Unlawfully detained today

[CurtisLemansky]

Identity has no relevance on determining whether he committed an unlawful act or not.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

[Sinus211]

You guys just aren't getting it. The police can't just walk up and say "show me your papers!" Identification can be requested from an individual matching the description of a person who has committed a crime. But, as the officers apparently admitted, no crime had been committed. They also cannot legally detain you unless you are under investigation for having committed a crime. The OP was handcuffed.

I'm not for the whole, "no I don't have to show you my ID because the law says so" attitude. I'd prefer to be friendly and courteous with the police and just get them on their merry way. But if someone chooses to be a fundamentalist and exercise their rights to the letter of the law, that's their business. And legally, the police were in the wrong here assuming that no crime had been committed.

[Pablo]

Did they run a 594 check?

[kf7mjf]

You guys just aren't getting it. The police can't just walk up and say "show me your papers!" Identification can be requested from an individual matching the description of a person who has committed a crime. But, as the officers apparently admitted, no crime had been committed. They also cannot legally detain you unless you are under investigation for having committed a crime. The OP was handcuffed.

I'm not for the whole, "no I don't have to show you my ID because the law says so" attitude. I'd prefer to be friendly and courteous with the police and just get them on their merry way. But if someone chooses to be a fundamentalist and exercise their rights to the letter of the law, that's their business. And legally, the police were in the wrong here assuming that no crime had been committed.

Well it, wasn't a random walk up "show me your papers " without any cause at all. That is why I say it looks like both parties were right, and somewhere there was middle ground. Even more so, because all parties involved are or were LEO of some sort.

[platz]

How about a bit more of an extreme example? Say that same neighbor says he is trafficking in illegal firearms. Do you let them inspect all or your serial numbers? You aren't doing anything wrong right? They are investigating a reported crime and there is a gun present.

[never_to_much]

Can't go dry fire in my yard anymore? What is this country coming to. Sam keep us posted

[kf7mjf]

How about a bit more of an extreme example? Say that same neighbor says he is trafficking in illegal firearms. Do you let them inspect all or your serial numbers? You aren't doing anything wrong right? They are investigating a reported crime and there is a gun present.

It all depends on how much reasonable probable cause they can work up. More than likely they'd have to get a warrant for that sort of work.

[Sinus211]

You guys just aren't getting it. The police can't just walk up and say "show me your papers!" Identification can be requested from an individual matching the description of a person who has committed a crime. But, as the officers apparently admitted, no crime had been committed. They also cannot legally detain you unless you are under investigation for having committed a crime. The OP was handcuffed.

I'm not for the whole, "no I don't have to show you my ID because the law says so" attitude. I'd prefer to be friendly and courteous with the police and just get them on their merry way. But if someone chooses to be a fundamentalist and exercise their rights to the letter of the law, that's their business. And legally, the police were in the wrong here assuming that no crime had been committed.

Well it, wasn't a random walk up "show me your papers " without any cause at all. That is why I say it looks like both parties were right, and somewhere there was middle ground. Even more so, because all parties involved are or were LEO of some sort.

I completely agree with you on finding a middle ground. If both parties are being hard headed it's going to be difficult to find an amicable resolution to the situation. But if we are examining this situation from a POV of "what is the letter of the law" the officers, in this case, did not act within their legal right (assuming the OP's description of the situation is 100% accurate).

Were it me, I would have looked to find the middle ground just like you. If the OP wanted to stick to his guns and follow the law as it is written, well it's his right to do so.

[kf7mjf]

That's why I say there was a middle ground between two groups waving their dicks around, likely both who were behaving correctly. But middle ground doesn't make attention grabbing headlines.

[UpDog]

poo poo don't like it when they don't get it their way. you're lucky you didn't get (ian) birked or pasco'ed.

[WAGunRights]

Swatted is having the SWAT team show up thinking shit is about to go down.

