• 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

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
If they say your not being detained...walk away. If they want to follow you around the parking lot...then they can. If they follow you back into the store. That starts getting iffy, if they follow you to another nearby store. I would probably call the sheriff dept and file a complaint of harassment and armed men stalking me.
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
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.

depends on the totality of the circ's (as always), but in general, i would tend to agree with you. ESPECIALLY if the cops SURROUNDED THE PERSON vs. gave him obvious ingress/egress based on the way they were standing
 

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
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.

I agree with you 100% in my mind there are degrees of force everything from verbal commands to pulling your gun and shooting someone. In my mind a uniformed officer is the first level in my force scale (hope that made sense) A uniformed officer alone in my mind is a show of force
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
I agree with you 100% in my mind there are degrees of force everything from verbal commands to pulling your gun and shooting someone. In my mind a uniformed officer is the first level in my force scale (hope that made sense) A uniformed officer alone in my mind is a show of force

it is according to most police UOF continuums as well

it is the lowest level, just below "verbalization" and is referred to as "command presence"
 

Bucks Gun Shop

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
97
Location
Snohomish, WA
Very much appreciate you posting the audio... You can learn a lot about police/open carry interactions by listening... Would love if more people had audio and would post...

Thanks!!!!
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
SNIP

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.

Partially true. It may be lawful to resist an unlawful arrest:

In sum, we hold that, although a person who is being unlawfully arrested has a right . . . to use reasonable and proportional force to resist an attempt to inflict injury on him or her during the course of an arrest, that person may not use force against the arresting officers if he or she is faced only with a loss of freedom.

State v. Valentine, 132 Wash.2d 1, 21, 935 P.2d 1294 (1997).

I took your post to state that you may never resist arrest. If that's not what you meant, my apologies.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
If they say your not being detained...walk away. If they want to follow you around the parking lot...then they can. If they follow you back into the store. That starts getting iffy, if they follow you to another nearby store. I would probably call the sheriff dept and file a complaint of harassment and armed men stalking me.

Just don't walk into a donut shop...your begging them to follow you.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Assume what you will...

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
 

The Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
85
Location
Vancouver, WA
I have never had a LEO encounter, and am thankful. I would hope to keep my cool. I do not like being harrassed! I think that this officer was harrassing you. You had asked if you were being detained he said no. He then kept pestering you. That sounds like harrassment to me. If I did that to someone I would be arrested. I think you did well and stayed calm. I only hope that I could stay as calm as you. I would never get violent, I love LEO, I have a ton of respect for the ones that deserve it. I would have mentioned that the man who pointed you out needed to be detained for calling in and making a false report. It would force him to educate himself on the law. Sorry for the run on sentense.
 

TheJeepster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
95
Location
, ,
One of the main things I get out of this was the OCer not wanting to go to his car so they couldn't identify him through license plate.

In addition to that, while Open Carry may be totally legal, riding around in a vehicle with a loaded weapon requires one to have a CPL or be under acting under one of the exemptions (like hunting or fishing).

All an officer has to do is wait until you get into a vehicle to have all the RAS he needs to pull you over and detain you to verify that the guns was or wasn't loaded and if it was loaded that you have a valid CPL for armed carry in a vehicle.

If I was LEO and I got the "Are you detaining me?" from an OCer. I would just back off and then wait until they got into a vehicle. One of two things have to happen when an OCer reaches a vehicle. 1) They get in with the pistol still loaded in open carry configuration, or 2) They have to unholster (brandish) the weapon to drop the mag and clear the gun thus making it legal to carry in a vehicle without being loaded.

I would think either one of these scenarios give an LEO RAS to stop and detain. What do you all think?
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
Assume what you will...

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

Please refer to post #46 for the citation to State v. Valentine, which states the current law on this subject in the State of Washington. Most if not all of the principles you mention above are rejected by Valentine.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
One of the main things I get out of this was the OCer not wanting to go to his car so they couldn't identify him through license plate.

In addition to that, while Open Carry may be totally legal, riding around in a vehicle with a loaded weapon requires one to have a CPL or be under acting under one of the exemptions (like hunting or fishing).

All an officer has to do is wait until you get into a vehicle to have all the RAS he needs to pull you over and detain you to verify that the guns was or wasn't loaded and if it was loaded that you have a valid CPL for armed carry in a vehicle.

If I was LEO and I got the "Are you detaining me?" from an OCer. I would just back off and then wait until they got into a vehicle. One of two things have to happen when an OCer reaches a vehicle. 1) They get in with the pistol still loaded in open carry configuration, or 2) They have to unholster (brandish) the weapon to drop the mag and clear the gun thus making it legal to carry in a vehicle without being loaded.

I would think either one of these scenarios give an LEO RAS to stop and detain. What do you all think?

NO!

Absent a crime he has no RAS. Simply getting into a vehicle with a firearm in plain view does constitute a crime. The officer must be able to articulate (r"A"s) why he would think the firearm is loaded. (some people carry unloaded, some people unload, etc) The facts available to the officer at that time must be reasonable ("R"as) and not a hunch.

Your #1 assumption is wrong. How do you know Madhatter was carrying loaded?
Your #2 assumption is wrong. We have no 'brandishing' statute in Washington. How do you know that he was not carrying with one in the barrel? He could of been carrying with a loaded magazine but no round in the chamber.

How do you know he was not going hiking, fishing, play frisbee, etc? (An exception under .060) Neither does the officer. Nor would it be reasonable nor articuable.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Please refer to post #46 for the citation to State v. Valentine, which states the current law on this subject in the State of Washington. Most if not all of the principles you mention above are rejected by Valentine.

entirely correct.

simply put, (and it keeps getting reinforced) there is no legal (de jure) right to resist an unlawful arrest or detention

that principle has , again, been repeatedly reinforced

one can seek redress for same, of course, but NOT by resisting.
 

TheJeepster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
95
Location
, ,
NO!

Absent a crime he has no RAS. Simply getting into a vehicle with a firearm in plain view does constitute a crime. The officer must be able to articulate (r"A"s) why he would think the firearm is loaded. (some people carry unloaded, some people unload, etc) The facts available to the officer at that time must be reasonable ("R"as) and not a hunch.

Your #1 assumption is wrong. How do you know Madhatter was carrying loaded?
Your #2 assumption is wrong. We have no 'brandishing' statute in Washington. How do you know that he was not carrying with one in the barrel? He could of been carrying with a loaded magazine but no round in the chamber.

How do you know he was not going hiking, fishing, play frisbee, etc? (An exception under .060) Neither does the officer. Nor would it be reasonable nor articuable.

Very good! Always trust you to come through with a good, reliable and direct answer.
 

1245A Defender

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

entirely correct.

simply put, (and it keeps getting reinforced) there is no legal (de jure) right to resist an unlawful arrest or detention

that principle has , again, been repeatedly reinforced

one can seek redress for same, of course, but NOT by resisting.

I Will Call B.S. !!!!
Assume what you will...


Assume what you will...

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.​



 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Please refer to post #46 for the citation to State v. Valentine, which states the current law on this subject in the State of Washington. Most if not all of the principles you mention above are rejected by Valentine.

So, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled one way, and the Washington Supreme Court has ruled the other way. Which wins when the two are in conflict?
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
So, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled one way, and the Washington Supreme Court has ruled the other way. Which wins when the two are in conflict?

As a general rule, where Washington gives citizens more protection from governmental intrusion, Washington wins. There are many instances where SCOTUS has ruled that the cops can do a certain thing but our court has said they can't. I have found that the existence of our body of state constitutional law is foreign to my counterparts in the eastern parts of the US where the US Supreme Court is always the court of final error.

