• 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.

Harrassed by 4 sheriffs in STARBUCKS!

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I just listened to the audio. The officer said "We are in it now, we are committed. We just need to see your ID so we can run it, then we leave you alone."

Hahahahahahaha! Juicy. Sweet. Yesssssss. Thank you for that confession, copper!!

My, oh, my, but these cops were helpful at tying the noose around their neck, weren't they.

You know, a lawsuit might not be out of the question here.
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,319
Location
Clayton, NC
Maybe you should call the ACLU. Seriously. They've litigated for years to defend people who have been illegally detained or ID'd. They're experts.

Yeah, but you can throw that straight out the window if it involves the second amendment in addition to the fourth.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I hate to do this but seeing as how I do it so much anyways I guess I will play Devil's advocate yet again...

The poor defenseless S.O. (the one OCing his firearm at the same time) felt intimidated by this flagrant violation of his previously held preconceptions. He responded in the way that most would that did not KNOW OC was legal. He wanted to verify EVERYTHING.

We cannot fault the officer himself for being cautious, with what appears to be a limited amount of information regarding state laws.

That being said it is OBVIOUS that this was an unlawful detainment as the officer clearly states "No." regardless of that the mere "presence of several officers" proves you were unlawfully detained. I personally would get off the computer ASAP and call WSP and report it to their desk sergeant and state that you would like an investigation done into the unlawful detainment as well as the unlawful search and seizure (ID card seeing as how you were forced to provide it as witnessed in the audio). Also ask them if the could send an officer or two by your place of abode (home) to obatin a written statement from you as you would like to formally press charges.

Not too sure how well that would end up, but it would definately get the ball rolling. Calling the sherriff and providing him with a copy of the audio would not be a bad idea either...

Then again me personally I would get a lawyer and tell him to "go for broke" in this instance the cops cannot claim qualified immunity as the act that they were doing was clearly illegal and they even ADMITTEDthey knew you were doing nothing illegal at the time....

IANAL but I highly suggest you find one... This could be another major advancement, not just to right the wrongs visited on you, but also for the WA OC community as a whole....

To the OP: Exactly which Starbucks was this? The one inside safeway or the one off pacific ave.?
 
Last edited:

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
That would not be an option for me, unless I violated the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Apparently you have no problems with Constitutional rights violations.

+1000!
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
still not sure which starbucks in "spannaway" the OP was referring to. I know of the one inside Safeway, the one off pacific ave (in parkland but close to spannaway). those seem to be the only ones that are CLOSE to spannaway with the safeway one being the only one actually in spannaway (if I remember correctly) however there is one or two ff of canyon as well that could be misconstrued as being in spannaway...

Gonna have to wait for the op to give us more specific info regarding the location....
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
That would not be an option for me, unless I violated the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Apparently you have no problems with Constitutional rights violations.

+1 At least in regard to the OPer's encounter anyway.

Clearly the cop's initial "request" for ID was not really consensual. By this I mean the cop intended to get it all along. The cop never intended to not get the ID, or let the OCer make up his own mind about whether the ID would be handed over.

The cop just used the consensual approach initially as a ploy. Meaning, if he could sneakily get it consensually, the cop would then have the cover of it being a consensual action on the part of the OCer to hand it over.

If the cop really respected the 4th Amendment, he would have left the OCer alone after the initial refusal, the OCer's initial termination of the encounter. That is what the Fourth Amendment is really about--the right to be left alone. Or, as given in Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint. And, all interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

It is worth noting, very worth noting, that Terry vs Ohio* quotes this case also. Meaning the Terry court felt it important enough to include--as written. They did not water it down. They did not re-write the concept in their own words. They did not leave it out of the opinion as they could have. There that quote sits, in the very opinion from which cops derive their authority to detain people.

The cop was playing a games with the 4th Amendment. He wanted that ID, he intended to get that ID. He had no intention of respecting the OPer's 4th Amendment right to refuse consent to a consensual encounter, the OPer's right to be free from all restraint, and all interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.


* http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
 
Last edited:

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
272
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
I haven't posted in this forum in a very long time .....

I am sick and tired of seeing threads like this ....

What the heck is going on with our police force these days, it like they wanted to get you to act up so maybe they could shoot you dead, like the Indian wood carver in Seattle.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
As usual Navyboy trying to pick a fight where there is none and misquoting to toot your own horn.

Here you quote me out of context!

BigDave said:
As to offering ID to LE, I will go on record and say at this point and time I see no issue of supplying my ID when requested by law enforcement as I have had better background searches then they can conduct with out issue.

That would not be an option for me, unless I violated the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Apparently you have no problems with Constitutional rights violations.

Now what really was said
I agree their argument wanting ID because of not knowing who you are! is poor to say the least.

This leads me to believe they know they had no legal standing so it was a request only and your right to refuse.


You offered your name, which was good move on your part.

As to offering ID to LE, I will go on record and say at this point and time I see no issue of supplying my ID when requested by law enforcement as I have had better background searches then they can conduct with out issue. Except when I am in a situation as yours. He was a customer, not on a call from what I gather and took it upon himself to make an issue.

If this is your only way to discredit someone, it is sad.

Now back on topic, Tom you did well and when I listened to the audio, you did really well.
 
Last edited:

brianstone1985

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
132
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
Can someone please post the damn audio!

I have been following the thread all day, and have been dying to hear the audio. I know mulitple people on here have it now can the rest of us hear it too?

Thanks!

Brian-
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If the Starbucks Manager had any balls, he would have asked "Excuse me, can I help you boys? Why are you harassing my customer?"

I've already decided that if harassed by cops in a business I frequent, I will call the manager over and ask if they approve of cops harassing a paying customer.

In at least two businesses I frequent, the cops are gonna get a demand to leave. :)
 
Top