Post by: Clark33 on June 04, 2014, 12:20:45 PM
http://www.dailypaul.com/320079/wa-juror-thrown-out-and-his-juror-duty-revoked-for-insisting-court-to-uphold-state-law-and-safely-secure-firearm-in-lock- (http://www.dailypaul.com/320079/wa-juror-thrown-out-and-his-juror-duty-revoked-for-insisting-court-to-uphold-state-law-and-safely-secure-firearm-in-lock-)
http://www.dailypaul.com/320079/wa-juror-thrown-out-and-his-juror-duty-revoked-for-insisting-court-to-uphold-state-law-and-safely-secure-firearm-in-lock- (http://www.dailypaul.com/320079/wa-juror-thrown-out-and-his-juror-duty-revoked-for-insisting-court-to-uphold-state-law-and-safely-secure-firearm-in-lock-)
Here is the law in question... He was correct, it does say they shall provide a lockbox or an office to secure the weapon.
RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;
(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
(e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
(4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.
(5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.
(6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;
(b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or
(c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.
(7) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section does not apply to correctional personnel or community corrections officers, as long as they are employed as such, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a correctional employee or community corrections officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010.
(8) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.
(9) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.
(10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.
(11) Government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training must be training that correctional personnel and community corrections officers receive as part of their job requirement and reference to such training does not constitute a mandate that it be provided by the correctional facility.
(12) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(13) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250.
[2011 c 221 § 2; 2008 c 33 § 1. Prior: 2004 c 116 § 1; 2004 c 16 § 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 429; 1993 c 396 § 1; 1985 c 428 § 2.]
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 12:43:16 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on June 04, 2014, 12:45:13 PM
WOW!! I am torn on this though. The kid is right that ignorance is not an excuse. And this once again clearly shows that our law enforcement truly knows very little about the law, but know more about being bullies. However, that being said this kid clearly did this to instigate a confrontation which I find a little immature and a poor representation of gun owners.
totally agree. Might have been more prudent to point out the law so that they are aware, maybe even contact the superiors to talk to them but end up locking up the firearm in your vehicle. My old man taught me long ago to pick my battles and if it were me, this would not have been one of them :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 04, 2014, 12:48:34 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 12:49:39 PM
Absolutely agree! I would've followed their instructions and then addressed the problems with those that can resolve it rather than pick a fight with some lower level guys who really can't do anything anyways.WOW!! I am torn on this though. The kid is right that ignorance is not an excuse. And this once again clearly shows that our law enforcement truly knows very little about the law, but know more about being bullies. However, that being said this kid clearly did this to instigate a confrontation which I find a little immature and a poor representation of gun owners.
totally agree. Might have been more prudent to point out the law so that they are aware, maybe even contact the superiors to talk to them but end up locking up the firearm in your vehicle. My old man taught me long ago to pick my battles and if it were me, this would not have been one of them :twocents:
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 12:53:35 PM
I didn't notice any action on the part of the juror to instigate anything. He showed up for jury duty with a legally carried firearm and requested storage of that firearm. The law is designed specifically for this. How is that instigating anything? This is way different than walking into an IHOP with a bazooka just to prove a point. I'll be bringing my firearm to the courthouse when I need to go. :dunno:He went in there with video camera in hand already knowing they were not prepared to handle the situation. That is in my opinion clearly instigating a confrontation.
Post by: Clark33 on June 04, 2014, 12:55:12 PM
Post by: Clark33 on June 04, 2014, 12:58:17 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 01:00:50 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on June 04, 2014, 01:03:24 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2014, 01:16:21 PM
I tend to agree. I think the cops were caught off guard and miffed by it, and I think the guy with the camera was doing to to make trouble, otherwise he wouldn't have it posted on an activism website one day later.I didn't notice any action on the part of the juror to instigate anything. He showed up for jury duty with a legally carried firearm and requested storage of that firearm. The law is designed specifically for this. How is that instigating anything? This is way different than walking into an IHOP with a bazooka just to prove a point. I'll be bringing my firearm to the courthouse when I need to go. :dunno:He went in there with video camera in hand already knowing they were not prepared to handle the situation. That is in my opinion clearly instigating a confrontation.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on June 04, 2014, 01:29:31 PM
Post by: Clark33 on June 04, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
WOW!! I am torn on this though. The kid is right that ignorance is not an excuse. And this once again clearly shows that our law enforcement truly knows very little about the law, but know more about being bullies. However, that being said this kid clearly did this to instigate a confrontation which I find a little immature and a poor representation of gun owners.
