Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Cite, please.
-
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.
-
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.
Contacted by Kennewick PD on my own street…
- Thread starter Freedom First
- Start date
Cite, please.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Nope. Wrong cite. Florida vs JL is about an anonymous tip from an unknown location making an allegation about illegal carry of a concealed handgun. The opinion seems to be sorting out indicia (indicators) of reliability weighed against supposed danger (see the last two paragraphs).
The poster's statement above is much broader:
"Dont forget a 911 call is just hearsay and does not in any way constitute RAS or PC an officer has to have more than a call to detain someone." (sic)
Last edited:
Freedom First
Regular Member
Well guys, this has been an interesting weekend and I have had a little time to think about what happened. It’s easy to say or think certain ways about a theoretical situation but when it actually happens, it’s very different.
Yesterday I found it almost humorous that I was contacted on my own street instead of the myriad places I have been OCing in the last year. Today I am really quite disturbed and, well, angry. I have been reading your advice and input on my situation and I am really beginning to see that certain folk’s views on OCDO, whom I thought might be a bit over the top are probably not off the mark at all.
Over the last six years, I have been awakening to the world we actually do live in. I grew up and was processed through our government’s schools, served in the government’s army, and have been paying taxes to the same government ever since. I am a nice guy. I have a nice family. I have gotten exactly two tickets in my entire life. Then I started asking questions and reading crazy things like the Declaration and my Constitution. Worst of all, I began acting on what I was learning. And because I now choose to act in a completely legal, but poorly understood manner, I am singled out and embarrassed in front of my neighbors by a man with a badge.
Over the next week I will be following the advice of several members here. I will be addressing this and honestly, next time, and there will be a next time for I have no plans to change my current mode of carry, I will not be nearly so compliant. I preach to my children about the nature of tyranny and yet, when confronted by it on a personal level, I immediately tried to be it’s friend.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy" — Erwin Rommel
Yesterday I found it almost humorous that I was contacted on my own street instead of the myriad places I have been OCing in the last year. Today I am really quite disturbed and, well, angry. I have been reading your advice and input on my situation and I am really beginning to see that certain folk’s views on OCDO, whom I thought might be a bit over the top are probably not off the mark at all.
Over the last six years, I have been awakening to the world we actually do live in. I grew up and was processed through our government’s schools, served in the government’s army, and have been paying taxes to the same government ever since. I am a nice guy. I have a nice family. I have gotten exactly two tickets in my entire life. Then I started asking questions and reading crazy things like the Declaration and my Constitution. Worst of all, I began acting on what I was learning. And because I now choose to act in a completely legal, but poorly understood manner, I am singled out and embarrassed in front of my neighbors by a man with a badge.
Over the next week I will be following the advice of several members here. I will be addressing this and honestly, next time, and there will be a next time for I have no plans to change my current mode of carry, I will not be nearly so compliant. I preach to my children about the nature of tyranny and yet, when confronted by it on a personal level, I immediately tried to be it’s friend.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy" — Erwin Rommel
Freedom First
Regular Member
Darn, no BBQ gun...
Sounds good. There are better parks in Kennewick for kids though. That Playground of Dreams is crammed to the gills on nice summer days with folks from across the bridge.
Sounds good. There are better parks in Kennewick for kids though. That Playground of Dreams is crammed to the gills on nice summer days with folks from across the bridge.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
I would simply ask them if it's standard departmental policy to stop, disarm, and detain law-abiding citizens who're lawfully carrying a lawfully-owned firearm. I might also ask them if the answer is "yes," then why aren't they conducting routine stops of drivers to make sure they're carry the required insurance. I might then ask them since such stops are illegal, why isn't it illegal for them to stop a law-abiding citizen who's lawfully carrying a lawfully-owned firearm?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Welcome to the fight!
That last sentence is pure poetry. Well done, for the prose, the strength to recognize, and the strength to say it. The forces of tyranny definitely don't like men with character--they prefer meek little people, the kind who will lie to themselves that each usurpation is necessary and isn't really all that big of a deal.
Freedom First
Regular Member
That's the plan. Fix, not fight.
I didn't have time or desire to play the whole "Detain" game and I honestly think that it's foolishness to squabble with the LEO directly. It was not the officer in front of me who was violating a whole slew of my Rights, instead it was the system that sent him. I want to be a friend to LE. I also want to be able to walk the streets of my hometown unmolested, by LEO or BG alike. That can happen, it just takes work.
Thanks!
Freedom First
Regular Member
It is a big deal. I tell folks as I discuss their ignorance of our Constitution with them that, "I want my kids to grow up with more freedom than I did." That's my heart in all this. My kids. So now my kids get to watch me get up, dust myself off, pick up my pride and start pushing back. I'm mighty glad I wound up here at OCDO.
