Medford Open Carrier Arrested - Speed Trap Warning

[We-the-People]

New hearing is January 9th at 9:30am in the Medford Municipal Court.

 

[We-the-People]

As far as I know the hearing is 9:30am this morning in the Medford Municipal Court.

 

[VW_Factor]

News?

 

[bigtoe416]

My money is on a postponement.

 

[We-the-People]

News?

I attended the hearing from 9:30am until approximately 11am after which further matters ended up taking until about 11:30am to resolve.

Basically:
The city's witnesses were allowed to testify
The defense was denied the ability to call their only witness (The reporting party who is a former city police officer and current non LEO city employee).
The court denied all motions to suppress
A trial date will be set (probably in the spring from what the judge said)

The city argued, and the judge agreed, that even though the first officer to arrive observed no unlawful activity, only the defendant with a holstered gun and a sign in his hand, he was justified to draw his weapon, point it at the defendant, and then have backup officers disarm and cuff him.......FOR OFFICER SAFETY.

I will leave it at that for reasons of discretion.

OCDO was well represented considering the time/day and relatively small number of us from the area. Also present was a representative from the press (the U.S. Observer out of Grants Pass).

 

[Grapeshot]

I attended the hearing from 9:30am until approximately 11am after which further matters ended up taking until about 11:30am to resolve.

Basically:
The city's witnesses were allowed to testify
The defense was denied the ability to call their only witness (The reporting party who is a former city police officer and current non LEO city employee).
The court denied all motions to suppress
A trial date will be set (probably in the spring from what the judge said)

The city argued, and the judge agreed, that even though the first officer to arrive observed no unlawful activity, only the defendant with a holstered gun and a sign in his hand, he was justified to draw his weapon, point it at the defendant, and then have backup officers disarm and cuff him.......FOR OFFICER SAFETY.

I will leave it at that for reasons of discretion.

OCDO was well represented considering the time/day and relatively small number of us from the area. Also present was a representative from the press (the U.S. Observer out of Grants Pass).

...:banghead:

 

[Jeff. State]

The "justice" system in this nation has become a JOKE. An honorable man who served this country in WAR, is getting shafted and he committed NO crime! The Statists on parade today in that courtroom reminded me of the propagandists on MSM, ALL regurgitating the EXACT same talking points, yet testified "they never discussed with each other". Very disappointed in the "Justice" system.


David our thoughts and prayers are with you Brother.

 

[Citizen]

I attended the hearing from 9:30am until approximately 11am after which further matters ended up taking until about 11:30am to resolve.

Basically:
The city's witnesses were allowed to testify
The defense was denied the ability to call their only witness (The reporting party who is a former city police officer and current non LEO city employee).
The court denied all motions to suppress
A trial date will be set (probably in the spring from what the judge said)

The city argued, and the judge agreed, that even though the first officer to arrive observed no unlawful activity, only the defendant with a holstered gun and a sign in his hand, he was justified to draw his weapon, point it at the defendant, and then have backup officers disarm and cuff him.......FOR OFFICER SAFETY.

I will leave it at that for reasons of discretion.

OCDO was well represented considering the time/day and relatively small number of us from the area. Also present was a representative from the press (the U.S. Observer out of Grants Pass).

What the cop observed when he arrived isn't really enough to settle this point. If the cop had RAS before he arrived, say by way of a phone tip that met the minimum standards for indicia of reliability of the tipster, then the court would be following the law on Terry Stops.

See Terry vs Ohio and Florida vs JL.

The thing to do will be to get your hands on the radio traffic recording and see if the cop had RAS before he arrived, or just a bare bones MWAG doing nothing illegal.

 

[We-the-People]

What the cop observed when he arrived isn't really enough to settle this point. If the cop had RAS before he arrived, say by way of a phone tip that met the minimum standards for indicia of reliability of the tipster, then the court would be following the law on Terry Stops.

See Terry vs Ohio and Florida vs JL.

The thing to do will be to get your hands on the radio traffic recording and see if the cop had RAS before he arrived, or just a bare bones MWAG doing nothing illegal.

As usual in these matters it's best not to go into specifics and theorizing in order to avoid helping the "enemy". I'm pretty sure they monitor this site, as do most departments when they have a matter pending. Social media was specifically mentioned by the prosecuting attorney today and was of such a concern to him that he actually got the judge to come back into the courtroom after opposing counsels met in chambers (from the appearance of things) to make a ruling on audio/video recording of the proceedings to keep them from hitting social media. I don't think that's a big deal in itself as it could taint a jury pool and seems reasonable, but they are aware of the power of social media. Anyone who isn't in this day and age is well, not in touch.

I am not privy to the defense strategy but I did find it interesting that testimony was that the reporting party (who called it in on the PD radio system himself from the scene) made a second call BEFORE the arrival of the police. In that second call he is alleged to have stated that "he hadn't menaced anyone with the firearm". That, in conjunction with the first responders observations that the defendant had a holstered firearm and was holding a sign should have (in my mind) negated any RAS. However, the tape of the calls (which was referred to) was not played and the court denied the defense the ability to put the man on the stand. Why the tape, particularly the second call stating that the suspect was not menacing anyone, was not played I have no idea. But like I said, I am not privy to the defense strategy.

I can't see how the "judge" could find that the witnesses testimony was not directly on point to the motion to supress the evidence as it would have gone towards establishing or refuting RAS for the first responder to detain the individual and the motion was based on an unlawful arrest. Were it a court of record, it would certainly be one of the grounds for filing an appeal but with no official record there can be no appeal.

