• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Mad at myself and the snohomish county sheriff's

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
You know what I thought just today, How do we know that someone is uniform is really who they say they are? I know, It's off base, but there's been reports of Criminals disguised as Authority Figures and they use that tactic to burglarize People's homes, and in some cases, commit other horrendous crimes (Assault, Rape, Murder, Etc.).

So that's why I think it may be a good idea to have a barrier between yourself and someone outside the door. Or at the very least, a Chain so the door only opens a few inches.

Now don't anyone ridicule me, but it was just a thought that entered my head and decided to share it.

"Bzzzz. Bzzzzz"

"Who's there (while observing on LCD video screen)"

"It's Snohomish County Sheriff's Department" (or any other law enforcement agency)

"Please State Your Name and hold out your ID and show it toward the speaker"

(officer complies)

"Please State Your Business"

At that point you have a choice to open up or say "I have nothing to say".

Let them return with a warrant if they feel they have a legitimate reason.

As for pointing a gun at a LEO who's on your front porch, even if he's in the wrong the only ones who'll be able to make that case will most likely be your heirs.
 
Last edited:

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
"Bzzzz. Bzzzzz"

"Who's there (while observing on LCD video screen)"

"It's Snohomish County Sheriff's Department" (or any other law enforcement agency)

"Please State Your Name and hold out your ID and show it toward the speaker"

(officer complies)

"Please State Your Business"

At that point you have a choice to open up or say "I have nothing to say".

Let them return with a warrant if they feel they have a legitimate reason.

~~ snip

So far IMHO this is the best response I have seen.
The OP did not state if there had been any house-guestss at any time that evening, but if there had not been, and if I were in the OPs situation, I might tell them: I live & have been alone all evening and only have one more thing to say.. Good Night.

By telling them you live and have been alone all evening, you have stated something that should help to preclude their getting a warrant and returning to disturb you further as it completely negates any PC they may have had.
Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
So far IMHO this is the best response I have seen.
The OP did not state if there had been any house-guestss at any time that evening, but if there had not been, and if I were in the OPs situation, I might tell them: I live & have been alone all evening and only have one more thing to say.. Good Night.

By telling them you live and have been alone all evening, you have stated something that should help to preclude their getting a warrant and returning to disturb you further as it completely negates any PC they may have had.
Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.


Let's look at it another way. If you tell "them you live and have been alone all evening." You now have admitted to having no alibi. This will be used against you.

Remember they can only try to use that statement against you if they can show or prove that you were not telling the truth.

No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.

A statement can sound perfectly innocent to the person who said it, and yet either sound incriminating or hold the potential to be made to sound incriminating to others.

Plus, lying to police will get you in legal trouble. Either directly (lying to a federal agent is a crime) or indirectly (pattern of evasive behavior). You might simply be misremembering, but as far as the police and courts are concerned, any false statement is a deliberate lie.
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.
A statement can sound perfectly innocent to the person who said it, and yet either sound incriminating or hold the potential to be made to sound incriminating to others.

Plus, lying to police will get you in legal trouble. Either directly (lying to a federal agent is a crime) or indirectly (pattern of evasive behavior). You might simply be misremembering, but as far as the police and courts are concerned, any false statement is a deliberate lie.

Saying something that one knows to be true is different than saying something that one only believes to be true.

Yes, it is every persons right to refuse to discuss anything with the police without an attorney who is representing themselves present. Please keep in mind that an omission of the truth can be construed as being as much of a lie, as lying itself.

By intentionally avoiding any response in the OPs case and not communicating with the police at all, a risk is taken that the police will simply take the omission as an indication of guilt and camp-out on his doorstep until a Warrant is obtained in which case considering the lack of cooperation, the door will most likely be busted in and then when they find that there was no evidence of any wrong doing, the occupant has little chance of winning a suit filed against the City/County or other LEA for damages and most insurance policies will not pay if they find it was the result of the policy owners negligence. Had the statement been given as I suggested above and the same scenario occurred, it is more likely that a law suit against the LEA involved would yield positive results for monetary and emotional damages, because the LEO's can not say that the occupant was completely unresponsive. IMHO nothing is worse in the eyes of most Juries than to be shown in court as being arrogant and completely uncooperative with the police.

This is of course subjective and each and every case/situation will be different, it does not change that we each have to think about the possible outcomes of our actions before we act, or know that we will fully accept the responsibility for any variant result that may occur. I am not suggesting that we should blindly answer all their questions or that we should not inform them that we do not consent to unlawful searches, seizures or questioning and that we not question their motives in return. But as I said, each situation will be different.

So, if that means that we sit with a Lawyer and go over multiple seanarios till we have a better than average grasp of how each action's paths can lead to multiple possible results and how best to handle each of them, then we should and hopefully we will at least learn how best to be seen as not refusing to cooperate while limiting our statements to be concise and nothing but the truth.

No, IANAL, but I have done as I suggested above and when I have a chance to do it again.. I will and again if need be, till I feel I have covered all possible scenarios.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
There are six major exceptions to the warrant requirement.
[snip]

[6. Emergencies/Exigent Circumstances/Hot Pursuit
The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.

EXAMPLE: While running from police, Fred enters Joe’s garage and the police follow Fred in. (They are not required to give up pursuit until such time as they can obtain a search warrant for the premises.) While in Joe's garage, police notice illegal drugs in plain view. They can arrest Fred for his crimes, and they can also seize the drugs and arrest Joe for possession of the drugs, even though Joe had nothing to do with Fred and the police were in Joe’s garage only because of the hot pursuit of Fred!

I generally agree with Fallschirmjäger's cut-and-paste of the warrant exceptions. However, here in Washington, our constitutional protections are significantly greater than 4Am protections. Unless in hot pursuit of a felon, LE must get a warrant to enter, search and seize in order for the invasion to hold up under judicial scrutiny. Misdemeanors and Gross Misdemeanors do not provide a legal vehicle for entry without a warrant (unless a firearm has been brandished). The legal theory is that the person sought can be "secured" in the house until a warrant is obtained. The firearm exception exists only if the firearm was brandished or used in the commission of a crime. Even it LE is seeking to take a known felon into custody (not in hot pursuit), in most cases, a warrant is nevertheless required in Washington.

Curiously enough, the poster's comment that firearm display is protected by RCW 9.41.270 has more merit than one would think at first blush. Technically, the way I read the statute, you can be standing in your living room, looking out the front door and swing a pistol or long gun in circles over your head calling LEO's all kind of nasty things you want without incurring culpability. The "abode or fixed place of business" protection is remarkably strong in Washington. My research did not yield a single case where the unlawful display statute was not upheld when the brandishing occurred in the abode or fixed place of business. That said, the observation that the prevailing parties in any claim against LEA would probably (no... in Seattle, d*amned likely!) be your heirs.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Let's look at it another way. If you tell "them you live and have been alone all evening." You now have admitted to having no alibi. This will be used against you.
Uh....ya wanna rethink this one?

You state to the cop that you are alone in your own home/apt AND have been alone in your own home/apt ALL evening.

How on earth does this translate to you not having a alibi (do you need an alibi)....for a domestic violence call to your own home/apt?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Uh....ya wanna rethink this one?

You state to the cop that you are alone in your own home/apt AND have been alone in your own home/apt ALL evening.

How on earth does this translate to you not having a alibi (do you need an alibi)....for a domestic violence call to your own home/apt?

Because cops will lie to you , they tell you it is about a DV but maybe its about a robbery that happened around the corner?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Because cops will lie to you , they tell you it is about a DV but maybe its about a robbery that happened around the corner?
It does not matter if the cop lies or not. You state that you are alone. The cop(s) needs to prove to a PA/DA and then a judge that you lied about being alone and at home, at the same time.

If you are not witnessed as having been out of your home then your alibi is that your statement is the truth....you were home, alone.

You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride.

Storm doors are your friend.

DV call? Really officer? How odd, I've been home alone all evening....alone.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
An alibi is a judicial mode of defense under which a defendant proves or attempts to prove that he/she was in another place when a crime was committed; as, to set up an alibi; to prove an alibi. The Criminal Law Deskbook of Criminal Procedure [1] states: "Alibi is different from all of the other defenses; it is based upon the premise that the defendant is truly innocent." In the Latin language alibī means "somewhere else."

from Wikipedia. An alibi is not a bad thing
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
An alibi is a judicial mode of defense under which a defendant proves or attempts to prove that he/she was in another place when a crime was committed; as, to set up an alibi; to prove an alibi. The Criminal Law Deskbook of Criminal Procedure [1] states: "Alibi is different from all of the other defenses; it is based upon the premise that the defendant is truly innocent." In the Latin language alibī means "somewhere else."

from Wikipedia. An alibi is not a bad thing

Yes, an alibi is not a bad thing. But it still remains that the burden of proof is on the "State" to PROVE that you committed any crime you were charged with.

If someone claims they were "home alone" then THAT is their alibi. Now the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren't. When it's a lie, it's not all that hard to prove.
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Because cops will lie to you , they tell you it is about a DV but maybe its about a robbery that happened around the corner?

It has been upheld in court that the police may lie when undercover and to some extent during official questioning to extract a confession. However, it is my understanding that in all other cases they are supposed to maintain integrity and not lie.
 
Last edited:

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Yes, an alibi is not a bad thing. But it still remains that the burden of proof is on the "State" to PROVE that you committed any crime you were charged with.

If someone claims they were "home alone" then THAT is their alibi. Now the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren't. When it's a lie, it's not all that hard to prove.

I would agree with most of this. Where I do not is that it is not the "Home Alone" portion that the DA/PA has to prove but that you were "home NOT alone" in the case of a DV call.

In the case of a DV report supposedly at ones residence, even a truthful statement of being there all evening is to a degree an admission of having been at the scene of the suspected crime. A truthful statement of "Home Alone" now puts the onus (burden or obligation of proof) squarely on the legal system, if they are going to proceed.
 
Top