Police act swiftly after gun purchases

[Big Don]

Police act swiftly after gun purchases

ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47

By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
March 09, 2010 5:00 AM

EXCERPT:
Concerns about an Oregon Department of Transportation employee who purchased several guns after being placed on leave prompted law enforcement across Southern Oregon to step in.
Negotiators and a SWAT team from Medford police safely took a man — whose name wasn't released — into protective custody Monday morning in the 500 block of Effie Street, Medford police said in a news release.
He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.
The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.
ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.
Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
END EXCERPT
Lets go over that again.

Guy buys a few guns, legally. The SWAT team goes to his house, makes his neighbors think he's nuts, take his guns and lock him in the loony bin for "evaluation".
From the article:

Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

If I were him, I'd claim false arrest, kidnapping, theft and a whole bunch of other stuff...
The headline:

Police act swiftly after gun purchases

Gee, swift, yeah, legal, doesn't really sound like it...

 

[girlbug2]

They must have determined that he was guilty of thought crime.

 

[Bruno@MT]

This reaction is indeed over the top.

Otoh an interview was certainly warranted to see what he was up to. If someone is placed on a mandatory leave and then immediately goes out to buy 2 hand guns and an assault rifle, it is not unreasonable to see if he is planning to go postal or not. And if he is indeed mentally unstable, protective custody pending psych counseling is not unreasonable either.

We don't know the details of this situation, but there is no reason to assume by default that something nefarious is going on and that the police overstepped their boundaries. IF the guy is mentally unstable and made threats towards his employer or something similar, then what they did is warranted. Or should they have waited until he started shooting?

 

[Big Don]

Given that he was on leave, he had free time to improve and practice his marksmanship. For that he was robbed, kidnapped and held against his will.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Given that he was on leave, he had free time to improve and practice his marksmanship. For that he was robbed, kidnapped and held against his will.

Do you have access to the details of the case and the psych evaluations of the man?

No? In that case you really don't know and you say what you want to believe, namely that there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about him. You don't know if he made threats, you don't know if he acted unstable when buying the weapons, you don't know if there were grounds to hold him or not.

Instead, you choose to only look at 1 possible explanation and ignore all the rest. Weapons get sold daily in that gun shop. Assault rifles and handguns are probably bought fairly regularly without so much as a hiccup. And yet in this 1 specific case, the person has his guns taken away and is placed in protective custody. Given that that is clearly not the standard reaction of the cops, perhaps they had more information than you and had reasonable cause to act the way they did?

I don't know the details but I think it pays to hear at least both sides of the story before locking my mind to 1 possible explanation based on 1 short newspaper article.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100313/NEWS/3130306

Police return weapons to ODOT worker

The guns were delivered Friday morning




March 13, 2010

Medford police have returned five firearms taken for "safekeeping" Monday morning when their owner was placed in protective custody.
David Pyles, who identified himself as the Oregon Department of Transportation worker taken in for a mental health evaluation Monday, asked for the return of his weapons Thursday.
Three handguns, an AK-47 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun were delivered back to his home at about 11 a.m. Friday, he and police said in separate statements.
Pyles said in an e-mail that his weapons were returned to him in a professional manner.

 

[Flea]

If I were him, I'd claim false arrest, kidnapping, theft and a whole bunch of other stuff...

A nice thought, but people taken in and/or held involuntarily for mental health reasons have zero legal recourse. The best they can hope for is a hearing 72 hours after the fact if they're still in custody. As to the fact of being taken in? That's his problem. That includes his financial problem too.

Oh, and since it's for mental health reasons, it falls into a legal limbo. He may have been led off in handcuffs but it's not an "arrest." So he can't claim false arrest. And since it's "for his own good," it's not a kidnapping either regardless of how bogus or legitimate the official thinking was.

That said, I agree that the whole situation is crap. Just my little tangent, but I think it's relevant to the conversation.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If he had gone and shot up the joint, cops would be damned for not doing anything to head him off.
With a possible risk, they did something, and are damned for it.
They can't win here.

Was it the right call? I don't have the intel to decide that. I can't say I agree with it, on the surface, but there's some info that's just not there.

 

[Bruno@MT]

If he had gone and shot up the joint, cops would be damned for not doing anything to head him off.
With a possible risk, they did something, and are damned for it.
They can't win here.

Was it the right call? I don't have the intel to decide that. I can't say I agree with it, on the surface, but there's some info that's just not there.

that's the crux of the argument. If he was taken in because his mental state was in question, then the cops did a good thing. And on the surface it looks as if his case was handled in a reasonable timeframe, and he got all of his weapons back in a professional manner.

Had they waited after having been notified of a possible unstable person buying an assault weapon and handguns, and something HAD happened, they'd be sued from here to tokyo, lose their jobs, and there'd be bodies in the morgue.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I would like to know if the people who complained here think that if people with acute mental problems stock up on guns and ammo, the police should stand asside and let things run their course. So if they get a report of someone possibly intending to go postal, and they have reasons to believe it might indeed be the case, the responsible thing to do after an in-person check is to put the person in protective custody until they can look further.

Or would you rather the cops say 'sorry ma'am, he is exercising his 2nd amendment rights, give us a call as soon as he starts shooting people and we bring the coroner along'

 

[Ken Morgan]

Sounds like they grabbed him and held him till he cooled off a bit. I'm sure the police had a little talk with him while he was visiting.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

USSC already ruled, repeatedly, that cops aren't libel for failing to stop the bad guys. So seems non-action on their part is acceptable, legally.

 

[Cryozombie]

Had they waited after having been notified of a possible unstable person buying an assault weapon and handguns, and something HAD happened, they'd be sued from here to tokyo, lose their jobs, and there'd be bodies in the morgue.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I would like to know if the people who complained here think that if people with acute mental problems stock up on guns and ammo, the police should stand asside and let things run their course. So if they get a report of someone possibly intending to go postal, and they have reasons to believe it might indeed be the case, the responsible thing to do after an in-person check is to put the person in protective custody until they can look further.

Or would you rather the cops say 'sorry ma'am, he is exercising his 2nd amendment rights, give us a call as soon as he starts shooting people and we bring the coroner along'

In a lot of ways I agree with you. And being that we don't have all the data I'm willing to err on the side of caution. HOWEVER if the whole complaint had been based on his employer going "gosh, we suspended him and he was really pissed" and that was it, I think that's overboard. Since we don't know... whatever. It's over and done, and his guns are back, so...

 

[Archangel M]

Somehow this guy got "flagged". The cops don't have a crystal ball that tells them "this guy got fired and then purchased [detailed list inserted here] a boatload of guns and ammo all at once."

If the guy had gone back to the business and slaughtered a bunch of people the prerequisite "why didn't they do somethings" would be flying.

Was this the best way to evaluate him? SWAT teams, negotiators calling in the middle of the night? Maybe..maybe not. But I think that SOMETHING should have been done.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

A nice thought, but people taken in and/or held involuntarily for mental health reasons have zero legal recourse. The best they can hope for is a hearing 72 hours after the fact if they're still in custody. As to the fact of being taken in? That's his problem. That includes his financial problem too.

That's not true. Officers are required to have probable cause to believe that a person is a danger to himself or others in order to detain them for psychological evaluation. A mere work suspension and purchasing of firearms would not qualify. Now, if they investigated and found something more, then ok. But barring that, he could sue for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Oh, and since it's for mental health reasons, it falls into a legal limbo. He may have been led off in handcuffs but it's not an "arrest." So he can't claim false arrest. And since it's "for his own good," it's not a kidnapping either regardless of how bogus or legitimate the official thinking was.

It does not. He doesn't have to claim "false arrest", (even though he actually could). The Supreme court has said that circumstances in which all the accutraments of an arrest situation exist can be considered an arrest.

Consider a traffic stop. If the driver is placed into handcuffs and put into a patrol vehicle, the courts have ruled that this could be considered an "arrest", at least for Miranda purposes.

But either way, the Fourth Amendment does not talk about "arrest" by government. It talks about "seizure", which is an entirely different thing. I have seized a person that I conduct a traffic stop on, whether or not I have arrested him. In this case, the officers seized this man, which depending upon their probable cause, may or may not have been legal.

In a lot of ways I agree with you. And being that we don't have all the data I'm willing to err on the side of caution. HOWEVER if the whole complaint had been based on his employer going "gosh, we suspended him and he was really pissed" and that was it, I think that's overboard. Since we don't know... whatever. It's over and done, and his guns are back, so...

With all due respect, I have to disagree with this part. It's not whatever. We can not stand aside while cops violate a person's rights, only to say, well, nothing ultimately happened. This is exactly what occured to Black Americans in the 60's and 70's regarding voting. They were at times intimidated by the police for a violation of their civil rights. But since they weren't personally injured we should just forget it. I don't think so.

 

[Bruno@MT]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with this part. It's not whatever. We can not stand aside while cops violate a person's rights, only to say, well, nothing ultimately happened. This is exactly what occured to Black Americans in the 60's and 70's regarding voting. They were at times intimidated by the police for a violation of their civil rights. But since they weren't personally injured we should just forget it. I don't think so.

I agree it's not 'whatever' for the person involved. I think that what Flea is saying is that since we can't know whether it was justified or not, there is no point in getting worked up about it.

The reason I am willing to believe that they had solid enough grounds to proceed like they did, is that what they did is clearly out of the ordinary. This does not happen everyday, nor does it generally happen on a systematic basis when people buy several guns in one go. So it is not inconceivable that something legitimately raised some red flags.

 

[Carol]

Actually I think it was more than the employer going to the police and saying we suspended him and he was really pissed.

In my experience, employers hate going to the police. In one of my first management jobs, I remember going to a meeting where the General Manager told me about a theft of $1000 worth of hard merchandise...which was particualrly odd because the company did far more business servicing stuff than it did selling stuff. I urged the GM to go to the police, he did not. A second (similar) theft happened, he still didn't go to the police.

I brought this up in my business networking group and asked the others for advice. The response that I received was uniform: companies don't want to be in a bad light in the press...even with something as casual as an entry in the police log...unless they really have to go that route. From the info that was shared with me, the only time 911 was called was when the employer had a realistic concern that they were going to be threatened by a person.

When I go hiking, I usually like to stop for breakfast at a coffee shop that is a favorite for some DOT highway workers. (If the coffee doesn't wake you up...looking at those orange vests sure will...LOL) They seem like a pretty tough lot. I'm guessing that what got the guy in trouble was perhaps a little more than just worker telling his boss to go pound sand, if ya know what I mean.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I brought this up in my business networking group and asked the others for advice. The response that I received was uniform: companies don't want to be in a bad light in the press...even with something as casual as an entry in the police log...unless they really have to go that route.

Bad publicity is a huge concern, especially for companies of which the stock is traded publicly on nasdaq or someplace else. There are other reasons as well. 1000$ pales in comparison to the cost of having to deal with pressing charges or investigations. Time is lost, lawyers have to be paid, business as usual gets disturbed, ...

And then it also matters if the person has knowledge of confidential and / or potentially damaging information he or she would be willing to use to retaliate.

When all is said and done, the only reason the cops will get called in bigger companies is in case of threats or serious risk, to cover their ***, or if the amounts involved are high enough to warrant it.

Even if someone is caught red handed, it will likely end with security escorting them off the premises with their personal belongings.

 

[Carol]

Somehow this guy got "flagged". The cops don't have a crystal ball that tells them "this guy got fired and then purchased [detailed list inserted here] a boatload of guns and ammo all at once."

They don't have a crystal ball, but they do have background check information, yes? Isn't it likely that the LE agencies received reports about both incidences within a short time frame?

In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.

And if an employer reports a disgruntled employee, at minimum doesn't the dispatcher ask some questions to ascertain the concern? I would imagine the police would need to know if this was just supervisor and report trading insults...or if the report really did flip out and threaten violence aginst the supervisor, yes?

 

[Archangel M]

We (my dept) don't routinely get gun check information. I'm curious to know how the gun purchases came to be known by the police. Either a friend/family member reported it or the cops went and specifically checked on it after learning that the guy was fired and was acting erratically.

 

[thardey]

Pyles said he is involved in a personnel matter at ODOT that is being handled through his union.
He surrendered to the team voluntarily and was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental health evaluation. Police said they took five firearms "for safekeeping."
"What do you and my other elected officials and representatives plan to do to ensure a similar militaristic police action never happens to another resident of Jackson County, Oregon? To another Oregonian? To any U.S. citizen?" Pyles' e-mail said.
The e-mail also included messages Medford police Detective Sgt. Scott Clauson and a dispatcher named Monica left during the negotiations. The messages explain that Pyles' employer had reported concerns and police knew he had firearms.
Pyles' e-mail describes this as evidence of coordination or collusion and calls for an investigation, perhaps by a grand jury.
(snip)
James Leuenberger, a Lake Oswego criminal defense attorney with an interest in gun-rights cases, said he had talked with Pyles. He said he hadn't been retained, but he would like to be a resource for any attorney on the case.
"What it boils down to is an employer can't just have an employee put in jail or a psych ward," Leuenberger said.

From the ever-trustworty (haha) Mail Tribune

Ha! Everybody, welcome to my little home town. Now famous for being in the news, and a hot topic here at MT twice in a year for gun-related issues! (Yay! - the other one was the school teacher who wanted to carry concealed during school.)

From another article.

Starrett recounted the details of the case that Pyles shared with him. The federation had agreed not to identify him, so Starrett didn't use Pyles' name, but in the wake of Pyles' own public statements, the Mail Tribune is naming him.
Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.
The Oregon Department of Transportation confirmed that Pyles has worked there as a planner since February 2004. ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said the department couldn't discuss personnel or security matters.
Pyles told Starrett he initially thought the early morning call must be a prank, but looked out to see his yard surrounded by police.
"They asked him to come out and said they wouldn't handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property," Starrett recounted.
However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.
"Because we had information that he could be a danger to others, we wanted a medical professional to evaluate him," Medford police chief Randy Schoen said.

I've worked with the ODOT planning dept. here before, and there is one or two supervisors that I could see calling the police at the drop of a hat over something like this. ODOT won't release who he was working for, or what the disagreement was, etc., but the planning dept around here doesn't have a good reputation for profesionalism.

On the other hand, the Medford PD, and the county both are pretty decent departments, and in general are very open to armed citizens. Both departments encourage and support CCW carry, and self-defense scenarios. So this kind of decision comes as a surprise from them.

I had to pick up a friend of mine once from a "forced mental health evaluation." Once the police dropped him off at the hospital they walked away. It was entirely up to the doctor on staff what to do with him, and up to the hospital security to detain him or not (which is kind of scary.)

In the case of my friend, he was walking around the streets shouting threats at his estranged wife (who was nowhere around) so there was some reason for immediate concern.

It sounds like Pyles is more upset at the report given about him by ODOT that caused the police to respond with a SWAT team at sunrise, and from local history, I'm inclined to agree with him.