Yakima Open Carrier MWAG Call

cbpeck · May 20, 2011

tombrewster421 said:
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.

maclean · May 20, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
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?

Phssthpok · May 20, 2011

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.

sudden valley gunner · May 20, 2011

maclean said:
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.

Phssthpok said:
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.

maclean · May 20, 2011

Phssthpok said:
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?

maclean · May 20, 2011

NavyLT said:
I agree the officer was lawfully allowed to seize the gun temporarily for officer safety. However, that was the ONLY justified reason he had to seize the gun. The officer had no indication, no RAS or PC at all to indicate the gun might be stolen. I wish we had a court decision to settle this question. My argument is that the officer seized the gun for officer safety ONLY, and IF the serial number of the gun came into plain view BECAUSE of the seizure of the gun for officer safety ONLY - that the continued search of the serial number to check if the gun was stolen goes beyond the scope of the seizure and violates the 4th amendment.

Even if the call turned out to be a valid violation of RCW 9.41.270 and the person was arrested for violating RCW 9.41.270, I argue that checking the serial number of the gun to see if stolen would still go beyond the scope of the seizure, because there would still be no RAS or PC to indicate the gun was stolen.

There is no case law that says each individual inquiry into a database is a separate intrusion when the firearm is lawfully in the possession of the officer, as you say.

There is case law that says I can search ANY database I have access to at any time using any number I can lawfully see.

(Starr and Bjerke come to mind as cites.)

maclean · May 20, 2011

NavyLT said:
Why? It's not an illegal action. It's only protecting the privacy of the person that owns the gun because of Washington State Department of Licensing's gun registration. Oh, I mean database of records of handgun sales, excuse me.

Just like a person who refuses to have a consensual encounter with a LEO, or refuses to provide identification is no indication of a crime committed. It is only an indication of the person's value they place upon the 4th amendment.

I'm not suggesting it is an illegal action on it's face.

It's an interesting question I'm going to have to ponder.

California straight out makes it a crime. Our statute in Washington is less clear. I'm going to run it by the firearms prosecutor.

Your comparison of a person refusing to cooperate during a consensual encounter isn't applicable, as what is being discussed is clearly a Terry stop.

maclean · May 20, 2011

NavyLT said:
The only reason you lawfully came into possession of the firearm and were able to see the serial number is for officer safety. If you have RAS to indicate that a subject is armed and dangerous during a traffic stop, you can search the area immediately accessible in the vehicle for a gun. If you find a bag of weed, too bad. You can't use it as evidence, because you had no RAS of drug possession if you stopped the person for running a stop sign. The same with the serial number of the gun. Finding out the gun is stolen from a serial number obtained from a seizure of the gun for officer safety only would not be inadmissible to charge the person with stealing the gun, because the search was conducted outside the scope of what you RAS for.

Yes, I understand your issue.

What you are suggesting is that the scope is limited because of the reason for the possession.

That isn't true.

Your suggestion that in searching the immediate area of the driver for a weapon and finding a bag of weed that would somehow magically be off limits is not correct.

So long as the possession is legal, so is the inquiry.

Reasonable suspicion of one crime does not make any other criminal evidence off limits.

amzbrady · May 20, 2011

cbpeck said:
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.

Find cheap gas...
http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx

I couldnt believe what I saw/witnessed today from fish and wildlife. My wife and I were at the columbia park and were walking past the boat launch and there was a corvette with a single jetski on a trailer. they hadnt backed into the water yet, the guys got out and were just eyeballing the stuff floating by, (at least thats what it looked like). then fish and wildlife pulled up and although I was out of earshot, I could visably see him. As he walked up to them he half ass stuck his head in the car window, then after a couple hand motions at the car, the jet ski, the water and then both of the guys, they both pulled out wallets, then one of the guys opened a compartment on the jet ski and took out a document. that was enough for me to make me realize I need to buy better recording equipment since my pen stopped charging, and my glasses wont stay on, and my phone wont recognize my 2 gig memory card like it is supposed to. We left and finished our walk, I was open carry and walked strong side past the officer, dont even know if he glanced my way, but after that I didnt even care.

maclean · May 20, 2011

NavyLT said:
To tape over a serial number? Ummm.... not according to this:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12090.php
Taping over the serial number is not changing, altering, removing or obliterating. It is obscuring the serial number from view, against which there is no California law. Otherwise to carry a firearm in a holster would be illegal because, on most guns, the holster obscures the serial number from view.

I'll admit that CA is not my ball game, but I called a buddy who works there.

He suggests you look at this one:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/537e.html

maclean · May 21, 2011

NavyLT said:
Then the answer would be to obtain written authorization from the manufacturer of the firearm to cover the serial number of the gun with masking or electrical tape....

Also, the same argument would apply.... how did the officer discover the tape over the serial number? Was it because he seized the firearm for "officer safety" only? Again, person is stopped for running a stop sign in California. Officer takes the gun for "officer safety". Then, and only then does the taped over serial number become visible to the officer....

