• 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!

Logan80

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
34
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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....

There is a Starbucks in the shopping complex at approximately 160th & Pacific Avenue in Spanaway. That is the only standalone Starbucks in Spanaway as far as I know, I would assume that's the one the OP was referring to.
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
BigDave, I believe the point illustrated by Navy is to say, why should anyone be compelled to provide ID if no RAS is given...PERIOD.

Regardless if the deputy was a "customer" or not, he was still acting in an official capacity as deputy for the sheriff. Asking the question was still wrong.

Bringing up the Lakewood incident has no bearing on this situation, as I am sure the idiot who shot those 4 officers was not OC'ing his weapon in a holster.
 
Last edited:

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
Stand alone

There is a Starbucks in the shopping complex at approximately 160th & Pacific Avenue in Spanaway. That is the only standalone Starbucks in Spanaway as far as I know, I would assume that's the one the OP was referring to.

This is the correct Starbucks, which is actually right in front of the safeway building. Yes, I will surely be there at 10:00 on Saturday as well as at noon every other day this week because that's the closest one to where I'm working right now. I go to a Starbucks everyday at lunch.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I asked why they needed to see my ID and they said "because we don't know who you are".

At this point a good response would have been ""since Washington is not a "Stop and Identify" State you will need to tell me what crime you feel is being committed before I have any further conversation with you"". I would then ask one more time, "am I being detained" and if the answer is "No" then take your coffee and leave. By staying there you gave an implied consent for the Deputy to keep talking to you. His fellow deputies were there merely for "intimidation" purposes.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
BigDave, I believe the point illustrated by Navy is to say, why should anyone be compelled to provide ID if no RAS is given...PERIOD.

Regardless if the deputy was a "customer" or not, he was still acting in an official capacity as deputy for the sheriff. Asking the question was still wrong.

Bringing up the Lakewood incident has no bearing on this situation, as I am sure the idiot who shot those 4 officers was not OC'ing his weapon in a holster.

Try reading what I posted again, as with NavyLt and apparently now you have not read it through.

There are times when providing ID to LE is not nor ever has been an issue and there are times as Tom encountered that are unacceptable.

Blanket statements pertaining to LE will not always serve you well (IN GENERAL) and there are times as this one that it is clear your rights are being violated and standing up as Tom did, I say again he did well.

Now out of respect for the information that can be provided on this topic, get over it and move on.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
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....



Oh if only I were rich! The only lawer I've paid recently is a bankruptcy one. I REALLY want to make this count and get the harrassment to stop. I may know someone I could approach with the propasition to help me out but not really sure if he would or not.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Sorry, BigDave, (as in I apologize.) I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I am glad you would refuse to show ID to the officers in the OP's situation.

I should have clarified: I have a problem showing ID to police in any situation, 911 call or not, where I am doing nothing more than normal activities that everybody around me is doing, simply because I have a firearm on my belt. A MWAG call to 911 does not change anything.

Accepted and moving along.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
yeah trust me I understand the whole "lawyers knowledge and experience costs a lot of money" and I sure as heck cant afford one.

There are also plenty of other options that I mentioned above as well...
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
At this point a good response would have been ""since Washington is not a "Stop and Identify" State you will need to tell me what crime you feel is being committed before I have any further conversation with you"". I would then ask one more time, "am I being detained" and if the answer is "No" then take your coffee and leave. By staying there you gave an implied consent for the Deputy to keep talking to you. His fellow deputies were there merely for "intimidation" purposes.

I didn't even order my coffee til after the initial encounter and he went to call for his buddies while I was waiting for it. I didn't really want to leave the private property then because I thought they might have been more inclined to be forceful or follow me as I left and pull me over instead.
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
I believe that your best efforts right now would be to file a complaint with the S.O., and also getting a paper trail started with the WSP. Both will only cost you time at this point. You have the audio recording, and any further action (or lack there of) could then be followed up by you and an attorney if needed.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,025
Location
Central South Sound
This is the correct Starbucks, which is actually right in front of the safeway building. Yes, I will surely be there at 10:00 on Saturday as well as at noon every other day this week because that's the closest one to where I'm working right now. I go to a Starbucks everyday at lunch.

I'll try to make it on Thursday if you'll be around....12:00pm
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,675
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
mailto:pcsheriff@co.pierce.wa.us

I sent the following. Tom and any others from Pierce Co. should do the same.

Sheriff

1. At present, your deputies are unlawfully harassing and persons lawfully open carrying handguns **secured in holsters** on foot in your jurisdiction. Please take action to ensure your deputies are brought up to speed with the authorities cited in this discussion regarding the law of open carry in Washington.

2. Non-consensual police stops of open carriers for simply open carrying is per se unlawful.

As you and your deputies should already know, it is not unlawful to openly carry handguns in Washington, and that like most states, no license is required to open carry on foot, and local ordinances to the contrary are unlawful as a matter of state preemption law. RCW 9.41.290. The United States Supreme Court has established that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to seize a person absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") of crime afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Accordingly, the Washington Court of Appeals has recently affirmed a trial court's holding that Washington law "does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere [open] carrying of a firearm in public." State v. Casad, 139 Wash.App. 1032 (Wash. App.Div.2 2007) (suppressing evidence of unlawful possession of firearms because stop of Defendant was not grounded in reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime).

Further, even during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless the subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added). So even if there were there to come a time that a Washington law enforcement officer properly seizes a person pursuant to RAS for brief investigatory purposes, the officer is not entitled to seize an openly carry weapon absent "reason to believe that the suspect is . . . [also presently] dangerous." Id. Should an open carrier stopped validly under Terry consensually produce a Concealed Pistol License, this fact weighs heavily against any officer's claim that the suspect is "presently dangerous" such that the gun maybe lawfully seized and serial numbers obtained. Accordingly, suppression of any evidence obtained in seizing the gun is likely under these circumstances.

3. Nonconsensual stops of open carriers to demand identification or check gun serial numbers is unlawful in Washington.

A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).

4. Editorializing against open carry is not the province of law enforcement.

If your deputies have any objection to open carry, they should contact their state legislator on their off duty time and not use the color of authority behind their badges and uniforms to stifle both the right to bear arms and the First Amendment right of expressive conduct to open carry firearms.

5. Unlawful stops of open carriers will result in suppression of evidence even if unlawful conduct is uncovered, allowing criminals to get off the hook.



In Casad, see supra, the Appeals court suppressed evidence of the unlawful possession of firearms because law enforcement seized a man for merely openly carrying firearms in public. This result is not unusual, see Goodman v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 2988343
(Va.App. 2007) (same result as Casad), because the result is as a matter of federal Constitutional law commanded by the United States Supreme Court. As discussed supra, see Florida v. J. L.; Hicks.

6. No qualified immunity available for law enforcement officials regarding open carrier harassment in Washington.

As it is clearly established law that the open carry of handguns in holsters is lawful without a CPL, qualified immunity does not attach to your deputies for the unlawful harassment, ID checks, see Stufflebeam, discussed supra, and gun serial number checks, see also Hicks and J.L, discussed supra. Further, by way of this webform email I am putting you as the Sheriff, and the Office of the Sheriff, of actual notice in this matter, subjecting you to personal liability for damage claims under 42 USC 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

7. In conclusion, please know that it is the constitutional right of open carriers to enjoy the same freedom of movement and right of assembly in society as those wishing to carry concealed, or not at all. The purpose of law enforcement is to help ensure open carriers enjoy these freedoms, not to stifle them. Please contact me by email at your earliest convenience to confirm that your deputies will cease harassment of open carriers immediately.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER


 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
[QUOTE

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...

?[/QUOTE]

Here's the kicker. THE sheriff goes to my church and has even spoken there.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,675
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
[QUOTE

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...

?

Here's the kicker. THE sheriff goes to my church and has even spoken there.

Perhaps an OC worship session this Sunday.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP...I have a problem showing ID to police in any situation, 911 call or not, where I am doing nothing more than normal activities that everybody around me is doing, simply because I have a firearm on my belt. A MWAG call to 911 does not change anything.

+1 to the general sentiment.

I have decided that any contact from police in connection to my OCd gun gets a formal written complaint. Even a consensual contact.

Even a consensual contact proves the underlying attitude that there is something suspicious about exercising the basic human right to self-defense. Totally unacceptable.

If a cop wants to check me out, he can observe me from a distance.
 

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
808
someone call me and we're there! I'm not sure where a standalone Starbucks is. I usully hit the one In the Safeway. I'll be there @ 10am and I'm carrying STERILE
 
Top