Skip to comments.Gun Owners Claim Deputy Violated Their Rights
Posted on 10/02/2010 7:36:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A group of gun owners claims local deputies violated their civil rights. They openly displayed a lot of firepower this morning at the Spanaway Starbucks to make a point.
"I have a 'Combat Commander.' Its a .45," said Lynn (who did not want to give her last name), who openly wears her firearm on her hip.
Eric Sandoval has a holstered Springfield Armory XD.40. The former military man says he grew up around guns. Lynn and Eric were at the Starbucks on Saturday with about 35 others openly wearing guns. They were all there in support of Tom Brewster, who openly wears a Glock 19. "I carry (a gun) in the open because I have nothing to hide," said Brewster.
Brewster walked into a Spanaway Starbucks, his gun fully visible, he says, earlier this week. A Pierce County Deputy approached. Brewster recorded his conversation with the deputy:
Officer: Look guy, just show some ID and that just proves who you are.
Brewster: Open carry is legal in Washington. Officer: We don't know if you're a felon. We don't know if you're a felon.
Brewster: I'm not a felon ... Unless you have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain me, you don't need to request ID.
In the end, Brewster showed his ID. Deputies did not detain him.
But as a result of that encounter, a group of about 35 "open carry" gun advocates -- those who are legally licensed to carry their guns in full view-- gathered to support Brewster and to assert their rights. They feel the deputy went too far.
"I understand why they were concerned, but that does not give them the right to violate another citizen's civil rights," said Lynn.
However, one can't escape the fact that officers approached Brewster at a Spanaway coffee shop, which is located mere miles away from another coffee shop: Forza coffee in Parkland, where four police officers were killed less than a year ago. Many people in this community have very strong feelings about guns.
"I don't dispute the legality of it, its just that my comfort level would not be there," said Forza customer Marilee Titus.
Laura Stewart, another Forza customer said, "I don't have a problem with someone carrying a gun in a public place, but if it was me and I saw someone with a weapon, I might alert the officer there, just out of concern for public safety."
Pierce County Sheriff's Department spokesman Ed Troyer responded to this incident by saying, "Guns make people nervous and when people have them, we're going to follow up and ask questions. ...We understand the law, we understand their rights, but if they're carrying guns around, there's a strong possibility that somebody is going to come talk to them."
Meanwhile, Starbucks has said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.
What does it hurt to be cool about it, and just show the cop your id? The deputy appeared to be respectful.
Doesn’t matter. You have no obligation to show your “papers” to any LEO if you are not suspected of having committed a crime. You do not have to prove that you aren’t a felon by showing your ID.
I agree. There is no point in being difficult and confrontational with a law enforcement officer. Admittedly, some cops are thugs, but most are just normal people doing their job.
Because the officer has no business asking to see the ID of any person not being arrested. Despite what most JBTs think, refusing to show an ID is not a crime.
Does one show a cop ID if he sees you are eating pancakes?
I see cops in plain clothes all the time openly carrying a pistol on their hip, under their arm, or clipped to the middle of their back without showing any badge.
The only clue that they are a cop is the fact it is always a Beretta 9mm.
Point a finger and four of them point back at you.
Nice choice for a sidearm, Lynn. I’m sure you’ll be able to afford a few more of them after you sue the crap out of this ‘deputy’.
Once you submit, people will begin to think it is accepted practice to submit and mission creep will set in and eventually people will accept barcodes on their forehead.
It is the same process that eliminated routine public open carry- the pickle in which we now find ourselves.
Any cop who is doing this is doing so for the sole purpose of discouraging citizens from exercising their rights. That is high thuggery.
Since when does it violate someone’s civil rights to see someone else carrying a firearm?
It is also political rather than a normal duty associated with keeping the peace.
Respectful or not, a law-abiding citizen is NOT required to give police ID on request. And unless there is a well-defined "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been or is about to be committed, the police have no authority to force the issue. Simply having a gun openly in public is NOT grounds to do so.
I live in Pierce County, and these cops need to be taken down a notch or two. Good on these folks for standing up for their (and my) rights.
If police officers swear an oath to protect the Constitution, (something I see little evidence of) then most of them are oathbreakers.
Unfortunately that seems to be more and more the way it is. There also seems to be a fair amount of push back from good folks like these and that is encouraging.
The Sheriff’s spokeperson must be trolling for a lawsuit. Perhaps a lawyer cut a deal with him?
Why else would he admit that they would harass a lawfully carrying citizen?
Only if you were using the barrel of your pistol to slice and dice 'em. That would be waving your firearm around in a threatening manner.
BTW - the reporter had it wrong. You can open-carry in Washington without a permit. It is concealed that you need to have a permit.
But that's the system. They'll stop you once. You complain up the chain. They get educated by the chain. You do your thing afterward. That's the price of not paying lawyers to be cops.
It's like getting furious when burger-flippers get your order wrong - you're asking for Fancy Restaurant accuracy and service from young, inexperienced, comparatively underpaid folks. They are going to screw up big time and frequently and you have to just go through the irritation and help them get it right.
I too have strong feelings about guns.
If there had been a few more citizens carrying guns in the Forza coffee shop, maybe there would be four fewer dead cops.
Because they can... and often do harass law abiding citizens all across this country.
If you haven't noticed there is a low intensity "war" going on over our rights all across this nation, right now it is over the Second Amendment... tomorrow, who knows.
I am just glad that many are standing up and fighting back the attempted oppression by LEOs.
Never heard of freedon from fear? /s
Beautifully made point.
>You have no obligation to show your papers to any LEO if you are not suspected of having committed a crime. You do not have to prove that you arent a felon by showing your ID.
Indeed so; under the presumption-of-innocence mindset it’s actually the official’s obligation to show “papers” [that is, a warrant].
Maybe it’s a bit of a jerk’s stance, but I don’t like the idea of people being snapped up under the “probable cause” excuse that’s been given the police; the 4th Amendment states that WARRANTS are to be issued on probable cause, not arrests — make them do the extra effort/paperwork. They’ve lost all “benefit of the doubt” credits with me with such prevalent stories like this and the dismissal of concerns about legal contradictions (ie enforcement of laws which are expressly forbidden by the state or federal Constitution).
It may depend on if the peanut butter on them is chunky or smooth.
Warrantless entry, searches, and seizures may be done under exigent circumstances. There would be nothing inherently wrong with that, except that courts have taken it upon themselves to decide in advance that certain searches are "reasonable", despite the fact that reasonableness can only be determined given all the facts surrounding a search (and may thus only be determined with certainty by a jury).
If jurors were informed of the facts surrounding searches, and instructed that no evidence from a search they deem "unreasonable"(*) given the totality of the circumstances should be construed in a manner detrimental to the defendant, police would probably be inclined to act much more reasonably.
(*) For a search to be reasonable, the jury would have to find that (1) knowing everything the people seeking the warrant knew [including information that may not have been given to the warrant judge] a reasonable person would consider it likely that the requested search would produce evidence of a crime; (2) if exigent circumstances are claimed, a reasonable person, knowing what was known by the cops on scene, would believe them to exist; (3) a reasonable person would judge that the way in which the search was conducted minimized the risk and/or harm to persons and/or property. If cops are doing their duty, they should have no problem convincing a jury of all points; that jurors might balk at some of today's procedures is not a reason to withhold such information from them, but instead is a reason to provide it.