OFF Alert Re: Medford Outrage

[Trlsmn]

Raises the bar above what?

The exact phrase in the statute is less relevant than it seems on the surface. What matters is how the facts of this case can be compared to those of dozens of other similar (and dissimilar) cases that appellate courts have already decided. That's a process that would take us at least a couple of days of solid research, after which we'd be left with no clear answer: we still don't have all of the facts.

This reminds me of the joke about the guy that walked into the Bar when he should have ducked........

 

[ZachS]

The reasonable suspicion drivel that had no relevance to this law.

A "reasonable suspicion" of a particular thing is (or can be) what gives an officer "probable cause" to take an action.

 

[ZachS]

This reminds me of the joke about the guy that walked into the Bar when he should have ducked........

Yeah, my ears are already ringing. At least if I need an escape, I can just start telling everybody how much they hate cops.

 

[chris61182]

Yeah, my ears are already ringing. At least if I need an escape, I can just start telling everybody how much they hate cops.

Please don't, I very much enjoy your responses.

 

[ZachS]

The reasonable suspicion drivel that had no relevance to this law.

I'm assuming you've given some of the prior cases a light skimming at least, have any of them involved no threats, the source of complaint having personal issues with the person (outside the complaint), and the target of the complaint being "disheveled"?

Or in other words, from what has been provided by the police does this fit the mold?

Can't find any cases directly on point in Oregon (the annotated statutes don't list any for 426.228), and not invested enough in this discussion to start digging around in other states. Also too lazy to find some criminal cases where "probable cause" was invoked in analogous factual circumstances, but with different legal ramifications.

Whichever of those things I did, you'd just all argue with me about why it was illegal or unfair or unconstitutional. Anyway, it would be way too much work.

 

[zeezee]

Oregon Firearms Federation home page has been updated with new information regarding David Pyles.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

New York

His employer meanwhile posted notices warning other workers to run away if they saw David and call police. They also said David had made no threats to anyone.

Man o man David needs to find a good lawyer and sue the bubblegum out of odot and every agency involved!

 

[Trlsmn]

His employer meanwhile posted notices warning other workers to run away if they saw David and call police. They also said David had made no threats to anyone.

Man o man David needs to find a good lawyer and sue the bubblegum out of odot and every agency involved!

I would have to agree, with all the smearing they have done to this guy they better have some proof or the guy is going to win big off this.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Gunner, all your rhetoric falls flat on ONE little detail..... the Constitution makes NO DISTINCTION whether a person is being detained/arrested/restrained under civil or criminal law. It plainly states, with NO qualifiers, that we are all to be secure in our persons, homes, papers, effects, and property, unless due process of law detarmines otherwise. You make an issue of the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" and stressting that time was at issue, they needed to act quickly to forestall what they thought MIGHT happen...... sorry, that doesn't float. When a cop has even probable cause that a guy is up to something nefarious, putting himself or others at risk, he can, on sufficient evidence, get a judge off the golf course, out of his bed, away from his dinnner table, to sign a warrant. It happens all the time. They apparently waited most of the night before moving....

what I keep trying to get into your head is that those gathering the "information" leading to 'reasonable suspicion" FAILED utterly to vet that information sufficiently. Thus my point that, even with protective custody issues, the information on which the proposed action will rely needs to be examined more closely.

In this case, it appears the "informant" used his position, and his pre-emptive call to the police, to perpetrate a heinous experience and clear violation of Mr. Pyles' rights as a citizen, without anything resembling DUE PROCESS OF LAW. My contention is that, even in such cases, a judge ought to be brought in to the matter..... perhaps question himself the "source" of "information", and investigate a bit further than "his boss at work said so", or whoever it was spoke up. THIS person is taking advantage of a questionable law to carry out a personal vendetta. The proof is, after the fact, Mr. Pyles was released in a few hours.... and his arms restored in a couple of days. In other words, ne NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED, and the process of bringing in a judge to weigh the "evidence" that this guy is a threat would most likely have prevented the whole thing.

