Spokane LEO Encounter

[Mainsail]

jm9584,

The way you handled your encounter places you in more legal peril than necessary. Here's why. What if the officers had written you a citation (wrongfully) for violating RCW 9.41.270, Unlawful Display of a Weapon, and you had to go to court to fight it?

The first, and usually easiest way, to get a charge dismissed is to prove that the initial detainment was illegal. Everything after is tossed out and there is no longer a case against you. In order to prove an illegal detainment, the first thing that must be answered in court is, "Would a reasonable person feel that they were detained, without legal ability to leave the encounter?" In your case, you willfully cooperated with almost every request the officers made. This puts you into the position of proving that you felt like you had no choice. The officers will claim the encounter was voluntary and consentual.

That is why it is vitally important to not consent to cooperating the officers right from the beginning. Establish beyond any reasonable doubt the you do not consent to the encounter, and that you are being detained. The easiest way to do this is to first ask, "Am I being detained?" Just get it out right from the start. After that, if they say that you are being detained, declare to them that you do not consent to any encounter with them, that you will make no statements to them without an attorney present, but that you will not resist efforts they may make to arrest you. Put the ball squarely in their court. Then, in court, the first question that will have to be proven is not whether or not you were detained; instead it will be up to the officers to articulate a reasonable suspicion upon which they lawfully detained you.

By cooperating with the officers fully, like you did, you almost always lose the very first defense you will have in court. When an officer is approaching you in a situation such as yours, you have no idea what their intentions are. They may very well be looking for any reason to issue you a citation....there is no reason for us to offer them anything to aid them.

Thanks Navy for writing all that out, I’m getting lazy in my old age and did not relish the idea of doing it.

The only thing I would mention is that the detainment issue is resolved at an evidentiary hearing prior to the trial, not at the trial. That’s where the evidence, and thus the case, gets thrown out.

The police know and are trained on the latest Court opinions on what totality of circumstances equates to a seizure. Things like -hands on their guns- or them surrounding you are all taken into account to determine whether a reasonable person would believe they were not free to terminate the encounter and walk away.

This is why everyone who has been through the ‘process’ will strongly recommend that you determine immediately whether you have been seized or if you are free to end the encounter.

There is one other important reason NOT to cooperate with an improper detainment or consensual chat with the police. The more you talk the more justification they have, rightly or wrongly, to make the claim that you were unstable or ‘seemed intoxicated’. Two people with a modicum of training can easily make you appear unstable- and if you’re nervous you’ll only make it easier for them. Have you ever been to SERE resistance training? I have and I’ve seen it done- to me.

All I have to do is ask you a few friendly questions, rephrase one or two of them, and ask them again in a leading sort of way, and you will likely answer the same (rephrased) question with a contrary answer. Now I can feign agitation at your conflicting answers and become hostile, making you more nervous, and you’ll dig a nice deep hole for me to bury you. Now the officer has RAS that you are in violation of 9.41.270. Bye bye gun, bye bye CPL, hello legal fees, hello Dr. Psych. You will be the one proving to a judge that you’re safe to own and carry a gun, instead of the cops trying to prove you’re not.

The police wouldn’t stand a chance before a judge making the claim that you appeared unstable if you never spoke to them beyond asking if you were detained.

Talk all you want. Those of us that have been there can only offer our advice.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

You will be the one proving to a judge that you’re safe to own and carry a gun, instead of the cops trying to prove you’re not.

The police wouldn’t stand a chance before a judge making the claim that you appeared unstable if you never spoke to them beyond asking if you were detained.

Talk all you want. Those of us that have been there can only offer our advice.

Sage advice from both Mainsail and Navy LCDR. +1000

Immense amounts of grief can be prevented by simply ****.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I wonder why "politely declining the officer's kind request for interaction" translated to ****?

Maybe I should have said immense amounts of grief can be prevented by simply shutting up, that was in response to Mainsails "talk all you want"

 

[sawah]

This is why everyone who has been through the ‘process’ will strongly recommend that you determine immediately whether you have been seized or if you are free to end the encounter.

