Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Yakima Open Carrier MWAG Call

  1. #1
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Yakima Open Carrier MWAG Call

    This afternoon I was headed back home and a call went out for a MWAG at 1st and I Street, AM PM store, then followed information concerning a domestic argument was occurring.
    So I stopped and watched to see the participants yelling and being animated about their actions and noticed one male open carrying involved in this dispute.
    Officers stopped and disarmed him with out drawing their weapon and ran make and serial number which came back to a different owner our of Seattle but not stolen.

    Recently we have been having a discussion on issues relating being disarmed and the 4th Amendment, though in this case I see no issue as the Officer not only received a call on the issue but witnessed some of the animated and verbal conflict.

    At the end of this encounter the gun was returned and sent on his way.

    Moral of the story, do not act a fool when open carrying.

    Flame Suit On!
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    This afternoon I was headed back home and a call went out for a MWAG at 1st and I Street, AM PM store, then followed information concerning a domestic argument was occurring.
    So I stopped and watched to see the participants yelling and being animated about their actions and noticed one male open carrying involved in this dispute.
    Officers stopped and disarmed him with out drawing their weapon and ran make and serial number which came back to a different owner our of Seattle but not stolen.

    Recently we have been having a discussion on issues relating being disarmed and the 4th Amendment, though in this case I see no issue as the Officer not only received a call on the issue but witnessed some of the animated and verbal conflict.

    At the end of this encounter the gun was returned and sent on his way.

    Moral of the story, do not act a fool when open carrying.

    Flame Suit On!
    Can't find much to disagree with you on this one. There was PC and RAS to disarm for officer safety according to Terry. Glad the cops didn't used good judgement and didn't try to throw a DV or menacing at the guy for having a marital spat.
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member xxx.jakk.xxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, United States
    Posts
    504
    I am very curious as to how the forum as a whole will react to this. I am just glad that they didn't see you OCing as well and go after you without cause. I can understand the LEO checking up on that group from what you described, though.


    (Found a better way to word something)
    Last edited by xxx.jakk.xxx; 05-19-2011 at 07:38 PM.
    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Psalms 23:4

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Benjamin Franklin

    “It’s always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there’s no bag limit.” Sen. Tim Sheldon (D)

    Molōn labe!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Aryk45XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    513
    I see no issue her either. Police called and arrived. Disarmed person who was involved in the dipute. Returned the firearm when dispute was "settled." I do wonder if the firearm will be under his name in the database now.

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx.jakk.xxx View Post
    I am very curious as to how the forum as a whole will react to this. I am just glad that they didn't see you OCing as well and go after you without cause. I can understand the LEO checking up on that group from what you described, though.
    Well I was in my vehicle as I saw no reason to involve myself into a matter that I was just a spectator.
    I guess it would be interesting to contemplate the what if's though I would not interject myself into a situation just to see.
    However if it was my intent to buy gas which I do not at any AM PM (ethanol) or to buy something from them, I would have approached away from the incident.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryk45XD View Post
    I see no issue her either. Police called and arrived. Disarmed person who was involved in the dipute. Returned the firearm when dispute was "settled." I do wonder if the firearm will be under his name in the database now.
    I would say it would be highly unlikely even though the Officer asked again if it was not being shown as stolen.
    There was nothing over the radio with regards of trying to contact the register owner.
    I believe there are numerous guns out there that have been stolen but not reported but I do not think it would be in the realm of their job to go beyond what they did as there would have to been something other then just a thought it was stolen.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  7. #7
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    I wonder just what the RAS was to justify the SEARCH of the serial number by the officer. Sounds like the officer intentionally looked for it and ran the number AFTER relieving the possessor of the burden of carrying it for a few minutes-----
    He may have been justified it taking it for a few minutes but refusing to return it UNTIL after a search was done was and UNWARRANTED SEARCH!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    However if it was my intent to buy gas which I do not at any AM PM (ethanol)...
    /threadjack

    ...expound? All gas everywhere has ethanol nowadays?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    I wonder just what the RAS was to justify the SEARCH of the serial number by the officer. Sounds like the officer intentionally looked for it and ran the number AFTER relieving the possessor of the burden of carrying it for a few minutes-----
    He may have been justified it taking it for a few minutes but refusing to return it UNTIL after a search was done was and UNWARRANTED SEARCH!
    You may have a point, although officer are allowed to run plain view searches. If I remember correctly. If I am not mistaken if the gun is related to the incident he may run the numbers also. I am not saying I agree with that on constitutional levels just what i remember from past research.
    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)

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    /threadjack

    ...expound? All gas everywhere has ethanol nowadays?


    typically 10% and people still buy Fuel injector cleaners and add more garbage to their tank.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    /threadjack

    ...expound? All gas everywhere has ethanol nowadays?
    Not true there are some Major Gas Stations that still do not use ethanol such as Conoco here in Yakima still advertises ethanol free.
    The best way I can tell is look at the price, if it the cheapest around it is likely to have ethanol in it.
    http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=WA
    Last edited by BigDave; 05-20-2011 at 02:04 AM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  12. #12
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Not true there are some Major Gas Stations that still do not use ethanol such as Conoco here in Yakima still advertises ethanol free.
    The best way I can tell is look at the price, if it the cheapest around it is likely to have ethanol in it.
    http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=WA
    Or the grange in Issaquah.