As said, the Constitution makes no restrictions or distinctions as to "class" of action. NO detainments, NO searches, NO seizure of personal property without DUE PROCESS.... and a person's right (even by proxy, as in the case of a judge reviewing the "evidence" being presented as the basis for his detainment) to examine witnesses and testimony against him.

Here, one man''s say so put another into restrictive custody... an "arrest" (in the broader meaning of the term, to stop or apprehend someone, detain, limit, restrict, hold, take into custody of any sort.... the man's liberty to go where he wishes is curtained. THAT constitutes an "arrest" under the meaning of the Constitution. Put whatever current legalese term on it you want, the man WAS ARRESTED. His freedom to stay in bed, hop in his car and drive to the taqueria for breakfast, take his new HK off to the range for some practice, was denied him. THIS constitutes an arrest, and, under the COnstitution, canNOT take place without due process.


tionico said:
Good cause could be made that the very fact he agreed to come along quietly signified he was mentally stable...... it would take a real nutcase to face down those odds and turn to go back into his house, telling them to pound sand... in someone ELSE"s yard.

and Gunner responded:
That's not the point. That's after the fact quarterbacking. The police acted on what information they had before they went to Pyle's house. Many a really bad guy has surrendered before an overwhelming force.

"after the fact quarterbacking" is something the cops should be doing in spades.... they took their "informant's" word at face value, failed to sufficiently vet it, took a man into custody (arrested him... see above definition) against his will, and in the face of promises to the contrary, (cops have no more right to lie than you or I do) who was, in a matter of a few hours, proven as sane as anyone else they saw that day. Maybe more so, as he didn't "go postal" after such foul abuse. Once more, the police "acted on what information they had"..... MY point, they did not examine that information sufficiently. They did not gather enough "information" to accurately assess Mr. Pyles' condition. They acted in haste, arresting a man for what seems obviously (after the fact) no grounds.

Now i wonder... have they gone back to their "informant" and had words with HIM? Questioning HIS motives, the veracity of his statements? Seems there may be a stinky rat there... but are they going after it? How many MORE employees at ODOT will this guy rat out on trumped up "information"? Will anyone leaving that department face arrest, a psych evaluation, illegal search and seizure of his personal property?

I've read the ORS under which Mr' Pyles was supposedly arrested. It treats ONLY with taking a PERSON into protective custody. NOWHERE does it include the person's property or possessions. NOWHERE. Your analogy of temporarily disarming someone at a traffic stop falls flat... because THEY had Mr. Pyles in custody... thus he could not gain access to his firearms while THEY had him. NO criminal charges were ever filed, thus they had NO GROUNDS to seize his weapons. what you contend, then, is that the cops, while one of them has ME at the side of the road in a traffic stop, could lawfully send another to my house, enter, and seize ALL my weapons to "disarm" me until I'm released. It is precisely THIS sort of TYRANNY the Founders intended to guard against in the Bill of Rights. These cops were WAY out of line.

The red part is what the 4th requires. If they have evidence and someone can swear an oath or sign an affidavit, then that qualifies for a judge signed warrant to search for said person(s) and/or illegal items as listed in the warrant

If the oath swearer lies, that should bring perjury charges !

This is the intent of the 4th. Read it carefully!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

A "reasonable suspicion" of a particular thing is (or can be) what gives an officer "probable cause" to take an action.

That action cannot be to search.. that requires a warrant signed by a judge. How hard can this be in the age of the internet? The suspect can be detained for a short time while the requirements of the 4th are followed. Otherwise it's unconstitutional

 

[zeezee]

A "reasonable suspicion" of a particular thing is (or can be) what gives an officer "probable cause" to take an action.

