. Get video and audio of them knowingly and willfully violating state law.

Metal_Monkey · Jun 3, 2010

imported post

END_THE_FED wrote:

Maybe a few people should get together to go to a courthouse on the 16th or 17th, with copies of the RCW and try to check weapons. Get video and audio of them knowingly and willfully violating state law.

More of this should be done all over the state. Enough is enough....It is a serious pain in the ass to deal with courthouses as it stands now....

gogodawgs · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

I did get a response back from a county council member that the policy is on the agenda for review.

I read the e-mail and I sent a request for review of the issue to our county council legal staff. This policy was implemented by the county executive. We can either over ride her policy via legislation or via legal review. Either way, it is now on our agenda and will have it discussed at our next study session.

amzbrady · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

I'm sure they didnt give you any kind of time frame that there would be a decision on this matter?

Aaron1124 · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

TheJeepster wrote:

City of Tacoma: But...but! You don't understand!!!! It's necessary for us to do this to save time and (really) not have to deal with these little annoyances you people from the public wish to heap on us.

Our response: TOUGH @#$%!!! The law is the law!

Notice they are even being hard-assed to other LEOs:

This change in court security screening procedures does not affect procedures applicable to citizens who possess valid concealed weapons permits.
Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers

Effective June 16, the following procedures apply to commissioned law enforcement officers who wish to retain their weapon while in a Pierce County courthouse.

All commissioned local, state and federal law enforcement officers who wish to carry their weapon in a Pierce County courthouse shall provide their departmental photo ID to court security staff when entering the courthouse for verification of identity and status as a commissioned law enforcement officer. Officers shall advise court security staff of the purpose of their visit, affirm they are acting in their official capacity and disclose their destination in the courthouse. Pierce County Sheriff's Department commissioned officers are exempt from this requirement when on duty and acting in an official capacity.

Additionally, you will notice the article is missing something very important. LEOs are required to show ID and verify who they are. Nothing was said was said about JQ Public at all. This leads me to believe they will deny the public citizen any kind of access, regardless of CPL.

That's good though. They need to make sure they're actually law enforcement officers who are making themselves present, rather than some schmuck impersonating one. According to the RCW, they can't make special lock box exceptions to those with a CPL. You don't have to have a CPL in order to secure your weapons in their lock box. Who does one report this to?

gogodawgs · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

amzbrady wrote:

I'm sure they didnt give you any kind of time frame that there would be a decision on this matter?

No, but I will follow up and check thier posted agenda. The council member is a facebook friend so I am sure I will get response.

Aaron1124 · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

What happens if they refuse to provide a lock box? Is it up to the citizen to file a suit against the city, or will a state agency pursue this matter?

If a state agency pursues it, what grounds do they have? Again, this does not appear to be a punishable offense. It seems that whenever preemption laws are in affect, or laws that restrict certain government agencies are in affect, there isn't a punishment for their violation.

Who would one refer a violation to?

gogodawgs · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

They do not have to provide a lock box, instead they can provide an official for safekeeping.

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.

I suppose that if the law is not followed then you would have to file a lawsuit to forcer their compliance.

olypendrew · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

The best mechanism to force them to do what they are required to do is probably a writ of mandamus. Alternatively, a writ of prohibition could prevent them from implementing the new policy.

Aaron1124 · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

Do you know if the municipal or superior court is suppose to determine if a law is in compliance with state law? Or do the Mayor/Executive and council have full authority in law making?

gogodawgs · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

The best mechanism to force them to do what they are required to do is probably a writ of mandamus.

So if there is not a positive response from the city and county council, et al, then I should go to the courthouse and be refused entry. (Sterile carry)

Then take that information to the Superior Court of Pierce County and petition for a writ of mandamus?

Aaron1124 · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The best mechanism to force them to do what they are required to do is probably a writ of mandamus.

Click to expand...

So if there is not a positive response from the city and county council, et al, then I should go to the courthouse and be refused entry. (Sterile carry)

Then take that information to the Superior Court of Pierce County and petition for a writ of mandamus?

That's why I was wondering if the court has to determine if the law is in compliance before OKing it... probably not though.

olypendrew · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

I'm not sure if being refused entry would be necessary, but it probably wouldn't hurt. I think that one could probably just state in an affidavit that one would like to go there and check a weapon, as provided in the RCWs, but Pierce County has indicated in an official publication that that process is insufficient. I don't think one needs to wait until the harm has actually occurred, meaning the refused entry. But I haven't researched any of this, so no one should consider it legal advice.

The legal maneuvering would be similar to the Seattle parks ban, where the plaintiffs had to merely state that hey would like to go to the parks armed, but a rule was enacted that prevented them from being able to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if the county makes some changes, now that this has come to its attention.

deanf · Jun 4, 2010

imported post

This is the kind of small but important thing that the WAC should be all over (see my reply in recent thread about the WAC.)

Pierce County Breaking the Law Starting June 16th:

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member