    Ethanol is horrible for your power sports equipment like motorcycles, and will kill your chain saws, lawn mowers, etc.
    Squeak!

  13. #13
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    I wonder just what the RAS was to justify the SEARCH of the serial number by the officer. Sounds like the officer intentionally looked for it and ran the number AFTER relieving the possessor of the burden of carrying it for a few minutes-----
    He may have been justified it taking it for a few minutes but refusing to return it UNTIL after a search was done was and UNWARRANTED SEARCH!
    Reasonable suspicion does not justify a search. Only probable cause does that. RS justifies a "pat down" in limited circumstances.

    The constitutional exception to the search warrant requirement you are thinking of is called "plain view" doctrine, as SVG pointed out.

    An officer may conduct a database inquiry on any information he can see from a place he legally is.

    If he legally has your gun, such an inquiry is not a further intrusion.

    Sorry, forgot to cite: Coolidge v. New Hampshire, Arizona v. Hicks, and Horton v. California. The Arizona case may be of interest to you, and Horton identified the three prong test.
    Last edited by maclean; 05-20-2011 at 02:28 AM.
    Squeak!

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    Reasonable suspicion does not justify a search. Only probable cause does that. RS justifies a "pat down" in limited circumstances.

    The constitutional exception to the search warrant requirement you are thinking of is called "plain view" doctrine, as SVG pointed out.

    An officer may conduct a database inquiry on any information he can see from a place he legally is.

    If he legally has your gun, such an inquiry is not a further intrusion.

    Sorry, forgot to cite: Coolidge v. New Hampshire, Arizona v. Hicks, and Horton v. California. The Arizona case may be of interest to you, and Horton identified the three prong test.
    And the plain view doctrine as decided by the court says that if they had to move the stereo equipment to get the number it wasn't in plain view so-- if they had to REMOVE THE DAMN GUN FROM THE HOLSTER TO GET THE DAMN NUMBER THEN IT WASN'T IN PLAIN VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And the plain view doctrine as decided by the court says that if they had to move the stereo equipment to get the number it wasn't in plain view so-- if they had to REMOVE THE DAMN GUN FROM THE HOLSTER TO GET THE DAMN NUMBER THEN IT WASN'T IN PLAIN VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    thanx joe,, been trying for a long time to find words that explained that!
    somehow it was just too simple a concept to explain...

    kinda like a cop demanding to hold your stereo,,, then he can see the numbers...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Regular Member mmdkyoung123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Independence, and Kansas City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And the plain view doctrine as decided by the court says that if they had to move the stereo equipment to get the number it wasn't in plain view so-- if they had to REMOVE THE DAMN GUN FROM THE HOLSTER TO GET THE DAMN NUMBER THEN IT WASN'T IN PLAIN VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No need to yell, we can hear you just fine. You said in an earlier post that the officer "may have been justified" in taking the firearm. Once the firearm is taken, the serial number is in plain sight. I believe that most of us (I do not speak for everybody) would agree that the LEO was justified in seizing the weapon during the stop. He received a call about a MWAG ( not a crime) and a domestic dispute. At the time the officer arrived he sees a couple arguing, apparently animatedly, and one of the people is armed. Now if this does justify the officer seizing the weapon, then the plain view rule would make it legal to run the serial number. He didn't "move" the gun to see the serial number.

    I think that the person at fault here is the citizen. ( I am sure I will take flack for this but I am entitled to my opinion, and occasionally voice it). We always talk about being responsible OCers, and setting a good example. I do not believe that the middle of a public parking lot is the place to have a fight with your spouse. It is assuredly not the place to have a fight while you are armed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Not true there are some Major Gas Stations that still do not use ethanol such as Conoco here in Yakima still advertises ethanol free.
    The best way I can tell is look at the price, if it the cheapest around it is likely to have ethanol in it.
    http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=WA
    I wasn't aware that Conoco hadn't fallen along with the masses. That's good to know, I'll have to see if I can find one around here. Thanks Dave.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I would say it would be highly unlikely even though the Officer asked again if it was not being shown as stolen.
    There was nothing over the radio with regards of trying to contact the register owner.
    I believe there are numerous guns out there that have been stolen but not reported but I do not think it would be in the realm of their job to go beyond what they did as there would have to been something other then just a thought it was stolen.
    It could add hours to their job if they were to try and determine whether a gun like this was actually stolen. The only owner that would be shown in the system would be the one who bought it from a Dealer or a Private Party that actually took the time to fill out and send in the State report of sale form for firearms. I'm sure that everyone here that sells a firearm makes sure that they fill this form out, right?

