Read this! Silencer rights imposed!!!!!!!

[Blitzkrieg]

It would be pretty foolish to prevent police from seizing evidence of a possible crime. Does anyone here honestly believe that a defendant should maintain custody of state evidence before trial/disposition of a case?

A little off topic but the colonists did just that on April 19th, 1775, when the redcoats came to confiscate the colonists arms

There's a time and place for almost everything. This simply wasn't the place

 

[ZachS]

I never said a person should try to physically prevent seizure of property by the police. I am just trying to find the law that permits the police to do what they did in this case. So far I can not find it.

Will your laughing face find the law that allows the police to seize evidence in a misdemeanor case?

Ranb

No, I'm not really interested in poring through the RCW to find a law authorizing an utterly mundane procedure that the police practice every single day in every single jurisdiction in this country.

A little off topic but the colonists did just that on April 19th, 1775, when the redcoats came to confiscate the colonists arms

There's a time and place for almost everything. This simply wasn't the place

Or the time.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Or the time.

Judging from events it soon will be

 

[wired]

Police seize alcohol from minors everyday. Is the mere possession of alcohol a felony if one is a minor?

Minors are not allowed to possess alcohol. BHowe is allowed to possess his silencers. They were legally his and registered with the federal government and the police did not witness the misdemeanor use of them. The police illegally seized them and at some point Bhowe will get his property back.

 

[Bhowe]

Maybe?

RCW 10.105.010
Seizure and forfeiture.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=10.105.010

Wow, this is pretty interesting stuff. Says they need to make notice of intent or whatever within 15 days, and they have not done anything. They have not once tried to get in touch with me. I made darn sure that toolbag cop had all my info.
Also says I need to make a claim of ownership and such in writing and can be heard in front of possibly a judge to make them give it back.

 

[wired]

I thought you hired an attorney?

 

[Ranb]

No, I'm not really interested in poring through the RCW to find a law authorizing an utterly mundane procedure that the police practice every single day in every single jurisdiction in this country.

I doubt blame you. But just because the police do something all the time does not make it legal all the time.

Ranb

 

[Outrider]

I doubt blame you. But just because the police do something all the time does not make it legal all the time.

If you do a search with the terms "Fourth Amendment," "search and seizure," "reasonable suspicion," and "probable cause" you will get a lot of information to help you understand what the law actually is under the Fourth Amendment and what case law says the limits are.

Here's a link with a decent summary:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30183.html

I realize you are focused on the felony vs. misdemeanor distinction but that is coming at it from the wrong direction regarding what is and what is not allowed. One can't really know whether it's going to be a felony or a misdemeanor or any charge until after the search has been completed. What if the suppressors that had been found were homemade and unregistered? It would have become a felony arrest, but the deputy only would have known that after seeing/finding the suppressors. What if nothing had been found because it was a false report and there was no charge? The deputy cannot undo the search.

 

[Ranb]

I realize you are focused on the felony vs. misdemeanor distinction but that is coming at it from the wrong direction regarding what is and what is not allowed.

The reason I am focused on felony vs other crimes for evidence seizure is that possession of a silencer in WA is not even addressed at all by WA law. WA law is completely silencer on suppressors; they are not even guns according to WA RCW's. We WA residents can do anything we want with them, including use on high pressure pre-charged air-rifles, we just can't use them on a real firearm.

The police by their own admission (see the officer's posted letter) had no reason to believe any felony was in progress. I see no law that allows the police to seize evidence of a misdemeanor crime. So why did they seize the silencers? What law allows them to do this?

Ranb

 

[Outrider]

The police by their own admission (see the officer's posted letter) had no reason to believe any felony was in progress.

I have read the letter and while you're focused on felony vs. misdemeanor, that's missing the point. The issue was that the deputy was convinced a crime had been committed. If the deputy had been convinced an individual had been using a can of spray paint or paint pen to tag/vandalize a park bench, he would have seized the spray can / paint pen as evidence even though the item itself is legal to possess. Whether it is a felony or misdemeanor is beside the point.

Police have the power to enforce laws, investigate crimes, and collect evidence. The deputy was there in response to the report of a crime, everything that followed flowed from that initial call. You're not going to find a specific law for seizing a suppressor as evidence. Your focus is too narrow that is why you are not seeing the matter in context.

From Bhowe's initial post, it appeared the deputy was unconvinced at the time that the suppressors were in fact legally owned and possessed as far as WA state law was concerned. The deputy may be shifting his story to the alleged use to cover his action since he can cite no state law where suppressor ownership is prohibited. Whether it was an honest mistake about the law, a guy acting on bad info, or someone on a powertrip, we'll probably never know for sure.

 

[Ranb]

If the deputy had been convinced an individual had been using a can of spray paint or paint pen to tag/vandalize a park bench, he would have seized the spray can / paint pen as evidence even though the item itself is legal to possess. Whether it is a felony or misdemeanor is beside the point.

Police have the power to enforce laws, investigate crimes, and collect evidence. The deputy was there in response to the report of a crime, everything that followed flowed from that initial call. You're not going to find a specific law for seizing a suppressor as evidence. Your focus is too narrow that is why you are not seeing the matter in context.

If I was to seize evidence of a crime, I would probably be arrested for stealing as the law does not empower me to do so. The police can only act within the law. I am just trying to find out if they were doing so. So far I can only find a law that says they can seize evidence of a felony crime. I am not talking about laws that say a silencer can seized, I am asking about a law that says evidence can be seized at any time and so far I have not found it.

Ranb

 

[Outrider]

If I was to seize evidence of a crime, I would probably be arrested for stealing as the law does not empower me to do so.

If you can't accept that acting as a private individual is different from acting as a sworn officer who is a member of a governmental law enforcement agency that has the express, authorized purpose of enforcing laws and conducting criminal investigations which includes the collection of evidence, there's really no point in discussing the matter.

