• 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.

Law Firm asks the Police to leave for Open Carry

gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

"...our attorneys and police officers were just asked to leave a plaintiff’s firm for a deposition because the officers were carrying their weapons (in uniform). The firm has a no gun policy and said they had to give them up to attend the deposition. Our defense attorney is a former Marine and he came unglued I guess; the real irony is this is an outspoken civil rights firm in Seattle. I guess the only right they won’t argue for is the second one. Needless to say, there were no depositions today because the officers left."
Click to expand...


In an email from my wife describing an event that happened last week. I thought that this was very interesting. My undertanding is that my wife's firm is now looking to do the depostions at a neutral site and the officer's will still be able to carry.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

He was in uniform (meaning on duty) and was told to leave? Isn't that unlawful? If the officer is in the course of his duties, he can be armed. Seems fishy.
 
zekester

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
imported post

I could be totally wrong, but if a business restricts the possesion of a weapon, then it does not matter...."official" use or not....a ban is a ban....unless they want to change the law....

A peace officer is nothing more than a citizen with the right to carry a weapon, if I ban weapons, the the ban is to ALL!!!

Z
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

zekester wrote:
I could be totally wrong, but if a business restricts the possesion of a weapon, then it does not matter...."official" use or not....a ban is a ban....unless they want to change the law....

A peace officer is nothing more than a citizen with the right to carry a weapon, if I ban weapons, the the ban is to ALL!!!

Z
Click to expand...
If a police officer is conducting official business, they can carry their firearm on whatever private property they want. I am assuming the police may not have been conducting official business.

That's like saying a home owner has a right to tell an officer that he has to leave his firearm in his vehicle while he's responding to a 911 call to the house. If a police officer is not conducting official business, but simply grocery shopping, while in uniform, then yes, the business owner/representatives can tell him to leave his firearm in the car. The likelihood of that happening is slim to none though. A police officer is much more than just a citizen with a right to carry a weapon, considering we're ALL citizens with a right to carry a weapon. Police are exempt from many laws while on duty, and even many while off duty.
 
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

This is, in part, incorrect. The "official duty" must involve investigating or responding to a crime. Otherwise they have no implied right to be there anymore than you or I do.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

j2l3 wrote:
This is, in part, incorrect. The "official duty" must involve investigating or responding to a crime. Otherwise they have no implied right to be there anymore than you or I do.
Click to expand...
That is what I am talking about.

On another note, they do have rights to be somewhere where a private citizen can not be. Many RCWs exempt law enforcement, both on and off duty to many things that are restricted to the general public. For example, carrying in a court, carrying on school property, etc.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Metal_Monkey wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
SpyderTattoo wrote:
Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
Click to expand...
They were if they were conducting official business.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
Click to expand...
No, it's not incorrect at all. If an officer is conducting official business, specifically on site to where they're at, they may not be asked to leave because of their firearm.

Like I said, it doesn't apply if a uniformed officer is shopping for groceries. However, if an officer is investigating a theft at said grocery store, the store representatives/management can not ask him to leave his firearm in his car. That's ridiculous.
 
ak56

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
imported post

OK, since nobody else is going to ask...

Who is the outspoken civil rights firmthat asked them to give up their guns?
I may want to avoid them.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
SpyderTattoo wrote:
Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
Click to expand...
They were if they were conducting official business.
Click to expand...

To help claryify...

The officer's are represented by an insurance pool that represents the cities in Washington.

They were conducting a deoposition for circumstances related to their job as LEO. The were for all purposes acting in an official capacity. They were to meet with the attorney's on the other side for a deposition. This is typically done at one of the two law firms. (The case at hand has nothing to do with firearms)

The alternative is that the depositions will be done at another location at a later time.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

The following is from my friend from Kent PD

Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
The following is from my friend from Kent PD

Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
Click to expand...
While this was an official function of the officer's job, the location was not relevant to conducting a deposition. The law firm invited the other side (lawyer and officer's) to their offices. Maybe they did this on purpose? Regardless the officer's were not conducting any official business (the law firm was not the site of a crime) that was sensitive to the place or time.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
The following is from my friend from Kent PD

Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
Click to expand...

Do you have any cites to back that up? Asking LEO rarely ends in a completely correct and accurate answer.

You do realize that you are saying the owner of a business must give up his 4th amendment rights if a LEO is performing in official capacity, right?
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
The following is from my friend from Kent PD

Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
Click to expand...
While this was an official function of the officer's job, the location was not relevant to conducting a deposition. The law firm invited the other side (lawyer and officer's) to their offices. Maybe they did this on purpose? Regardless the officer's were not conducting any official business (the law firm was not the site of a crime) that was sensitive to the place or time.
Click to expand...
I know. I agree with what you're saying for this situation. I'm just trying to get across to everyone who seem to think that a private business has the right to deny entrance to law enforcement who are actually carrying out their official duties, such as an investigation.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
The following is from my friend from Kent PD

Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
Click to expand...

Do you have any cites to back that up? Asking LEO rarely ends in a completely correct and accurate answer.

You do realize that you are saying the owner of a business must give up his 4th amendment rights if a LEO is performing in official capacity, right?
Click to expand...
It's quite obvious. If a police officer is investigating a potential theft that has taken place at a retail grocery store, then he not only can be armed, but he has a DUTY to be armed, and the business has no say in that at all. I'm not saying that just any "official capacity" gives them the right and duty, but carrying out official business under official capacity, such as investigating a potential crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top