I'm curious though, since you did anti narcotics work with the USCG, do you think, when an officer goes out looking for someone he is told is doing dangerous with a gun, and then meets that person, who does in fact have a gun, and wants to establish what was going on, that you might have been a bit... dickish? You were well within your rights, they were well within their rights, and somewhere in the middle was reasonable, common ground that wouldn't have involved handcuffs and uploaded videos.

If this was one of your interdictions how would you be reacting right now if the shoe was on the other foot?

OK, so there was no swat team... I used swatted as a colloquialism for the caller exaggerating the call to get me detained, or worse...

You sure are a police apologist aren't you? I was told I was not suspected of a crime. This was on US soil by local county officers. Comparing it to what I did in the military is like comparing apples to orangutans... We operated in international waters, with known drug dealers and had a lot more leeway.

I have dealt with people like me... When they are right I had no problem saying to them "You are right, you are not required to show me ID. Have a good day..." I wasn't a dick head to them and said well fine, I told you that you were not suspected of a crime, but now because you won't show ID I am going to throw a tantrum and detain you anyway.

If there was no crime to suspect me of, how do you them manufacture a crime to cuff and detain me? This is fact, I was told that I was not suspected of a crime at all. I gave them an explanation, they accepted it. It is when they asked me for ID, that I again asked if I was being detained and suspected in a crime, they AGAIN said no, but we would like to see some ID. I again refused and they told me I was being detained and cuffed me and removed my sidearm.

That is when they decided that they were "investigating a report of a man with a gun." When I asked what crime I was suspected of, they refused to answer and just said "a man with a gun" which I pointed out is not an RCW, or a crime in this state without there being a further qualifier. So I again demanded what crime, and RCW I was suspected of committing to be detained and just got reprimanded to answer their questions. I was never provided what crime I was actually suspected of committing.

I get meeting the police halfway, but I am not going to ID myself just so you feel better, and I sure as hell will not stand for you throwing a tantrum and power trip because I asserted my rights as a citizen not to provide ID when I wasn't required to. Sorry, but we have too many damn sheeple running around that are just willing to give up their right because the police ask, or because they have "nothing to hide."

My rights are not trumped by someone's power trip, I can assert my rights and should not be subject to detention for doing so.

No FOIA today. Hopefully Monday... I am working on the video right now which might be worthless as my g/f was nervous and may have turned off the recording on her phone. All I have right now is 7sec. If there is video that is usable I am going to release that when I get it uploaded and processed here in the next day or two. They were also less than thrilled with being filmed, and twice told my g/f she couldn't film them. I laughed and told them this is our private property, you are public servants. She's going to film this, and you cannot stop her.

Here is me detained though... Notice the ASP expandable baton in my back pocket... Great pat down by the purple haired deputy...

[toys in the toybox]

I think ive found the root of all this nonsense.......purple hair super cop and the drop leg taser, beyond tacticool and bound to incite riots even

[PMB]

I'm one of those dumbasses who say "They're on our side!"
And.... "Take a Liberal shooting and recruit them to the 2A!"

[Massivedesign]

thread cleansed and re-instated.

[TechnoWeenie]

'We don't suspect you of committing a crime, but we're gonna handcuff you and take your guns'

WTF


See Florida Vs. J.L. ... It's an almost textbook example of your case....

The USSC ruled that there was no 'firearm exemption' to the 4th amendment. The state postulated that being armed in the presence of officers necessitated the removal of the weapon for 'officer safety', the USSC told them to fuck off, because based on that logic, no one could legally carry and a firearm once seized could not be returned as there would always be a 'threat'. The state also tried saying that because it was an urban area, community caretaking was involved, which was also tossed out, as one living in a city cannot have less rights than those living in the country.

The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."[2]

REMEMBER that you cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to speak, especially when being detained unlawfully. It is also against the law for them to threaten you with arrest to compel testimony or to force you to engage in behavior you have a right to abstain from or abstain from a behavior you have a right to engage in.

RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.

(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he or she has a legal right to engage in.

(2) "Threat" as used in this section means:

(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(27) (a), (b), or (c).

(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.