I see that very differently if what I just read is accurate. He seemed like a very good gun owner to me? He understood the laws and his rights within the laws better than most. I find nothing immature about that. And from what I did read he sought out no confrontation at all, it came to him. I guess he could have just walked away and avoid the confrontation like most would. That is exactly how our rights are evaporating right in front of our faces. People from the highest place in government down to law enforcement seem to think they can impose their will on the people now without any regards to the law. And the biggest problem hurting us now is they get away with that behavior more often than not.
AMEN! :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on June 04, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
WOW!! I am torn on this though. The kid is right that ignorance is not an excuse. And this once again clearly shows that our law enforcement truly knows very little about the law, but know more about being bullies. However, that being said this kid clearly did this to instigate a confrontation which I find a little immature and a poor representation of gun owners.
I see that very differently if what I just read is accurate. He seemed like a very good gun owner to me? He understood the laws and his rights within the laws better than most. I find nothing immature about that. And from what I did read he sought out no confrontation at all, it came to him. I guess he could have just walked away and avoid the confrontation like most would. That is exactly how our rights are evaporating right in front of our faces. People from the highest place in government down to law enforcement seem to think they can impose their will on the people now without any regards to the law. And the biggest problem hurting us now is they get away with that behavior more often than not.
:yeah: also what if someone sees him put it in his car then smashes his window and steals it? As someone who has had a pistol stolen out of my truck I know I wouldn't want to leave a gun in my car.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 04, 2014, 02:41:18 PM
Post by: wafisherman on June 04, 2014, 02:43:17 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 03:32:37 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 03:34:09 PM
Post by: Badhabit on June 04, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
Post by: hunterrcc on June 04, 2014, 04:13:41 PM
Someone explain to me what good this guy did by doing this. :dunno:
He showed how uneducated our officers are and how they like to push that badge around. I would have stood my ground and not been pushed out the door is all I have to say... That *censored* needs to be fired. It is his job to service the public and his attitude showed why he should not have the badge. I enjoy my freedom and it did come free and we better start standing up and educating people about the laws. He did nothing wrong here he just showed them that they were wrong and not following the law. They should have been asking what rcw and then writing it down and checking to see if he was correct and if not they should have showed him which RCW stated he should put it in the car. They were your typical attitude from LEO. Not all but too many these days.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 04, 2014, 04:15:54 PM
Yeah pick your battles, he went there to start something. Just listen to the way he talks to the officers, no respect whatsoever, condescending, and acting like he is in a debate on Fox News. When has preaching laws to a cop ever gotten anyone anywhere, save it for the court room.
So he went in there and asked to check his gun in exactly how the law states and he was there to start something? And if (big if seems he followed the law to a letter) he didn't show much respect or was condescending, God forgive! Why should he? He was the one trying to follow the law, what respect is due to those that don't and in the process try to turn the guy that is into a villain? The brave folks that founded this country did because the place they came from treated people like that. But you seem to be ok with that and say what he should have done because it has no effect on your life today. Tomorrow it might, you may be innocent and completely in the right and have and issue where people go above the law and you find yourself in a mess. Do you want us to say you should have just bowed out and let them not follow the laws and harm your life? Think about that for a bit before you say others should bow out of their rights because it may be easier at the time.
If he hadn't been acting like little know it all I bet the cops would have figured something out to alleviate the situation. You immediately go on the attack, the situation breaks down. And since when does anyone like jury duty that much?!?!?!
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 04:25:37 PM
Again I ask though what did he accomplish. We already know cops either don't know or don't care about the laws. This isn't news. I'll tell you what hw really accomplished.....he gave more ammo to those who want to take away our guns.Someone explain to me what good this guy did by doing this. :dunno:
He showed how uneducated our officers are and how they like to push that badge around. I would have stood my ground and not been pushed out the door is all I have to say... That *censored* needs to be fired. It is his job to service the public and his attitude showed why he should not have the badge. I enjoy my freedom and it did come free and we better start standing up and educating people about the laws. He did nothing wrong here he just showed them that they were wrong and not following the law. They should have been asking what rcw and then writing it down and checking to see if he was correct and if not they should have showed him which RCW stated he should put it in the car. They were your typical attitude from LEO. Not all but too many these days.
