Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: Detained & Disarmed By Clark County Sheriff

  1. #1
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252

    Detained & Disarmed By Clark County Sheriff

    Happend Sat night Sun morning around 3:30 or 4Am we were leaving a friends house and we were pulled over and turns out my friends lic was suspended so he asked any guns or knifes i said i have a firearm right hip so he kinda gets lil loud had me put hands on the dash and told me not to move or i could be shot if it look like i was going for it so i complyed. Then he said slowy get out hands up on roof of the truck and dont move he pulls my firearm out pulls the mag and round in chamber and my spare mag then handcuffs me. Then ask weres my wallet so i told him he pulls out my ID and Concealed permint then goes run them and it took like 10 to 15 mins before he lets me go and puts my fiearm in the bed of the truck says wait till we leave to re holster it.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by bwboley View Post
    Happend Sat night Sun morning around 3:30 or 4Am we were leaving a friends house and we were pulled over and turns out my friends lic was suspended so he asked any guns or knifes i said i have a firearm right hip so he kinda gets lil loud had me put hands on the dash and told me not to move or i could be shot if it look like i was going for it so i complyed. Then he said slowy get out hands up on roof of the truck and dont move he pulls my firearm out pulls the mag and round in chamber and my spare mag then handcuffs me. Then ask weres my wallet so i told him he pulls out my ID and Concealed permint then goes run them and it took like 10 to 15 mins before he lets me go and puts my fiearm in the bed of the truck says wait till we leave to re holster it.
    First off, at least you're SAFE! At least everyone is safe. I will hold any an ALL comments about LEO actions. This is a County, though, that won't let you enter the courthouse OC without a CPL and ID! But, this isn't about that. Just glad to hear you came home safe!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Time to file a complaint.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Deputy's name? Cruiser number? Will your friends corroborate your story? Any audio? Write your encounter up, get your friends to do the same and get witnesses to certify the statements. Talk to a lawyer. Give nothing to the police, no statements, just file the complaint and see what happens. If you give them your or your friend's statements they will use them to counter your complaint. Possibly intimidate you or your friends.

    Play it close to your vest.
    Last edited by OC for ME; 01-31-2011 at 07:23 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    What turned out to be the reason for the stop to begin with?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    When asked if there are any guns in the car, in the future say "I don't consent to searches". You were the passenger and he had no RAS to talk to you. If he were to proceed and found your gun, it would be illegal search and seizure.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    When asked if there are any guns in the car, in the future say "I don't consent to searches". You were the passenger and he had no RAS to talk to you. If he were to proceed and found your gun, it would be illegal search and seizure.
    Yep as long as there is no RAS, I agree.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Yet whose going to prosecute the popo? Our prosecutors only take cases from our persecutors.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Legal.

    All passengers in a car stop are detained. As such, the officer has the authority to direct their conduct to ensure his safety.

    As much as people here may not like it, officers do have the legal authority to disarm, pat down search, and cuff during a detention. Morally, it is another question . . .

    Read this: http://www.tdcorg.com/download/Passe...d-10-01-07.pdf

  10. #10
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Legal.

    All passengers in a car stop are detained. As such, the officer has the authority to direct their conduct to ensure his safety.

    As much as people here may not like it, officers do have the legal authority to disarm, pat down search, and cuff during a detention. Morally, it is another question . . .

    Read this: http://www.tdcorg.com/download/Passe...d-10-01-07.pdf
    Good read, thx for that Dean.

    So, any passengers are basically presumed suspect by association it sounds like, and makes them fair game for reasonable scrutiny.

    From the way the OP writes, the officer spent more time on the fact he had a pistol with a CPL then he spent on the driver, but that could just be because it's his primary focus of the incident.

    To the OP, why were you guys pulled over in the first place? What was the outcome for the driver?

  11. #11
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    More input number five

    Just playing the devilS advocate here.
    bUT, Bwboley still hasn’t established why they were pulled over. Was it expired license plate tab, or an expired drivers license? What caused the traffic stop was it speeding, driving crazy, broken tail light, ran a red light, what? And maybe the violation (the reason they were pulled over) and the fact that a driver had an expired driver license (if that what bwboley was referring too), and a person with a firearm in the vehicle, the officer felt a bit suspicious at 3:30 or 4 am.
    Possible and reasonable for an officer to detain. But the story lacks a lot of info!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Legal.

    All passengers in a car stop are detained. As such, the officer has the authority to direct their conduct to ensure his safety.

    As much as people here may not like it, officers do have the legal authority to disarm, pat down search, and cuff during a detention. Morally, it is another question . . .

    Read this: http://www.tdcorg.com/download/Passe...d-10-01-07.pdf
    Exactly.
    My advice: Don't ride with pals who are suspended. Of course, you probably had no way of knowing, but you DO know your pal, right?

    We may not like this sort of thing, but the deputy did not do anything out of the ordinary, as Dean notes.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Legal.

    All passengers in a car stop are detained. As such, the officer has the authority to direct their conduct to ensure his safety.

    As much as people here may not like it, officers do have the legal authority to disarm, pat down search, and cuff during a detention. Morally, it is another question . . .

    Read this: http://www.tdcorg.com/download/Passe...d-10-01-07.pdf
    Detained, but are passengers required to answer questions or give ID in Washington? If so can you cite the law that requires it? They don't in Michigan. Just the driver has to produce a DL.

    But in Michigan you have to declare you are carrying a concealed weapon (If in fact you are) immediately when you are detained, even if a passenger.
    Last edited by Venator; 01-31-2011 at 03:51 PM.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Detained, but are passengers required to answer questions or give ID in Washington? If so can you cite the law that requires it? They don't in Michigan. Just the driver has to produce a DL.

    But in Michigan you have to declare you are carrying a concealed weapon (If in fact you are) immediately when you are detained, even if a passenger.
    Well, let's look at the facts as we know them.

    1. The officer has the right to control the scene for his and others safety, OP is officially being detained and is part of an un-specified traffic stop.

    2. Officer asks a typical and court accepted question along the lines of officer safety, and the OP voluntarily answers, admitting to possessing a possible loaded firearm in a vehicle, an action that requires a CPL.

    Note: In Washington, it's not required to tell an officer you are carrying a firearm when conversing, but you also cannot lie if asked without taking the chance of being considered "obstructing" if you are being detained and questioned.

    3. Officer has every right to request to see the CPL to verify legality of carry, and secures firearm and carrier of firearm in the process, which again, is an action upheld by the courts "for officer safety".

    4. Officer does check of CPL which is found valid and returns the firearm, CPL and license back to OP, though perhaps not in the way the OP would have preferred.

    5. Details are fuzzy after that, but as long as the officer didn’t run the SN from the firearm, he's done everything in a manner consistent with current law, though perhaps a bit roughly. Running the SN from the firearm would have required further RAS that the gun was possessed illegally as far as I understand it.

    So, to answer your direct question, as soon as the OP admitted he had the pistol in the vehicle, yes, he had to show ID if the officer asked for it, at least, he had to show the CPL...as for the drivers license, I don’t believe so, but I could be wrong.

    Personally, I think the officer went a bit overboard with the handcuffing and digging through the OPs wallet.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    Well, let's look at the facts as we know them.

    1. The officer has the right to control the scene for his and others safety, OP is officially being detained and is part of an un-specified traffic stop.

    2. Officer asks a typical and court accepted question along the lines of officer safety, and the OP voluntarily answers, admitting to possessing a possible loaded firearm in a vehicle, an action that requires a CPL.

    Note: In Washington, it's not required to tell an officer you are carrying a firearm when conversing, but you also cannot lie if asked without taking the chance of being considered "obstructing" if you are being detained and questioned.

    3. Officer has every right to request to see the CPL to verify legality of carry, and secures firearm and carrier of firearm in the process, which again, is an action upheld by the courts "for officer safety".

    4. Officer does check of CPL which is found valid and returns the firearm, CPL and license back to OP, though perhaps not in the way the OP would have preferred.

    5. Details are fuzzy after that, but as long as the officer didn’t run the SN from the firearm, he's done everything in a manner consistent with current law, though perhaps a bit roughly. Running the SN from the firearm would have required further RAS that the gun was possessed illegally as far as I understand it.

    So, to answer your direct question, as soon as the OP admitted he had the pistol in the vehicle, yes, he had to show ID if the officer asked for it, at least, he had to show the CPL...as for the drivers license, I don’t believe so, but I could be wrong.

    Personally, I think the officer went a bit overboard with the handcuffing and digging through the OPs wallet.
    Great post. Thanks!

    In reference to the above bolded text (if my bolding works), what if the passenger simply replied "I have nothing to say". Would the officer then have justification to remove the passenger from the car for a pat-down and further inspection? He probably would, I'd assume, since we have concluded that the passenger is being detained in this situation.
    Last edited by ShooterMcGavin; 01-31-2011 at 05:00 PM. Reason: wrong word :)
    IBTL

  16. #16
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    It's not about the OP I say

    I think we are focusing too hard on the passenger, there is a reason the driver was pulled over, although still not cleared-up. It would appear we have an officer at 3:30 am, perhaps some short of moving violation, or vehicle description matching instance, a driver with an expired drivers license, and a person that when asked of freely admits to possessing a firearm. Seriously, I thing the officer had ample RAS to detain and sort things out.

    The OP should’nt have made this story about him, or her. I say he, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with an unlicensed driver who was pulled over for some undisclosed reason.

    I hope the OP can return to clear this mystery up!

  17. #17
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    I think we are focusing too hard on the passenger, there is a reason the driver was pulled over, although still not cleared-up. It would appear we have an officer at 3:30 am, perhaps some short of moving violation, or vehicle description matching instance, a driver with an expired drivers license, and a person that when asked of freely admits to possessing a firearm. Seriously, I thing the officer had ample RAS to detain and sort things out.

    The OP should’nt have made this story about him, or her. I say he, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with an unlicensed driver who was pulled over for some undisclosed reason.

    I hope the OP can return to clear this mystery up!
    O, I don't disagree at all.

    At this point, I am more interested in know if the officer pulled them over for a valid reason, or if he was equally discriminating against all vehicles that passed him on that street at 0330 hours.

  18. #18
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    If asked for CPL he must produce it, in this circumstance. But, he was not in control of the vehicle and therefore doesn't have to hand over the driver's license. No requirement to carry your identification papers with you. ( Again, not in control of the vehicle. This is along the same lines why I open-carry "sterile".
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    Well, let's look at the facts as we know them.

    1. The officer has the right to control the scene for his and others safety, OP is officially being detained and is part of an un-specified traffic stop.

    2. Officer asks a typical and court accepted question along the lines of officer safety, and the OP voluntarily answers, admitting to possessing a possible loaded firearm in a vehicle, an action that requires a CPL.

    Note: In Washington, it's not required to tell an officer you are carrying a firearm when conversing, but you also cannot lie if asked without taking the chance of being considered "obstructing" if you are being detained and questioned.

    3. Officer has every right to request to see the CPL to verify legality of carry, and secures firearm and carrier of firearm in the process, which again, is an action upheld by the courts "for officer safety".

    4. Officer does check of CPL which is found valid and returns the firearm, CPL and license back to OP, though perhaps not in the way the OP would have preferred.

    5. Details are fuzzy after that, but as long as the officer didn’t run the SN from the firearm, he's done everything in a manner consistent with current law, though perhaps a bit roughly. Running the SN from the firearm would have required further RAS that the gun was possessed illegally as far as I understand it.

    So, to answer your direct question, as soon as the OP admitted he had the pistol in the vehicle, yes, he had to show ID if the officer asked for it, at least, he had to show the CPL...as for the drivers license, I don’t believe so, but I could be wrong.

    Personally, I think the officer went a bit overboard with the handcuffing and digging through the OPs wallet.
    My question was does a passenger have to give ID or answer questions? I understand if he sees the gun he can demand a CPL to confirm if the concealing of the firearm is lawful
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  20. #20
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    Sorry For not answering soon im not sure why we were pulled over havnt talk to my friend but he has H.I.D headlights thats are to bright so could have been that but i not 100% sure. And as for cops name and car number i spced it i was worried about the shiny thing on my wrist and why they were on. It was my first time being detained and was really nervous andi tryed to record but he he had me put my phone down before i could get it going

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I don't understand why I'm reading a thread where there are un-cited statements about the law. Nor, has anybody else requested a cite from the the un-citer(s).


