Fisherman win Civil Rights case vs WDFW

[csaaphill]

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

for the ones who don't' like to look.
SERGEANT DAN CHADWICK,
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife; OFFICER BRETT HOPKINS,
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife; SERGEANT BRAD RHODEN,
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife; MIKE CENCI,
Capt./Director of Law Enforcement
of the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife,
Defendants-Appellees

[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.

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.

Phil,

I'll try to type real slow and use small words here to help you understand.  I've read the PDF.  I've likely read a lot more on search and seizure than you will in your life.

Of course the court referenced Terry v. Ohio.  They nearly always do on a case where a stop is questioned.

Yes, I understand their 4th amendment rights were infringed upon.  Hence the reason they won their settlement.  If there was a justified Terry stop in this case the Tarabochias would not have won, hence the reference to Terry v. Ohio in the brief.

In fact, I can't even coherently derive the point you are trying to make right now.  Your original point was trying to make the point that the same authority that led to this case is the same authority that allows a Terry Stop.  That's a ridiculous comparison.  A Terry stop has reasonable suspicion.  This stop had nothing of the sort and the officers knew it.  They were trying to rely on their inspection authority, which the court debunked.  You're comparing apples to oranges here.

As for your juvenile allegations that I'll violate someone's civil rights down the road, that's not even worth my time to rebut.  It merely reflects your ignorance.

As to lack of training?  A court will determine if it was deliberate indifference, ignorance, or simply negligence that got the officers to the point they were at.  I don't know, I wasn't there.   If it was ignorance, then training would have likely alleviated the situation.  If it was deliberate indifference, you're likely dealing with someone who shouldn't be in law enforcement.

However, your continued assertion that eliminating Terry stops would eliminate occurrences such as this is completely stupid.  If they aren't willing to abide by inspection authority restriction, why would eliminating Terry stops make it any different? A violation of civil rights is a violation of civil rights.  It's not always black and white despite your attempts to make it so, which is actually a good thing for the citizen.

You really haven't proven anything.  You merely regurgitated the brief.  Of course their inspection authority was null and void.  That was the WHOLE POINT OF THE CASE in the first place.  The state was arguing they were operating under inspection authority and the defendants argued they exceeded it.  So, the Tarabochia's lawyer proved the point, not you. 

As to your question of why they would do it?  I have no idea.  Might be a good question to ask WDFW directly.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing about right now and I'm not sure you do either.  I'm done with this inane argument.  If you're going to be a spokesperson for constitutional law I'd suggest you do some brushing up on things.

[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.

Phil,

I'll try to type real slow and use small words here to help you understand.  I've read the PDF.  I've likely read a lot more on search and seizure than you will in your life.

Of course the court referenced Terry v. Ohio.  They nearly always do on a case where a stop is questioned.

Yes, I understand their 4th amendment rights were infringed upon.  Hence the reason they won their settlement.  If there was a justified Terry stop in this case the Tarabochias would not have won, hence the reference to Terry v. Ohio in the brief.

In fact, I can't even coherently derive the point you are trying to make right now.  Your original point was trying to make the point that the same authority that led to this case is the same authority that allows a Terry Stop.  That's a ridiculous comparison.  A Terry stop has reasonable suspicion.  This stop had nothing of the sort and the officers knew it.  They were trying to rely on their inspection authority, which the court debunked.  You're comparing apples to oranges here.

As for your juvenile allegations that I'll violate someone's civil rights down the road, that's not even worth my time to rebut.  It merely reflects your ignorance.

As to lack of training?  A court will determine if it was deliberate indifference, ignorance, or simply negligence that got the officers to the point they were at.  I don't know, I wasn't there.   If it was ignorance, then training would have likely alleviated the situation.  If it was deliberate indifference, you're likely dealing with someone who shouldn't be in law enforcement.

However, your continued assertion that eliminating Terry stops would eliminate occurrences such as this is completely stupid.  If they aren't willing to abide by inspection authority restriction, why would eliminating Terry stops make it any different? A violation of civil rights is a violation of civil rights.  It's not always black and white despite your attempts to make it so, which is actually a good thing for the citizen.

You really haven't proven anything.  You merely regurgitated the brief.  Of course their inspection authority was null and void.  That was the WHOLE POINT OF THE CASE in the first place.  The state was arguing they were operating under inspection authority and the defendants argued they exceeded it.  So, the Tarabochia's lawyer proved the point, not you. 

As to your question of why they would do it?  I have no idea.  Might be a good question to ask WDFW directly.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing about right now and I'm not sure you do either.  I'm done with this inane argument.  If you're going to be a spokesperson for constitutional law I'd suggest you do some brushing up on things.

So.............. I win then.

[Vine Maples and Cottonwoo]

http://www.wdfwinvestigation.com/