Fisherman win Civil Rights case vs WDFW

[REHJWA]

It seems to me the same person gets a lot of reference for abusive of power within the WDFW. 

[ghosthunter]

It seems to me the same person gets a lot of reference for abusive of power within the WDFW. 

Yeah
Too bad the Director and the governor don't have the common sense to see it like we do.

[bobcat]

I didn't see the name Mike Cenci mentioned in the article, but I assume the captain they are referring to in this quote was Cenci?

These officers and the Tarabochias knew each other well. There was a lot of history and bad blood between them. Now, it was coming to a head. The standoff lasted more than 13 minutes. At one point in the video, a Fish and Wildlife captain is seen pulling out a collapsible baton. He said he’d break the window if they didn’t get out.

[bigtex]

I didn't see the name Mike Cenci mentioned in the article, but I assume the captain they are referring to in this quote was Cenci?

These officers and the Tarabochias knew each other well. There was a lot of history and bad blood between them. Now, it was coming to a head. The standoff lasted more than 13 minutes. At one point in the video, a Fish and Wildlife captain is seen pulling out a collapsible baton. He said he’d break the window if they didn’t get out.

Correct. At the time he was a Captain.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Special T]

In addition to Cenci being involved, lets not forget that these 2 guys knew they had a bullseye on them and wanted a leo from a different department to show up. I think this mostly reflects poorly on the wdfw because it shows they never resolved a problem with a bad leo. Its not a big wonder that wdfw has one of the lowest morall ratings in the state.
Criticisms of state gov are hard to rebut when a tool loke Cenci is so obviously protected. Its just too bad the punishment doesnt fit the crime.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[csaaphill]

I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.
Because even at a LEO site I stumbled on a awhile back said there they didn't need probable cause to stop anyone.
There may be some small differences in a full on Terry stop and what happened above, but to me it doesn't mater. The power that allowed for Terry stops is pretty much the same power used for this to have happened. Which is why now Were flipping the bill for. If LEO didn't have that kind of leeway to begin with then these kinds of infringements would not happen.
I say hurrah on these people for standing up for what was right. glad they didn't' get shot or jailed.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here, but I guess to you facts don't matter.  If you Googled Terry Stop, whatever you read didn't sink in or you wouldn't be making these comparisons.  The power that allows for Terry Stops is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.   That threshold was never met here, which is why they rightfully won their lawsuit.

Infringements are going to happen, just as guns will be used in the commission of a crime.  To think you are ever going to completely stop that is completely folly on your part.

Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
the reason these people were harassed here in this situation is exactly related to Terry VS Ohio. If they hadn't had this leeway in the first place then this situation would have more than likely not happened. Not related as you say? then why the stop and why the manhandling then? your statement of reasonable suspicion = the statement it says in the story about fish they wanted to investigate, (The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect) seems to me they were using a terry type of reason to stop them in the first place don't ya think? especially from your own statement.
And look not saying your going to stem all infringements, but if you don't give people more power than they need then there will be less.
As for any gun infringements there should be none absolutely none because it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of rights.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Here is the actual decision. From reading it, I'd say Cenci should be immediately fired from his post. How can you be in charge of Enforcement after being found to have violated Constitutional rights? He is unqualified in my mind.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf

[idahohuntr]

 
Here you go Director Unsworth...here is your hand delivered, gift wrapped cause for terminating Cenci immediately.

I'd be much happier if my money was being spent fighting any challenge by Cenci to get his job back than to continue to dole out money to the large number of people Cenci has wronged/violated/bullied etc.

[JLS]

I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.
Because even at a LEO site I stumbled on a awhile back said there they didn't need probable cause to stop anyone.
There may be some small differences in a full on Terry stop and what happened above, but to me it doesn't mater. The power that allowed for Terry stops is pretty much the same power used for this to have happened. Which is why now Were flipping the bill for. If LEO didn't have that kind of leeway to begin with then these kinds of infringements would not happen.
I say hurrah on these people for standing up for what was right. glad they didn't' get shot or jailed.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here, but I guess to you facts don't matter.  If you Googled Terry Stop, whatever you read didn't sink in or you wouldn't be making these comparisons.  The power that allows for Terry Stops is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.   That threshold was never met here, which is why they rightfully won their lawsuit.

