• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Stopped for OC @ Poulsbo Walmart 2/10 @1935

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,241
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
SVG said What if he says those people say you were concealing I need to see your CPL. Well I am detaining you until you provide me with a CPL or a name and birth date so I can check if you have one and then you are free to go? My PC is they saw you concealing it doesn't concern me you are Openly carrying it now?

I was not and do not conceal. They may have been watching too much TV officer. My word against theirs. Am I being detained?

Hey Rob, stop by starbucks in the morn. I submitted my complaint to BPD today.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
SVG said What if he says those people say you were concealing I need to see your CPL. Well I am detaining you until you provide me with a CPL or a name and birth date so I can check if you have one and then you are free to go? My PC is they saw you concealing it doesn't concern me you are Openly carrying it now?

I was not and do not conceal. They may have been watching too much TV officer. My word against theirs. Am I being detained?

Hey Rob, stop by starbucks in the morn. I submitted my complaint to BPD today.

I'll be there tomorrow my nephew might OC tomorrow too.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
What if he says those people say you were concealing I need to see your CPL. Well I am detaining you until you provide me with a CPL or a name and birth date so I can check if you have one and then you are free to go? My PC is they saw you concealing it doesn't concern me you are Openly carrying it now? Not saying something gets you arrested for obstruction, saying something sacrifices your rights and potential freedom if you may be in the system for something else. Like in this instance if the suspect drove away they now know he doesn't have a license. Not criticizing the OP or your post just looking for input and discussion.

You're getting into the intricacies of 'reliable witness' and other vagaries. The police can say anything, but nothing requires you to respond. Stare straight ahead, occasionally ask if you are free to leave.
 

MadHatter66

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
I can't listen to the audio, but if the OP consented to the encounter what is it that happened for him to complain about?

If there were four officers surrounding him, then an argument could be made that he was detained. If he consented to the encounter before he was surrounded, and encouraged the continuance of the encounter by discussing anything with the first officer, than it would lean toward a consensual encounter regardless.

It's tough NOT to debate them, I know and I've been there; my criticism is based on my personal experiences. But what I discovered was that because the goals of each party are completely different, it's not a debate at all. We want to PROVE by argument that OC is lawful and doesn't rise to the level of necessitating a police encounter. The police, on the other hand, are going to argue for two reasons, to make OC a hassle for you, and to make it appear to the reporting party that they're doing something. If the debate is not a debate at all, then there will never be a winner, and all you're doing is giving the officer time to "discover" that you're dangerous based on his observation of your nervousness. You don't want to go there.

"Am I being detained?" If yes, "For suspicion of what specific crime are you detaining me?" If no, "Have a nice day officer." and walk away.

If the officer refuses to say, or seems to say both yes and no, announce, "Any reasonable person in these circumstances would feel as though he were not allowed to leave, I have nothing more to say." Then say absolutely nothing. Don't answer even the most harmless question; the officer is just trying to get the ball rolling. Once the ball is rolling, you are in a consensual friendly encounter.

If the officer tells you the crime for which he is detaining you is 'carrying a gun' or something similar, tell him, "We both know that is not a crime, I have nothing more to say." Again, say nothing other than, "Am I free to leave?" Be FIRM but undeniably polite.

Trust me, it's hard to say that to an officer. I'm not just making all this up, I've DONE it. It's very liberating to ask, "Am I being detained" and have the officer look startled and answer no, then walking away trying not to grin.

I did not consent to the encounter past asking about being detained, and telling the officer I was leaving. That is when he started asking to "peak at my ID" and wanting me to stick around, sure I could have left but I stayed and provided little info (first name) because I didn't want to be followed around and pestered by the officer. So I choose to stand my ground, where I had a legal right to be and wait for him to break contact. If you listen to the audio, I got forceful when he kept asking why am I being so elusive about my name and I told him "Because I am not suspected of a crime." Why in the world I didn't think to just wander the parking lot with him in tow until he got tired, or go back into the store is beyond me but all I kept thinking was that he was being creative on how to get my name to run, and I was objecting to it and being vocal about it but in a fairly polite way. I no longer felt free to leave at the point that he asked me to stay and I was surrounded by officers. I know that I can walk away, I know what I can say. But I also had a legal right to be in the spot that I was in. Why should I have to vacate in order the free myself of the officer that is now wanting to follow me around and talk? There is an argument that I was there voluntarily, and yes to some extent I am sure I was. But what reason would he have to run my plate when I get back to the car? We all present this argument that we are "free to go" but why am I not free to stay and have them leave me alone?