    5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-31-2011 at 09:02 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Legal.

    All passengers in a car stop are detained. As such, the officer has the authority to direct their conduct to ensure his safety.

    As much as people here may not like it, officers do have the legal authority to disarm, pat down search, and cuff during a detention. Morally, it is another question . . .

    Read this: http://www.tdcorg.com/download/Passe...d-10-01-07.pdf
    I believe that he didn't have to answer a single question. Here is some case law from WA that someone posted on my Starbucks thread.

    Under article I, section 7, however, passengers are unconstitutionally detained when an officer requests identification “unless other circumstances give the police independent cause to question [the] passengers.”  State v. Larson, 93 Wash.2d 638, 642, 611 P.2d 771 (1980).  

    This court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding
    that the police officer who detained the petitioner for the purpose of requiring her to identify herself did so in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and Const. art. 1, § 7, because none of the circumstances preceding the officer's detention of petitioner justified a reasonable suspicion that she was involved in criminal conduct.

    Although in Larson we referred to the officer's interaction as a “demand” in some sections of the opinion, the decision must be read in light of the facts of that case, which were that the officer merely “asked” the passenger for the identification.1  Id. at 640-41, 611 P.2d 771.   Moreover, we determined that the officer's request for identification  amounted to a “detention” of the passenger for investigative purposes.  Id. at 645, 611 P.2d 771.   As noted above, all investigative detentions 2 constitute seizures.  Armenta, 134 Wash.2d at 10, 948 P.2d 1280.

    They were most likely pulled over because of the suspended license. When I did a ride along in Sumner a few years ago the cop was just running license plate numbers hoping for things like that.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  23. #23
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    My question was does a passenger have to give ID or answer questions? I understand if he sees the gun he can demand a CPL to confirm if the concealing of the firearm is lawful
    Understood,

    Washington is not a stop and identify state, which means normally, you do not have to give ID when asked unless you are doing something that requires a specific ID, such as driving, carrying concealed, hunting, etc. You DO however have to identify yourself verbally I believe with name, birth-date and address at a minimum, and failure to identify yourself to at least that extent when officially being detained can result in arrest for obstruction.

    As for demanding your drivers license when your not driving, no I don't believe they can, as you are not required to have it on your person in the first place.

    That being said, its not uncommon for LEOs to request a picture ID of some sort to help cross reference and validate a CPL to a person, since a WA CPL does not have a picture, from most localities.

    As to such an act's legality, I am not aware. Perhaps another member or one of our attorney members can chime in and shed some light, and or correct anywhere that I am mistaken.

    As to speaking up,
    You ALWAYS have the right to remain silent, but you must weigh that against the probable gains if remaining silent will simply make the LEO more suspicious and probe harder, and detain you longer. If you are truly fearful of a LEOs intentions, it may be the best course of action to simply refuse to speak to him except to say that you do not consent to...anything.

    As to what to say in such a situation when you don't want to let them know you are carrying, I personally cant say as it has never been an issue. The few times the question has been asked, I answered truthfully, and I was simply told to keep my hands visible and not reach for anything without telling the officer first, or words to that effect.

    That portion highlighted in dark red above cannot be substantiated after research.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 01-31-2011 at 10:38 PM. Reason: self correction

  24. #24
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I don't understand why I'm reading a thread where there are un-cited statements about the law. Nor, has anybody else requested a cite from the the un-citer(s).


    5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    Well, then by all means, jump in and start citing.

    In truth, all of this has been covered before, and some simple searching would probably bring up the threads that have covered these questions. All my posts that lack cite are my personal opinion based upon personal research, and is worth exactly what the asking party paid for it.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 01-31-2011 at 09:24 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    I'm of two minds about Brendlin v. California.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendlin_v._California
    http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/t...ssengers.shtml

    First, I think it's actually a good thing that it clarifies that passengers are "seized within the meaning of the 4th Amendment" during a traffic stop. This provides protections they would not enjoy if there presence there was voluntary.

    But, I think the court should have clarified the scope of the seizure -- i.e., is a passenger free to be "unseized" by walking away from the scene?

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
  •