Infringements are going to happen, just as guns will be used in the commission of a crime.  To think you are ever going to completely stop that is completely folly on your part.

Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
the reason these people were harassed here in this situation is exactly related to Terry VS Ohio. If they hadn't had this leeway in the first place then this situation would have more than likely not happened. Not related as you say? then why the stop and why the manhandling then? your statement of reasonable suspicion = the statement it says in the story about fish they wanted to investigate, (The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect) seems to me they were using a terry type of reason to stop them in the first place don't ya think? especially from your own statement.
And look not saying your going to stem all infringements, but if you don't give people more power than they need then there will be less.
As for any gun infringements there should be none absolutely none because it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of rights.

You're arguing yourself in circles here.  They were using their inspection authority, which was found to be improper use of it.  Had they been able to articulate any reasonable suspicion, then it would have been upheld as a Terry stop and they wouldn't have had to try and justify the stop using inspection authority.

You've yet to give one good reason why Terry stops should be illegal, other than you think for some mysterious reason it would have prevented this case from going the way that it did.  Again, they weren't using Terry as the basis for their stop.

[csaaphill]

I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.
Because even at a LEO site I stumbled on a awhile back said there they didn't need probable cause to stop anyone.
There may be some small differences in a full on Terry stop and what happened above, but to me it doesn't mater. The power that allowed for Terry stops is pretty much the same power used for this to have happened. Which is why now Were flipping the bill for. If LEO didn't have that kind of leeway to begin with then these kinds of infringements would not happen.
I say hurrah on these people for standing up for what was right. glad they didn't' get shot or jailed.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here, but I guess to you facts don't matter.  If you Googled Terry Stop, whatever you read didn't sink in or you wouldn't be making these comparisons.  The power that allows for Terry Stops is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.   That threshold was never met here, which is why they rightfully won their lawsuit.

Infringements are going to happen, just as guns will be used in the commission of a crime.  To think you are ever going to completely stop that is completely folly on your part.

Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
the reason these people were harassed here in this situation is exactly related to Terry VS Ohio. If they hadn't had this leeway in the first place then this situation would have more than likely not happened. Not related as you say? then why the stop and why the manhandling then? your statement of reasonable suspicion = the statement it says in the story about fish they wanted to investigate, (The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect) seems to me they were using a terry type of reason to stop them in the first place don't ya think? especially from your own statement.
And look not saying your going to stem all infringements, but if you don't give people more power than they need then there will be less.
As for any gun infringements there should be none absolutely none because it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of rights.

You're arguing yourself in circles here.  They were using their inspection authority, which was found to be improper use of it.  Had they been able to articulate any reasonable suspicion, then it would have been upheld as a Terry stop and they wouldn't have had to try and justify the stop using inspection authority.

You've yet to give one good reason why Terry stops should be illegal, other than you think for some mysterious reason it would have prevented this case from going the way that it did.  Again, they weren't using Terry as the basis for their stop.

because they pit the 4th amendment right of being protected against Govt, or illegal searches vs peace and safety which one of our forefathers said when we give up our liberty for a little, and temporary peace and safety then we shall get and deserve neither. once you allow inroads into our protect rights that's when and when these things happen that's why.

[csaaphill]

This also shows that they violated the 4th amendment which is the same basis as what is called a Terry stop, or Terry VS Ohio.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf

[csaaphill]

This Cenci character sounds like a piece of work too. 

[csaaphill]

This also shows that they violated the 4th amendment which is the same basis as what is called a Terry stop, or Terry VS Ohio.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf

The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock,
but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias’ truck over once
on the highway4    wow they could of done what is called inspection authority earlier wow.
A Washington state district court for the County of
Wahkiakum later dismissed all charges, finding the stop,
search, and arrests unlawful since the officers had acted
contrary to state law and to the Washington state constitution
The Tarabochias filed their pro se federal district court
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2010,
alleging that WDFW officers Dan Chadwick, Brett Hopkins,
Brad Rhoden, and Mike Cenci violated their Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by stopping and searching their
automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassing them
throughout the years. Isn't, or wasnt' Terry VS Ohio related to the 4th amendment?
F.3d at 1056–57; see, e.g., United States v. Rowland,
464 F.3d 899, 907 (9th Cir. 2006) (“An officer may stop and
question an individual suspected of wrongdoing if the officer
can point to ‘specific and articulable facts which . . .
reasonably warrant that intrusion.’”) (quoting Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)); United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d
1101, 1104–05 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that reasonable
suspicion of unlawful behavior is required for traffic stops);
United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Under the Fourth Amendment, government officials may
conduct an investigatory stop of a vehicle only if they possess
reasonable suspicion . . . of criminal activity.” of which if you read the whole PDF none of these allowances applied to this case, and oh ya look it does mention TERRY VS Ohio.
Munoz, 701 F.2d 1293, clearly
extended these Fourth Amendment principles to the acts of
fish and wildlife officials when acting pursuant to fish and
game laws and regulations.9
Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, and Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U.S. 873, for the proposition that “roving stops made
without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
regarding the vehicle, its occupants, or its contents” are
unconstitutional.
Although we need not look beyond binding precedent, Boyd, 374 F.3d
at 781, we note that even non-binding precedent clearly established the
Tarabochias’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from the suspicionless
stop
Finally, “a reasonable officer would [have] recognize[d]”
that the suspicionless stop of the Tarabochias’ automobile
exceeded the bounds of the statutes Defendants purportedly
relied on. Grossman v. City of Portland, 33
Thus, “it should have been readily apparent to a
reasonable officer” that neither section 77.15.080(1) nor
section 77.15.096 authorized the suspicionless roving stop

[JLS]

I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.
Because even at a LEO site I stumbled on a awhile back said there they didn't need probable cause to stop anyone.
There may be some small differences in a full on Terry stop and what happened above, but to me it doesn't mater. The power that allowed for Terry stops is pretty much the same power used for this to have happened. Which is why now Were flipping the bill for. If LEO didn't have that kind of leeway to begin with then these kinds of infringements would not happen.
I say hurrah on these people for standing up for what was right. glad they didn't' get shot or jailed.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here, but I guess to you facts don't matter.  If you Googled Terry Stop, whatever you read didn't sink in or you wouldn't be making these comparisons.  The power that allows for Terry Stops is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.   That threshold was never met here, which is why they rightfully won their lawsuit.

Infringements are going to happen, just as guns will be used in the commission of a crime.  To think you are ever going to completely stop that is completely folly on your part.

Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
the reason these people were harassed here in this situation is exactly related to Terry VS Ohio. If they hadn't had this leeway in the first place then this situation would have more than likely not happened. Not related as you say? then why the stop and why the manhandling then? your statement of reasonable suspicion = the statement it says in the story about fish they wanted to investigate, (The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect) seems to me they were using a terry type of reason to stop them in the first place don't ya think? especially from your own statement.
And look not saying your going to stem all infringements, but if you don't give people more power than they need then there will be less.
As for any gun infringements there should be none absolutely none because it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of rights.

You're arguing yourself in circles here.  They were using their inspection authority, which was found to be improper use of it.  Had they been able to articulate any reasonable suspicion, then it would have been upheld as a Terry stop and they wouldn't have had to try and justify the stop using inspection authority.

You've yet to give one good reason why Terry stops should be illegal, other than you think for some mysterious reason it would have prevented this case from going the way that it did.  Again, they weren't using Terry as the basis for their stop.

because they pit the 4th amendment right of being protected against Govt, or illegal searches vs peace and safety which one of our forefathers said when we give up our liberty for a little, and temporary peace and safety then we shall get and deserve neither. once you allow inroads into our protect rights that's when and when these things happen that's why.

Your argument is about as logical as saying drive in movie theaters cause unwanted pregnancies.  Or, cops carrying guns is what leads to unjustified shootings.  Both are a result of poor judgment, not the totality of the circumstances.

A Terry stop is a VERY scrutinized procedure.  Yes, it is an intrusion into a person's 4th Amendment rights.  It is not an illegal seizure because the Supreme Court has granted that brief intrusion under ARTICUABLE circumstances.  Can't articulate the reasonable suspicion, you end up in court getting sued.  Plain and simple.

