servicetechcms
New member
Papers Please?
Papers Please?
Hmm now why would this be coming from Fish & Wildlife??
So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?
say I am fishing and forget to remove the barb from my hook, in a barbless hook area, and a game warden comes and checks my gear and finds out that i made a mistake.(just an example of commen fine) So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?
Detained. Not arrested.[/COLOR]
So what, exactly, are the changes? Don't general authority peace officers already have the authority to detain and ID when writing a NOI?
Detained. Not arrested.[/COLOR]
Detained is equivalent to arrest, albeit temporarily for the determination of how long the arrest should proceed.
An arrest is a legal state of being. You are being compelled to submit to a criminal judicial process.
A detainment is a physical state of being. You are being physically stopped from leaving.
You don't have to be detained to be arrested, and you don't have to be arrested to be detained.
No one around here has heard of "arrest by citation"?
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/case.html#878 said:The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 16-19 (1968). "[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized' that person," id. at 392 U. S. 16, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable." As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Id. at 392 U. S. 20-21; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 387 U. S. 536-537 (1967).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/210/case.html#215 said:"Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."
Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 19, n. 16. While applying such a test is relatively straightforward in a situation resembling a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 442 U. S. 212-216 (1979), the protection against unreasonable seizures also extends to "seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 422 U. S. 878 (1975). What has evolved from our cases is a determination that an initially consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, "if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." Mendenall, supra, at 446 U. S. 554 (footnote omitted); see Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 460 U. S. 502 (1983) (plurality opinion).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=499&invol=621 said:To constitute a seizure of the person, just as to constitute an arrest - the quintessential "seizure of the person" under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence - there must be either the application of physical force, however slight, or, where that is absent, submission to an officer's "show of authority" to restrain the subject's liberty.
Your citations do nothing but further clarifiy my position. They certainly do not define arrest as detention.
I hereby seize your citations as my own and proffer them to further buttress my position.:lol:
say I am fishing and forget to remove the barb from my hook, in a barbless hook area, and a game warden comes and checks my gear and finds out that i made a mistake.(just an example of commen fine) So under this change I would be hand cuffed and treated like a criminal?
RCW 77.15.160 Infractions — Record catch — Barbed hooks — Other rule violations. |
RCW 7.84.020 "Infraction" defined. |
*Reviser's note: Chapter 43.30 RCW was recodified or repealed in its entirety by chapter 334, Laws of 2003. See Comparative Table for chapter 43.30 RCW in the Table of Disposition of Former RCW Sections. Severability -- 1999 c 249: See note following RCW 79A.05.010. Intent -- 1993 c 244: See note following RCW 79A.60.010. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So ..........as long as your infraction is declared not to be a criminal offense or break any other "rule defined as an infraction" you likely will not be issued a notice of infraction. If it is found that you have committed an infraction then there will be monetary penalties , not to exceed five hundred dollars per each infraction. I don't know about you but I sometimes need to get some other things done before immediately recording my catch. I see this bill as another attempt at stop and ID. ~Whitney |
You mean likely will be issued a NOI. Right?
I wish NsOI would go away all together and every civil infraction was treated as a criminal offense. The rules for civil court are basically even - preponderance of the evidence. Criminal court is tilted in favor of the defendant.
Did you know that in a civil infraction case, you can be forced to testify against yourself?[/COLOR]
Where would I find the provision with regard to this.?