Taken down at gun point at Greenlake today.

[gogodawgs]

FOIA request sent

Freedom of Information Act Request
Sheila Friend Gray
Seattle Police Department
610 – 5th Avenue
P.O. Box 34986
Seattle, WA 98124
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Sheila Friend Gray:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
I request that a copy of the documents containing the following information be provided to me:
• 911 call transcript for a man with a gun call resulting in the dispatch of 2 SPD officers to Greenlake on Sunday Aug 21 2011 between the hours of 6 AM and 1 pm.
• The reports from the 2 officers involved.
• Any radio or data transmissions from the 2 officers from the time the call was dispatched until the officers departed the area.
In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am an individual seeking information for review and publication by Open Carry Dot Org, a non profit lobbying and citizen watchdog group relating to protections of the 2nd amendments.
I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government / police department and is not primarily in my commercial interest. Open Carry Dot Org is a national organization with many years of experience explaining the actions of police departments and legally armed citizens to the press, and advising police departments across the nation in their training of officers when dealing with legally armed citizens. This request will contribute significantly to public understanding as the information disclosed is new; supports public oversight of agency operations; or otherwise confirms or clarifies data on past or present operations of the government. As noted by 132 Cong. Rec. H9464
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

Can you post or send me the .pdf when you get the info please?

 

[joeroket]

What would the people do if the police stopped and pulled everyone out of their vehicles, making them put their hands on their head, and then making them prove that they had a driver's license in order to drive?


Well my friend that is legal to do in Texas of all places...



LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

The RCW's allow marked state patrol to check for a license and to inspect the vehicle minimum required equipment compliance. Although I have never heard of it and no trooper I have ever talked to about it has heard of it being exercised.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.64.070


Back on track with the regularly scheduled discussion. I am a little confused by the title. The OP says he was taken down at gunpoint but admits the officer only had his pistol at the ready and it doesn't sound like he was really taken down at all but merely stopped and temporarily disarmed. Having said that I still disagree with the officers for making contact the way they did as there were no laws being broken and it doesn't sound like the RP made any accusations of that either.

 

[gogodawgs]

What would the people do if the police stopped and pulled everyone out of their vehicles, making them put their hands on their head, and then making them prove that they had a driver's license in order to drive?


Well my friend that is legal to do in Texas of all places...



LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

The RCW's allow marked state patrol to check for a license and to inspect the vehicle minimum required equipment compliance. Although I have never heard of it and no trooper I have ever talked to about it has heard of it being exercised.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.64.070


Back on track with the regularly scheduled discussion. I am a little confused by the title. The OP says he was taken down at gunpoint but admits the officer only had his pistol at the ready and it doesn't sound like he was really taken down at all but merely stopped and temporarily disarmed. Having said that I still disagree with the officers for making contact the way they did as there were no laws being broken and it doesn't sound like the RP made any accusations of that either.

A better analogy; if they stopped every man walking around the lake because they might be a child molester. They have the proper equipment and therefore they must be stopped and questioned.

A casual conversation by the SPD would of been the correct approach and thus giving the OP the right to walk away.

 

[amlevin]

A better analogy; if they stopped every man walking around the lake because they might be a child molester. They have the proper equipment and therefore they must be stopped and questioned.

A casual conversation by the SPD would of been the correct approach and thus giving the OP the right to walk away.

Let's not overlook the woman who called the police to begin with. She too could be questioned about possible prostitution activity. She too has the proper equipment for the crime.

 

[Difdi]

The more I follow this the more I believe there is a potential for a civil rights complaint under 42 USC Section 1983. If this man did infact know the policy and chose to ignore or otherwise disregard it he could be held personally responsible for his actions

I've always wondered about the interaction of state and federal laws in this sort of thing. Citizen's arrest is possible for felonies and breach-of-peace misdemeanors in Washington, and nothing I've ever read in the law (aside from a prohibition on forcibly disarming a law enforcement officer outside of two specific situations) renders a police officer immune to arrest. Washington laws tend to run on the basis that anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed, and I've never seen anything that says citizen's arrest only applies to state laws; The relevant bits just say felony and breach of the peace misdemeanor. So what if you witness a uniformed officer commit a breach of the peace that violates a federal law to the tune of a misdemeanor or felony level offense?

42USC1983 might not be the only option; There's also 18USC241 and 18USC242 (241 is conspiracy to violate 242, 242 is violation of civil/statutory/constitutional rights under color of law by a public official; Verbally doing so is up to a year in federal prison if convicted, if violence or threat of violence is used it jumps to 10 years, and 241 starts all penalties off one step more severe than 242 does). A drawn gun is both a breach of the peace and a threat of violence, after all. Under 18USC242, being held at gunpoint for lawfully and peacefully exercising a constitutional right would be a felony; Under 18USC241, it'd be a capital crime (life without parole or execution).

 

[BigDave]

Let's not overlook the woman who called the police to begin with. She too could be questioned about possible prostitution activity. She too has the proper equipment for the crime.

Not to mention a possible noise pollution violation! :lol:

 

[usamarshal]

Were you serious about the officer not knowing how to get your firearm out of a level 3 holster?

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Were you serious about the officer not knowing how to get your firearm out of a level 3 holster?

When I was illegally detained by PCSO, I told the officer how to remove my firearm from the Serpa.. It STILL took him a good 20 seconds or so to get it out...

At that moment, I was confident that, if a 'professionally trained' officer can't get my gun out, with me not resisting, I would have no problem retaining it from some retarded frantically tugging on it...


Having an officer who 'knows what he's doing', cycle the slide and THEN remove the magazine and tell me that he knows what he's doing.. :banghead:

 

[geojohn]

Cliff notes ( info is within the thread) -

Recognition of reciprocal permits.

Investigation under color of law.

Illegal detention with neither RAS nor PC.

And the beat goes on....and on.

I was not asking about laws, but policies. Specifically SPD policies. If the training bulletin that's been posted here can be considered policy, I find it lacking as it appears to instruct the officers to detain and disarm people they elect to investigate. While this would be appropriate if they had RAS of a crime, we know that it's not absent RAS.

 

[jsanchez]

My first post to this thread was rushed, because I only had 10 minutes to enter it, and my computer was giving me a hard time. My wife and I had just returned from Greenlake and she was getting ready for a family BBQ we had to goto, so I had just a couple of minutes to write it. So I left some details out and put one thing out of order. So lets start from the officers arriveing. The woman talked to Ofc. Shilipeyar at the window of his car. Ofc Shilipeyer then went and parked. Ofc. Arron Kamalu parks his car and looks at me from inside his car rolled up side window. I waved at him. I then looked over to Ofc. Shilipeyer car and saw him exiting his vehicle. I looked down and felt my right lower bdu shorts pocket to make sure my wallet and police bulliten were there. I felt it from the outside of the pocket and they were there. I looked back up and saw Ofc. Shilipeyar approaching the tree and I can't clearly remember if he had his gun out yet. Ofc. Shilipeyar looked around the tree at me and I waved. Ofc. Shilipeyar then stepped out from behind the tree and pointed his gun at me, and told me put my hands on top of my head and dont move them. I did. Ofc Shilipeyar advanced on me from the tree, down a little slop, and had both hand on his gun. As he got 1/3 of the way to me he took his right hand off the gun and motioned to a person and said " Stay back ma'm". I heard a gasp at that point and some steps. I stayed looking straight at Ofc. Shilipeyar, so I didn't see that witness. Ofc. Shilipeyar came to my right side and thats were I couldn't see him because I looked straight ahead. He got my gun in its holster and my back up out of my pocket like I had mentioned earlier. Then he told me I could take my hands down and thats when I turned my head just a little bit to the right and saw Ofc. Arron Kamalu standing 10 ft. away with his gun at the low ready. I gave Ofc. Shilipeyar my concealed carry license and told him I was ex law enforcement. He asked me where? I said San Francisco Federal Housing. Ofc. Kamalu asked me if there were any more of "you guys" out at the lake, as he looked around. I said no. He asked me if there was a meet at Starbucks and he looked to the other side of the lake. I said I don't know. Then we got into the stuff I mentioned in the other posts. I'm going to stop here and post this before my computer times out.

 

[jsanchez]

So I was thinking today at work about this situration. I don't have any witnesses. Its my word against his. So I'm hoping that the woman who reported me saw something, and I learned something very interesting tonite from Chief Diaz himself. You see I open carried to the West Precinct Open House/Picnic tonite, I've openned carried to all the open houses except one, and the Chief was there, so I talked to him about my situration. At first he thought I had already filed a complaint and didn't want to comment, but I told him I hadn't filed the complaint yet, and asked him if in the OPA complaint process if lie detector tests were used, and he said you could volunteer for one. That makes me feel a little better but we will see what the lawyer can get from the reporting party. She should have been in a position to see Ofc Shilipeyar at the tree, and my wife said she seemed shookup and embarressed, so theres hope.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wow!!!

Ofc. kamalu Proves, without a doubt, by asking about "anymore of You guys, and having Meets at starbucks,
that he knows beyond any reasonable doubt, that OCers are Legal, and they shouldnt be too shocked to see one!
They are guilty of 42 usc 1983 and others!

study o'hare V. alamagordo, they didnt point guns at him, but the rest of the roust was near as bad.

 

[Blk97F150]

...asked him if in the OPA complaint process if lie detector tests were used, and he said you could volunteer for one.

You should have asked him if the cop would volunteer for one as well!!!

 

[amzbrady]

You should have asked him if the cop would volunteer for one as well!!!

Recorders are awesome, huh. My wife and I have discussed that if I am approached that she is to calmly seperate herself from me and stay in front of us so the officer does not feel for his safety and get her on obstruction, she is to start video recording on her phone while facing us, so if something is not heard, we could possible read lips. I have told her if she is approached to put a little more distance in and zoom in and keep recording. I will start my phone recording immediatly.

 

[END_THE_FED]

So I was thinking today at work about this situration. I don't have any witnesses. Its my word against his. So I'm hoping that the woman who reported me saw something, and I learned something very interesting tonite from Chief Diaz himself. You see I open carried to the West Precinct Open House/Picnic tonite, I've openned carried to all the open houses except one, and the Chief was there, so I talked to him about my situration. At first he thought I had already filed a complaint and didn't want to comment, but I told him I hadn't filed the complaint yet, and asked him if in the OPA complaint process if lie detector tests were used, and he said you could volunteer for one. That makes me feel a little better but we will see what the lawyer can get from the reporting party. She should have been in a position to see Ofc Shilipeyar at the tree, and my wife said she seemed shookup and embarressed, so theres hope.

Just so you know. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court. I would not recomend that you take one. There is no benefit to you for taking one.

 

[slapmonkay]

Recorders are awesome, huh. My wife and I have discussed that if I am approached that she is to calmly seperate herself from me and stay in front of us so the officer does not feel for his safety and get her on obstruction, she is to start video recording on her phone while facing us, so if something is not heard, we could possible read lips. I have told her if she is approached to put a little more distance in and zoom in and keep recording. I will start my phone recording immediatly.

Odd I have the same agreement with my wife. I always say you can't have enough evidence.

I always carry with a recorder running when in public. Additionally, my wife and some friends know to separate from me if possible and began video recording if an incident begins. Don't yell at the Leo, etc. There witnessing and recording would likely be more useful than their backing me up trying to argue with the Leo.

Thankfully, no need to exercise the plan yet... knock knock knock.

 

[amlevin]

I was not asking about laws, but policies. Specifically SPD policies. If the training bulletin that's been posted here can be considered policy, I find it lacking as it appears to instruct the officers to detain and disarm people they elect to investigate. While this would be appropriate if they had RAS of a crime, we know that it's not absent RAS.

When you read the "Legal Bulletin" from SPD, the second paragraph states that it is not illegal to merely open carry a firearm and it's followed by a paragraph stating the elements of unlawful behavior.

Officers are only then advised to do when investigating Unlawful Display

Since none of the elements of "unlawful display" were present, according to the OP, then the Officers were not following the Legal Bulletin's instructions.

I wouldn't hesitate to file a complaint and include a copy of the Bulletin as an attachment. I'd also file a complaint with the FBI. Even though it might be an exercise in "Report Writing" and nothing might come of it directly, the more complaints of illegal Police Actions they receive for different incidents, the more a "pattern of abuse" can be established and once revealed, THEN they will act. Sometimes it takes a lot of Smoke before people in some positions realize there is actually a Fire.

In this incident, using the Legal Bulletin as a guide the Officers's actions were inappopriate because they began an unlawful display investigation when it was clear the party was going about a legal activity.

The Dispatchers should also be held accountable as it appears they failed to follow the instructions set forth in the Bulletin.

 

[amlevin]

Recorders are awesome, huh. My wife and I have discussed that if I am approached that she is to calmly seperate herself from me and stay in front of us so the officer does not feel for his safety and get her on obstruction, she is to start video recording on her phone while facing us, so if something is not heard, we could possible read lips. I have told her if she is approached to put a little more distance in and zoom in and keep recording. I will start my phone recording immediatly.

Would be nice to also include a wireless microphone. That way the camera would record clearly what was spoken in your presence. Recording video from a distance might well not pick up all conversation clearly.

 

[Dave Workman]

Open carry activists planning Green Lake response(s) this weekend

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...s-planning-green-lake-response-s-this-weekend

 

[amlevin]

I have never met the OP so I really don't know what he looks like or how he dresses. From his screen name it's possible for one to assume a Hispanic heritage. If this is correct, and he also presents an appearance that one might consider him Hispanic, then this whole incident takes on another facet. That of "Racial Profiling", both by the person reporting and the officers responding.

Should this be the case then the SPD Officers should be not only called on the carpet for their improper actions regarding the incident but for essentially adding the "race card" to the mix. Not all "Hispanics" are "bangers" and not all those with darker skin tones are Hispanic. Recent events are no excuse for violation of Dept Policies and also the Law.

If my assumption is wrong, I apologize. If not then the officers are guilty what is becoming a much larger problem in society. That of stereotyping.