Was the warrant valid? Perception is reality. If I know I haven't done anything wrong/illegal, then what? The title says "non existent warrant"

Your perception is not reality.

The warrant's validity will be decided in court, not on the side of the road.

To quote you, you 'live in a van, down by the river'.

What if someone involved in the accident that got you fired decided to sue the company, and you?

A summons for a court appearance would be delivered to your last known address.

If no answer, a deputy would sign off, swearing he affixed it to the door.

If no response from you, at some point, a warrant would be issued for your failure to appear.

In your 'reality', you've done nothing wrong, and have no reason to comply.

All the cop knows is, he has a warrant to bring you in for your Failure To Appear

Okay, thanks for posting the video Selador. I skimmed thru it to get the idea.

I see failures on all sides. I think this could have been resolved better at the time and there were obvious solutions.

Cops:
* The citizen demanded to see the warrant. I think that's a reasonable demand. Produce the warrant. It may take some effort. But they should actually have the physical warrants to show a suspect. Seems obvious and reasonably predictable. I would personally ALSO like to see the warrant (although I would wisely comply anyway). So, cops should have the warrant in hand. And they surely have the resources to go get it and produce it. A 5 cent piece of paper might have resolved this. That's very reasonable. Granted, arguing the validity of a warrant on the side of the road is not at issue, but at least PROVING a warrant exists is a reasonable demand.

* The man was otherwise compliant with the ID. Produce the warrant. May have ended peaceably.

* Call the traffic cops to come and "boot" his tractor. The man cannot stay on the tractor forever. Yep, it's a hassle. But wait him out. Then charge him a fee and extra charges for non-compliance. Problem solved. If he gets away, impound the tractor. I presume they know where he lives too... The man cannot "run" forever on a warrant. And a trespassing warrant is not sufficient to go "hands on" in my view. It is likely a misdemeanor and no evidence of weapon or threat.

If the cops produce the warrant and he's noncompliant, then perhaps go hands on. But preferably just wait him out. He cannot stay on the tractor forever.

Citizen:
* Yea, we don't necessarily want indoctrinated citizens that follow corrupt officials like cows to a slaughter. I get that.

* However, a citizen should comply when he knows or reasonably knows he's caught breaking the law or there is a warrant out for his arrest. Here, the deceased did articulate he wanted to SEE the warrant. I think that's reasonable. I'd still say he should ultimately comply and that's the lesson. But his non-compliance should not have been reason to go "hands on." There were other options and no urgency for the arrest.

I call balls and strikes folks. Cops had other options here.

I have to rule this one a pretty close tie, but I'd say it was excessive force that was unnecessary in light of other less risky alternatives. There was no urgency. There appears to have been simply non-physical solutions (produce a warrant, boot the tractor, impound the tractor, no urgency, no serious charges on the warrant, no weapons, no real flight risk, and so forth). Cops were wrong on this one.

I'm accepting your argument on this one, counsel. Well done.

However, I would offer: If police had to carry a paper warrant for everyone they might run into during their shift, we'll have to issue them industrial dump trucks to make their rounds in.

Alternatively, they could have simply called in and asked that a copy of the warrant be brought to their location. (And Mr Frank billed for the extra time and effort involved.)

If Mr Frank had accepted that, and gone into custody without trouble, so much the better. No harm no foul.

The question would be, what happens if he then still resists.

We can answer MadPick's question at the same time, here. That's how long they could have waited. If he resisted at that time, well, they were more than reasonable, and the outcome is the result of his choices.

In my opinion, if they had gone to that much trouble to get him to come peaceably, I would consider this to be circumstances warranting surrounding Mr Frank, and tasering him from every angle until he either fell off, or just gave up. Like I said, at that point, he was the one who chose the the circumstances and consequences.

It's a non urgent situation and an unarmed person on tall device, parked on concrete. The risks of getting him down injury-free are not good.

We can speculate many scenarios. The problem is the cops didn't TRY any other scenarios. So we'll never know. They just said,"we have dominion over you, and even though we did not SEE you commit a crime, we have a piece of paper that says you did, and even though we cannot show it to you, you must come with us and comply." I'm just not that comfortable with that process.

Cops should need to either SEE the crime, have probable cause of the crime, articulate the crime, or have other pressing reasons to detain someone. Afterall, detaining someone is a serious issue and that's deprivation of liberty. Folks go to jail for "kidnapping" when they unlawfully detain someone. So it's not a trivial matter.

Cops could have said, "Sir, if we produce the warrant we're not going to argue about the warrant, but will you agree to come with us?" That sentence, easily spoken under no urgency, and probably should be routinely in their kit bag of addressing this common demand, could have resolved this. Call the station for a tire boot and a warrant. Boot the tire while producing the warrant.

Now, let's speculate. They produce the warrant and he tells them to kick rocks.

