Detained in Bremerton (for not consenting to vehicular search for shooter)

[Vitaeus]

Most people are unaware of Gant... If you want to stay up on things the Law Enforcement Digest (LED) is a great way to read up on recent decisions and the previous cases. Each section has the original case narrative, court decision, citations and interpretation of what it means for LE from the training commission. The LED's are published once a month, and are a really great read for anyone that wants to know what is going on with case law. If anyone thinks they might want to read them monthly, I would be willing to grab them and post them once a month in a thread.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80

Thank you for the link to the Digests, that is one heavy meal to digest, 3 years worth of rulings on case law.

 

[aktion]

Wow. I know the second Mason County Deputy. I am quite surprised at the way he handled this incident, knowing only what is on the two videos.

 

[Tawnos]

So the On-Topic/Not a violation of OCDO Forum rules case has yet to be made by anyone. Just personal attacks. When people resort to personal attacks and don't debate the merits, the person being attacked is usually right . . .

Fine, if you're going to be a dick.

This is on topic as it relates to the state of Washington, warrantless search, and how exercising the right to keep and bear arms and your other rights can result in police overstepping their lawfully mandated bounds.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Fine, if you're going to be a dick.

This is on topic as it relates to the state of Washington, warrantless search, and how exercising the right to keep and bear arms and your other rights can result in police overstepping their lawfully mandated bounds.

It also serves as a valuable lesson on how to interact when detained by police.

I'd suggest little things like:
Don't get out of the vehicle.
Don't exclaim "I'm armed" when they aren't asking about that.
Don't believe what the officer says.
Remain silent. No really, remain silent.
Ask for an attorney if the police detain and start uttering threats about impounding your vehicle or getting a search warrant.
Cops will lie about seeing things when they didn't, to try and get more info.
Cops will lie about having grounds for a warrant, to try and get you to give consent.
Cops will plead, reason, be your buddy, threaten, intimidate, etc -- all to manipulate you into doing what they want (giving consent).
Cops will harass you by making you run around to collect your lawfully owned items that they abscond with.
Point out how good others are for following their demands, but how bad you are for not following them.
Call in reinforcements to intimidate by numbers.
Don't drop the camera into the car while recording, if possible.
If removed (or asked to exit) from the vehicle, lock it as you get out (with windows up).
Call a friend asap when interacting with the officer and keep them on the line so they can listen to what's happening (witness).
Et cetera.

Great learning opportunity, since it sure seems like OCers face this kind of LEO behavior on a regular basis.

 

[dadada]

Here's a question regarding their threat to get a warrant. Do you have any legal recourse at having a attorney represent you for the warrant process? Is there any way to have an attorney intercept the process and represent you when the cop is requesting it?

 

[MSG Laigaie]

......Do you have any legal recourse at having a attorney represent you for the warrant process? Is there any way to have an attorney intercept the process and represent you when the cop is requesting it?

This is a great question! I would like to know the answer to this one.

 

[BigDave]

Here's a question regarding their threat to get a warrant. Do you have any legal recourse at having a attorney represent you for the warrant process? Is there any way to have an attorney intercept the process and represent you when the cop is requesting it?

I highly doubt it as obtaining a warrant the PD prepares evidence to present to the Judge that there is probable cause and the Judge approves or denies based on current law, the process does not include the accused attorney impute.
Until one is harmed there is no legal recourse so my understanding would be a search warrant would need to be issued and executed and then challenged in court.

 

[ManInBlack]

Thanks to the OP for exercising your rights.

To the thread-nazis and the rights-wobblers, screw off.

 

[Badger Johnson]

And nobody is forcing anyone around here to obey the rules, obviously.

Hey, at least you don't have, like some, your own Mod who follows you around and snipes every post, makes personal attacks or snide comments, lacks a sense of humor, and outs one's personal habits, and disabilities to all newcomers. Evidently, it's a free service of OCDO, lol.

 

[amlevin]

Hey, at least you don't have, like some, your own Mod who follows you around and snipes every post, makes personal attacks or snide comments, lacks a sense of humor, and outs one's personal habits, and disabilities to all newcomers. Evidently, it's a free service of OCDO, lol.

That doesn't sound like a "Mod" but more like a Stalker.

 

[Grapeshot]

Hey, at least you don't have, like some, your own Mod who follows you around and snipes every post, makes personal attacks or snide comments, lacks a sense of humor, and outs one's personal habits, and disabilities to all newcomers. Evidently, it's a free service of OCDO, lol.

That doesn't sound like a "Mod" but more like a Stalker.

The only posters that have ever described me as a stalker are those that cannot or will not accept accept moderation as it is intended.

Rest assured when you attract the attention of a moderator that this is not the way to resolve the issue. Compounding the problem with out of context half truths just adds to the seemingly deliberate distortions, omissions and exaggerations already made.

More to the point, continued and ongoing reference in such a manner would appear to be a direct attack (attempt to discredit) on a Moderator and the administration for allowing such.

Moderation is not a personal issue.

 

[Badger Johnson]

Personally, I think it's too much sugar and a tendency to read context into a general comment.

Some forum members make lots of insightful posts and some members just CAN'T post on topic, but have to post about other members. It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma.

 

[deanf]

it relates to the state of Washington, warrantless search, and how exercising the right to keep and bear arms and your other rights can result in police overstepping their lawfully mandated bounds.

All true, but not in keeping with the OCDO Forum rules.