What is kind of frustrating is that you were not there, you didn't listen to the audio (by your own admission) and you are writing out what you would have done and what you think I did or should have done. Every situation and encounter is different, I handled it the way that was the best for me at the time, still providing little to no info and maintaining that it was might right to be there and to carry in the manner that I was doing so.
 
Last edited:

aktion

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
226
Location
Bremerton, Washington, USA
I did not consent to the encounter past asking about being detained, and telling the officer I was leaving. That is when he started asking to "peak at my ID" and wanting me to stick around, sure I could have left but I stayed and provided little info (first name) because I didn't want to be followed around and pestered by the officer. So I choose to stand my ground, where I had a legal right to be and wait for him to break contact. If you listen to the audio, I got forceful when he kept asking why am I being so elusive about my name and I told him "Because I am not suspected of a crime." Why in the world I didn't think to just wander the parking lot with him in tow until he got tired, or go back into the store is beyond me but all I kept thinking was that he was being creative on how to get my name to run, and I was objecting to it and being vocal about it but in a fairly polite way. I no longer felt free to leave at the point that he asked me to stay and I was surrounded by officers. I know that I can walk away, I know what I can say. But I also had a legal right to be in the spot that I was in. Why should I have to vacate in order the free myself of the officer that is now wanting to follow me around and talk? There is an argument that I was there voluntarily, and yes to some extent I am sure I was. But what reason would he have to run my plate when I get back to the car? We all present this argument that we are "free to go" but why am I not free to stay and have them leave me alone?

What is kind of frustrating is that you were not there, you didn't listen to the audio (by your own admission) and you are writing out what you would have done and what you think I did or should have done. Every situation and encounter is different, I handled it the way that was the best for me at the time, still providing little to no info and maintaining that it was might right to be there and to carry in the manner that I was doing so.


I'm glad the conclusion wasn't any worse. You kept your cool, and knowing one of the responding leo seems to have helped resolve the situation. It does seem that you had conflicting desires as the situation developed. You wanted to get home, and you didn't want to walk straight to your vehicle, allowing the leo to run your plates. It brings up an odd scenario. If after asking an officer 'Am I being detained?', and the officer replying in the negative......what about simply saying 'I do not consent to any further encounter, please leave me alone.' Or something to that effect. The thought of officers following you around the parking lot is both comical and absurd. Though it could be argued that your continued, voluntary actions indicated consent on your part, regardless of your reasons or intent. He was definitely fishing for your ID. Perhaps in that situation, reiterating your non-consent would have sent the message. I don't know, I wasn't there, and it sounds like you used your best judgement.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Vitaeus said:
a calm consensual encounter that does not intrude into "papers, please" or other such ends is also educational to the general public.
Would an officer approaching you as you were leaving church & "wanting to chat" just because you'd come out of the church be OK?
[Freedom of religion.]
What about if you had just mailed a letter to your Congresscritter & that was his/her reason for approaching?
[Petitioning the gov't for redress of grievances.]
Or if you were playing basketball with friends in the city park?
[Freedom of association.]
All of those are 1A rights, none requires an ID... just like the 2A doesn't.
So would any of those be OK?

MadHatter66 said:
Why in the world I didn't think to just wander the parking lot with him in tow until he got tired, or go back into the store is beyond me
That would be funny... "why don't you walk to your car?"
I want exercise.
You've got me so upset I've forgotten where it is.
I'm taking the long way to my car.
Or maybe the straightforward: I'm waiting for you to leave me alone.
 

