Four Men, three rifles, a woman, and a handgun (Vancouver)

Well this was my day today (13 SEP 2010), and i figured i would share. I am a long time reader, but very rarely post.

Earlier today, (it was about 5:00pm) my girlfriend and I were at the Taco Bell on 4th Plain, just east of Caples, and Faulk Rd. We had stopped by for a bite to eat, as we were finishing up some errands. We went in and ordered our food, and sat down (the employees were friendly and helpful). As I Sat down, a man across the room a bit, turned to me and asked me the "Is that real?" (I carry either a Springer 1911, or Glock 38. Today was the 1911) After which he asked why I needed it. I replied with the standard, its for personal protection. (I was tired from a long day of running errands and wasn't in the mood to chat, as i wanted to enjoy "dinner" with the girl and get home. But i did remain polite.) right after that, the man made a sideways comment "Really? at Taco Bell?" Then promptly told is son, that they were leaving. At this point the kid looked up with a very confused look about why they were leaving, cause they hadn't finished their food. (that is just my guess, but they hadnt finished eating yet).

At this point they leave, and my and I get our order and start eating. Im thinking nothing of it, as i have ran into people like this before and they choose to leave. A few moments later though, i notice the guy stick his head around the corner from the front entrance of the taco bell with a cell phone stuck to his head, looking at me.
this is when i realize it wasnt going to be like the rest of the encounters with those who dont like guns. Shortly after he and his son leave on their bicycles to the Dairy Queen across the street. (More on this later)

About 5 minutes after they leave, my girlfriend, notices a police officer, across the street at the shopping center parking lot, with a AR-15, and Tac vest, moving to the dumpster and getting behind it. Shortly after seeing this, (and the many police cars on the surrounding streets do drive bys) the Taco Bell Manager comes over (again she was very nice, and friendly), and says that there is a Police officer at the drive thru window and he wants me to go outside to talk to them. So I tell her, not a problem, and thanked her, then proceeded to wrap up our trash and headed out the door. (the cop at the window, told me to go outside and talk to the officers on the left side of the building (he yelled it through the window).

So as ordered, i walk out side and to the left side of the building (by where the drive thru ordering panel is) and there are 4 more cops, three of which are in vests and carrying ARs, in the low ready position. I walk over to them, as they order me to. they then proceed through the normal, "do not reach for your weapon, we are going to remove it for our safety, yadda yadda.) So, i get cuffed, though the officer was nice about it, and did not put them on tight, i still had about 2 finger widths of play in the cuffs. they disarmed me, and cleared my weapon. and then proceeded to explain why they were there. That they had gotten a call, about someone open carrying a gun, and that after the incident about three months ago, they have specific policies about how to respond and deal with open carriers (he insinuated to the Kerby case). once once my weapon was cleared, the tension of the group of officers decreased quite a bit. one of them, began talking to me about 1911s, and that they were his gun of choice, and how he had a springer 1911 operator he carried, one of the others made a coment to a lady who was trying to order food to order the number 4 from the menu. Another asked if I was "In the service" becuase of my boots and the way i stood and as i talked to them.

During this time, they ran my license, and CPL, and the serial from my handgun. (all came back clean, in my name of course). At which point, they told me they had nothing else to do, and that they just needed to get my info for their report, and we could be on our way. (this was because, when i handed them my ID and CPL, i got it handed back to me within about 1 minute, to which i handed the officer my ID and CPL again, and he only wrote down the CPL number.

After that, we were on our way, walked to the truck and left. As we left the Taco Bell parking lot, i noticed the man, who phoned in the 911 call, was sitting with his son on their bicycles across the street at the Dairy Queens parking lot, watching to see what was going on. (My girl waved as we drove by, just to be nice)


Weird things about this, that i found interesting:

1. As soon as the weapon was secured, it became a gun chat session and i got to hear why they had to do this...because of the kerby case (he did not say names, just that it was because of an incident about 3 months ago).

2. When they went to disarm me, i was loosely cuffed, which I though was odd, (i have been shown how to properly cuff someone) and that was not it. while one officer took my weapon, the one who cuffed me proceeded to "pat me down" and by pat me down, i mean, he patted down the sides of my chest, and my left leg from hip to knee.....that was it..... he left the pocket knife, second magazine, wallet and what not else i had on my person.

3. As they were talking to me, it felt like they couldn't decide whether i was a conceal carrier who had just became uncovered, or an open carrier. This because when talking to me, one made the comment, that i should conceal better next time, to avoid all the hassle. This was after he told me they has specific policies about open carriers and how to respond, all because of the incident 3 months ago.

4. while my girlfriend was not carrying at all, and wasnt even really involved, when she walked over with me to the officers. which the officer that approached her asked if she had any weapons, and she said no, only her wallet in her pocket, he poked in her pocket of her hoodie and nothing else, and left her to talk with the one female officer there.

5. After i was initially handed back my ID and CPL, and then was told we were done, they just needed my phone, and address and info for their report, one officer started asking me for my info, which i gave him my phone number (he asked for that first, then just turned and walked away) and another (the guy i was chatting with about 1911s) asked for my CPL number and the rest of my info, so i provided him with my ID and CPL again, to which he only wrote my CPL number down, and then handed them back.


just as an aside in case i didn't state it earlier, all the officers i dealt with were very courteous, and as friendly as they could be while maintaining their professional position. Never at any point did i feel like i was being lectured about open carrying (that never really happened) or did i feel like i was being harassed verbally, or talked down to.



Also, just to be clear, this was the first time i was dealing with police, in this kind of situation, and I know that there are many, many things that I could have, should have done. But, I got out of the situation, without ant sort of citation, lecture, or what not, and did not have to deal with cops who had the "Mightier than all" egos. I made it home, in one piece, with me and my girl no worse for the wear.




Sorry for the super long rant, just lots of thoughts bouncing around in my head, that i needed to get out. so, lets here what you think.

-Ian

Absolutely Unacceptable of this departments protocol...

The police should never have been dispatched, much less even talk to you, even more less handcuffed you, checked your ID, or run you serial number. You should immediately file a complaint and talk to a lawyer regarding this. You were not committing any crime, and in fact you should conceder a civil against the 911 caller, and or the department.
- You just had your rights violated 100%
- Kudos, and Good job for staying calm and polite and cooperating with them, this is (on our part) the correct way to handle it, however you should have voiced that you do not consent to a search of your person, and do not consent to the numbers of your firearms being run.
- A voice recored (or even better video) would have been in your favor. See is Taco Bell has video of this and subpoena it.

- Indeed contact a lawyer who deals with civil rights infractions and firearms.

I am sorry you had to deal with this... I really am.

:uhoh: Bat

UNACCEPTABLE.

Their approach was that they KNEW you were an "Open Carrier" and they still decided that a show of force was necessary to detain you (you were absolutely not free to go if they cuffed you) and make sure that you were legal to participate in a legal activity. Were you able to get badge numbers/names of the officers involved? This is a completely unneccesary reason for the police department to execute a "Terry Stop." OC is LEGAL, they know this or you would have been ticketed and/or arrested. Does Vancouver think they have their own little country down there or something?!?

Print this out and

make changes as necessary to get it to the police chief, city attorney, and city council. Mail it return receipt requested. Mail a copy to yourself and keep it sealed when it arrives.


Sheriff

1. At present, your deputies are unlawfully harassing and persons lawfully open carrying handguns **secured in holsters** on foot in your jurisdiction. Please take action to ensure your deputies are brought up to speed with the authorities cited in this discussion regarding the law of open carry in Washington.