Post by: Special T on June 04, 2014, 04:38:29 PM
This man May be arrogant, he MAY have "Instigated" it to some degree. The fact still remains that what he did was legal, and should not have been treated poorly. Perhaps it would have been better to show the video to a judge or a superior than displaying for the world to see... IF nothing had been done then perhaps that step should be taken.
Granted i have only read the article and not seen the video yet.
Post by: hunterrcc on June 04, 2014, 04:41:09 PM
Then I called the Jail director who just gave me attitude when I asked them about the whole thing. I told them I am a concerned citizen that found at least what I saw on video "which is only one side" very unprofessional no matter what the circumstances are and that I was concerned that your officers don't know what their job title is "public servant" which means they should know the laws and if someone bring it to their attention that they are wrong they should look into it right away and not bully him out the door. Was told we are looking into it I am hanging up! Then I asked what you were looking into? They said I am hanging up click! They are your typical attitude "I am better then you" SO all you people that don't like your rights keep saying pick your battles while there will be a point when your chosen battle will be long too late to matter!!!!
Call the Director of the jail: 509 667 6462 hit option 7 ask for the county jail director. Tell them how you feel as a citizen of the State and how their officer treated the public.
Post by: turkeyfeather on June 04, 2014, 04:48:53 PM
so since this last post I have called and talked to the court house judge who gave me the same attitude the kid got about the lock box. They were very pissy about it told me to mind my business and that I don't know what I am talking about and to call the Jail Director the officer have nothing to do with the court house.I commend you. :tup: That's how this should have been done in the first place.
Then I called the Jail director who just gave me attitude when I asked them about the whole thing. I told them I am a concerned citizen that found at least what I saw on video "which is only one side" very unprofessional no matter what the circumstances are and that I was concerned that your officers don't know what their job title is "public servant" which means they should know the laws and if someone bring it to their attention that they are wrong they should look into it right away and not bully him out the door. Was told we are looking into it I am hanging up! Then I asked what you were looking into? They said I am hanging up click! They are your typical attitude "I am better then you" SO all you people that don't like your rights keep saying pick your battles while there will be a point when your chosen battle will be long too late to matter!!!!
Call the Director of the jail: 509 667 6462 hit option 7 ask for the county jail director. Tell them how you feel as a citizen of the State and how their officer treated the public.
Post by: HawkCreek on June 04, 2014, 04:56:09 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 04:59:44 PM
WOW!! I am torn on this though. The kid is right that ignorance is not an excuse. And this once again clearly shows that our law enforcement truly knows very little about the law, but know more about being bullies. However, that being said this kid clearly did this to instigate a confrontation which I find a little immature and a poor representation of gun owners.
I see that very differently if what I just read is accurate. He seemed like a very good gun owner to me? He understood the laws and his rights within the laws better than most. I find nothing immature about that. And from what I did read he sought out no confrontation at all, it came to him. I guess he could have just walked away and avoid the confrontation like most would. That is exactly how our rights are evaporating right in front of our faces. People from the highest place in government down to law enforcement seem to think they can impose their will on the people now without any regards to the law. And the biggest problem hurting us now is they get away with that behavior more often than not.
Right on .
We went through this in Skagit County. It was a open carry who took them on and won. Also at the Fair Grounds where they had no firearm signs posted.
The Skagit Proscuter made them remove the signs.
They know the law they just do not like it.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:03:21 PM
The last time I reported for jury duty at the Chelan County courthouse, my little pocket knife was confiscated at check in, and was told that I could get my "weapon" back at the end of the trial from the County Clerk's office. It didn't seem to matter that I went all through school with a jacknife in my pocket, and never once did it occur to me that I could stab someone with it! My immediate thought was: "So, I'm trustworthy enough to serve on a jury, but I'm not trustworthy enough to have a tiny jacknife in my pocket!" I will never report for jury duty again. They can arrest me and put me in jail, I don't care.... :bash:
Please note that there is no protection under state law that I know of for knives.
