Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[riverrat373]

I think it's ironic that the same people who think that the Arizona police should be able to ask Hispanics for their ID are usually the ones opposed to the same treatment.

+1

 

[gogoDawgs]

Well, OP does say the citizen "declined politely." Of course, this is only hearing one side of the story but with the information we have it doesn't *sound* like he was being a jerk.

How about I give you the audio.

<broken link removed>

 

[gogoDawgs]

I'm not saying he wasn't within his rights, all I'm saying is that most police types I have come across don't give two sh*ts about your rights, all they care about is respect.

Totally agree.

No, it is not about respect. It is about power.

 

[gogoDawgs]

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

 

[John Brown]

No, it is not about respect. It is about power.

Either way, YOU can decide if you want to start a piss fest with a cop or not. There's an easy way, and a hard way.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Either way, YOU can decide if you want to start a piss fest with a cop or not. There's an easy way, and a hard way.

You are correct. I am glad that Rosa Parks had the courage to sit at the front of the bus. I am proud of Tom to stand up and assert his 4th amendment right to be secure in his person.

 

[John Brown]

Whatever makes you feel good. I don't live my life in paranoia of LEO's or the Government. The world has changed a lot since Rosa Parks. Police Officers get gunned down in coffee shops. Whackos walk the streets in record numbers. If I have to show ID to keep a cop from wondering what I'm up to, who gives a crap? It's harmless. I have nothing to hide.

I don't think we need to make their jobs any more difficult than they already.

 

[chemist]

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 of crime afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
....
The purpose of law enforcement is to help ensure open carriers enjoy these freedoms, not to stifle them.

I salute you, sir.
Do you also have relevant Oregon case law at your fingertips?

 

[gogoDawgs]

I salute you, sir.
Do you also have relevant Oregon case law at your fingertips?

I do not. And thank you.

 

[John Brown]

I equate open carry with putting "Protected by Smith and Wesson" stickers on your truck or house. What's the point, if there isn't a certain amount of bravado involved?

 

[gogoDawgs]

I equate open carry with putting "Protected by Smith and Wesson" stickers on your truck or house. What's the point, if there isn't a certain amount of bravado involved?

For my wife, no. For me a smaller man, no. Will it deter a criminal from attacking me, I hope so.

BTW, I have no stickers on my home, car, etc...

 

[riverrat373]

After listening to the audio of that incident, that was posted here, I think that the police officers involved were MORE than courteous to the citizen who was open carrying. The officers politely explained why they were asking him for ID and were extremely patient. I'm curious as to where this audio came from. Did the citizen record this incident? If so, then it would appear that he was LOOKING for a confrontation. All I can say to those of you who think he was hassled, try walking in the LEO's shoes for awhile!:huh:

 

[gogoDawgs]

After listening to the audio of that incident, that was posted here, I think that the police officers involved were MORE than courteous to the citizen who was open carrying. The officers politely explained why they were asking him for ID and were extremely patient. I'm curious as to where this audio came from. Did the citizen record this incident? If so, then it would appear that he was LOOKING for a confrontation. All I can say to those of you who think he was hassled, try walking in the LEO's shoes for awhile!:huh:

The citizen recorded the audio. The citizen also declined the one officer's request for ID. There is no 'stop and identify' statute in Wasington. Furthermore, the citizen was on private property and the property owner had not requested any police assistance.

After the citizen declined the plain clothes officers request, the officer called for 3 more officers to enter the private business and intimidate the citizen.

All clearly against the 4th amendment rights of citizens.

 

[mjbskwim]

No, it is not about respect. It is about power.

IT IS ABOUT RESPECT

They had a lunatic open fire on 4 of their colleges.
The open carry guy is a total jerk,now that I have listened to him.
4 of their fellow officers are dead,why not show a little respect for these guys and just go out side and talk.
'Hey I know you lost some fellow officers,but it is legal to open carry in this state,blah blah blah'
'Heck I even have a copy of the laws right here'

I would bet that if they felt threatened they could have done more.And after listening to that freak,they probably did feel threatened

I wouldn't want you behind me with a gun,or that freeking idiot.I would have told him to just act like an adult and show the ID.

This is stupid and being rehashed in 2 or 3 threads already.
Is this all you guys have to do is harass cops?
Then go home and whine about how long their response time is?

You guy are just getting pathetic,quoting articles and laws and not seeing the big picture.
You all will ultimately be the ones who get more gun control laws passed.The reason Seattle hate guns
Make us all look like a bunch of cowards and kids that didn't get enough attention as a child so we "Open Carry".

 

[gogoDawgs]

“The problem here isn’t that he was carrying the gun,
(Then why even approach him?)
it was that he was uncooperative and made a big deal about it,” Troyer said.
(What cooperate, he was minding his own business. Who approached who?)
“His rights weren’t violated.
(Really, ever heard of the 4th amendment?)
We have the right, as police, to ask questions and to make sure the public’s safe and to make sure baristas are safe.
(yes you have the right to do you job, you respond to people breaking the law)
I mean, Maurice Clemmons walked into a coffee shop carrying guns.”
(Yes he did, they were concealed and he was not there before the police sitting at a table minding his own business, with his firearm in plain site in a holster.)



Leaving a building in which he was perfectly legal to be in and welcomed by the business for breaking no laws is not a good idea. Tom knew that there are cameras inside the building.

 

[riverrat373]

The citizen recorded the audio. The citizen also declined the one officer's request for ID. There is no 'stop and identify' statute in Wasington. Furthermore, the citizen was on private property and the property owner had not requested any police assistance.

After the citizen declined the plain clothes officers request, the officer called for 3 more officers to enter the private business and intimidate the citizen.

All clearly against the 4th amendment rights of citizens.

Good grief! The police have the right and responsibility to answer calls from any citizen who is alarmed! A retail store may be private property in some respects, but the police do not not need the "permission" of the owner to respond to a call. I for one am getting tired of listening to all this complaining that open carriers are being harassed by LEO's, especially after listening to several VERY polite officers trying to explain why they were asking for ID.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Good grief! The police have the right and responsibility to answer calls from any citizen who is alarmed! A retail store may be private property in some respects, but the police do not not need the "permission" of the owner to respond to a call. I for one am getting tired of listening to all this complaining that open carriers are being harassed by LEO's, especially after listening to several VERY polite officers trying to explain why they were asking for ID.

No, the officer did not answer a call. He was in plain clothes and did not ask to see ID, he demanded it. A clear violation of what the Supreme Court says LEO can do.

Yes, police do need permission of a private property owner to enter their property, especially when no call was made.

Several officers??? You are correct, the officer called in 3 more because no law was being broken, per their own words. Only that he didn't know the citizen.

 

[mjbskwim]

Yeah the fact that he was ready to record it shows he was looking for a fight with the officers.

But now he gets his 15 minutes of fame

Good for him.

You are still missing the whole point.
Cooperate and they will just go away
Save the fight for Olympia where they may listen and they do know the laws (or their interns do)

Why argue with the cops when it infuriates the law makers?
Why not go to the place where it might make sense?
Why not cooperate and then go down to the county city building and make a stand with the leaders?

If you have a problem in a store,do you argue with the clerk or just call for the manager,the person in charge?

I go to the manager because the minion can't do anything anyway.

And just think,then you could still file a lawsuit.

Again he has just pissed off the PCS and they will screw with whoever they can that has a gun

Good work to the tough guy

 

[FriendOfEvanWilliams]

All I have to add is my personal police procedure.

1)SIT DOWN. I learned this from a friend who weighs around 300lbs and stands about 6'6". As soon as a police begins to talk to you, not just casually but questioning you, SIT DOWN and they relax a lot. I have personally seen this get guns back into their holsters in a tense situation.

2)BE POLITE. Yes, sir. No, sir.

3)RESPECT. Never say, suggest, act like, or even infer in any possible way that you know the law better than they do. Doesn't matter. If they think you think you're smarter than they are (even if you obviously are), any police will take that personally.

4)LAWYER UP. That is, if you are doing something illegal, or feel like being a martyr.

5)JUST BE WHO HE WANTS TO PROTECT

 

[mjbskwim]

All I have to add is my personal police procedure.

1)SIT DOWN. I learned this from a friend who weighs around 300lbs and stands about 6'6". As soon as a police begins to talk to you, not just casually but questioning you, SIT DOWN and they relax a lot. I have personally seen this get guns back into their holsters in a tense situation.

2)BE POLITE. Yes, sir. No, sir.

3)RESPECT. Never say, suggest, act like, or even infer in any possible way that you know the law better than they do. Doesn't matter. If they think you think you're smarter than they are (even if you obviously are), any police will take that personally.

4)LAWYER UP. That is, if you are doing something illegal, or feel like being a martyr.

5)JUST BE WHO HE WANTS TO PROTECT