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Snohomish, WA, ,
madhatter,
Thank you for the recommendation. I just downloaded it to use on my iPod Touch. I've been wondering what all the iPhone users have been utilizing.

Much appreciated.
 

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
The unfortunate fact is the RP called 911 not out of predigest but because in his mind that is was the situation warranted. It is sad that the sight of a holstered gun on a upstanding law abiding citizen triggered a automatic response of fear and panic. The problem is not that people are anti gun the problem is guns trigger such a engraved emotional reaction on people.

Mad Hatter sorry to ask another follow up question but I have never had to record a LEO yet and always get nervous it will lead to my device confiscated and the audio magically deleted. I can not tell from the audio how you held your phone. I am amusing you held it in your hand but was it at your waist or did you hold up closer to your face. Where you very obvious about it or the the officer maybe not aware he was being recorded?

This is a good story for all of us I have been open carrying for five years and other than a few ride comments from citizens I have never had a single negative encounter or have ever had the police called on me. It is not a matter of if we will all have a negative encounter but when. I only hope when I have my first LEO encounter it will go as smoothly as yours
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Would an officer approaching you as you were leaving church & "wanting to chat" just because you'd come out of the church be OK?
[Freedom of religion.]
What about if you had just mailed a letter to your Congresscritter & that was his/her reason for approaching?
[Petitioning the gov't for redress of grievances.]
Or if you were playing basketball with friends in the city park?
[Freedom of association.]
All of those are 1A rights, none requires an ID... just like the 2A doesn't.
So would any of those be OK?


That would be funny... "why don't you walk to your car?"
I want exercise.
You've got me so upset I've forgotten where it is.
I'm taking the long way to my car.
Or maybe the straightforward: I'm waiting for you to leave me alone.

if you ask the cop "am i being detained or am i free to leave" and he responds that you are free to leave, then you are. but he CAN follow you. he has as much right to walk around as you do. why he would want to is another story, but as long as he is not invading your personal space, he can follow you/watch you from a legal vantage point, just like ANY PERSON could.

i think you make an excellent point, though about the harassing aspect of cops approaching you and engaging you merely because you are open carrying. open carrying is, pursuant to WA law and our well written right to carry paragraph in our consitution legally protected activity. if a cop makes a habit of contacting people MERELY for open carrying, that would be a pattern of harassing behavior, just like if he did so because people were wearing political message t-shirts, or were walking with a person of another race, or engaging in any other clearly protected activity.

the problem is that some LEO's think that IF somebody calls to make a complaint about X, that this justifies their contacting a person. that is simply not true. if a person called 911 to say "some guy is standing on the corner holding a sign saying "obama sucks" and it is making me uncomfortable and scared, would the cops contact that person? no, or at least they shouldn't.

that aside, cops are not the enemy. some may legitimately not understand the scope of open carry in WA. that's unfortunate, but it's a reality. i think it has gotten MUCH better, but one can educate and assert one's rights without being hostile, and usually that is a better way to handle it.

note also, that assuming arguendo a cop did not have lawful cause (reasonable suspicion , or some other lawful reason) to detain you, AND he detains you, it is not lawful to resist an unlawful detention. that may sound counterintuitive, but it's well established case law. the best thing to do is to make it known to him that you think what he is doing is improper, record it if you can, and seek redress AFTEr the incident, either through a complaint, or through the courts. the reason, among others, is that you may think you did nothing wrong, and you didn't, but you can never know what basis of knowledge the cop has to stop you. you are not omniscient. i was proned out at gunpoint and had done nothign wrong, when i was younger. turns out a guy matching my description had just robbed a local store at gunpoint, and after a few minutes, they let me go. no big deal, but just because i had done nothing wrong, was irrelevant. they HAD RS.

and again, even if the cops do NOT have lawful authority to stop, detain and/or arrest you, it is STILL illegal to resist. many prosecutors won't charge you for minor resistance if it turns out to be the case, the cops were unjustified, but it's still a crime to resist an UNLAWFUL stop.

being briefly detained is a hassle, but it's just that - a minor hassle. seek redress if you want, AFTER the incident.
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
The unfortunate fact is the RP called 911 not out of predigest but because in his mind that is was the situation warranted. It is sad that the sight of a holstered gun on a upstanding law abiding citizen triggered a automatic response of fear and panic. The problem is not that people are anti gun the problem is guns trigger such a engraved emotional reaction on people.

Mad Hatter sorry to ask another follow up question but I have never had to record a LEO yet and always get nervous it will lead to my device confiscated and the audio magically deleted. I can not tell from the audio how you held your phone. I am amusing you held it in your hand but was it at your waist or did you hold up closer to your face. Where you very obvious about it or the the officer maybe not aware he was being recorded?

This is a good story for all of us I have been open carrying for five years and other than a few ride comments from citizens I have never had a single negative encounter or have ever had the police called on me. It is not a matter of if we will all have a negative encounter but when. I only hope when I have my first LEO encounter it will go as smoothly as yours

the law in WA state prohibits recording a "private conversation" without the parties involved in the conversation giving consent

a law enforcement officer, acting in his official capacity , talking to you, is NOT a private conversation. period.

i've never seen a cop (in this state) hassle people for recording. note also that if you are visibly clearly recording somebody and they continue to talk, consent is implied. that's how journalists can stick microphones in people's faces without running afoul of the law either.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
the law in WA state prohibits recording a "private conversation" without the parties involved in the conversation giving consent

a law enforcement officer, acting in his official capacity , talking to you, is NOT a private conversation. period.

i've never seen a cop (in this state) hassle people for recording. note also that if you are visibly clearly recording somebody and they continue to talk, consent is implied. that's how journalists can stick microphones in people's faces without running afoul of the law either.

I agree on your take of the law, but I have seen and heard of cops who don't agree with your assessment.

Do you feel this would extend to phone conversations with police or is that a different beast? Something I have been curious about.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
I agree on your take of the law, but I have seen and heard of cops who don't agree with your assessment.

Do you feel this would extend to phone conversations with police or is that a different beast? Something I have been curious about.

the problem is the case law as to EXACTLY what is meant by private conversation has not been fleshed out

this is how it usually works. legislators write some kneejerk, hastily considered law, with poorly defined or not defined at all terms, and then the courts have to sort it out

(imo, the two party consent law was largely written to protect corrupt politicians and it is the only law i have ever seen where the exclusionary rule applies to NON-leo's. iow, if you obtain a recording in violation of this law, not only is it excluded from evidence but iirc, you cannot evne testify to what was said DURING the recording)

i would hesitate to record a PHONE call , even with a cop, without notification. i think it's more likely ot be viewed as "private' vs. a cop on a scene (like a DV), or especially in a public place, traffic stop ,etc.

note that despite the fact that cops talking to people pursuant to their duties is not a private conversation, every agency i am aware of has POLICY that generally requires them to notify. mostly, it's a CYA thang, since they don't want to deal with suppression motions, and it's easier just to notify.

the law also says that INCOMING calls to a police station may be recorded by the cops without notification, yet generally by POLICY they will advise before recording. it does not have to be 911 calls, ANY incoming call (9.73.090)

iow, i wouldn't do the telephone thang.

here's the law

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
I like this 'peek at your ID'. You should have said, 'try saying pretty please with sugar on it and curtsey and I -might- let you'. LOL. Peek, indeed. I bet if you flashed it at him in a true 'peek' fashion he'd grab it and run you.
 

kurt555gs

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
234
Location
, ,
In Illinois recording a police officer even I'm the open will get you a felony conviction and penitentiary time. Since we can neither open nor concealed carry, this recording issue is less likely to happen.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
In Illinois recording a police officer even I'm the open will get you a felony conviction and penitentiary time. Since we can neither open nor concealed carry, this recording issue is less likely to happen.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Do people even pay attention to where and what they are posting? Kurt, this is a Washington forum, NOTHING that you posted has any relevance to the OP or thread.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
A reasonable person, surrounded by 4 officers, would not think that they were free to go, even if they actually said that..... physical presence in such a manner is a show of force.
 
Top