    Unless someone has reported a firearm as stolen these returns where it shows a different owner are meaningless. Who knows how many times that firearm has changed hands.
    "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?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And the plain view doctrine as decided by the court says that if they had to move the stereo equipment to get the number it wasn't in plain view so-- if they had to REMOVE THE DAMN GUN FROM THE HOLSTER TO GET THE DAMN NUMBER THEN IT WASN'T IN PLAIN VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    If lawfully disarmed, the gun is in plain view. Did you read the story, or what?
    Squeak!

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    If lawfully disarmed, the gun is in plain view. Did you read the story, or what?
    His point wasn't if they were lawfully disarmed and plain view, his point was on how plain view applies if they have to remove the weapon, and that it didn't in Hicks in connection with a T.V.

    He might have a point.

    I think the "plain view" ruling is sketchy when it comes to citizens being disarmed.

    Because that is an action instigated and perpetrated by the police that many citizens don't have control over.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-20-2011 at 12:43 PM.
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member cbpeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, USA
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    I wasn't aware that Conoco hadn't fallen along with the masses. That's good to know, I'll have to see if I can find one around here. Thanks Dave.
    Many, but not all Conoco Stations in our area sell ethanol free gas. The decision to add ethanol is made by the individual station owner, so one Conoco station may add Ethanol while the Conoco two miles away does not.

    http://pure-gas.org/ is the best place to look for ethanol free gas. The listing is user maintained without requiring registration, so you can't be assured of its accuracy. Most of the time the listings are correct, though. Feel free to update the list if you find that a station is either missing or listed incorrectly.

  22. #22
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    His point wasn't if they were lawfully disarmed and plain view, his point was on how plain view applies if they have to remove the weapon, and that it didn't in Hicks in connection with a T.V.

    He might have a point.

    I think the "plain view" ruling is sketchy when it comes to citizens being disarmed.

    Because that is an action instigated and perpetrated by the police that many citizens don't have control over.
    Plain view applies ANYWHERE an LEO happens to legally be during a lawful seizure or search, as opposed to open view which is seeing something anyone can plainly see from where they legally are. It is precisely plain view BECAUSE the citizen does not have control over the situation.

    The plain view circumstances are:

    1. An arrest
    2. Security sweep
    3. Terry stop
    4. Warrant service (search)
    5. Booking and automobilie inventories
    6. Search warrant exceptions, which are hot pursuit, consent, etc.

    An LEO can disarm people under Terry. It's legal, when the requisite threshold of facts and circumstances exists. If you are disarmed, your serial number becomes in plain view.

    Now, to simply walk up and disarm someone without RS or PC, then run the serial number - correct, any evidence gleaned from that should be suppressed.

    Are you possibly confusing plain view and open view, or?
    Squeak!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Which of course bring us back around to the 'tape or no tape' debate.

    For once (amazingly enough) I'm going to side with those who found the disarming *in this particular set of circumstances* valid/warranted. It was reportedly a tense situation, and is prudent action.

    HOWEVER, unless the officer has reason to believe the gun was stolen, he had no reason to run the number...plain view or no. That's why I keep *MY* numbers taped.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    Plain view applies ANYWHERE an LEO happens to legally be during a lawful seizure or search, as opposed to open view which is seeing something anyone can plainly see from where they legally are. It is precisely plain view BECAUSE the citizen does not have control over the situation.

    The plain view circumstances are:

    1. An arrest
    2. Security sweep
    3. Terry stop
    4. Warrant service (search)
    5. Booking and automobilie inventories
    6. Search warrant exceptions, which are hot pursuit, consent, etc.

    An LEO can disarm people under Terry. It's legal, when the requisite threshold of facts and circumstances exists. If you are disarmed, your serial number becomes in plain view.

    Now, to simply walk up and disarm someone without RS or PC, then run the serial number - correct, any evidence gleaned from that should be suppressed.

    Are you possibly confusing plain view and open view, or?
    No disagreement about this situation and plain view.

    Was simply for the sake of discussion whether or not it really is "right" to do so because you can. I feel as Phssthpok does in the following statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    Which of course bring us back around to the 'tape or no tape' debate.

    For once (amazingly enough) I'm going to side with those who found the disarming *in this particular set of circumstances* valid/warranted. It was reportedly a tense situation, and is prudent action.

    HOWEVER, unless the officer has reason to believe the gun was stolen, he had no reason to run the number...plain view or no. That's why I keep *MY* numbers taped.
    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)

  25. #25
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    Which of course bring us back around to the 'tape or no tape' debate.

    For once (amazingly enough) I'm going to side with those who found the disarming *in this particular set of circumstances* valid/warranted. It was reportedly a tense situation, and is prudent action.

    HOWEVER, unless the officer has reason to believe the gun was stolen, he had no reason to run the number...plain view or no. That's why I keep *MY* numbers taped.
    A taped over serial number could justify reasonable suspicion that the markings on the weapon had been changed, altered, or obliterated.

    I fail to see what the issue you wish to avoid is?
    Squeak!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •