Washington Open Carrier Awarded $15k Settlement After Cop Drew Gun on Him

[gejoslin]

Washington Open Carrier Awarded $15k Settlement After Cop Drew Gun on Him

AUGUST 15 2013
BY DAN CANNON
Openly carrying firearms is legal in Washington State, but apparently at least one Bellingham city police officer wasn’t aware of that fact.
According to KIROTV, John Laigaie, a retired military veteran was taking his dogs for a walk in Bloedel-Donovan Park when he was approached by a Bellingham police officer.
The officer challenged Laigaie over his openly carried weapon.
According to Link Removed,

Laigaie knew that Washington is an “open carry” state where it is allowed. He even offered the officer, Allen Bass, a copy of that law when Bass asked for his identification. When Laigaie refused to hand over his ID, he said the officer pulled out his own weapon and pointed it at him. “A couple of times, he had it right in my chest and that was 6, 7 inches from muzzle to flesh,” Laigaie said. Laigaie demanded that the officer put the weapon away. “I wasn’t breaking the law, I was well within the law and he had no right to do that. I don’t like being bullied,” he said.
​

The incident ended when some other residents in the park came over and informed the officer that openly carrying a firearm in the state was, in fact, completely legal.
Laigaie filed a complaint over the incident, and as part of a settlement, was award $15,000.
Officials also plan on training 911 operators and police officers in the area on state gun laws to avoid future incidents.
Maybe this will teach them yo read their OWN STATE LAWS!
Link Removed

 

[leadsender]

Once again we have a law enforcement officer thinking that he is the law. I too live in a state that has open carry. As part of our CPL/CCW class you are taught Open Carry law. They did not say how long that officer had been on the police force. I guess that the city of Bellingham, WA PD will have to pay for this officer's stupidity. The citizen even tried to show him the law. Oh, well.

 

[NavyLCDR]

This is the second incident in Bellingham, WA. After the first incident the city promised to train their officers. Either they failed to train their officers properly, or this particular officer is not trainable and should be fired. John and his wife are currently enjoying riding their new motorcycles that the city helped pay for.

 

[gejoslin]

This is the second incident in Bellingham, WA. After the first incident the city promised to train their officers. Either they failed to train their officers properly, or this particular officer is not trainable and should be fired. John and his wife are currently enjoying riding their new motorcycles that the city helped pay for.

There is a up side to this story! Good on him!

 

[OM44]

Well, I understand most of this post. However, I am confused by the statement that
the citizen refused to hand over his ID. That would seem, at first look, to have
exacerbated the officer's confusion and anger.

I wonder what would have happened had he has simply shown the officer his ID.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well, I understand most of this post. However, I am confused by the statement that
the citizen refused to hand over his ID. That would seem, at first look, to have
exacerbated the officer's confusion and anger.

I wonder what would have happened had he has simply shown the officer his ID.

Why are you confused that John refused to hand over ID? Not required to by law. Why should he do something that he is not required to by law just to appease a police officer demanding it? Where do you draw the line? What if the officer wants to search your vehicle during a traffic stop? Do you just let him so that he won't get upset with you? After all, you have nothing to hide, right? So what's the difference?

One reason to not hand over ID in John's case is that it strengthens his case in court. If he voluntarily provided his ID when the officer asked, that would be more evidence that the encounter was voluntary on John's part. If the court finds the encounter was voluntary on John's part, then the entire case is dismissed, because there can be no rights violation if you give consent to having your rights violated. John would have had to prove in court that a reasonable person would have felt detained by the officer and under compulsion to provide ID.

If John had just shown his ID, the officer probably would just have walked away and nobody would have benefited from anything and the officer would never have received additional training regarding what people's rights are and where his authority ends.

 

[jfisch]

It says he offered the cop a copy of that law. I've always wanted something I could carry on me that has a list of a few of my state's laws regarding OC just in case I was ever badgered by someone. Also a copy of relevant SCOTUS cases like Terry v. Ohio for situations regarding stop and identify situations etc. etc. Does anyone do this? Any suggestions or links to a "pre-made" card?
Then I found this: (I know it's wikipedia but it does link to good sources)
Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This lists a lot of states that have Stop and Identify Statutes... as far as I can tell the LEOs still need reasonable suspicion but I'm not sure if that's the case for all of them. Anyone know about this? I know NavyLCDR knows his gun laws pretty well but any insight into these laws?

 

[NavyLCDR]

It says he offered the cop a copy of that law. I've always wanted something I could carry on me that has a list of a few of my state's laws regarding OC just in case I was ever badgered by someone. Also a copy of relevant SCOTUS cases like Terry v. Ohio for situations regarding stop and identify situations etc. etc. Does anyone do this? Any suggestions or links to a "pre-made" card?
Then I found this: (I know it's wikipedia but it does link to good sources)
Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This lists a lot of states that have Stop and Identify Statutes... as far as I can tell the LEOs still need reasonable suspicion but I'm not sure if that's the case for all of them. Anyone know about this? I know NavyLCDR knows his gun laws pretty well but any insight into these laws?

I don't carry any laws or Supreme Court decisions with me. I would especially not want to get into a case precedent argument with a police officer on the street . The absolute best protection that you have when you are stopped by a police officer under "unknown conditions" is to make them tell you if they are detaining you or not. If you are stopped during a traffic stop with the blue lights flashing - even though the reason may be unknown, it's damn obvious to anyone with half a brain they are being detained - so then it is driver's license in hand, hands on wheel, etc, etc, right from the start. But cop walks up to you in a park - entirely different scenario.

There is no state where it is legal for an officer to demand ID unless they also have minimal reasonable suspicion that would also justify detaining you for a Terry Stop. They can ASK you for ID, if you choose to comply, no suspicion of anything required for that. Just like I can walk up to you on the street and ASK to see your ID. If you choose to comply at that point, then you have volunteered to engange the police officer and any rights case you had pretty much went out the window unless you can prove to the court that a reasonable person would feel they had no choice but to show ID, such as more than one officer blocking your exit routes, firearms drawn, etc.

When you are approached by an officer for an unknown reason, like in a park or restaurant, and they say something like, "Hi do you mind talking to me? or Can I ask you a couple questions? or Would you mind stepping outside with me?" the first thing I would recommend you do is ask them in return, "Are you detaining me, officer?" If they answer, "No, you are not being detained," then it's entirely up to you at that point if you want to just walk away, or if you want to volunteer to continue to speak with the officer. Once he states that you are not being detained, you are under no requirement to interact with the officer in any way unless you are enganged in an activity that requires you to display a license upon demand - such as operating a motor vehicle - or, in most states, carrying a CONCEALED firearm (the way Washington is).

If you are being detained, it is up to you to know what your state law is, because now state laws apply. For example, in Washington state, even if we are detained, we are not required to identify ourselves either verbally or by producing ID until such point as the officer is actually going to place us under custodial arrest or issue a citation. Even then, in Washington state the only penalty for not identifying ourselves is that the officer can continue to detain us, but only for as long as reasonably necessary to identify us - unless we are engaged in an activity for which a license is required that the law requires display of the license upon demand.

In John's case in the OP, he was never required by law to identify himself, nor would he be required to possess a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) because he was not carrying a concealed firearm. I'll bet you $10 that he was not carrying his CPL, and probably was not carrying ID to show the officer either, neither of which is required by law. We call that "sterile carry".

 

[Firefighterchen]

Good that he got compensated for having his life threatened...

I hope the retraining works better this time around. To think, this problem would of persisted if he had just concealed his firearm or submitted.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[gejoslin]

As always, Great posts guys! Info is always appreciated.

 

[downwind]

Why LOOK for confrontation???

Come on people - with all the bad press against legal owners of firearms, shouldn't we be using some common sense in AVOIDING confrontations? So the cop was misinformed - if the citizen had simply complied WHILE informing the cop of the facts, we would have had another cop a bit more informed and maybe a bit more appreciative of our manners instead of an officer now holding a real grudge against us. We need all the support we can muster instead of alienating those who can make our lives more miserable!

I won't get on my soapbox about open carry, but I certainly don't want ANYONE to know I am carrying - why give up the advantage of surprise?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Come on people - with all the bad press against legal owners of firearms, shouldn't we be using some common sense in AVOIDING confrontations? So the cop was misinformed - if the citizen had simply complied WHILE informing the cop of the facts, we would have had another cop a bit more informed and maybe a bit more appreciative of our manners instead of an officer now holding a real grudge against us. We need all the support we can muster instead of alienating those who can make our lives more miserable!

I won't get on my soapbox about open carry, but I certainly don't want ANYONE to know I am carrying - why give up the advantage of surprise?

How about the police use common sense and do their jobs properly? This is not a case of a misinformed cop, it's a case of an out of control cop, who confronted and threatened a law abiding citizen illegally. Do you have any idea what the constitution says other than the second half of the 2A? And why it's all important?

Complying and submission does not earn you friends...it just empowers those to KEEP making your life miserable.

Your "advantage of surprise" is actually just being behind the curve when a criminal (who doesn't know your carrying because you don't want ANYONE knowing) thinks your a good target and chooses you as a victim. Someone who would give up deterrence to try and play quick draw with a bad guy who all ready has used his surprise and has the upper hand is fool hardy. Good luck with that.

 

[Axeanda45]

Come on people - with all the bad press against legal owners of firearms, shouldn't we be using some common sense in AVOIDING confrontations? So the cop was misinformed - if the citizen had simply complied WHILE informing the cop of the facts, we would have had another cop a bit more informed and maybe a bit more appreciative of our manners instead of an officer now holding a real grudge against us. We need all the support we can muster instead of alienating those who can make our lives more miserable!

I won't get on my soapbox about open carry, but I certainly don't want ANYONE to know I am carrying - why give up the advantage of surprise?

Dude (or dudette) you need to read lots more threads on here and other places to learn what your rights are and why they are so important.... You come across as either a badgefluffer or a naive beginner (nothing wrong with the 2nd one, just dont stay that way)


Complying with a thug/bully only further strengthens them to be a bigger thug/bully, not the other way around as you think/believe....

 

[leadsender]

I expect more form a trained law enforcement officer. A big part of completing the police academy is the legal courses. You would think a trained officer who hold his hand up, takes an oath to uphold the law would know the basic law of open carry in his state. Michigan has always been an OC state. It is not about rather you want to OC or CC. It is about not being hassled when you OC. The police expect you as a concealed carrier to know the law of concealed carry. I can guarantee you that you are going to jail if you are caught with out your CPL/CCW license because at that point you are considered having a concealed weapon which is illegal. If we must know the law that law enforcement should know the law.

 

[tattedupboy]

Well, I understand most of this post. However, I am confused by the statement that
the citizen refused to hand over his ID. That would seem, at first look, to have
exacerbated the officer's confusion and anger.

I wonder what would have happened had he has simply shown the officer his ID.

Kinda like letting a police officer search your car. If he has no warrant then he needs your permission. You're free to tell him no, just like this guy was free to refuse to show the officer his I.D. If you're not required to, the fact that an officer gets agitated over it doesn't somehow make it become mandatory.

Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk 4

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why LOOK for confrontation???

Excuse me. He was walking his dog in the park. I fail to see how that is looking for confrontation.

 

[downwind]

I guess I came off as naïve with my response to the post of consequences when resisting the law. I don't know of many who have actually been in "confrontation" with an LEO, but talking from experience, it's a LOT smarter to use diplomacy. Yes, I am very well versed with our Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment, and I also keep up on gun laws in my area. However, the cop had the gun drawn - scary to anyone else other than me? Say he was real nervous & say the citizen reached for his wallet then, and the LEO thought he was reaching for a weapon and drilled him? The cop was wrong & the citizen was right, but DEAD! All I was trying to emphasize was that deescalating the situation should have been the primary goal - THEN rake the cop over the coals in the proper manner, if that rings your bell. I still stand that educating the cop in a respectful manner would go a long way in future relations. Just look how HIS actions have spurred up reactions in this post and think about how different feelings would be if he approached the citizen in a more sensible manner? I am not a pacifist in any shape or form, but I really believe discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Downwind,

We understand that your opinion is to appease Officer Friendly, and then take it up later if desired. The biggest problem with that theory, however, is that the more a person voluntarily appeases Officer Friendly, the less standing they have in court, should the case have to go to court. A police officer cannot violate your rights that you voluntarily waive.

Some of us value our 4th amendment rights as much as we do our 2nd amendment rights. John Laigaie was diplomatic, respectful, and did nothing to escalate the situation. He merely refused to waive any of his rights, even at gun point.

 

[downwind]

Navy, THAT'S what I am talking about - your response made a whole lot of sense to me, given in a rational & unemotional manner, causing me to rethink my actions and words. GOOD ADVICE, thanks.

 

[dogshawred]

I guess I came off as naïve with my response to the post of consequences when resisting the law. I don't know of many who have actually been in "confrontation" with an LEO, but talking from experience, it's a LOT smarter to use diplomacy. Yes, I am very well versed with our Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment, and I also keep up on gun laws in my area. However, the cop had the gun drawn - scary to anyone else other than me? Say he was real nervous & say the citizen reached for his wallet then, and the LEO thought he was reaching for a weapon and drilled him? The cop was wrong & the citizen was right, but DEAD! All I was trying to emphasize was that deescalating the situation should have been the primary goal - THEN rake the cop over the coals in the proper manner, if that rings your bell. I still stand that educating the cop in a respectful manner would go a long way in future relations. Just look how HIS actions have spurred up reactions in this post and think about how different feelings would be if he approached the citizen in a more sensible manner? I am not a pacifist in any shape or form, but I really believe discretion is the better part of valor.

As described in your post through waiving your rights the PD has the upper hand will rake you over the coals.`
~
Keeping a department on the defensive with your rights intact forces the issue of negligence on behalf of their department by an officer. This is going to cost them dollars, dollars that are in short supply, or will be forfeited by their bonding company that will in turn charge them more for the contract to cover the department.
~
That is going to put them in a situation dealing with the officers education of state law, instead of being able to white wash his ignorance because you surrendered you rights under the law. Officers being aware of gun laws and their interacting properly with law abiding citizens is what we all strive to have happen when an encounter has to take place. Most states recognize that just openly carrying a weapon is NOT grounds for an officer to detain and/or question a citizen in and by itself. So if you aren't doing anything wrong why should you submit to any illegal intervention by any officer?