To say that a Terry stop caused the Tarabochia case is ridiculous.  Now, if you were to say that improper training in reference to their inspection authority led to this situation, I'd agree with you.  However, you're trying to connect dots that aren't there.

[csaaphill]

I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.
Because even at a LEO site I stumbled on a awhile back said there they didn't need probable cause to stop anyone.
There may be some small differences in a full on Terry stop and what happened above, but to me it doesn't mater. The power that allowed for Terry stops is pretty much the same power used for this to have happened. Which is why now Were flipping the bill for. If LEO didn't have that kind of leeway to begin with then these kinds of infringements would not happen.
I say hurrah on these people for standing up for what was right. glad they didn't' get shot or jailed.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here, but I guess to you facts don't matter.  If you Googled Terry Stop, whatever you read didn't sink in or you wouldn't be making these comparisons.  The power that allows for Terry Stops is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.   That threshold was never met here, which is why they rightfully won their lawsuit.

Infringements are going to happen, just as guns will be used in the commission of a crime.  To think you are ever going to completely stop that is completely folly on your part.

Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
the reason these people were harassed here in this situation is exactly related to Terry VS Ohio. If they hadn't had this leeway in the first place then this situation would have more than likely not happened. Not related as you say? then why the stop and why the manhandling then? your statement of reasonable suspicion = the statement it says in the story about fish they wanted to investigate, (The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect) seems to me they were using a terry type of reason to stop them in the first place don't ya think? especially from your own statement.
And look not saying your going to stem all infringements, but if you don't give people more power than they need then there will be less.
As for any gun infringements there should be none absolutely none because it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of rights.

You're arguing yourself in circles here.  They were using their inspection authority, which was found to be improper use of it.  Had they been able to articulate any reasonable suspicion, then it would have been upheld as a Terry stop and they wouldn't have had to try and justify the stop using inspection authority.

You've yet to give one good reason why Terry stops should be illegal, other than you think for some mysterious reason it would have prevented this case from going the way that it did.  Again, they weren't using Terry as the basis for their stop.

because they pit the 4th amendment right of being protected against Govt, or illegal searches vs peace and safety which one of our forefathers said when we give up our liberty for a little, and temporary peace and safety then we shall get and deserve neither. once you allow inroads into our protect rights that's when and when these things happen that's why.

Your argument is about as logical as saying drive in movie theaters cause unwanted pregnancies.  Or, cops carrying guns is what leads to unjustified shootings.  Both are a result of poor judgment, not the totality of the circumstances.

A Terry stop is a VERY scrutinized procedure.  Yes, it is an intrusion into a person's 4th Amendment rights.  It is not an illegal seizure because the Supreme Court has granted that brief intrusion under ARTICUABLE circumstances.  Can't articulate the reasonable suspicion, you end up in court getting sued.  Plain and simple.

To say that a Terry stop caused the Tarabochia case is ridiculous.  Now, if you were to say that improper training in reference to their inspection authority led to this situation, I'd agree with you.  However, you're trying to connect dots that aren't there.

you didn't read the article then, or PDF, or actually take much of a look into what I'd actually posted the Court found in favor of these two based on 4th amendment rights infringements, and you read into the PDF file I linked it does mention Terry vs Ohio as one of the cases this case derived it's decision from. it also talks about the inspection authority as well as you keep refereeing to, and specifically condemns these two WDFW LEO's for not doing their inspection in the fishing spot, or area designed for such a thing. No they waited until these kids were on the Highway, so therefore no inspection authority existed. Might try reading it some time save you some hassle down the road when you or someone else violates someone rights over something. Cenci and the other officer had no legal right on the highway which is exactly what the PDF file shows that I linked.
My deal is why is a WDFW LEO have such a vendetta against people that he has to violate the constitution to do so?
I personally hope CENCI and who ever acts this way get fired, and maybe spend some time behind bars.
you actually believe this is just a case of lack of training OMG. they chose to wait until the kids left the arena rather than inspect them there which I already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that inspection authority was null and void the moment they hit the highway.