Freedom First
Regular Member
Bill Starks
State Researcher
Worth Reading:
OFFICER COULD NOT LAWFULLY FRISK SEIZED MAN BASED SOLELY ON FACT THAT THE MAN WAS NERVOUS AND FIDGETING
State of Washington vs SETTERSTROM
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/796904 petition for review.pdf
FRISK OF MERE PASSENGER IN STOLEN CAR HELD NOT SUPPORTED BY TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT THAT DID NOT SHOW ANY DANGER
State v. Adams, ___ Wn. App. ___, 181 P.3d 37 (Div. III. 2008)
OFFICER COULD NOT LAWFULLY FRISK SEIZED MAN BASED SOLELY ON FACT THAT THE MAN WAS NERVOUS AND FIDGETING
State of Washington vs SETTERSTROM
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/796904 petition for review.pdf
FRISK OF MERE PASSENGER IN STOLEN CAR HELD NOT SUPPORTED BY TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT THAT DID NOT SHOW ANY DANGER
State v. Adams, ___ Wn. App. ___, 181 P.3d 37 (Div. III. 2008)
Bill Starks
State Researcher
<edit> I was up very late and was doing some light reading.........
For those of you that wondered how strong Article 1 Section 7 was vs the 4th Amendment ?
STATE of Washington vs. EISFELDT
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17565656966690288648&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
8) Although they protect similar interests, "the protections guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the state constitution are qualitatively different from those provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26, 60 P.3d 46 (2002). The Fourth Amendment protects only against "unreasonable searches" by the State, leaving individuals subject to any manner of warrantless, but reasonable searches. U.S. Const. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated. . . ."); Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ("[W]hat is at issue . . . is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated.").
9) By contrast article I, section 7 is unconcerned with the reasonableness of the search, but instead requires a warrant before any search, reasonable or not. Const. art. I, § 7 ("No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."). This is because "nlike in the Fourth Amendment, the word `reasonable' does not appear in any form in the text of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution." State v. Morse, 156 Wash.2d 1, 9, 123 P.3d 832 (2005). Understanding this significant difference between the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 is vital to properly analyze the legality of any search in Washington.
For those of you that wondered how strong Article 1 Section 7 was vs the 4th Amendment ?
STATE of Washington vs. EISFELDT
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17565656966690288648&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
8) Although they protect similar interests, "the protections guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the state constitution are qualitatively different from those provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26, 60 P.3d 46 (2002). The Fourth Amendment protects only against "unreasonable searches" by the State, leaving individuals subject to any manner of warrantless, but reasonable searches. U.S. Const. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated. . . ."); Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ("[W]hat is at issue . . . is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated.").
9) By contrast article I, section 7 is unconcerned with the reasonableness of the search, but instead requires a warrant before any search, reasonable or not. Const. art. I, § 7 ("No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."). This is because "nlike in the Fourth Amendment, the word `reasonable' does not appear in any form in the text of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution." State v. Morse, 156 Wash.2d 1, 9, 123 P.3d 832 (2005). Understanding this significant difference between the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 is vital to properly analyze the legality of any search in Washington.
Last edited:
1245A Defender
Regular Member
well,,, WoW!!!
light reading,,, BIG FIND!!
we can throw all that RAS and PC BS out.
GET A WARRANT!!!
now what does big dave have to argue about?
light reading,,, BIG FIND!!
we can throw all that RAS and PC BS out.
GET A WARRANT!!!
now what does big dave have to argue about?
fire suppressor
Regular Member
I understand people being frustrated over police un arming you especially when they admit you are doing nothing unlawful but at the same time I can at least understand it, they don't know who we are. Personally I've felt like over the past few years more and more people have been shooting at cops so again I'm not trying to advocate to anyone to hand over there weapon but at the same time I feel like I can at least understand where the request is coming from.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Like Citizen said Welcome to the fight! I knew a name like Freedom first would understand. The last line is a perfect example of human nature and how those in "authority" positions try to take advantage of it.
I bet the second you refused to have your inalienable rights (no matter how politely) violated the officers attitude would have changed immediately. They are so used to people wanting to not upset them and be their friend and take advantage of that fact often. ( Hence my second Tag line
)
Last edited:
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
amlevin
Regular Member
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
There is one thing for sure, you cannot take a step with out falling off the cliff
If you are implying they will need a warrant to frisk someone, disarm or take them into custody you are so far off the mark, what it says it an Officer must have the authority of law to disturb on in their personal affairs or home, some will require a warrant others RAS will suffice.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
RCW 10.31.100
Arrest without warrant.
A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section.
(1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person.
Full RCW
Arrest without warrant.
A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section.
(1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person.
Full RCW
Last edited: