• 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.

Yakima Open Carrier MWAG Call

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.

:lol:Flame Suit On! :lol:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

:lol:Flame Suit On! :lol:

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.
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
467
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:

Aryk45XD

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
/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:

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
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.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
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:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

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...
 

mmdkyoung123

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
164
Location
Independence, and Kansas City, Missouri, USA
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.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
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?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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:
Top