I don't think it goes to reliability of the "tipster" but rather to whether or not the actions by the responding officer were appropriate for the information transmitted to him over the radio. i.e. if the man with the gun causing a disturbance was not menacing anyone with the firearm, as reported by an individual who all the witnesses stated they respected and knew, then it is a serious stretch of the "officer safety" BS to consider there was justification to point a firearm at the defendant.

 

[David West]

Sorry I haven't kept you guys updated better. Honestly haven't had a whole lot I could say. We-The-People, thanks for coming out and supporting me and keeping everyone here somewhat informed! You too Jefferson-State!

I still can't say too much, but hopefully soon I will be able to. I already have the audio recordings of the radio chatter from when the event happened. I won't say exactly what was said just yet, but you'll be able to hear it for yourselves at some point in the not-to-distant future, and suffice to say, the answer of whether or not there was RAS is easy to see.

 

[F350]

Saint John in New Mexico got $25,000 for the unlawful siezure by law enforcement in Alamogordo and they didn't even arrest him.

The young man in Virgina took the city to task several times for cha ching (and did it Pro Per)

In both cases, the city and LEO were "educated"....because cities don't like paying out settlements. Unfortunately, that's the only way to "educate" our "protectors". You'd think showing "law enforcement" the LAW would be sufficient but alas.

Problem is the money comes from the tax payers and the Gestapo Agents probably get OT for testifying and walk away laughing. I know it is a bit of a long shot, but go to the closest FBI or US Attorney's office and see about filing criminal charges under 18 UCS 241 & 242 and since they were armed these Gestapo thugs could face up to 10 years in federal prison. They knew they were outside the bounds of the law and if the charges are never brought it just proves how bogus the charge was.

 

[VW_Factor]

I wish I lived closer to come support you in person.

Trust that I am with you in spirit good sir!.

Good luck fighting the bogus charges.

 

[David West]

At long last my charges have been dropped. Still don't want to say too much about what all happened just yet but suffice to say, as an aspiring filmmaker I made sure to document as much of this process as possible and you will all be treated to a full-blown video expose at some point. Just when, I can't say yet, but you will see it.

I got my camera back at my last hearing last week, and I'm currently trying to get back my .357 and my tripod. I'm going in to the MPD Evidence Locker tomorrow to get back my tripod but they're saying that it's likely going to be several weeks before I can get the revolver back while they get "approval" from a host of different sources. Pretty stupid if you ask me, especially since I was NEVER even charged with a firearms related crime (or a crime that would have resulted in the state attempting to deprive me of my right to own a gun) in the first place. Why the gun was ever even logged as "evidence" is actually something of a mystery to me.

I've also called the Sheriff's Department to see about getting back my CHL. As they told me several months ago, they're saying that I have to come down and pay the $50 to reapply since it's been more than 30 days since my permit was stolen from me. I asked why I have to pay a renewal fee since I did nothing wrong and the charges were dropped and they said that they will only re-issue your permit if the charges are dropped within 30 days (Yeah, as if that EVER happens). My permit should have been good for more than 2 years still and should have NEVER been taken from me in the first place (Not that I should be required to have a permit to conceal a chunk of metal in the first place, though), so as far as I'm concerned they are straight up robbing me.

I'll give to give you guys more details soon, but I'm still talking to a few attorneys and I'd like their go ahead before really going in depth here. There is a LOT to be said yet about this incident and the subsequent court proceedings that you will all find VERY interesting, and I'll be doing my best to present the entire story in a concise and entertaining video expose in the next few months.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Congrats ... pay the 50 and then small claims for it back is my opinion...

 

[Jeff. State]

Awesome news David!


It's about time.


Will be listening to X X on Thursday for more details.

 

[PFC HALE]

good to hear man!

 

[We-the-People]

WIN

I agree that you should get the $50 back from the city.....as well as legal costs for the wrongful arrest you had to defend yourself against.

We'll talk more face to face soon.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Awesome!

 

[David West]

Just got back from the evidence storage with my tripod. I asked about my .357 again and the lady working told me once more that it's going to be a couple weeks. I had a feeling they were going to try to not give me back my ammunition so I went fishing and said, "Yeah, there should be a revolver, a holster, and 8 rounds of ammo in there."

As I suspected, she immediately went into defensive mode. "Oh... umm... well... You see, we don't usually give back ammo. It's usually destroyed."

"Oh, well then that's going to be an issue," I replied, "because my property was stolen from me and I want it back."

She then told me that when I'm cleared to get my revolver back, I can set up ANOTHER appointment with them to get my ammo back at a separate time, which is stupid and annoying. I'm going to try to schedule the two appointments like 15 minutes apart, but I'm sure that won't fly with these clowns. Things like this is why I laugh at the people who laud cops as heroes. These are not brave individuals we are talking about. They have a system for returning you your property through a thick bullet proof window and a concrete wall without ever even having to make contact with you and yet they're still too afraid to give me back my ammo. It's hilarious and sad all at once.

 

[Cremator75]

Things like this is why I laugh at the people who laud cops as heroes. These are not brave individuals we are talking about. They have a system for returning you your property through a thick bullet proof window and a concrete wall without ever even having to make contact with you and yet they're still too afraid to give me back my ammo. It's hilarious and sad all at once.

That's silly to lump all cops into that statement. There are many fine officers that would give their life for you in a second, although there are the hotheads that don't know everything they should. It sounds more like the evidence room has a policy problem.