Which is why the thread was moved to force compliance with the rules, I suppose.

 

[BigDave]

Which is why the thread was moved to force compliance with the rules, I suppose.

which proves that in this country, snitches and crybabies who can't leave well enough alone always get their way.
and just like this country, this forum is full of them.

These two statements speaks volumes about attitudes of rules or laws do not apply as long as one can do what one wants no matter what or who they effect. I have known many criminals in my professional and private life with these attitudes and they still live by them. One predominate trait among them is the hatred of anyone having some form of authority.

I do not speak for the forum owners, moderators nor anyone else for that matter, though any forum on the internet is at the prerogative of the owners/operators.
With in the forums there are different categories to promote organization and ease of members to seek information in different areas that apply, similar to a library yet there are those who complain that do not properly place their threads in an appropriate category and then whine and whine about it being moved. If you cannot deal with it, then don't participate.

 

[skidmark]

it relates to the state of Washington, warrantless search, and how exercising the right to keep and bear arms and your other rights can result in police overstepping their lawfully mandated bounds.

All true, but not in keeping with the OCDO Forum rules.

Which is why the thread was moved to force compliance with the rules, I suppose.

And here I was thinking that the subject matter had gone way beyond applicability only to Washgington State before the end of page 1, and that the move to General Discussion was to facilitate readers from other states becoming aware of the "news" that search incident to arres was no longer a viable tactic for starting a police fishing expedition. Of course I could be wrong and the thread was moved only because, as some seem to believe, it's a great way for certain moderators to screw with them personally.

stay safe.

 

[Badger Johnson]

These two statements speaks volumes about attitudes of rules or laws do not apply as long as one can do what one wants no matter what or who they effect. I have known many criminals in my professional and private life with these attitudes and they still live by them. One predominate trait among them is the hatred of anyone having some form of authority.

I do not speak for the forum owners, moderators nor anyone else for that matter, though any forum on the internet is at the prerogative of the owners/operators.
With in the forums there are different categories to promote organization and ease of members to seek information in different areas that apply, similar to a library yet there are those who complain that do not properly place their threads in an appropriate category and then whine and whine about it being moved. If you cannot deal with it, then don't participate.

OK, first, who died and left you in charge? (kidding). But, seriously, you are drawing a parallel which is called a logical fallacy. Just because you share a trait with a CRIMINAL does not make you one. I know lots of people who don't like 'authority figures' and they're neither criminal nor childish. The best 'authorities' are not petulant and demanding, they're just clearly right (like Einstein). What one doesn't like is a titular authority figure, or a bully. The best forums are moderated very transparently I might add. I moderate(d) on a couple and they are 100 times this size and you almost never see bullying or moderating at all (like the best referees who are not seen on camera).

Second, there's no forum rules about whining and whining. No member is required not to participate merely because they're whiny.

Third, I really can't parse your first sentence. Let's see you have Two statements speaking volumes. They speak about 'attitudes of rules' which do not apply. One can do what they want no matter whom they affect I think you mean. Still, it's almost content-free. (sorry).

Then you claim not to speak for the forum owners, but then you do so telling the OP to not participate. That's hardly your prerogative.

Maybe you should have said 'Whiners give me a headache and I'm putting them on ignore'...in fact, don't say it, just do it.

HTH.

As far as an on topic post, I don't think it's correct to classify civil-disobedience and peaceful, non-violent protest as against the law. We all know man-made laws are full of errors and some are impossible even for lawyers to decipher.

$.02

 

[Steeler-gal]

He answered that my refusal would be good enough for a warrant

IANAL but I took a law class once and the lawyer reaching the class told us that if a LEO ever says that then the response back should be "then I'll wait for the warrant". They may be able to get a warrant but unless it's for something more concrete than they're looking for someone/anyone they might not be able to get a warrant signed by a judge.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Deanimator]

For me this is way overboard and I would not have a problem letting an Officer look in my vehicle for someone that had just shot someone.

And how do you know that's why he wants to search... or even that ANYONE was shot?

Police are allowed to lie in the course of an "investigation" (read "fishing expedition"). You're NOT required to believe those lies, much less waive your rights based on them.

The police have lied FAR too often to have their word be taken on face value.

NEVER consent to ANYTHING.

 

[BigDave]

And how do you know that's why he wants to search... or even that ANYONE was shot?
Police are allowed to lie in the course of an "investigation" (read "fishing expedition"). You're NOT required to believe those lies, much less waive your rights based on them.
The police have lied FAR too often to have their word be taken on face value.
NEVER consent to ANYTHING.

I am well aware of my rights and as the described incident along with the video, Officers were stopping all traffic and asking to look in their vehicles for a shooter and as one could see the explanation and actions that were being presented fit and it would be my desire or choice to allow them to look briefly into my vehicle for a male suspect and move on not to hinder their chance of finding the shooter.

This would be my choice and it is not giving up any rights as I would have gave consent, I have nothing to hide or to be concerned about others that would have been in my vehicle at any given time (as I do not associate with an element that would do such a thing).

If the Officer/s were singling me out and no probable cause, that is a different story.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

TSA doesn't even bother with the convenient ficiton of searching for a shooter/DUI

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story

The TSA's 25 "viper" teams — for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response — have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year. Department of Homeland Security officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 more teams next year.

They will enforce compliance. Northern Washington is within the No Rights Zone. So is northern Wisconsin.