When the officer is acting in the performance of his duties, he can do certain things you cannot as a private person acting solely on your own accord for your own private aims.

 

[Ranb]

If you can't accept that acting as a private individual is different from acting as a sworn officer who is a member of a governmental law enforcement agency that has the express, authorized purpose of enforcing laws and conducting criminal investigations which includes the collection of evidence, there's really no point in discussing the matter.

I can accept it. But if you read your own post; "authorized purpose of enforcing laws", there does not seem to be any laws that authorize a WA police officer to do what they did to Bhowe. You get what I am saying now?

You claim that there is a law authorizing the seizing of misdemeanor crime evidence, but you have no idea if it actually exists. Where is the beef?

Ranb

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I have read the letter and while you're focused on felony vs. misdemeanor, that's missing the point. The issue was that the deputy was convinced a crime had been committed. If the deputy had been convinced an individual had been using a can of spray paint or paint pen to tag/vandalize a park bench, he would have seized the spray can / paint pen as evidence even though the item itself is legal to possess. Whether it is a felony or misdemeanor is beside the point.

Police have the power to enforce laws, investigate crimes, and collect evidence. The deputy was there in response to the report of a crime, everything that followed flowed from that initial call. You're not going to find a specific law for seizing a suppressor as evidence. Your focus is too narrow that is why you are not seeing the matter in context.

From Bhowe's initial post, it appeared the deputy was unconvinced at the time that the suppressors were in fact legally owned and possessed as far as WA state law was concerned. The deputy may be shifting his story to the alleged use to cover his action since he can cite no state law where suppressor ownership is prohibited. Whether it was an honest mistake about the law, a guy acting on bad info, or someone on a powertrip, we'll probably never know for sure.

And he was wrong.. where is the accountability?

 

[Bhowe]

And he was wrong.. where is the accountability?

This is the important point.
At this point it is null to argue about whether he was or was not acting within the law when he took them.
I am confident the prosecutors will see that there has not been any crimes committed, especially not one that an officer can say he witnessed. I am concerned about the time, and possibly money it may take to get them back, as well as the accountability of half-witted officers.

 

[The B]

its been almost two months.. this is so absurd it's almost unbelievable (almost, being the key word).

i don't know what i'd do, but i suspect, knowing my temper, i'd be at the station making a lot of noise on a regular basis.. i suspect i'd be demanding to speak with the sheriff, and be demanding an accounting of what's been done, whats been reported- what EXACTLY is the accusation. i suspect i'd be demanding why the sheriff feels the needs to play this GAME. why he's supporting or encouraging his deputies to CLEARLY violate people's rights. etc., etc. i know people always say "****, if it was me, i'd be kickin ***" type stuff, and we all roll our eyes... but i really think i'd be super, super proactive and demanding and become that sheriff's worst nightmare.

have you tried various media sources? that guy that got his open carry weapon confiscated this week made it on channel 12 news

 

[Outrider]

And he was wrong.. where is the accountability?

The Prosecutor's office and the Sheriff's department can have the first go at the guy and Bhowe can file suit if he wants to press the issue. I don't have the law in front of me but I remember reading the law where WA state gives a certain amount of latitude for a good faith mistake by an officer in the performance of his duty.

It's a Mistake vs. Malice thing and even if malice existed, I think it's going to be tough to prove malice on the part of the deputy. I'm not defending the deputy but at this point what you have is an interference with Bhowe's right to possess the suppressors (chattel). If he gets them back in the next week or two, what are his economic damages? Assuming they come back in good condition without the department having mucked them up, probably no economic harm. If they kept them for an extended period of time, Bhowe could argue conversion i.e. that the department effectively took them away from him and then the cost of obtaining replacements could be the measure of his harm.

If you're going to say it is purely the principle of the matter like trespass, fine how much do you assess the claim being worth to vindicate his rights? $500? $1,000? $5,000? More? Is it cost effective to litigate against the Sheriff for small amounts of money? Would a small claims court even hear the case or dismiss it? And assuming it would be heard, would the court be swayed that the property was seized lawfully as part of a criminal investigation and returned when no charges were filed? Would they view it as a "No harm. No Foul." deal?

Getting the suppressors back has always seemed achievable. Getting a pound of flesh from the deputy for this seems unlikely unless his own side decides to punish him for being wrong.

 

[Atroxus]

Getting the suppressors back has always seemed achievable. Getting a pound of flesh from the deputy for this seems unlikely unless his own side decides to punish him for being wrong.

That is entirely what is wrong with this situation. Even if Bhowe get's his silencer back, what is to prevent the same dumb-*** sheriff from putting someone else who is not breaking any laws through the same hassle. This should never have gone on this long to begin with. It shouldn't have taken more than a couple days for someone to realize "Hey this guy was not breaking the law." and give him back his property. These people need to be held accountable to do their jobs, and do them *right*. If they can't, they need to be re-trained, or fired.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That is entirely what is wrong with this situation. Even if Bhowe get's his silencer back, what is to prevent the same dumb-*** sheriff from putting someone else who is not breaking any laws through the same hassle. This should never have gone on this long to begin with. It shouldn't have taken more than a couple days for someone to realize "Hey this guy was not breaking the law." and give him back his property. These people need to be held accountable to do their jobs, and do them *right*. If they can't, they need to be re-trained, or fired.

This is where I stand.. systemic change in officer training and confiscation guidelines needs to be mandated statewide as a result of these cases.. this is nothing less than a civil rights violation whether intentional or inadvertent

 

[Bhowe]

I really shouldn't say anything specific, the situation may not be the same for all parties involved, but I will say this;



Looks like this can be put behind me.

Thanks for the support!