The Valentine case, which came out of my office (one of the main officers is a good friend of mine), has a thorough review of the historical underpinnings of the common law principle that an unlawful arrest could be resisted with lethal force simply due to the unlawfulness of the arrest. Nothing in the post I refer to cites current US Supreme Court case law. I have not researched this at the US level but I do know that Valentine is the law in this state and that Justice Story, the one quoted in the post I responded to, died in 1845. To say that the law has evolved since then is a mild understatement.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
As a general rule, where Washington gives citizens more protection from governmental intrusion, Washington wins. There are many instances where SCOTUS has ruled that the cops can do a certain thing but our court has said they can't. I have found that the existence of our body of state constitutional law is foreign to my counterparts in the eastern parts of the US where the US Supreme Court is always the court of final error.

The Valentine case, which came out of my office (one of the main officers is a good friend of mine), has a thorough review of the historical underpinnings of the common law principle that an unlawful arrest could be resisted with lethal force simply due to the unlawfulness of the arrest. Nothing in the post I refer to cites current US Supreme Court case law. I have not researched this at the US level but I do know that Valentine is the law in this state and that Justice Story, the one quoted in the post I responded to, died in 1845. To say that the law has evolved since then is a mild understatement.

Evolved or eroded? Bad Elk vs U.S was in 1900 and is still a valid SCOTUS precedent. I wonder what would happen if Valentine was appealed to a higher court. The majority sure did invalidate even a Washington case in 1958...

The dissent was awesome in State vs. Valentine.. Looks like that case ignores common law the basis for Washington law and several 20th century cases reaffirming our right and is another modern example of the state ruling in favor of more state control.......Yikes looks like the courts don't deny that the officers were abusive bigots, who harassed and unlawfully arrested Valentine. Looks like he cite many "modern" day cases to show that the courts main focus here was increasing State power ...and apparently was beat unconscious for...

Under the undisputed facts of this case, Petitioner Valentine did nothing to justify characterizing him as a “suspicious subject” except being an African American male person standing on a street corner in Spokane at midday.   The law in all its majesty requires something more than that.

Excerpts from Sanders dissent ( think it's Sanders) much more easy to follow and understand than the convoluted rationalizing of the Majority....

Claiming a new-found enlightenment not apparent to legal generations which preceded it, the majority then opines that the established common law rule has outlived its usefulness in our brave new world where resistance to unlawful infliction of state coercive power is not only futile (Majority at 1302-03), but also invites “anarchy.”   Majority at 1304.   Apparently the majority believes the unlawful use of state force is not anarchy but order.   Yet I suggest such circumstances are not new, nor is the seeming futility of individual resistance to the overwhelming, yet still unlawful, police power of the state.   It is an age-old tale.   Mr.  Valentine does not need courts to tell him who is going to win a physical confrontation with the police.   But he does need this court to recognize and protect his legal rights.

Allowing police to arrest wrongfully and then prosecute the victim for righteous resistance is wrong for the same reason entrapment is wrong.   It was only the injustice of the police misconduct that induced the outraged victim to resist.

If “vindication” means the alleged police aggressor is subject to even-handed prosecution (not just his victim), I hear the applause of one hand clapping.   At oral argument the state admitted that not even internal disciplinary action had been taken against these officers and none is “appropriate.”   Oral argument (3/27/96) tape 1.   Moreover, in practice the victim of a wrongful arrest may sue for damages;  however, usually he cannot afford an attorney while, inevitably, the government wrongdoer is provided a full defense-at taxpayer expense.

For example, in City of Kennewick v. Keller, 11 Wash.App. 777, 787, 525 P.2d 267 (1974) the illegally arrested defendant, faced with loss of liberty “alone,” resisted the unlawful arrest by jerking free of the officer's grasp and then hitting the officer.   The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conviction for resisting arrest, reasoning that one has the lawful right to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest.   The court cited Rousseau for the proposition that “[a] citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.”  Id. at 787, 525 P.2d 267.

Also following the common law rule was State v. Counts, 99 Wash.2d 54, 659 P.2d 1087 (1983), in which a man illegally arrested and facing “nothing more” than loss of liberty threatened the arresting officers with a butcher's knife.   In reversing defendant's conviction for assaulting the officers, this court cited Rousseau and remanded for new trial which “should include an instruction to the jury on a defendant's right to use reasonable resistance against an unlawful arrest.”  Counts, 99 Wash.2d at 61, 659 P.2d 1087.


The same rule was applied again in State v. Hoffman, 35 Wash.App. 13, 664 P.2d 1259 (1983), in which the police perpetrated an unlawful arrest.   During the unlawful arrest the defendant pulled away from the officer, swung at him and a scuffle ensued.   The defendant faced “only” a  loss of liberty, yet the court acknowledged his right to resist.  “We recognize that the defendant had a right to defend himself against an unlawful arrest.”   Hoffman, 35 Wash.App. at 17, 664 P.2d 1259 (citing Counts, 99 Wash.2d 54, 659 P.2d 1087, and City of Kennewick, 11 Wash.App. 777, 525 P.2d 267).   “Whether he used reasonable force under the circumstances is, however, a question for the jury.”  Hoffman, 35 Wash.App. at 17, 664 P.2d 1259 (citing Rousseau, 40 Wash.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447)

State v. Johnson, 29 Wash.App. 307, 309, 628 P.2d 479 (1981) is in accord:  “[A] citizen [has] the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances ․” (citing City of Kennewick, 11 Wash.App. at 787, 525 P.2d 267).

In State v. Humphries, 21 Wash.App. 405, 586 P.2d 130 (1978) the police unlawfully entered a dwelling and the defendant struck the officer.   On appeal the court noted that “[a] person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest;  the force used in resisting an unlawful arrest must be reasonable and proportioned to the injury attempted on the party sought to be arrested.”   Id. at 407-08, 586 P.2d 130 (citing Rousseau, 40 Wash.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447 and City of Kennewick, 11 Wash.App. at 787, 525 P.2d 267).

The majority overrules Rousseau without statutory necessity and contrary to the rule of stare decisis.

  Apparently the private violator of another's legal rights may face lawful resistance but the rogue government actor may proceed with comparative impunity.

The majority's rule makes the unlawful arrest of Valentine irrelevant; [SUP]15[/SUP]  however, that is the predicate fact which lawfully justifies reasonable resistance and is Valentine's recognized and legitimate defense to the assault charge.   Moreover, the majority's new rule is inconsistent with the remainder of Washington law on defense of self and property as well as the fundamental principle upon which it is based.   Valentine was absolutely entitled to submit the question of the reasonableness of his response to a false arrest to a jury of his peers.[SUP]16[/SUP]
Apparently the majority thinks it is neither a major  injury nor affront to be arrested unlawfully by agents of the government when “only liberty” is at stake.   I disagree.
 
Last edited:

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
Evolved or eroded? Bad Elk vs U.S was in 1900 and is still a valid SCOTUS precedent. I wonder what would happen if Valentine was appealed to a higher court. The majority sure did invalidate even a Washington case in 1958...

The dissent was awesome in State vs. Valentine.. Looks like that case ignores common law the basis for Washington law and several 20th century cases reaffirming our right and is another modern example of the state ruling in favor of more state control.......Yikes looks like the courts don't deny that the officers were abusive bigots, who harassed and unlawfully arrested Valentine. Looks like he cite many "modern" day cases to show that the courts main focus here was increasing State power ...and apparently was beat unconscious for...



Excerpts from Sanders dissent ( think it's Sanders) much more easy to follow and understand than the convoluted rationalizing of the Majority....

SNIP

Eroded indeed. I don't know of too many other prosecutors in this state who supported Sanders and I would much rather still have him on the bench than his successor. Not saying I agree with Valentine or think it was correctly decided, just pointing out that it is the current law here.
 
Top