2. Non-consensual police stops of open carriers for simply open carrying is per se unlawful.

As you and your deputies should already know, it is not unlawful to openly carry handguns in Washington, and that like most states, no license is required to open carry on foot, and local ordinances to the contrary are unlawful as a matter of state preemption law. RCW 9.41.290. The United States Supreme Court has established that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to seize a person absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") of crime afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Accordingly, the Washington Court of Appeals has recently affirmed a trial court's holding that Washington law "does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere [open] carrying of a firearm in public." State v. Casad, 139 Wash.App. 1032 (Wash. App.Div.2 2007) (suppressing evidence of unlawful possession of firearms because stop of Defendant was not grounded in reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime).

Further, even during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless the subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added). So even if there were there to come a time that a Washington law enforcement officer properly seizes a person pursuant to RAS for brief investigatory purposes, the officer is not entitled to seize an openly carry weapon absent "reason to believe that the suspect is . . . [also presently] dangerous." Id. Should an open carrier stopped validly under Terry consensually produce a Concealed Pistol License, this fact weighs heavily against any officer's claim that the suspect is "presently dangerous" such that the gun maybe lawfully seized and serial numbers obtained. Accordingly, suppression of any evidence obtained in seizing the gun is likely under these circumstances.

3. Nonconsensual stops of open carriers to demand identification or check gun serial numbers is unlawful in Washington.

A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).

4. Editorializing against open carry is not the province of law enforcement.

If your deputies have any objection to open carry, they should contact their state legislator on their off duty time and not use the color of authority behind their badges and uniforms to stifle both the right to bear arms and the First Amendment right of expressive conduct to open carry firearms.

5. Unlawful stops of open carriers will result in suppression of evidence even if unlawful conduct is uncovered, allowing criminals to get off the hook.


In Casad, see supra, the Appeals court suppressed evidence of the unlawful possession of firearms because law enforcement seized a man for merely openly carrying firearms in public. This result is not unusual, see Goodman v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 2988343
(Va.App. 2007) (same result as Casad), because the result is as a matter of federal Constitutional law commanded by the United States Supreme Court. As discussed supra, see Florida v. J. L.; Hicks.

6. No qualified immunity available for law enforcement officials regarding open carrier harassment in Washington.

As it is clearly established law that the open carry of handguns in holsters is lawful without a CPL, qualified immunity does not attach to your deputies for the unlawful harassment, ID checks, see Stufflebeam, discussed supra, and gun serial number checks, see also Hicks and J.L, discussed supra. Further, by way of this webform email I am putting you as the Sheriff, and the Office of the Sheriff, of actual notice in this matter, subjecting you to personal liability for damage claims under 42 USC 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

7. In conclusion, please know that it is the constitutional right of open carriers to enjoy the same freedom of movement and right of assembly in society as those wishing to carry concealed, or not at all. The purpose of law enforcement is to help ensure open carriers enjoy these freedoms, not to stifle them. Please contact me by email at your earliest convenience to confirm that your deputies will cease harassment of open carriers immediately.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER

Added:
Maybe print out a bunch of these to hand out to the police at the picnic, IF they show up.

When is the Vancouver picnic? Should it be a picnic or a large group of tourist's walking to about every store in town and really getting them familiar with the law as it was written. Let the cops get good and used to "man with gun" calls, one right after another. How are these officers able to get away with what they are doing.

I also wonder, if Tomkin shouldnt have ignored the request to go to the officer and let the officer come to him. "Am I under arrest, am I being detained?" Maybe the OCDO pamphlet should headline, "be sure your recorder is on".

amzbrady said:

When is the Vancouver picnic? Should it be a picnic or a large group of tourist's walking to about every store in town and really getting them familiar with the law as it was written. Let the cops get good and used to "man with gun" calls, one right after another. How are these officers able to get away with what they are doing.

I also wonder, if Tomkin shouldnt have ignored the request to go to the officer and let the officer come to him. "Am I under arrest, am I being detained?" Maybe the OCDO pamphlet should headline, "be sure your recorder is on".

Click to expand...

Thing that jumped right out at me is, he should have made the cops comes to him inside the place, if for no other reason than the entire encounter would be on video. And more witnesses, possibly.

After reading numerous posts concerning the police and thier apparent civil rights infractions two questions come to mind: 1) Are the police ignorant of the laws? 2) Are they willfully breaking the law?

G20-IWB24/7 said:

UNACCEPTABLE.

Their approach was that they KNEW you were an "Open Carrier" and they still decided that a show of force was necessary to detain you (you were absolutely not free to go if they cuffed you) and make sure that you were legal to participate in a legal activity. Were you able to get badge numbers/names of the officers involved? This is a completely unneccesary reason for the police department to execute a "Terry Stop." OC is LEGAL, they know this or you would have been ticketed and/or arrested. Does Vancouver think they have their own little country down there or something?!?

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like this was a Terry Stop but their response to a MWAG call. The dufus that the OP had his original conversation most likely called 911 and probably told them a story about "a crazed gunman in the restaurant that was threatening everyone with his gun". Before jumping on the officers for doing their job, and it sounds like they were more than friendly while doing so, find out what story the "buttwipe" that made the call told dispatch. There is where the anger should be directed. It is very possible that when the officer's report is read and compared with the recording of the call that the reporting party will be contacted and get an explanation of what can happen to people that make false reports.

Because Vancouver has a couple of incidents where OC'ers have run afoul of Vancouver PD or Clark Co SO deputies, it 's easy to jump on them as overly zealous. This may not be one of those cases, just a case of officers responding to a 911 call and treating the OC'er rather fairly. Just remember that there ARE cases where people with guns are threatening others. 911 dispatchers are not in a position to sort them out, that's a job for the responding officers.

Just a thought on what the 911 operator might have heard. How many times have we heard the story "If you want a cop to respond quickly to your call, tell them "HE"S GOT A GUN!""?

Request for 911

Since the police indicated that they were filing a report, shouldn't you be able to request a copy of this along with the 911 call via the FOIA?

amlevin said:

Doesn't sound like this was a Terry Stop but their response to a MWAG call. The dufus that the OP had his original conversation most likely called 911 and probably told them a story about "a crazed gunman in the restaurant that was threatening everyone with his gun". Before jumping on the officers for doing their job, and it sounds like they were more than friendly while doing so, find out what story the "buttwipe" that made the call told dispatch. There is where the anger should be directed. It is very possible that when the officer's report is read and compared with the recording of the call that the reporting party will be contacted and get an explanation of what can happen to people that make false reports.

Because Vancouver has a couple of incidents where OC'ers have run afoul of Vancouver PD or Clark Co SO deputies, it 's easy to jump on them as overly zealous. This may not be one of those cases, just a case of officers responding to a 911 call and treating the OC'er rather fairly. Just remember that there ARE cases where people with guns are threatening others. 911 dispatchers are not in a position to sort them out, that's a job for the responding officers.

Just a thought on what the 911 operator might have heard. How many times have we heard the story "If you want a cop to respond quickly to your call, tell them "HE"S GOT A GUN!""?

Click to expand...

I disagree. It's very clear to me that this gentleman's rights were violated all over the place. It seems that that area of the state seems to think they do not have to obey federal or state laws. It is very wrong, in my opinion, to detain or harrass someone who has not done anything wrong. They need to educate their officers and soon, or it's going to cost them a lot of money in lawsuits.

I was so upset about this incident that I forgot to commend the OP on his excellent handling of the situation. This has to be stopped, and soon. The longer this sort of thing goes on, the more reluctant the authorities will be to change it. It is self perpetuating; officer so and so did it, so another officer thinks it's the proper thing to do. I am wondering at this point if there is a sheriff or police chief who simply doesn't like open carry and refuses to train his officers properly regarding open carry. This is what, the 3rd or 4th incident in that area; I am thinking of the Kirbys, Josh, and now this. If I were the OP, I think I would be filing a complaint with the Washington AG, if that is the proper person to file such a complaint with.

Wtf!!!!

Wow....has anyone open

I recommend following Trigger DR.'s advice.

Also contact a lawyer, they violated many many rights, they need to pay for that it seems to be the only way our employees will learn to not overstep their "authority".