Even so this is a worrisome thing. Determining whether you have been seized and or free to go is one thing. Walking away after such (alleged) determination is another. I would be far too easy for the LEO to decide he'd been 'had' (thwarted by your knowledge) and make up a story that you resisted and were fleeing. Even running a recorder is not enough, because proving you were in the right posthumously is cold comfort. Sure most of the time you can ask and if told 'OK, you're free to go' it's legit. But who knows now days what an overly 'entitled' LEO (or his partner) might do.

 

[Mainsail]

Even so this is a worrisome thing. Determining whether you have been seized and or free to go is one thing. Walking away after such (alleged) determination is another. I would be far too easy for the LEO to decide he'd been 'had' (thwarted by your knowledge) and make up a story that you resisted and were fleeing. Even running a recorder is not enough, because proving you were in the right posthumously is cold comfort. Sure most of the time you can ask and if told 'OK, you're free to go' it's legit. But who knows now days what an overly 'entitled' LEO (or his partner) might do.

I don't think that's a legitimate worry. I've done that very thing several times and I'm still here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I don't think that's a legitimate worry. I've done that very thing several times and I'm still here.

+1 me too, and I'm still here.

 

[tombrewster421]

Washington police, guns and children are a lethal mix. On April 11, 2012, a Spokane LEO left his gun unlocked in his house and his daughter shot herself in the leg, and on March 10, a Marysville LEO left his gun unlocked in his car and his 3 year-old shot himself to death. Apparently, its the LEOs who shouldn't have guns around children in Washington.

Actually you've got the stories a little mixed up. The three year old that shot himself was in Tacoma and his mothers boyfriend was the gun owner. The Marysville cop is the one that a younger sibling (around 7or 8 I think) shot the older sibling of 9 and killed him/her. Obviously there is an issue here that ALL gun owners need to be training their children.....

 

[Vitaeus]

nope, he was talking about this incident, daughter was shot in leg.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8616426

 

[Mainsail]

Although this case made it beyond the evidentiary hearing, the case was overturned on appeal.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=411857MAJ

There are a lot of parallels to open carry here:

"'[A] police officer's conduct in engaging a defendant in conversation in a public place and asking for identification does not, alone, raise the encounter to an investigative detention.'" .... A person is seized if, when in an objective view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, decline to answer questions, or terminate the encounter with police. ....There is no seizure when police ask questions of an individual as long as the officers do not convey that compliance with their requests is required. ..... In such a case, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.

An encounter may lose its consensual nature and become a seizure for Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 purposes if "'the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.'" .... Examples of police showing authority include "'the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.'" ... "If police unconstitutionally seize an individual prior to arrest, the exclusionary rule calls for suppression of evidence obtained via the government's illegality."

....Then, for no articulated reason, Larsen and Officer Wright drove in separate patrol vehicles toward Young. They stood approximately 5 feet from Young, each at 45-degree angles from her while her back was to a wall, and asked for the last four digits of her social security number. Young gave the officers the numbers, albeit in reverse order, and even opened her bag to show the officers she had not shoplifted. Yet the officers continued to watch Young as she walked away for a second time, and ran the social security number through a statewide warrant check.

These facts are insufficient to justify a Terry stop. There is no evidence in the record before us that the officers had any reason to suspect that Young was or would be engaged in criminal wrongdoing. The State could not articulate a basis for such suspicion during oral argument. Any reasonable person in Young's position, with her back to a wall and police officers on either side of her, would not have felt free to walk away without first answering the officers'questions. ....

Officer Larsen testified that he was suspicious of Young because she was "awkward," had no identification, and walked behind a closed business while talking on a cell phone when he believed "most people" did not walk behind closed businesses and stand against a wall to speak on a cell phone. RP (June 3, 2010) at 21, 23. But Washington law does not require Young to carry identification on her person at all times. Young may also walk on public roads, behind or in front of closed businesses at night, while talking on a cell phone on her way to see a friend. We find no authority holding that "awkward" behavior, alone, is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. .....