I would love to see a case come to court where any of this was decided in real life vice internet theorizing.

As would I.

Scope does not limit what you discover - scope limits where you can look.

sudden valley gunner · May 21, 2011

NavyLT said:
Then the answer would be to obtain written authorization from the manufacturer of the firearm to cover the serial number of the gun with masking or electrical tape....

Also, the same argument would apply.... how did the officer discover the tape over the serial number? Was it because he seized the firearm for "officer safety" only? Again, person is stopped for running a stop sign in California. Officer takes the gun for "officer safety". Then, and only then does the taped over serial number become visible to the officer....

I would love to see a case come to court where any of this was decided in real life vice internet theorizing.

The way courts are ruling lately.....though would ya really?

maclean · May 21, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
The way courts are ruling lately.....though would ya really?

Fair point, actually.

1245A Defender · May 21, 2011

well,,,

NavyLT said:
The only reason you lawfully came into possession of the firearm and were able to see the serial number is for officer safety. If you have RAS to indicate that a subject is armed and dangerous during a traffic stop, you can search the area immediately accessible in the vehicle for a gun. If you find a bag of weed, too bad. You can't use it as evidence, because you had no RAS of drug possession if you stopped the person for running a stop sign. The same with the serial number of the gun. Finding out the gun is stolen from a serial number obtained from a seizure of the gun for officer safety only would not be inadmissible to charge the person with stealing the gun, because the search was conducted outside the scope of what you RAS for.

maclean said:
Yes, I understand your issue.

What you are suggesting is that the scope is limited because of the reason for the possession.

That isn't true.

Your suggestion that in searching the immediate area of the driver for a weapon and finding a bag of weed that would somehow magically be off limits is not correct.

So long as the possession is legal, so is the inquiry.

Reasonable suspicion of one crime does not make any other criminal evidence off limits.

everybody should take a read of Arizona v. Gant
busted for driving while suspended
car search found gun and drugs
they were inadmissible because the search was unreasonable
because it would not yield proof of the condition of his license to drive.

i think LEOs watch to much COPs on TV
they think its part of their training

maclean · May 21, 2011

1245A Defender said:
everybody should take a read of Arizona v. Gant
busted for driving while suspended
car search found gun and drugs
they were inadmissible because the search was unreasonable
because it would not yield proof of the condition of his license to drive.

i think LEOs watch to much COPs on TV
they think its part of their training

Gant wasn't decided because it was drugs that were found, it was decided because the scope of a search incident to arrest was exceeded. Nothing where the drugs were found would show evidence of the crime the arrest was made for, and there was no safety issue.

If you made that same arrest for suspended and the dope came out of his pocket, the drugs would be admissable.

COPS is annoying television. I don't know anyone who does the work that watches it.

maclean · May 21, 2011

NavyLT said:
And looking for a stolen gun does not fall within the scope of where you can look for officer safety. The serial number of the gun only becomes available to you because of actions for "officer safety", not under RAS of the gun being stolen.

Sigh.

If you already have the gun, there is no further scope intrusion. The gun is in plain view.

Phssthpok · May 21, 2011

But not the number if it's taped.

Get a warrant or commit a federal crime...the choice at that point is yours.

Also...how about when the claim of officer safety is blatantly specious? Like when I was disarmed after ten minutes of verbal browbeating by sheriffs deputies to try and get me to voluntarily surrender my rights.....SUDDENLY it's an 'officer safety' issue? BOVINE EXCREMENT, and you KNOW it.

maclean · May 21, 2011

Phssthpok said:
But not the number if it's taped.

Get a warrant or commit a federal crime...the choice at that point is yours.

Also...how about when the claim of officer safety is blatantly specious? Like when I was disarmed after ten minutes of verbal browbeating by sheriffs deputies to try and get me to voluntarily surrender my rights.....SUDDENLY it's an 'officer safety' issue? BOVINE EXCREMENT, and you KNOW it.

I'm not familiar with your situation.

I'm also not sure I agree about the tape, but I'm admitting I don't know the answer.

sudden valley gunner · May 22, 2011

Phssthpok said:
But not the number if it's taped.

Get a warrant or commit a federal crime...the choice at that point is yours.

Also...how about when the claim of officer safety is blatantly specious? Like when I was disarmed after ten minutes of verbal browbeating by sheriffs deputies to try and get me to voluntarily surrender my rights.....SUDDENLY it's an 'officer safety' issue? BOVINE EXCREMENT, and you KNOW it.

Yep refusing to show ID seems to frustrate many officers. And I remember your incident and how he withdrew his firearm even though you posed no threat. And had done nothing illegal. Could argue his actions were illegal since you had the legal right by the RCW's to be there.

Phssthpok · May 22, 2011

I was actually referring to the incident on my birthday in Fred Meyer's, but yeah...getting drawn on by deputy Sheriff Dick Butler because I was obeying the law was...interesting to say the least.

Yakima Open Carrier MWAG Call

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member