Detained for CC

[cynicist]

imported post

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:       33027-0-II
Title of Case:       State of Washington, Respondent v. Matthew
Lynn Giles, Appellant
File Date:           05/02/2006


SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Mason County
Docket No:      04-1-00225-7
Judgment or order under review
Date filed:     03/14/2005
Judge signing:  Hon. James B II Sawyer

 

[owlafaye]

imported post

When stopped by the police and asked for identification, do not let them see your concealed permit when getting out your driver's license. Keep mum, unless asked.



I was stopped on the highway for 5 mph overand the officer saw my permit. He asked me if I was armed and I said "yes, I have a .38 special pistol in my right pants pocket." He asked me to get out of the car and let him remove the pistol from my pocket, which he did. He then ran a check on me and gave me my pistol back. I put it in my pocket and we talked guns and BS for awhile and then he let me go without a summons of any sort. He was alone, late at night and I was in my old beat up hunting truck, loaded with elk meat. I guess it was OK...he just didn't want to take any chances until he had checked me and my truck out. I then showed him 3 or 4 other guns I had with me. We were both rather blase' about the whole thing...i guess I relieved the boredom. I am polite and funny, matter-of-fact and straightforward...I never seem to get a ticket.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

hey, thanx for the help finding state v giles, very interesting, if your a car passenger. the fool got himself covicted for guns and drugs because he talked to the cops! this case has nothing to do with a lawfull, CPL, CC, citizen! you shouldnt even see a trial, they have no legal basis for a charge.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

what ever became of this case? ive been waiting for an update!

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

Doesn't that cut into RCW 9.41.270 "warranting alarm" where a reasonable person should not be alarmed at the simple sight of a holstered or (poorly) concealed weapon? Sounds like the courts are creeping up and into position to define this RCW in a manner non-conducive to open carry, or carry period. If the Officers did not have reason to be alarmed, other than his being armed, then what's that say for the statute? Don't we have published cases where it clearly define that simply carrying a weapon is NOT cause for alarm? Shouldn't the police be held to the same standard as you and me? They are human too, and should have to feel the same penalties and punishments as the rest of us for their mistakes. Make LEO accountable. Make the courts accountable. This sounds like political positioning of the courts. Time to petition for removal or reworking of that RCW and force it to be conducive to the law abiding and respectable OC / CC gun owner.

:banghead:Out-f*ing-ragious

Bat.

hey bat, i know this is kinda old, thread wise, but read down in state v spencer. the court affirms spencers' right to carry CC a 45 under his jacket IAW 9.41.270, in a manner that does not warrent alarm in others, a legally concealed weapon would not warrent alarm in a reasonable person. the lawfull appearence and demeaner of the OP would not infer any criminal intent, his sloppy CC is not unlawfull, there was no RAS for arrest or prolonged detainment, but asking to confirm a CPL should have been a reasonable request. no other action would have been legal! try thishttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Spencer.pdf
[align=left]Spencer attempts to distinguish Second Amendment Found. by arguing that the statute in this case constitutes an effective ban on[/align]
[align=left]the right to bear arms in self-defense from past or future aggression. He also argues [***7] that the statute [*123] here is overly[/align]
[align=left]broad because it is unclear which weapons will cause alarm. Thus, he argues, people will decide not to carry any weapon for fear of[/align]
[align=left]prosecution, and the statute will have an undue chilling effect on the constitutional right to bear arms. Furthermore, he argues, the[/align]
[align=left]statute does not promote public safety because "preventing alarm" is an overly ambiguous objective.[/align]
[align=left][4] [5][/align]
[align=left]We do not find these arguments persuasive. First, the statute does not prevent a person from carrying weapons in self-defense.[/align]
[align=left]Weapons may be carried in response to "presently threatened unlawful force by another". RCW 9.41.270(3)(c). If there is no[/align]
[align=left]present threat, weapons must be carried in a manner that does not warrant alarm in others. The statute does not prohibit the [**942][/align]
[align=left]ownership of weapons, and it limits the possession of certain weapons only when they are carried or displayed in a manner and[/align]
[align=left]under circumstances that warrant alarm. Thus, for example, the statute does not prohibit an individual from legally carrying a[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapon such as the .45-caliber pistol Spencer carried under his jacket. We conclude that the statute's restriction on an[/align]
[align=left]individual's [***8][/align]
[align=left]right to bear arms in self-defense is minimal. The statute is narrowly drawn and demonstrates the Legislature's awareness of and[/align]
[align=left]concern with preserving the rights of the individual.[/align]
[align=left]In addition, the statute does not have an undue chilling effect on the right to bear arms. As the Superior Court found, the statute[/align]
[align=left]only prohibits the carrying or displaying of weapons when objective circumstances would warrant alarm in a reasonable person. 4[/align]
[align=left]Thus, the restriction applies only in a limited number of situations. Furthermore, the prohibition is not so vague that it would[/align]
[align=left]prevent persons of common intelligence from ever carrying a weapon on the street. In the vast majority of situations, a person of[/align]
[align=left]common intelligence would be able to ascertain when the carrying [*124] of a particular weapon would reasonably warrant alarm[/align]
[align=left]in others. Although some areas of uncertainty may exist, these potential "gray areas" of the statute are small and do not render it[/align]
unconstitutional. Cf. Maciolek, at 265 (possible areas of disagreement do not render statute unconstitutionally vague). 5

 

[cynicist]

imported post

what ever became of this case? ive been waiting for an update!

Are you talking about my "case" or State v. Giles?

If you are talking about my case; nothing. I talked to the Chief (he called me) and he apologized to the mishap with the license and said pretty much that he was listening to the events on the radio and told them to let me go. He also said that the stop was just something that they have to do considering the circumstances, such as the area.

I'm considering requesting the Departments policies and procedures on what to do when they believe someone is CCing.

If you're talking about Giles, no clue.

state v giles, very interesting, if your a car passenger.

I think this applies to everyone though:

But Officer Crivello had specific statutory authority to ask whether Giles had a permit for his obviously concealed gun. In relevant part, RCW 9.41.050(1) provides:... And once Giles admitted that he had no such permit (in contrast to not having his permit on his person), Officer Crivello had a reasonable suspicion that Giles was committing a crime and, thus, had a basis to briefly detain him to investigate.

RAS did not exist until he has reason to believe he had no permit!

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

cynicist wrote:

what ever became of this case? ive been waiting for an update!

Are you talking about my "case" or State v. Giles?

If you are talking about my case; nothing. I talked to the Chief (he called me) and he apologized to the mishap with the license and said pretty much that he was listening to the events on the radio and told them to let me go. He also said that the stop was just something that they have to do considering the circumstances, such as the area.

I'm considering requesting the Departments policies and procedures on what to do when they believe someone is CCing.

If you're talking about Giles, no clue.

state v giles, very interesting, if your a car passenger.

I think this applies to everyone though:

But Officer Crivello had specific statutory authority to ask whether Giles had a permit for his obviously concealed gun. In relevant part, RCW 9.41.050(1) provides:... And once Giles admitted that he had no such permit (in contrast to not having his permit on his person), Officer Crivello had a reasonable suspicion that Giles was committing a crime and, thus, had a basis to briefly detain him to investigate.

RAS did not exist until he has reason to believe he had no permit!

yes cinicist i was asking about your case, you got royaly screwed!

giles is done, convicted for guns and drugs because he told the cop on himself!

averlino showed his CCd gun in public, and the cop saw him do it, in a no gun area, i think thats RAS to ask for the CPL, it was all down hill from there!

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Spencer.pdf

the gist is that spencer was convicted of illegaly warrenting alarm, for his open carry of an aussalt type rifle. but, and its a big but; the court was very specific in pointing out that the concealed 45 with a CPL that he carried was and is completely legal.

steadying your gun is no more RAS of a crime than steadying your pocket proctor, your hat or your wallet.