Ahhh, the meat of the mater, ask 10 LEO's to define "action" or even 'probable cause" or 'good judgement' or "reasonable suspicion" and I'll bet you a donut to a dawg turd, allowing you to hold both in your mouth, that you will get 10 completely different answers. But, but, but . . . Yes, the police must use good judgement . . . Ok, same scenario as before, define 'good judgement'? Are not all of these based on 'opinion', 'past experience', anger/attitude? Hmmm, so if a LEO has '"reasonable suspicion/probable cause", we will use this case, and applies 'good judgement' were the actions of the sergeant/lieutenant or who ever gave the command Constitutional? Or were they border line, close but no cigar or . . . Another question I ask, were there any members of the swat team that came a knocking on David's door that fateful eve, questioning the Constitutionality of their action or were they all lemmings? Yup, I'm a good cop, I follow orders, yup, yup, yup, wheres the cliff?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Ahhh, the meat of the mater, ask 10 LEO's to define "action" or even 'probable cause" or 'good judgement' or "reasonable suspicion" and I'll bet you a donut to a dawg turd, allowing you to hold both in your mouth, that you will get 10 completely different answers. But, but, but . . . Yes, the police must use good judgement . . . Ok, same scenario as before, define 'good judgement'? Are not all of these based on 'opinion', 'past experience', anger/attitude? Hmmm, so if a LEO has '"reasonable suspicion/probable cause", we will use this case, and applies 'good judgement' were the actions of the sergeant/lieutenant or who ever gave the command Constitutional? Or were they border line, close but no cigar or . . . Another question I ask, were there any members of the swat team that came a knocking on David's door that fateful eve, questioning the Constitutionality of their action or were they all lemmings? Yup, I'm a good cop, I follow orders, yup, yup, yup, wheres the cliff?

I do not see the terms "good judgment" in the 4th.. only specified measures for obtaining a warrant to search a person, papers or effects. Otherwise it's unConstitutional

 

[zeezee]

I do not see the terms "good judgment" in the 4th.. only specified measures for obtaining a warrant to search a person, papers or effects. Otherwise it's unConstitutional

But is that not what a police officer must use before he takes any action? IMHO that is what is lacking from this whole incident.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5
The sad part is two signatures would/could have prevented ALL of this.
One on a complaint sworn out by the ODOT supervisor.
And a judges, on a warrant.

That would be true if it was against the law to be a scary creep. It's not. It would have been impossible to get a warrant, because Pyles committed no crime.

Not true. If the LEO in charge had demanded the ODOT supervisor sign a complaint the rest of the "issues" would have fallen into place.
But the ODOT super wasn't about to swear on anything because he knew the union would have his ***/job.

The LEO in charge was protecting the ODOT supervisor as a fellow OR state employee by doing what he did.
If the super had been in the private sector he'd have been told to swear out a complaint or the law couldn't help him.

Been there and done that. This was an inside job for the benefit of those ON the inside.
It's just like if you own guns and your wife/girlfriend feels threatened by you. Until she swears out a restraining order the cops can't touch you.
Once she does they can come and get your guns. If you act irrationally they'll take you in to the talkin' Dr. to check you out.

I hope Mr Pyles gets lots of taxpayer $$$.

 

[zeezee]

Not true. If the LEO in charge had demanded the ODOT supervisor sign a complaint the rest of the "issues" would have fallen into place.

He was protecting the ODOT supervisor as a fellow OR state employee by doing what he did.
If the super had been in the private sector he'd have told him to swear out a complaint or the law couldn't help him.

Been there and done that. This was an inside job for the benefit of those ON the inside.
I hope Mr Pyles gets lots of taxpayer $$$.

Again, more meat for our feast. "If the LEO in charge had demanded"? That isn't the job of law enforcement to demand anything from anybody, lawyers call that bullying and throw heavy handed LEO's in jail with the bad guys for BS like that. And since there was no complaint, no law was broken and David has to pay the price. Sad, but I think the tables have turned and as I see it David has the green light to "demand" an apology from the LEO's and a little walking cash would be nice, say 100 million give or take a dollar. Sounds fair to me. Oh yeah, and then I'd go after the jerk of a supervisor and leave him with nothing but his shorts.

 

[Jamie6.5]

By "demanded" I think it probably went down like this,...
I have no doubt David's super called the cops. If he hadn't been a high ranking state employee the police would have said:
"I'm sorry Mr(s) Xxxx, but we can't do anything on a hunch. If you come down and swear out a complaint, we can proceed."

That didn't happen. Since they didn't, I think the cops are screwed,...
Like I said, this is what happens when the person complaining (the super in this case) is in the private sector.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

But is that not what a police officer must use before he takes any action? IMHO that is what is lacking from this whole incident.