Then, "Sir, now we must use physical force to get you down and to come with us, and you might get hurt...."

But I even think just waiting it out. The man cannot stay on the tractor for hours, right? He's not going anywhere. One deputy could watch him.

So in the end, this ultimately boils down to this, a risk/reward.

Is it better to "seige" this guy until he gets tired of sitting on the tractor, tires of his game, needs a drink of water or to use the bathroom? I'd give that maybe what, 4 hours tops.

Or forceably pull him off, requiring a mountain of paperwork that does occupy a lot of time anyway, risk injury to everyone and even escalate to lethal force if necessary. Going hands on is a big deal IMO, and it will also require paperwork. So it's not like they are avoiding sitting and doing paperwork instead of just monitoring the guy until he surrenders.

The more I sit on this, the cops made some serious blunders here, and probably policies need reworking.

"If you don't move, you're going to burn to a crisp."

It's compelling.

Did someone hack into LCs account, wtf am I reading?

So cops should now be issued napalm.

I like this line of thought. Incendiary hand grenades as standard issue. Give the bad guys what they deserve. Smoke 'em out first, then shoot 'em in their tracks.

OK...I'll comment on each point...and some of you may find some of this surprising.

\

An excellent point. Here's the long and short of it...you're there, the guy isn't going anywhere. He's simply saying "No". For the purpose of this contact, he is now guilty of Contempt of Cop. This is not punishable by law, nor is it reasonable grounds for use of force. Moreover, it does not meet the standard for POPO--which is short for Pissed Off Police Officer.



This is most assuredly NOT BS. It is standard procedure. I don't care if it's someone I KNOW personally, I'm going to radio in my location and the person's information. If I get a warrant hit, THEN I act. Moreover, MANY warrants are non-extraditable out of county. So...you check for warrants ASAP. Then, after you effect lawful arrest, you call in and confirm the warrant--it's called doing a "locate" (heck, I don't know why.....), which lets NCIC and the State systems know that you have the person in custody.



How long would you negotiate? AS LONG AS IT TAKES.

There is something that some officers forget...and that is the fact that we are officers of the Court. We are not judges, nor are we juries. Moreover--and this is the important part--you ALWAYS address the person in front of you with the same respect that you would like yourself. Do we--I--get mad on the job? Sure. But I'm not there to punish; it is nothing personal. In the case of a valid warrant, I have explained more than once: "Look, fella (or, ma'am)...it doesn't matter to me why you have the warrant. The fact is, that a warrant is simply a Judge's way of saying that he or she wants to see you so that you can have your day in Court to explain your actions to the Court--who is the trier of fact. As an Officer of the Court, my job is to arrange the meeting. The warrant is the Court's way of ensuring that you show up.

"Now, you have to understand this: You ARE going into custody right now. yes, I know that it is an inconvenience--but you ARE going. So...let's make this as painless as possible. Turn around, because I have to put you in restraints. A quick ride, and you get booked. You'll go before a Judge shortly, and you might make bail. That's up to the Court--but you ARE going to jail, one way or another. How do you want this to go?"

Talking someone down is much better than fighting them down. That being said, the person being arrested sets the tone for the contact.



Another poster mentioned this...in a LOT of Departments--mine included--choke holds of ANY type are forbidden--because it is WAY too easy to cause brain damage or to kill someone with one.

This is why assault by strangulation or choking--even the act of grabbing by the throat--can be automatically charged as a B Felony. If done with intent to cause bodily harm, it's an A Felony in Washington State.

I really don't like Monday-morning quarterbacking...but I have to ask how far would the officers have gotten if they had continued talking to the man in a calm manner, and made a serious attempt to address his concerns:

"Hey, how are you? Yes, I know you. Hey...listen, did you know that you have a warrant? Yes, you do--it's for (fill in the blank). Did you get that taken care of? Well, it's still showing up in the system. Have you contacted the court yet, to see about getting it quashed?"

(Note: from what I heard, it was a misdemeanor warrant anyway. Why not just INFORM the guy that he has a warrant, but don't do the locate? Give the guy a chance to deal with it, for heaven's sake...you don't need the stat that bad, do you?)

Anyway...like I said, I don't like Monday morning quarterbacking...but you'd be surprised at what a little respect, some conversation and some consideration for the other guy can do.

Oh, yeah...one other observation. I don't think that the neck hold did it---it looked more like a possible case of PA (Positional Asphyxiation) might have been the case.

.

Bruh.

2nd the dan360s post

This is what the fuck i am talking about.

How to win friends and influence people
Carnegie.

Be a good conversationalist - listen.

Make people do it by letting them think they are making the decision, let them think it’s their idea.

Be personal, use their name.

Us quarterbackers see that shit on bodycam, pretty hard to shit on actions that occur after the steps above are reasonably taken.

I still don’t understand what he was doing on a tractor in a Walmart parking lot