Larsen's mere suspicion of Young, wholly unsupported by articulable facts, is insufficient to justify seizing her. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d at 539. Neither does Larsen's testimony that Young's "evasive" attitude made him "suspicious" satisfy the "specific and articulable objective facts" requirement to support a reasonable suspicion that Young had been or was about to be involved in a crime.

 

[FamilyMan]

Rapgood referenced multiple incidents,
the spokane reference was correct, and brewster didn't comment on that, he was correcting the 2nd "incident" which had some cross over from an non LEO child shooting in Tacoma , a 3yr old in Tacoma, killing himself,(not LEO)

The Marysville LEO incident was a younger son, killing an older sister with the Dad's pistol.

 

[tombrewster421]

Rapgood referenced multiple incidents,
the spokane reference was correct, and brewster didn't comment on that, he was correcting the 2nd "incident" which had some cross over from an non LEO child shooting in Tacoma , a 3yr old in Tacoma, killing himself,(not LEO)

The Marysville LEO incident was a younger son, killing an older sister with the Dad's pistol.

Thank you for reading the whole post!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Although this case made it beyond the evidentiary hearing, the case was overturned on appeal.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=411857MAJ

There are a lot of parallels to open carry here:

Bookmarked thanks Mainsail!

 

[imalurker]

"I haven't been asked to leave by the Management and i believe Open Carry is legal in Washington. Is that correct, Sir?", Me.

"I'm not sure, but there are kids here. Why don't you at least cover it up?", LEO 2.

-J

Inform the uniformed of TRAINING BULLETIN No. 08-007 September 30 , 2008.

..."In the State of Washington it is not illegal to merely “open carry” a firearm in public, provided the firearm is holstered or somehow affixed to an individual’s person and not in their hand available, but not threatening to others."...

 

[Motofixxer]

I have this info linked in my New to OC thread:


RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226046509410140751&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."

In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

An anonymous tip is not RAS

ID'ing yourself discussion

 

[Thor80]

Spokane County Sheriffs Training Bulletin

I just have a scanned copy that I finally dug up.

 

[okkid]

This was handled like a true champ!!!

[video=youtube;1n1BHJs5V5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n1BHJs5V5c[/video]

What do you mean by what you said?This was handled like a true champ!!!?
It was rude and gives me a bad name as I open carry.Not talking is ok with you guys is nuts.

 

[ManInBlack]

What do you mean by what you said?This was handled like a true champ!!!?
It was rude and gives me a bad name as I open carry.Not talking is ok with you guys is nuts.

kthnxbai

Try reading the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments, and get back to us.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

What do you mean by what you said?This was handled like a true champ!!!?
It was rude and gives me a bad name as I open carry.Not talking is ok with you guys is nuts.

OK with me, I recommend silence as a matter of fact so do thousands of lawyers nation wide.

 

[okkid]

kthnxbai

Try reading the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments, and get back to us.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks. Feel free to disagree but disagree on issues. Do not resort to name calling.

 

[ManInBlack]

Try being a human and get back to me smartass like all the others here you ask a ?
and this is what you get.This is why so many of you have problems with the law.
I have had a gun on me for over 20 yrs and never never had a problem like most of you.

I have never had a problem, either...precisely because I know and exercise my rights.

Its ok to not give info to cops but to be right out dumdass is most of the problem I see on this forum.

How is it "dumdass" (lol) to simply remain silent? If he had told the cop, "I have nothing to say to you, bye," you, no doubt, would be complaining that he was rude! The only response folks like you will accept is immediate, slavish obedience.

I know you will say if you dont like it then leave as I will do but no one can get on here and say
whats on there mind and if its not want you want to see then you have a smart ass tude.

If you don't like it, stay. I find you amusing and entertaining.

So big guy get back to me on this OK wow you just cant fix STUPID.

You got that right. :lol: