During my half-century as a Lakewood citizen and City of Lakewood pioneer, I spent 15 years patrolling the streets of Lakewood as a police officer. During my last ten years in Lakewood, I wrote over 700 plus columns for The Suburban Times titled Westside Story.
I still claim to be on the West Side but confess that I am now west of the Atlantic Ocean as a new Delaware resident. Despite living 2849 miles away from all of you, I still care about my readers, friends, and the citizens I left back in Washington State.
Politicians recently created an unnecessary problem in your Washington State Capital. As a result, I feel compelled to write a guest column for The Suburban Times using my old byline, Westside Story. My purpose is to share my knowledge, experience, and thoughts regarding recent political foolishness. Additionally, I wish to share a warning. The foolishness I am referring to will negatively impact residents of my old home town of Lakewood and Washington State as a whole.
Do you remember the incident in the mid-1990s when a young white male illegally carried a gun to what was then called the Lakewood Mall (Currently known as The Lakewood Towne Center)?
The suspect acted tough by brandishing his firearm in the food court area, terrorizing many mall eaters with his demented actions.
Six shoppers, including an innocent 4-year-old child, were shot to death as this mad gunman roamed the mall.
If you do not remember this heinous mass shooting incident, there is a good explanation for your lack of memory.
Only part of my description, including a young white male who acted tough by brandishing a firearm in the food court, is factual.
Six shoppers killed represents the kind of tragedy that can and has occurred around the country. Thankfully it did not happen at the Lakewood Mall on the day in question.
There is a significant reason no killing took place on that day. At the time, the politicians and governor had not yet handcuffed the police by outlawing the crime investigation principle/tactic known as Reasonable Suspicion.
I was one of the police officers responding to the mall that day. In responding, I was in position to be an effective police officer. I was not handcuffed with the brand new cozy sounding, freedom friendly sounding, racist fighting sounding law passed in Washington State and signed by Washington’s governor. The new law eliminates law enforcement’s Reasonable Suspicion investigation tool.
The 911 caller described the suspect as a 5′ 10″ white male wearing blue jeans and a red flannel shirt.
As an unarmed mall security officer and I searched through the mall on foot for the man with a gun, we reached a star pedestrian intersection inside the mall. When I visually scanned to the left, I spotted a young white male about 5′ 10″ tall wearing a blue flannel shirt. So I barked out to my mall security partner, “There he is!!”
My partner told me, in no uncertain terms, that I was wrong. He said the man I pointed out could not possibly be the gunman. He reminded me that the suspect was reported to be wearing a red flannel shirt, not a blue flannel shirt. The mall officer was confident I was mistaken. My search partner could have been correct about my having made an identification error. I am quick to admit that, and at the time, I knew I could be mistaken. Still, I had Reasonable Suspicion that justified my investigating the subject further. I did not have Probable Cause, so I could only investigate at that time. I could not arrest the young man based on my Reasonable Suspicion.
My good partner was blind to three concepts that, as an experienced police officer, I possessed.
CONCEPT #1 – REASONABLE SUSPICION: I was trained and authorized to use a lawful investigatory concept called Reasonable Suspicion.
Reasonable Suspicion had nothing to do with police abuse, civil rights abuse, or racist behavior. Instead, Reasonable Suspicion had to do with common sense investigation, problem-solving and protecting the public.
CONCEPT 2 – WITNESS ERROR: As an experienced police officer, I knew honorable witnesses often make honest mistakes. A witness might easily state the suspect was wearing a red flannel shirt when the shirt was blue. Some of the descriptors from the witness reporting to 911 matched the subject in front of me, such as a young white male, 5′ 10″ tall, wearing blue jeans.
Reasonable Suspicion allowed me to make contact with the subject to determine if he was the suspect or not. The simple question before me was, is this the man with the gun or not? Reasonable Suspicion provided me with an opportunity to disrupt any evil he may have intended. The result was lives may well have been saved so the six shoppers could shop another day.
If my contact were with the wrong person, I would remove the handcuffs, “dust him off”, and apologize. In a positive public relations gesture, I could suggest that he would have an exciting tale to share with his buddies and future grandchildren. I had an excellent track record for parting Reasonable Suspicion contacts as friends since my contact did no actual harm.
I ask you and your Washington State governor which scenario is better for the public at large? The possibility of having the police inconvenience an innocent person by detaining, cuffing, and investigating the subject based on Reasonable Suspicion or six people being shot to death? The answer is obvious, but not to your Washington State governor and many Washington State politicians.
CONCEPT #3: – BODY LANGUAGE: As an experienced police officer, I had made it a practice to learn about body language. My study of body language led me to develop a new type of body language. which I called vehicular body language. I became pretty effective at reading body language. I captured four car thieves and recovered a 30 day old stolen Mercedes Benz in University Place using vehicular body language and Reasonable Suspicion.
As I scanned the entire mall looking for a man wearing a red shirt with a gun, I observed a subject wearing a blue shirt.
The pivotal moment that provided me with Reasonable Suspicion was the subject’s body language. The subject moved his right arm and wrist about 4″. That was all I needed to do, what any intelligent, reasonable, knowledgeable police officer would do. I focussed on this subject as the man with the gun.
I saw the subject move the thumb side of his right hand, wrist, and arm toward his body until his wrist and thumb made contact with his untucked blue flannel shirt at his belt line. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called a “gun check”.
Most law-abiding citizens authorized to carry a concealed pistol store the firearm safely in a holster.
Most subjects who are not authorized to carry concealed pistols, especially criminals, often do not use a holster. Instead, they jam the firearm in their belt. If the cops start chasing them, the suspect can toss the gun in the brush. Once the cop catches up with them, there is no tell-tale empty holster to give their illegal behavior away. If they wear an empty holster, an experienced officer will check the chase route to look for a gun. The officer might even bring in a K-9 to find the weapon.
The gun-check phenomenon is a common physical move made by those naturally nervous about the gun falling out or slipping down inside their pants.
So we were in a major mall intersection: one cop, one security officer, one suspect, and multiple citizens. At that moment, I did not have Probable Cause. All I had was Reasonable Suspicion. Under today’s new law, your Washington State governor would have forced me to ignore what I saw and knew. I would have had to walk away from a situation that was ripe for investigation. The governor’s new law outlawing Reasonable Suspicion will make living in Washington State much more dangerous.
Back in the 1990s, investigating based on Reasonable Suspicion was lawful. So I zoomed over to the subject stealth-fully sliding in behind the suspect. As I took hold of one of his arms from behind, I said, “Police. Put your hands behind your back.” I handcuffed and detained the subject.
Using the Reasonable Suspicion law, I was about to find out if I had the right man. Did he have a gun? If your Washington State governor’s new legislation had been in effect during the 1990s, we would never have found the man with a gun. The gunman would have been free to kill innocent mall visitors. The death of six victims would make it more likely to establish Probable Cause for arrest, which is great for the governor’s law but too late for the innocent six.
My contact investigation based on Reasonable Suspicion paid off. I reached around from behind as I held the subject by the handcuffs. There it was: a gun. We removed the suspect and the weapon from the mall—no one suffering injury or death.
Are you still curious about the confusion related to the red shirt vs the blue shirt?
During my post-Miranda interview, the suspect admitted to wearing layered clothing. He ditched the red shirt by tossing it into a mall garbage can to throw us off track. While that was a slick criminal-minded move, he failed to erase all Reasonable Suspicion.
Here we are in 2021, and things have changed. The 1990s suspect with a gun could not eliminate Reasonable Suspicion. Instead, Washington State politicians and Washington’s governor have managed to destroy Reasonable Suspicion with a pen. As a result, Washington State residents will soon begin to suffer from increased crime. When you dial 911, know that the law enforcement’s ability to help you has been dramatically crippled. In many cases, police will be prevented from stopping crime before it happens and solving crime after it happens. a
The new law taking away Reasonable Suspicion will victimize Washington State victims a second and third time, all from one criminal incident.
Capturing and returning stolen property to victims will be significantly reduced. More criminals will be able to get away with burglary, rape, and homicide, along with many other crimes.
Handcuffing the police falls right in line with those who want to destroy America by destroying the Second Amendment, defunding the police, emptying the prisons, and stripping law enforcement of police powers. Handcuffing the police means the police will not be allowed to be as effective as they once were in handcuffing the criminals.
Criminals, scofflaws, and felons love how your legislature and governor protect them instead of you. But, unfortunately, lacking consequences and lacking effective police investigations means the criminals will enjoy a free-for-all.
I hope those living in Lakewood and Washington State can encourage the politicians to return to common sense policing. It is a smart move to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the citizens, including Reasonable Suspicion.
If you live in Lakewood, you are on your own. The criminals, not you, have been put in control by the politicians.
It has been suggested that citizens might fight back to regain their safety by utilizing Washington State’s Initiative process.
As you see and experience my predictions coming true, organizing and supporting an initiative to support your law enforcement may be your only hope. Show the politicians you want the police to be in control of criminal investigations instead of the criminals.
To better understand Reasonable Suspicion, click on my LINK, REASONABLE SUSPICION.
To better understand Probable Cause, click on my LINK, PROBABLE CAUSE.
Your Washington State governor and the politicians could benefit by doing enough police ride-a-longs inside a police car. Walking in cop’s boots will help them see the obvious harmless benefits of allowing law enforcement to use Reasonable Suspicion. as an investigation tool for eliminating and solving crime.
Good luck, Lakewood and all of Washington State.
Joseph Boyle – Former Lakewood Resident – 51 years / Police Officer 23+ years.
“You don’t need to protect yourself, you can call the police” is just another lie to disarm and hold the innocent population captive to criminals and politicians who want to control, hurt, and steal from the populace. Haven’t we learned anything from history about dictators, communism/socialism, thugs and the like? They all LOVE citizens who cannot protect themselves and aren’t protected by law enforcement… It is no coincidence that many modern politicians are pushing socialist policies, including disarmament, as a means to gain control over us. And, “No”, Socialism won’t work this time: Socialism, Communism and Dictatorships ALWAYS FAIL and they all result in destruction of freedom and creation of massive body counts–think Communist Soviet Union, Communist China, Hitler’s National Socialist (“Nazi”) Germany, Communist North Korea, and many, many more failed “Utopias”. Read REAL History! And, please, stop electing people and patronizing businesses who are throwing away our freedoms and restricting God-given RIGHTS of freedom of speech, religion, life, self-defense, security, property, self-determination, and many more rights which come from our Creator!
Welcome back (to the pages of the Suburban Times), Joe. Excellent article, providing us readers with clear examples, and holding our attention throughout probably your longest-ever column.
Thanks for the links to more information. It will be interesting to follow the consequences of these new legal restrictions for LEOs. I’m already hearing folks complaining that there’s no use calling 911 anymore, because police won’t come; or if they do come, they won’t do anything. I hope that’s not always the case.
While I understand peoples’ frustrations, giving up is basically letting criminals know they have won.
“because police won’t come;” more like they are unable to respond due to staffing levels, have higher priority calls or out of service for some reason. One such example many do not realize… is when an officer makes an arrest, they could spend 1-2 hours in transporting and booking the individual.
“or if they do come, they won’t do anything”, I think we have to realize that we must replace “won’t” with “can’t”.
Paul Nimmo,
It is always nice to read your comments on various subjects. Thanks for reading and commenting on my article.
I am not going to say you are wrong with your “won’t & can’t” concept and comment, but unfortunately, law enforcement is no longer being allowed to be as effective as it once was in terms of helping people, solving crime, preventing crime, and recovering property.
While I am not speaking for any particular police department, I must tell you both terms, “won’t & can’t” apply.
Officer’s frequently find themselves in situations such as you described for “can’t”. Volunteer police reserves help out by transporting prisoners thereby freeing up the full time officer to respond to the next call.
Today, the term “won’t” also applies in many instances. Officers “won’t” make contact or “won’t” make a traffic stop for the speeder in the school zone. After all, the driver behind the dark tinted glass might be Black which can often generate all kinds of false accusations.
In my day, many Blacks said to me, “You are just hastling me because I am Black.” That was never true even one time, but I was accused of being a racist.
As a result of one complaint that I was ticketing Blacks because they were Black, a statistical study of my tickets indicated Blacks were under represented which was the opposite of the accusation. If I was to treat Blacks equally, then I would have to purposefully give more Blacks tickets. How goofy is that?
Color had not impact on me. I always, 100% of the time, focussed on behavior. If a driver sped through a school zone and was white, he got a ticket. If the driver was Black, he got a ticket. A good officer focusses on behavior.
Today, officers will be insulted by the same type of comment, plus they will have complaint filed and then probably be sued for discrimination. Violent protestors will gather and burn down city hall. That all leads up to a big ‘WON’T”.
The jail refuses to take many criminals or they release them before the officer finishes his paperwork. Why bother? That leads to a big “WON’T”.
Many prosecutors refuse to prosecute criminals. Why bother? Another reason for “WON’T”.
MR. NIMMO, all three terms apply to today’s police environment: “Won’t”, “Can’t” and “Why bother?”
In some jurisdictions, officers are doing their best to respond to 911 calls for service. In between those calls, the officers refuse to be proactive. They will turn a blind eye if the issue has not generated a 911 call.
Many officers feel their best self preservation policy is to try to do nothing, called “kissing it off”, once they arrive at a 911 call.
Doing nothing when ever possible best fit based on what today’s society is doing to law enforcement.
The public is in for a rude awakening. I hope they and our policticians wake up one day soon.
Joseph Boyle
If the police departments across the nation, definitely locally, had not abused the use of “reasonable suspicion,” we would not be in the position we now find ourselves. We’ve earned this.
Kerpal, there you go again with some police hate on an annonomous basis. I can only guess who is commenting since you are not confident enough to provide your name. Let’s just call you AKA Kerpal Tunnel.
Mr. Tunnel, during my 25 year association with law enforcement, I never witnessed or heard of any local police department abusing Reasonable Suspicion. That includes the Lakewood Police, the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, Puyallup Police Department, Tacoma Police Department, Dupont Police, Steilacoom Police, to name a few.
If I am wrong and you are right, then the solution would be to censure and punish any individual officer who abused Reasonable Suspicion. It is a goofy and ignorant knee-jerk reaction to eradicate the Reasonable Suspicion law because of any individual behavior.
Allow me to provide an example of your solution concept. Under your plan, visualize that someone complains that an officer is abusing the law that gives police the right to perform traffic stops on speeders and reckless drivers. Your answer to this problem would be to pass a law that blocks all officers from performing a traffic stops on drivers doing 100 mph through a crosswalk full of gradeschool children.
Think about it. Taking Reasonable Suspicion completely away from an officer’s tool bag is an out-of-focus extreme which will produce more harm than the harm you complain about.
Should you be one of our citizens who is destined to be victimized on multiple levels because of a politically motiveate overkill in the form of eliminating Reasonable Suspicion, then I ask, will you bring up your own quote and tell everyone, “We’ve earned this”.?
Joseph Boyle
Crystal Brame would disagree with you.
Mr. Kerpal,
I am not clear on what you mean by your Crystal Brame reference. But now that you have brought her name to the forefront, I believe she would have agreed with me.
Here is how that might have looked. Had her husband, a rogue cop and,former of police, Chief Brame, telegraphed enough Reasonable Suspicion, an effective police officer, acting on the Reasonable Suspicion might have triggered a response between law enforcement and the courts to secure Chief Brame and his guns.
Had the events unfolded in that manner, Chrystal Brame might well be alive to this day.
Reasonable Suspicion is an effective tool for preventing crime, injury, and death.
I wonder how many more Chrystal Brames will die now that Reasonable Suspicion has been flushed down the toilet by our politicians and those who wish to destroy the public’s safety by eliminating law enforcement.
Joseph Boyle
You nailed it.
This article is just one of the things I miss about Joe Boyle, the other is his morning coffee.
Joe, great article and perspective, which I basically agree with. Unfortunately, it appears a small but significant number of officers around the country have not been very adept at applying Probable Cause, in many cases resulting in false arrests, innocent deaths, and wrongful imprisonments (some for decades). So something must be done, but I’m not convinced the elimination of Probably Cause is the correct approach. I’m not sure what that is.
Thanks Joe, I agree whole heartedly with you
Great article, Joe. Thank you. Unfortunately, the wrong actions of a few have managed to backfire on the entity. And our government obviously acts before thinking over the consequences. They have guarded homes unlike the rest of us; and I’m pretty sure that if they call 911, police will be right on their doorstep. There are always some that are more equal than others.
Thank you Joe for this example as a way to comment on the latest pendulum swing in our legal system. While I agree with the gist of your point I feel you fell short by not recommending from your experience what a better answer might be. Policing does attract some individuals that probably shouldn’t be or remain a cop, and training apparently hasn’t corrected the abuse that does systematically occur, leading to this ham-fisted solution by the legislature. Please reply with your thoughts about a better answer, assuming you believe there is a problem to fix. Thank you.
Will,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Sorry I fell short, but historically I managed to keep most of my Westside Story columns around 1000 words. This column is just over 2000 words. I thought I better quit and let the reader go.
Now for my requested response to your request for more.
(1) REASONABLE SUSPICION IS NOT A PROBLEM: I have never witnessed a problem with the application of Reasonable Suspicion. Reasonable Suspicion is such a harmless tactic by its very nature. Reasonable Suspicion is all about cops contacting citizens for investigation purposes. In order for the officer to make the contact and detain the individual without arrest, the officer has to be able to articulate a common sense description that supports the officer’s decision to contact a particular subject. The officer must justify that the Reasonable Suspicion contact was a reasonable thing to do.
I am not saying there are never any abuses. We can always find somebody who is willing to abuse just about anything and everything. I am saying I never saw an abuse or a pattern of abuse in my 25 year association with law enforcment.
(2) REASONABLE SUSPICION ABUSE SOLUTION: In any case should there be an abuse of Reasonable Suspicion, the police department could investigate the allegation. Additionally, the local prosecutor might well be interested in an officer abusing the Reasonable Suspicion investigatory tool and they too could investigate.
(3) WHAT IS AN ABUSE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION?: In my example 911 reported a white male, about 5′ 10″ wearing blue jeans, and a red flannel shirt was brandishing a firearm.
I observed a white male, about 5′ 10″ wearing blue jeans and a blue flannel shirt. While not an exact match, the subject closely matched the description given. The only conflict was the subject was wearing a blue flannel shirt, not red. Based on my observation, knowledge, training, and understanding of body language, I was in position to articulate to the court why I had reasonable suspicion for making contact.
The purpose in making contact is to develop Probable Cause for arrest or to confirm the subject is not the suspect of any wrong doing.
All of the above is as it should be and of significant benefit to the public as a whole.
So, what is an abuse of Reasonable Suspicion? Should I be a bad or evil cop an abuse would be if given the above description, I stop a subject at the mall because he is Black who obviously did not fit the description and who produced no other articulatable actions such as waving a gun. Stopping a subject based on race is an abuse not tolerated by my former department.
Another example might be the situation where I do not even have a 911 call, but I see a Black male and decide to stop him because he is Black. Maybe I make up some Reasonable Suspicion.
That is an abuse. Depending on the severity and detail of the abuse, the officer should be retrained, disciplined, or terminated.
If officer’s abuse Reasonable Suspicion and there are consequences including being sued by the innocent Black male, then most other officers, even if tempted, would tend to shy away from such rogue behavior.
By the way, I have suffered racial abuse by a white officer in Mississippi apparently because I was riding my Harley with a Black male friend and elected to eat breakfast with him sitting at the same table. I felt what it is like to be a Black male abused by a rogue cop.
I know abuses are possible, but I never observed any in the Pierce County area.
I have witnessed and as expected repoerted an officer for excess force. That officer was eventually terminated as he should have been. Excess force: Abuse of Reasonable Suspicion. Both can easily be responded to by investigation and consequences.
BOTTOM LINE: I do not believe there is much, if any, abuse in Pierce County of the kind complained about.
If there is an abuse, then an intelligent reaction / solution would be to investigate the allegation and if the abuse is found to have been committed, the officer should experience appropriate consequenses including up to termination and civil lawsuit.
I hope I have no longer fell short.
Joseph Boyle
I remember that shooting incident at the old indoor Lakewood Mall and applaud you for your professional handling of that specific crime. However, I found your “story” loaded with fear-mongering language and an obvious political agenda. Going forward, will the Westside Story be a right-wing opinion column about our local and state issues from a Delaware resident? I was expecting better.
Cheri,
Thank you for your comment and sorry you hold your stated opinion. It is theoretically possible that if had picked seen as many injured and picked up as many dead bodies as I have, you would not relate the term, “fear-mongering” with me.
Yes, I have been a Delaware resident for 215 days, but I was a Washington resident for over 77 years, 51+ of which in Lakewood, Washington. I know Lakewood and I know law enforcement. I will keep writing as long as I have something to say.
Right Wing. Left Wing. I am no Wing. I am an independent thinker. You do not have to agree with me, but please do not put me in some pigeon hole.
Joseph Boyle
Joe, So nice to hear from you again and it is a shame to have been under the current circumstance. I find it amazing that Cheri and Kerpal Tunnell have “tunnell vision” about such an obvious matter. One can only assume that they’ve never been in danger or they imagine danger only happens to the oppressed – whomsoever that may be. Just imagine, fellow readers, if every criminal circumstance were reported fully, including the actions taken by Police Officers and lives saved or taken out of harm’s way, what the collective opinion of Police Departments would be. How many times are they dispatched and get there “in time” to save a life, apprehend a villain, stop a crime, that no one eve hears about? Far more than the odd and occasional opposite circumstance. I moved away too Joe.
My husband and I lived, raised our family and had our jobs in Lakewood since 1969. I recently witnessed how people have become much more emboldened to break laws especially when driving on Lakewood streets. No longer do I see police cars monitoring motorists as they speed down our Lakewood neighborhood. I don’t agree with the governor’s new, somewhat-confusing rules for police officers to do their job nor do I like the overall permissive, dangerous atmosphere of Washington State. This State and Lakewood in particular, has deteriorated to a level that I no longer feel safe living here. It is time for people like me to move on to a State where police are allowed to do their jobs and people gladly respect the laws.
Margo,
Well said.
I wonder if the majority will wake up. The problems are horrific. The solutions are simple. Bad behavior should equal consequences regardless of race or gender.
I learned that as a kid. While I loved my parents, I knew from expereince that any bad behavior on my part would generate consequences I would not care for.
Thus it was easy to behave: same in school.
Joseph Boyle
Mr. Boyle,
Thank you for responding. I reread your story/opinion two more times. I can tell you that your use of fear to try and persuade readers to take your recommended action is quite clear. Your written words, “Handcuffing the police falls right in line with those who want to destroy America by destroying the 2nd Amendment, defunding the police, and emptying the prisons” are currently the same rhetoric designed to spread fear by right-wing extremists. I’m pleased to hear you are an independent thinker.
I do have some questions. Exactly, who are, “those who want to destroy America”? Are you talking about the domestic terrorists Americans watched assault our Democracy and our law enforcement on January 6th? If not, then who? Who exactly is trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment and what does that have to do with the use of Reasonable Suspicion by the police? Who is trying to let all criminals out of prison? Has the Lakewood Police Department made an official statement that all Lakewood citizens are now “on their own” and will no longer respond to a 911 call?
I respect the police. I support good policing. I am thankful for our Lakewood Police and have no complaints about the services they provide to our community. I have family in law enforcement. It is a dangerous and stressful job. However, abuse of power within some police departments in our state and across the country have occurred for all to see. Cell phones have captured what we never knew. The abuses by a few should never have been tolerated, hidden or dismissed by the majority; the same goes for any profession.
I sure hope that doesn’t make me one of your generic people “who want to destroy America.”