Post by: ghosthunter on January 24, 2016, 05:09:34 PM
Looks like the tax payers are out some money.
http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/fishermen-turned-medical-students-settle-civil-rights-case-against-washington
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2016, 05:23:48 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 24, 2016, 05:33:56 PM
Thanks for the update. I was meaning to ask in the UCwarden thread about the status here....and why in the world Cenci wasn't on 'vacation' until the verdict. Maybe he'll get the permanent vacation now.
:tup: :tup: Theses guys cannot be Tyrants! Resource or not!!
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2016, 07:15:59 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 07:38:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2016, 07:41:48 PM
Surprised though because we all know you get shot for not complying and everyone on here except a few sides with LEO! :bash: :rolleyes:If that was true then there would thousands of people shot by LEOs everyday. Take your tinfoil hat off
Post by: JJB11B on January 24, 2016, 07:50:16 PM
Post by: cbond3318 on January 24, 2016, 07:52:42 PM
The agency’s admission of wrongdoing is part of a settlement in a lawsuit that has changed agency practices. It stems from a traffic stop nearly nine years ago in rural southwest Washington.
The traffic stop happened on the morning of March 23, 2007. The location was tiny Wahkiakum County across the Columbia River from Astoria. It was captured on video.
Filming from inside a crew cab pickup truck was the Tarabochia family: Father Joe, 20-year old son Matthew, and 17-year old twins Alex and Bryan. Outside the truck were several officers from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. They demanded that the Tarabochias get out of the vehicle. The family refused to budge until the county sheriff or undersheriff showed up.
This roadside standoff followed a morning of fishing on the Columbia. The Tarabochias had a load of salmon the WDFW wanted to inspect. The family had led officers on a slow-speed chase before they were finally boxed in.
Legal fish, illegal stop
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.
It ended when the undersheriff arrived -- someone the Tarabochias trusted. They unlocked the doors to the truck and the officers quickly detained the family.
Driver Matthew Tarabochia and his father Joe were jailed for resisting arrest and obstruction. Those charges were later dismissed. The fish the Tarabochias were transporting that day were all legal.
In 2010 the Tarabochias filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the traffic stop. The family argued the Fish and Wildlife officers had no right to pull them over to do a fish check without reason to believe a crime had been committed. They lost in U.S. District Court, but successfully appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Matthew said the appellate decision on their Fourth Amendment claim was vindicating especially after what the family calls a “campaign of harassment” by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
“No one believes you when you say the police did something unfair to you,” Matthew said. “When you say that people automatically assume you that did something wrong and you’re just trying to cover it up.”
'They know they’re going to be inspected'
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife denies it targeted the Tarabochias. Steve Crown, the current chief of the agency’s law enforcement division, said regular contact with fish police is part and parcel of being a commercial fisherman.
“It is common knowledge amongst commercial fishermen that they’re going to be inspected,” Crown said. “There’s high dollars, high stakes. When you’re engaged in commercial fishing practices you can have huge impacts on a particular species of fish and they know that.”
But Crown said as a result of this case, his officers have ended a longstanding practice of pulling vehicles over on the road for fish checks.
“We’ve told our officers ‘hey, don’t make those kinds of traffic stops unless you have reasonable suspicion to do so,” Crown said.
Officers can still do those checks on the water and at the landing area. The Tarabochias recently settled their lawsuit against the agency for $130,000. In addition to the payment, Fish and Wildlife agreed to acknowledge it violated Matthew and Alex’s rights -- for technical reasons they were the only family members named in the appeal to the 9th Circuit.
'My family’s name is kind of tarnished'
Many years have passed since that roadside standoff in Wahkiakum County. The Fish and Wildlife captain in the video is now a deputy chief. The Tarabochia family is no longer in the fishing business. The boys moved away. Alex doesn’t think he’ll come back.
“I’m not sure I would go home,” he said. “I feel to some extent like my name and my family’s name is kind of tarnished and sort of like there’s a stigma around it to where I’m not sure that I would ever have kind of an even playing field.”
Even though he would be coming home as a doctor. Alex is currently attending medical school at Dartmouth in New Hampshire as a rural health scholar. Matthew also in med school -- at Harvard.
Alex said he always knew he would go into medicine. But Matthew said what happened between his family and the authorities on the Columbia River influenced his decision to leave the fishing business behind.
Post by: JJB11B on January 24, 2016, 07:59:47 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 09:19:14 PM
lol was being a smart butt but you know/knew what I meant.Surprised though because we all know you get shot for not complying and everyone on here except a few sides with LEO! :bash: :rolleyes:If that was true then there would thousands of people shot by LEOs everyday. Take your tinfoil hat off
Post by: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 09:20:48 PM
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on January 24, 2016, 10:02:45 PM
Plus just goes to show you why Terry stops can and should be nullified.
You need to google Terry vs. Ohio. The above situation is not a Terry stop and is a completely different circumstance.
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 12:15:59 AM
I have several times, and if a LEO can just stop you as they did here it would be pretty much the same.Plus just goes to show you why Terry stops can and should be nullified.
You need to google Terry vs. Ohio. The above situation is not a Terry stop and is a completely different circumstance.
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.
Post by: JLS on January 25, 2016, 05:45:54 AM
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 25, 2016, 07:11:54 AM
Post by: REHJWA on January 25, 2016, 07:21:59 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 25, 2016, 07:45:51 AM
It seems to me the same person gets a lot of reference for abusive of power within the WDFW. :dunno:
Yeah
Too bad the Director and the governor don't have the common sense to see it like we do. :bash:
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 07:52:01 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2016, 07:52:42 AM
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?Correct. At the time he was a Captain.QuoteThese 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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2016, 09:14:47 AM
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
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 11:47:32 PM
Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 26, 2016, 11:48:02 AM
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf
Post by: idahohuntr on January 26, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on January 26, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 12:35:06 AM
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.Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 01:04:40 AM
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 01:14:34 AM
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 01:16:51 AM
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.The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock,
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf
but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias’ truck over once
on the highway4 :o 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 8)
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? :dunno:
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
Post by: JLS on January 27, 2016, 07:37:13 AM
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.Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 09:58:15 PM
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.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.Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 10:07:42 PM
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.for the ones who don't' like to look.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/09/11-35837.pdf
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
Post by: JLS on January 27, 2016, 10:39:41 PM
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.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.Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on January 27, 2016, 11:07:09 PM
So.............. I win then.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.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.Seems to me I know exactly what I'm talking about.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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on February 02, 2016, 09:18:39 PM