Am I the only one that can envision the potential of innocent people being harmed in these ridicoulous situations/actions by the LEO.

If I was down there I would be on my way open carrying to their station to hand out our pamphlets and asking for our states version of FOIA.

So hard not to LEO Bash when they act like Jack booted thugs!!!!!

NavyLT said:

Maybe we will get a swat audience in the park? Has the media been invited?

Click to expand...

Why not just invite the PD to the picnic as guests? Anyone ever thought of doing that?

Just a thought, say you request a copy of the 911 call and it turns out that the caller lied about your actions thus causing you to be detained, cuffed etc. Would you have recourse against the caller because he caused you to have your rights violated, great embarrasment etc.

NavyLT said:

I must respectfully disagree due to the following, and granted this is from the side of the OP but:

1. The OP noticed that police had arrived nearby with AR-15's.
2. The police officer (too lazy to leave his vehicle) "tells" him to go outside and talk to the officers.

Depending on what the officer actually said, could a reasonable person take that to be an order, or a request for a consentual encounter. Given the circumstances, I'll bet it wasn't "Excuse me, would mind talking with me for a minute?" If the presence of the "swat" team and the commanding voice of the officer would cause a reasonable person to feel they were being detained, than that is exactly what the encounter is - a dentention. Based on what? The officer's did not observe any indication of any law being broken.

3. Then the officers proceed to disarm the subject and place him in handcuffs. Now there is no doubt this is a formal detention - again based on what? The officers have seen no indication of any law being broken. Did the subject consent to disarming and being placed in handcuffs in order to proceed with a consensual encounter? Highly unlikely.

4. They ran his license, CPL and serial number of the gun. How did they get that information? Did the subject provide it while he was in handcuffs? Regardless, why are they conducting an illegal search for evidence of a crime that there is no reasonable suspicion has been committed? The subject was not concealed carrying. There was nothing to suggest the gun may be stolen.

5. They frisked the girlfriend? He poked in the pocket of her hoodie? You mean he entered the pocket to search? That goes beyond a frisk and is an all out search. With what reasonable cause? Even for a frisk! So they formally detained her as well.

...

Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion, i may have cause, i was tired when i wrote this, so ill see if i can clear up any of the questions people have asked or were curious about.

I'll start with LT's

1. Yes there were actually 4 rifles that i as visually seen, 1 was at the dumpster across the parking lot (this is the one i mention my girl seeing and pointing out coming from the parking lot across the street). the other 3 rifles were carried by the officers i had to go talk to. So i was approaching 3 officers armed with ARs. And im sure there were plenty more officers with rifles as well, as there had to have been like 7-8 police cars drive by the taco bell after them man called it in. (this is just my guess, as i did not visualize the other officers.)

2. We were first approached by the Taco Bell manager, a friendly girl who said that there was a Police officer at the Drive up window, that told her to tell me to go outside to talk to them. After i told her we would leave without issue, and had cleaned up our trash, and started walking out, the same officer, then told me directly to walk out the front door and go to the left, to talk to the officers. He was not in his car, he was standing at the window. He was one of the four officers that i talked to. when i went outside.

And you are correct, when he yelled through drive thru window, it wasnt a hey can i talk to you for a moment type. it was "You need to go out the front doors and go to the left to talk to the officers out there." it wasnt asking, it was a command.

3. This is where i may have fubared myself, but I am not sure. upon approaching the officers outside, i was immediately told to not make any move for my weapon, and was immediately cuffed, though not strongly, and only while they disarmed me. I was released from cuffs as soon as they had the handgun. However, i did not vocally refuse consent. (my fault) however i did not specifically tell them they could take my piece either, though i do not think it will matter.

4. the ID and CPL were provided to them, after i was released from cuffs, and the weapon had been seized. I was initially expecting them to pull my wallet in the, poor excuse for a pat down. Because when he started to pat me down, I told him i had my wallet, in my back left pocket, a pocket knife in my front left pocket, and a secondary mag in my right thigh pocket. the officer patting me down however only patted down the one leg from the hip to the knee, never checked the ankles, or the waist line, and never removed my wallet, pocket knife, or mag.

5. When we approached the officers outside, and they were cuffing me, a second officer took care of my girlfriend. Thats when she stated she wasnt armed, and that she only had her wallet, and it was in her front pocket of her hoodie. the officer then opened the pocket to examine in the pocket, but did not remove the wallet or do anything else after that.


Metalhead47:

while it would have been nice to get it on video, but we were asked to leave the store by the store manager. So we could not have stayed inside the store.

Trigger Dr. :

Thanks for the letter, I will definitely be printing it out.


Right now, I am considering whether or not i want to pursue this further, as I have been dealing with a motor vehicle accident case for the last 2 years, and having my attorney fight that. But I will be contacting him, to get his opinion on whether this is worth pursuing or not. (He knows the attorney that is handling the Kerby case) so he should probably be able to help me out there. So hopefully, on or before the event at the park on the 25th, I should know if I will be going forward or not with the case.

Orphan said:

Just a thought, say you request a copy of the 911 call and it turns out that the caller lied about your actions thus causing you to be detained, cuffed etc. Would you have recourse against the caller because he caused you to have your rights violated, great embarrasment etc.

Click to expand...

I don't think "embarrasment" counts...but this might: If the OP requests the 911 transcripts and after review, wishes to file a complaint.....well..

RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.


[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]


Notes:
Purpose -- 2001 c 308: "The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995." [2001 c 308 § 1.]

Effective date -- 2001 c 308: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001]." [2001 c 308 § 4.]


Effective date -- 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

I would take them to court for cash and a formal public apology stating that they were wrong. media invited.
cash donated to a local charity.

jt59 said:

I don't think "embarrasment" counts...but this might: If the OP requests the 911 transcripts and after review, wishes to file a complaint.....well..

RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.


[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]


Notes:
Purpose -- 2001 c 308: "The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995." [2001 c 308 § 1.]

Effective date -- 2001 c 308: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001]." [2001 c 308 § 4.]


Effective date -- 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

Click to expand...

only problem is I'm not a public Servant, I am an out of work, IT guy.

tompkins said:

only problem is I'm not a public Servant, I am an out of work, IT guy.

Click to expand...

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

Silly!

As the victim (you), I'm talking about you requesting and reviewing the 911 call given to a (public servant), the officers that got sent on the call, because of it (public servants)....via a FOIA request to the police department. You indicated that they requested your personal info for their "report", so it should be on the record, if you want to pursue this....

....and the (father) that likely made it from across the street on his cell phone....if he overstated the threat (maybe he said you were "waving the gun around", that required such a heavy handed (IMO) response, then it may be that you have grounds to file a complaint against the 911 caller....the police will have to investigate...and at a minimum you can let them deliver the message back to the dink that ruined your day.

I think you handled the situation the best you could at the time and with the current circumstances. You were calm, you never physically refused. You never gave them reason to believe you were dangerous. However, as the rest of the members have posted, this is down right disgusting. I cannot believe this happened, and I would phone Garry Lucas (the Sheriff) personally and tell him what happened. Also, just remember in any police situation to ask before ANY conversation starts "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" Just make them verbally answer with a yes or no. Secondly, state, "I do not give you permission to disarm me or to search me." Again, never physically refuse. After that, you can take it one of two ways. The way you did (which got you out of the situation but horribly violated your rights), or to remain silent and ask for lawyer (which might get you sent downtown). Either way, complain afterward. I know you got out of it, and I know the cops were "nicer than usual," but this sort of thing cannot become OK no matter how nice they are. If an officer feels a need to watch you because you have a gun on, kudos on him for making sure everything is safe. If he feels the need to cuff you, disarm you, and search you, shame on him.

Clearly you don't need to be upset about what happened because we are going to do that for you! Ha

Thanks for sharing.

Joe~