Firearms right are specifically protected under are state law and State constitution.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:10:13 PM
I didn't notice any action on the part of the juror to instigate anything. He showed up for jury duty with a legally carried firearm and requested storage of that firearm. The law is designed specifically for this. How is that instigating anything? This is way different than walking into an IHOP with a bazooka just to prove a point. I'll be bringing my firearm to the courthouse when I need to go. :dunno:He went in there with video camera in hand already knowing they were not prepared to handle the situation. That is in my opinion clearly instigating a confrontation.
He had a cell phone like almost every one else does. He was smart enough to use it when the people that were supposed to enforce the laws were not. That is not instigating a confrontation. That is getting somebody that will not respect the law on record. And a very good thing.
So if I get pulled ever this afternoon for doing five over and the cop informs me he is going to search my car without a valid reason and I refuse, I am clearly instigating a confrontation? And you will say that's different but its not. It is somebody that is in the position to uphold the law, not following the law.
I do believe most people that are in a LEO position are good people, or at least start out that way. In the last decade things have chanced in the culture of LEO's. I understand the reasoning to stretch the truth in a report to help make sure a bad guy gets his due. Unfortunately those small stretches of the truth that used to happen have turned into many in enforcement flat out lying on a regular basis over time. And for the most part there has been nothing to stop these actions. If things continue on this pace unchecked we will all lived in a total policed state before we know it.
Well said Cboom
Many many LEo need more training in regard to this states laws. Open Carriers run into this all the time.
I have a hard time understanding how this gets missed in training.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Unless I had a secure gun safe in my car, there is no way I'd want to leave it there 'locked up'. Stuff is stolen out of cars all the time. Why would I risk that when the court is required to provide a lock box for you?
Exactly! But sadly even on a hunting forum many in this state lean real lib. They will say they don't, especially on the issues that have a direct effect on their lives. They are real quick to say others should bow to the man and make excuses for the man when he is legally in the wrong. Everybody claims they want the freedoms our forefathers tried to protect for us. Problem is most only want the freedoms they want, and could care less when freedoms that aren't important to them are taken away. And they don't have the foresight to see theirs is next.
Geez we are holding hand on this one. If you ever see my avTar out and about tap me on the shoulder because I am buying. :yeah:
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:26:45 PM
so since this last post I have called and talked to the court house judge who gave me the same attitude the kid got about the lock box. They were very pissy about it told me to mind my business and that I don't know what I am talking about and to call the Jail Director the officer have nothing to do with the court house.
Then I called the Jail director who just gave me attitude when I asked them about the whole thing. I told them I am a concerned citizen that found at least what I saw on video "which is only one side" very unprofessional no matter what the circumstances are and that I was concerned that your officers don't know what their job title is "public servant" which means they should know the laws and if someone bring it to their attention that they are wrong they should look into it right away and not bully him out the door. Was told we are looking into it I am hanging up! Then I asked what you were looking into? They said I am hanging up click! They are your typical attitude "I am better then you" SO all you people that don't like your rights keep saying pick your battles while there will be a point when your chosen battle will be long too late to matter!!!!
Call the Director of the jail: 509 667 6462 hit option 7 ask for the county jail director. Tell them how you feel as a citizen of the State and how their officer treated the public.
Folks I have been down this road. You are calling the wrong people.
Call the Prosecuting Attorney for Chelan County.
If he is as dumb as the others call the Washington Attorney General.
Geez this has been hashed out for years hard to believe there are still problems.
Post by: Special T on June 04, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
:tup:
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:40:55 PM
What more do you need?
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 05:43:54 PM
Since you seem well versed in the history on the subject Ghost, perhaps you can share some insight as to the right track or direct us to well written information already published on the subject.
:tup:
Here you go. This ship has already sailed.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?112987-Courts-encounters-with-locking-up-pistols-while-visiting (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?112987-Courts-encounters-with-locking-up-pistols-while-visiting)
Post by: Special T on June 04, 2014, 05:44:21 PM
Or is it just a call to the Prosecuting office and filing a complaint and or following up withthe State office if nothing is done... Dunno just figured you might enlighten us a little...
Cool Thx
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Post by: HawkCreek on June 04, 2014, 06:09:17 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...