A cop cannot search anyone or anything without a warrant signed by a judge. The 4th is as clear as crystal on this, regardless of how corrupt courts have ruled. All a cop can do is detain a person until the warrant is promptly issued. If the detention is beyond a very short time, IMO the person must be released. As I said, in this age of advanced communications this should be very doable

 

[tionico]

That would be true if it was against the law to be a scary creep. It's not. It would have been impossible to get a warrant, because Pyles committed no crime.

That's why this alternate set of laws exists to allow the police to protect society from certain potentially dangerous people.

Time will tell if the police actually followed those laws in this case. But I think they're good ones to keep around just in case, as long as they're used sparingly.

FOUL!!!

committed no crime? WHY was he detailed, his property invaded, his good taken, ALL without a warrant? Don't hide behind this "protective custody" farce. When a man needs to be "detained" by law enforcement, there MUST be grounds solid enough to warrant a warrant. The guy at ODOT should be required to swear out his grounds for his statements, the judge needs to evaluate the integrity of his claims (and the man himself), THEN decide: "OK, under the present laws, we DO have grounds to detain this man".

Under the Constitution, there is NO category for "protective custody".... if a man is not free to go where he wills when he wills to, he is under arrest, and this can NOT be done without due process. No one can be detained, for any reason, without due process.... before a man's liberty to go/do where/what he pleases is taken from him, ther MUST be due process..... a warrant.

Wait till oh eight hundred, blast the judge out of bed, fax the paperwork, drive across town with the piece of paper...... do SOMETHING.

I am innocent un til PROVEN guilty, and I can NOT be detained for any reason by any government official without due process, which means a warrant to detain me. Hiding behind "civil law" doesn't cut it. Sure, when I get a ticket for speed, it is a civil matter..... they can't toss me in the Greybar Hotel. (until I fail to appear or pay up, then I have committed a CRIME, its no longer "civil". Fail to pay your mortgage, you are now in court.. CIVIL court. They can't toss me behind bars for that, either. But they hide behind "civil" on "protective custody", a form of arrest (someone is restrained to the point his liberty to go/do as he pleases is forfeit... THAT constitutes an "arrest".

My opinion: he should have sat down on the porch and asked "am I under arrest?". If no, "then I am free to go, right?". If still no, "then I AM under arrest, right?" If still no, tell the cop to decide which it is.... under arrest, show me the warrant, and I'll come along and cooperate. Not under arrest, I'm free to return to my house. I'm waiting..... YOU decide which it is, and I'll go allong with it.

I'd also try real hard to have some means of recording the conversation.....

and NO WAY would I ever have let those guys into the house. I'd make them break in (without a warrant, and all)


One more thing: learning this guy was the union shop steward changes the whole ballgame. Particularly in a state outfit. Stews and upper management get along, typically, about like a possessive territorial guard dog and a feral cat. I would lay long odds Mr. Pyles has some specific grievances/concerns about some policies/proceedures/safety issues that are opposed by the management, and that is the basis of the "strain". My guess is Mr. Pyles could make a report concerning the conduct of management that, if treated as management's report about Mr. Pyles was, could well get the supervisor taken into protective custody for a psych evaluation..... in other words, its a pot calling the kettle black situation.
And THIS is precisely WHY the Constitution guarantees us all the freedom from search and/or seizure/arrest UNTIL a judge has heard the evidence and rules that there is sufficient grounds for the arrest/search/seizure.

I was reserved from any judgement early on in this mess.... but the more details seep to the surface, the more convinced I am that there was some SERIOUS wrongdoing on the part of govenment officials at every level. Law Enforcement NEED desparately the check of being required to get a judge to hear the evidence, examine it himself, and give the OK to detain such a person. If Mr. Pyles is not secure in his person, home, effects, and papers, who IS?

 

[zeezee]

A cop cannot search anyone or anything without a warrant signed by a judge. The 4th is as clear as crystal on this, regardless of how corrupt courts have ruled. All a cop can do is detain a person until the warrant is promptly issued. If the detention is beyond a very short time, IMO the person must be released. As I said, in this age of advanced communications this should be very doable

I agree.

 

[zeezee]

FOUL!!!

committed no crime? WHY was he detailed, his property invaded, his good taken, ALL without a warrant? Don't hide behind this "protective custody" farce. When a man needs to be "detained" by law enforcement, there MUST be grounds solid enough to warrant a warrant. The guy at ODOT should be required to swear out his grounds for his statements, the judge needs to evaluate the integrity of his claims (and the man himself), THEN decide: "OK, under the present laws, we DO have grounds to detain this man".

Under the Constitution, there is NO category for "protective custody".... if a man is not free to go where he wills when he wills to, he is under arrest, and this can NOT be done without due process. No one can be detained, for any reason, without due process.... before a man's liberty to go/do where/what he pleases is taken from him, ther MUST be due process..... a warrant.

Wait till oh eight hundred, blast the judge out of bed, fax the paperwork, drive across town with the piece of paper...... do SOMETHING.

I am innocent un til PROVEN guilty, and I can NOT be detained for any reason by any government official without due process, which means a warrant to detain me. Hiding behind "civil law" doesn't cut it. Sure, when I get a ticket for speed, it is a civil matter..... they can't toss me in the Greybar Hotel. (until I fail to appear or pay up, then I have committed a CRIME, its no longer "civil". Fail to pay your mortgage, you are now in court.. CIVIL court. They can't toss me behind bars for that, either. But they hide behind "civil" on "protective custody", a form of arrest (someone is restrained to the point his liberty to go/do as he pleases is forfeit... THAT constitutes an "arrest".

My opinion: he should have sat down on the porch and asked "am I under arrest?". If no, "then I am free to go, right?". If still no, "then I AM under arrest, right?" If still no, tell the cop to decide which it is.... under arrest, show me the warrant, and I'll come along and cooperate. Not under arrest, I'm free to return to my house. I'm waiting..... YOU decide which it is, and I'll go allong with it.

I'd also try real hard to have some means of recording the conversation.....

and NO WAY would I ever have let those guys into the house. I'd make them break in (without a warrant, and all)


One more thing: learning this guy was the union shop steward changes the whole ballgame. Particularly in a state outfit. Stews and upper management get along, typically, about like a possessive territorial guard dog and a feral cat. I would lay long odds Mr. Pyles has some specific grievances/concerns about some policies/proceedures/safety issues that are opposed by the management, and that is the basis of the "strain". My guess is Mr. Pyles could make a report concerning the conduct of management that, if treated as management's report about Mr. Pyles was, could well get the supervisor taken into protective custody for a psych evaluation..... in other words, its a pot calling the kettle black situation.
And THIS is precisely WHY the Constitution guarantees us all the freedom from search and/or seizure/arrest UNTIL a judge has heard the evidence and rules that there is sufficient grounds for the arrest/search/seizure.

I was reserved from any judgement early on in this mess.... but the more details seep to the surface, the more convinced I am that there was some SERIOUS wrongdoing on the part of govenment officials at every level. Law Enforcement NEED desparately the check of being required to get a judge to hear the evidence, examine it himself, and give the OK to detain such a person. If Mr. Pyles is not secure in his person, home, effects, and papers, who IS?

Great post!

 

[ZachS]

FOUL!!!

committed no crime? WHY was he detailed, his property invaded, his good taken, ALL without a warrant? Don't hide behind this "protective custody" farce. When a man needs to be "detained" by law enforcement, there MUST be grounds solid enough to warrant a warrant. The guy at ODOT should be required to swear out his grounds for his statements, the judge needs to evaluate the integrity of his claims (and the man himself), THEN decide: "OK, under the present laws, we DO have grounds to detain this man".

Under the Constitution, there is NO category for "protective custody".... if a man is not free to go where he wills when he wills to, he is under arrest, and this can NOT be done without due process. No one can be detained, for any reason, without due process.... before a man's liberty to go/do where/what he pleases is taken from him, ther MUST be due process..... a warrant.

If what you say is true, this would be a great test case for the constitutionality of "protective custody laws.' It'll be interesting to see if Mr. Pyles's attorneys challenge his detention on that basis.