Can you link to the ruling that you can't record police/public servants? I was under the impression that it's been ruled legal.
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 06:11:50 PM
1. The kid was wrong in insisting on recording, after he was told he did not have permission. As I said earlier, unlike Still Photography, permission is needed to record video or voice.
2. The officer definitely allowed his emotions to get the better of him, failing to handle this confrontation as well as he should have.
3. The kid was absolutely right about a lock box, OR an officer, being required to secure his handgun. HOWEVER, as soon as the officer asked the kid to show him that RCW, the kid should have, even though the officer should have already been familiar with it. Instead, the kid continued to argue and push, doing so for the sole purpose of making a spectacle of himself and this officer.
4. In the officer's defense, it doesn't sound like this officer regularly worked in the court house, but in a jail. Most officers are more familiar with laws that directly pertain to their daily job than to laws that don't. No officer can be expected to know ALL of the RCWs.
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 06:15:30 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...
Can you link to the ruling that you can't record police/public servants? I was under the impression that it's been ruled legal.
Yes I will find it. In essence, Washington state is a 2 Party state, actually an ALL party state. Anyone who's voice, or recognizable appearance may be recorded, has to be notified AND give consent.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
There is a lot more to the story to be read in his comments on Youtube.
http://youtu.be/pR4KrhpGDlc (http://youtu.be/pR4KrhpGDlc)
Juror thrown out for asking Chelan County to provide lawfully mandated lockboxes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4KrhpGDlc#ws)
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 06:29:28 PM
Post by: pat2bear on June 04, 2014, 06:35:44 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...I may be wrong but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I know that at my work I have the ability to record conversations for record. (Even though I've never had to do it) But I believe the all party consent can can satisfied if announce to the other party that I will be recording the conversation before and after I start recording.
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 06:46:10 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...I may be wrong but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I know that at my work I have the ability to record conversations for record. (Even though I've never had to do it) But I believe the all party consent can can satisfied if announce to the other party that I will be recording the conversation before and after I start recording.
Announcing to the other parties does not constitute consent. They have to actually consent, in any "2 Party Consent State." In other words, if they tell you, "you do not have permission to record this conversation," you either have to stop recording, or hang up.
However, I'm finding conflicting information, when it comes to public servants. That WAS the law, even with public servants. However, I'm finding information that that MAY have been over-turned, by the Ninth Circuit Court, only when it comes to public servants.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on June 04, 2014, 07:05:56 PM
Post by: hoyt2002 on June 04, 2014, 07:08:14 PM
Post by: XDsubcompact on June 04, 2014, 07:30:14 PM
First of all, I didn't "walk in with a camera in hand", this was my 3rd time up to the security point after being blown off by the security officer. Before I ever started recording I had spent about half an hour walking around asking different county employees including some Sheriff's Deputies about lock boxes and where they could be found to no avail. You'll notice in the very beginning of the video the officer immediately says "Now there are lots of people here to talk to" because he had apparently grabbed backup after I left the second time. When I showed up for jury duty, this wasn't even a thought in the back of my mind. I used to work as a corrections officer and as a clerical staff employee at Yakima County so I knew full well that lock boxes should be available, and I fully expected them to be there. I never wanted a confrontation or planned for one. It wasn't until after I was met with resistance and attitude that I decided to record, both to protect myself legally from lies they could tell, and to record their legal position regarding lock boxes. If I wasn't recording, we all know they could easily make stuff up and have me charged with disorderly conduct or worse.
Second, this is pretty easy to understand. I didn't want to leave my pistol locked in my truck all day long because someone could break in and steal it, and even use it in a crime. Not something I want to happen. I've had my car broken into in much nicer areas than this before. That was absolutely not an option.
Someone said they might have thought of a solution if I was nicer. Nope, sorry. Like I said, I spent half an hour trying to figure out a solution and nobody was willing to help. And for the record, BEFORE I posted this video I spoke with the County Jail supervisors, the Sheriff's office and the lead deputy that's in charge of campus security for the entire courthouse. Every time I was talked down to, ignored and they denied their responsibility to follow state law. I was getting nowhere whiteout this being made public.
The subject of their paid lockers was brought up. Yes, they have lockers that you can pay for but those don't even remotely meet the requirements of the law. First of all, they're not very secure. They could be picked up and carried off if someone really wanted them. Second, they must be "provided" according to the law, and you don't pay for something that's provided. Not only that, but I had no access to them because I had no change at all. I'm sure I'm not the only person that din't have 2 quarters in their pocket when they went into the courthouse. This is clearly a violation of the INTENT of the law. Third, I specifically asked the lead Deputy (Deputy Elgin Shaw) if the county assumes any responsibility for or liability for theft or negligent damage to weapons placed in the pay lockers and he told me that the county absolutely does not take ANY responsibility whatsoever, and he even proceeded to tell me that I could be held accountable if a weapon was stolen from those lockers because it states on my concealed pistol license that I am responsible for securing it. So not only did he say the county was not responsible, he went a step further and placed any blame for theft or negligent damage on me, despite the fact that state law says the opposite. So clearly in 3 separate ways those lockers don't qualify as lockboxes that the state mandates.
I think I hit most of the areas I was wanting to respond to.
Post by: turbo on June 04, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on June 04, 2014, 07:43:51 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 07:52:57 PM
As much as I've attempted to keep up on photography/videography laws, it appears I may not have kept up as much as I should have. Actually, it does appear that the 2 Party Consent law, in Washington state, when regarding public officials, may have actually been over-turned by the Ninth Circuit Court. This would mean it is legal, even without consent, as long as you are not interfering with duty. I'm going to keep researching this because I'm reading conflicting information...
You are correct . This has been all over the news in Seattle with Seattle Pd telling folks they have to stop recording them. Seattle has been on the news several times retracting.
As long as you are not interfering with the officers doing their duty you can record both voice and video while they are acting as a public servant. As I understand it.
Post by: dscubame on June 04, 2014, 07:56:59 PM
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 08:05:20 PM
Spokane police are going to start wearing video recorders, business owners have video recorders all over the state. Residential home security cameras have video recorders. Downtown cities have video recorders throughout the city. Not sure what all this talk is about with permission and being video recorded. I don't think I could drive to downtown Spokane without showing up on at least a few video recordings.
The law specifically pertains to the recording of Voice. Just as the officer kept saying, "you do not have permission to record my voice." Had the portion of the law pertaining to Public Servants not been overturned, that officer would have been correct. In other instances, all of those video recordings you've mentioned, none of them are legally allowed to record audio. Video is allowed, in some instances, audio recording is not allowed. In other video recordings that you've mentioned, sometimes they actually are not legal, other times, private property rights allows their use, as long as they do not record anywhere that is not included in that private property. In any event, except on private property, audio recording is not allowed at all. Even in jails, signs have to be posted in the visitor areas, explicitly stating that audio recorders are in place, IF they are in fact in use. That's actually one of the only areas where audio recording, without consent, is allowed.
Post by: dscubame on June 04, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
Spokane police are going to start wearing video recorders, business owners have video recorders all over the state. Residential home security cameras have video recorders. Downtown cities have video recorders throughout the city. Not sure what all this talk is about with permission and being video recorded. I don't think I could drive to downtown Spokane without showing up on at least a few video recordings.
The law specifically pertains to the recording of Voice. Just as the officer kept saying, "you do not have permission to record my voice." Had the portion of the law pertaining to Public Servants not been overturned, that officer would have been correct. In other instances, all of those video recordings you've mentioned, none of them are legally allowed to record audio. Video is allowed, in some instances, audio recording is not allowed. In other video recordings that you've mentioned, sometimes they actually are not legal, other times, private property rights allows their use, as long as they do not record anywhere that is not included in that private property. In any event, except on private property, audio recording is not allowed at all. Even in jails, signs have to be posted in the visitor areas, explicitly stating that audio recorders are in place, IF they are in fact in use. That's actually one of the only areas where audio recording, without consent, is allowed.
Copy that.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
Perhaps how it was effectively fought in other counties that pulled this crap...
Or is it just a call to the Prosecuting office and filing a complaint and or following up withthe State office if nothing is done... Dunno just figured you might enlighten us a little...
Cool Thx
The three I know about were all handled through the prosecutors office. Since in many counties the prosecutor is the legal adviser for the county commissioners.
A call to the Skagit County Prosecutor solved both the lock box problem and fair sign problem.
Some open carriers have attended county commissioner meeting in other counties to inform them of their non compliance and have got change.
It is really cut and dried in this state. They have to provide lock boxes. Period.
On going along this line but a little off topic is signs in public parks saying No Firearms.
Totally against state law. Many have been changed but many still need to be changed.
They should read No Discharge of Firearms except for self Defense. Or something like that.
But prohibiting Firearms
in Public Parks against state law.
Sorry off topic.
Yeah Seattle tried and were shot down in court.
Post by: pat2bear on June 04, 2014, 09:25:46 PM
Like I said I may be wrong but RCW reads like you don't need consent. This is what I found.I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...I may be wrong but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I know that at my work I have the ability to record conversations for record. (Even though I've never had to do it) But I believe the all party consent can can satisfied if announce to the other party that I will be recording the conversation before and after I start recording.
Announcing to the other parties does not constitute consent. They have to actually consent, in any "2 Party Consent State." In other words, if they tell you, "you do not have permission to record this conversation," you either have to stop recording, or hang up.
However, I'm finding conflicting information, when it comes to public servants. That WAS the law, even with public servants. However, I'm finding information that that MAY have been over-turned, by the Ninth Circuit Court, only when it comes to public servants.
In Washington, you can satisfy the consent requirement by "announc[ing] to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted," so long as this announcement is also recorded. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(3).
I would think since you've now satisfied your obligation then it is now their choice to either be recorded or end the conversation.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 09:37:55 PM
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?122352-Juror-refused-right-to-be-a-jury-over-asking-about-lock-box&p=2066363#post2066363 (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?122352-Juror-refused-right-to-be-a-jury-over-asking-about-lock-box&p=2066363#post2066363)
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 09:46:19 PM
Post by: pat2bear on June 04, 2014, 10:01:12 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 04, 2014, 10:07:25 PM
http://www.wolfstonelaw.com/kyreacos.html (http://www.wolfstonelaw.com/kyreacos.html)
Post by: Stretch_8 on June 04, 2014, 10:28:56 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...
Public officials have no expectations of privacy while performing their duties. Too tired to link to all of the various rulings in WA alone.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Post by: returnofsid on June 04, 2014, 10:58:17 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...
Public officials have no expectations of privacy while performing their duties. Too tired to link to all of the various rulings in WA alone.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Laws relating to Still Photography hinge on an "reasonable expectation of privacy," whether Public Official or Not. "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with the laws relating to Videography or Audio Recording. Most laws relating to Audio Recording actually fall under Wiretapping rules.
Post by: Stretch_8 on June 04, 2014, 11:15:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber)
http://www.aclu-il.org/aclu-v-alvarez22/ (http://www.aclu-il.org/aclu-v-alvarez22/)
Post by: Dan-o on June 04, 2014, 11:36:57 PM
Thanks for posting your side.
I lot of guys on here jumping to conclusion, as usual.
I appreciate you standing up.
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on June 05, 2014, 12:19:41 AM
Post by: XDsubcompact on June 05, 2014, 08:40:15 AM
XDSub,
Thanks for posting your side.
I lot of guys on here jumping to conclusion, as usual.
I appreciate you standing up.
I appreciate the support from you and others, kinda sad that some people hold the government to a lower standard when it should be the exact opposite.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 05, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
Don't let it lay until you get satisfaction.
Lots of good info on the open carry thread about your encounter.
:tup:
Post by: Jeff Hayes on June 05, 2014, 01:06:55 PM
I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here. So far, he's already completely WRONG! The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography. Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions. HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required! Back to the video...
Public officials have no expectations of privacy while performing their duties. Too tired to link to all of the various rulings in WA alone.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Laws relating to Still Photography hinge on an "reasonable expectation of privacy," whether Public Official or Not. "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with the laws relating to Videography or Audio Recording. Most laws relating to Audio Recording actually fall under Wiretapping rules.
Please read Flora v State, you are completely wrong on recording in public.
Anyone can record anyone else in a public place as long as the person being recorder does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if this were not true every soccer mom recording a soccer game would be breaking the law every time they fired up a video camera. Now if someone seeks privacy that is another matter such as takes someone off to the side and lowers their voice that would then be a private conversation and off limits to recording without announcing recording was in process. Also I do not believe that one has to get permission all one has to do is inform every one resent that the conversation is being recorded, read the RCW, At that point that person can decide to stop talking or leave
As far as public officials go cops included while in the performance of their official duties they do not have an expectation of privacy the Flora case spells it out clearly.
Post by: Jeff Hayes on June 05, 2014, 01:15:22 PM
XDSub,
Thanks for posting your side.
I lot of guys on here jumping to conclusion, as usual.
I appreciate you standing up.
I appreciate the support from you and others, kinda sad that some people hold the government to a lower standard when it should be the exact opposite.
Over at open carry we give the brass balls award to people like you that stand their ground like you did the other day. I would like to send you your set. This puts you in a very small group of about 10 people that have been given this award over the last 3 years. PM sent for the info to send you your set. Thanks for standing up for all of us.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2014, 01:39:55 PM
Hey everyone, stumbled upon this and figured I'd jump in to address a couple wrong things I've read. I was the guy that made the video.
First of all, I didn't "walk in with a camera in hand", this was my 3rd time up to the security point after being blown off by the security officer. Before I ever started recording I had spent about half an hour walking around asking different county employees including some Sheriff's Deputies about lock boxes and where they could be found to no avail. You'll notice in the very beginning of the video the officer immediately says "Now there are lots of people here to talk to" because he had apparently grabbed backup after I left the second time. When I showed up for jury duty, this wasn't even a thought in the back of my mind. I used to work as a corrections officer and as a clerical staff employee at Yakima County so I knew full well that lock boxes should be available, and I fully expected them to be there. I never wanted a confrontation or planned for one. It wasn't until after I was met with resistance and attitude that I decided to record, both to protect myself legally from lies they could tell, and to record their legal position regarding lock boxes. If I wasn't recording, we all know they could easily make stuff up and have me charged with disorderly conduct or worse.
Second, this is pretty easy to understand. I didn't want to leave my pistol locked in my truck all day long because someone could break in and steal it, and even use it in a crime. Not something I want to happen. I've had my car broken into in much nicer areas than this before. That was absolutely not an option.
Someone said they might have thought of a solution if I was nicer. Nope, sorry. Like I said, I spent half an hour trying to figure out a solution and nobody was willing to help. And for the record, BEFORE I posted this video I spoke with the County Jail supervisors, the Sheriff's office and the lead deputy that's in charge of campus security for the entire courthouse. Every time I was talked down to, ignored and they denied their responsibility to follow state law. I was getting nowhere whiteout this being made public.
The subject of their paid lockers was brought up. Yes, they have lockers that you can pay for but those don't even remotely meet the requirements of the law. First of all, they're not very secure. They could be picked up and carried off if someone really wanted them. Second, they must be "provided" according to the law, and you don't pay for something that's provided. Not only that, but I had no access to them because I had no change at all. I'm sure I'm not the only person that din't have 2 quarters in their pocket when they went into the courthouse. This is clearly a violation of the INTENT of the law. Third, I specifically asked the lead Deputy (Deputy Elgin Shaw) if the county assumes any responsibility for or liability for theft or negligent damage to weapons placed in the pay lockers and he told me that the county absolutely does not take ANY responsibility whatsoever, and he even proceeded to tell me that I could be held accountable if a weapon was stolen from those lockers because it states on my concealed pistol license that I am responsible for securing it. So not only did he say the county was not responsible, he went a step further and placed any blame for theft or negligent damage on me, despite the fact that state law says the opposite. So clearly in 3 separate ways those lockers don't qualify as lockboxes that the state mandates.
I think I hit most of the areas I was wanting to respond to.
Thanks for coming in to clear this up. Much as I suspected. You're a good citizen.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on June 05, 2014, 10:12:00 PM
I guess that is the kind of crap they came here to get away from! :tup:
Post by: chukarguy on June 05, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
Post by: floatinghat on June 06, 2014, 11:16:04 AM
Especially if you were only trying to serve jury duty (good on you).
If there are lockers as CG says, sounds like some simple education is needed.
Post by: ballpark on June 06, 2014, 11:43:34 AM
I wonder if your jury duty counted :tup: