Posted on 05/19/2010 2:39:42 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
To hear them tell it, the officers who apprehended 39-year-old David Pyles on March 8 thwarted a mass murder. The cops “were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation,” the Medford, Oregon, police department announced in a press release. The subject had been placed on administrative leave from his job not long before, was “very disgruntled,” and had recently purchased several firearms. “Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers,” the press release said. Fortunately, Pyles “voluntarily” turned himself over to police custody, and his legally purchased firearms “were seized for safekeeping.”
This supposedly voluntary exchange involved two SWAT teams, officers from Medford and nearby Roseburg, sheriff’s deputies from Jackson and Douglas counties, and the Oregon State Police. Pyles hadn’t committed any crime; nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or a mental health professional before sending military-style tactical teams to take Pyles in.
“They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning,” Pyles says. “I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions. I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation.”
By noon, Pyles had already been released from the Rogue Valley Medical Center with a clean bill of mental health. Four days later the Medford Police Department returned Pyles’ guns, despite telling him earlier in the week—falsely—that he would need to undergo a second background check before he could get them back. The Medford Police Department then put out a second press release, this time announcing that it had returned the “disgruntled” worker’s guns and “now considers this matter closed.”
There’s nothing wrong with looking for signs that someone is about to snap. If he is waving multiple red flags, we’d certainly want law enforcement to investigate. And obviously if someone has made specific threats, a criminal investigation should follow. But that’s a far cry from what happened to Pyles.
Pyles’ problems followed a series of grievances with his employer, the Oregon Department of Transportation. “It was never personal,” he says. “We were handling the grievances through the process stipulated in the union contract.” (Pyles declined to discuss the nature of the complaints, citing conditions in his contract.) On March 4 he was placed on administrative leave, which required him to work from home. On March 5, 6, and 7, after getting his income tax refund, he made three purchases of five firearms. Pyles describes himself as a gun enthusiast who already owned several weapons.
All three purchases required an Oregon background check, which would have prohibited the transactions had Pyles ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence or been committed by the state to a mental health institution. Pyles says he has no criminal record, and he says he never threatened anyone in his office. (Later reports confirmed that Pyles never made any threat of violence.) The Oregon State Police, the Medford Police Department, and the Oregon Department of Transportation did not respond to requests for comment.
“In my opinion, the apprehension of David Pyles was a violation of Oregon’s kidnapping laws,” says James Leuenberger, a criminal defense attorney who is advising Pyles. “He definitely deserves to be compensated for what they did to him, but even if he wins a civil rights suit, that will just result in the officers’ employers paying for their mistakes.” That means the final tab will be paid by Oregon taxpayers, not the offending cops. “I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible,” Leuenberger says. “I want them criminally charged.”
It’s hard to see that happening. Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles likely were acting within the state’s laws. Bloom says the police are permitted to decide on their own to take someone in for an evaluation, and that there’s no requirement that they first consult with a judge or a mental health professional.
Bloom believes this is a wise policy. “It’s important to remember that this is a civil process,” he says. “There’s no arrest. These people aren’t being taken to jail. It’s not a criminal action.”
SWAT teams, guns, and handcuffs …but not a criminal action? And what if Pyles had refused to “voluntarily” surrender to the police? “Well, yes,” Bloom says. “I guess then it would become a criminal matter.”
If what happened to Pyles is legal in Oregon or elsewhere, we need to take a second look at the civil commitment power. Even setting aside the SWAT overkill in Medford, there’s something discomfiting about granting the government the power to yank someone from his home based only on a series of actions that were perfectly lawful.
Even if the apprehension of Pyles was legal, the seizure of his guns was not. Civil commitment laws do not authorize the police to search a private residence. According to Pyles, he closed the door behind him as he left his home. Because the police didn’t have a search warrant, they had no right to enter Pyles’ home, much less take weapons that he bought and possessed legally.
“For me,” says Pyles, “this is about civil rights. This seems like something the NRA and the ACLU can agree on. South Oregon is big gun country. If something like this can happen here, where just about everyone owns a gun, it can happen anywhere.”
Radley Balko (rbalko@reason.com) is a senior editor at reason.
EXACTLY the thought I had after reading the article. What, or who actually motivated the Police in this incident?
the process stipulated in the union contract
I caught that too. A clue as to who was inventing stories about this guy and why. Apparently in our 0baThugocracy the unions will be directing police actions.
I remember something similar at Columbine. Those guys sure liked to march instead of being where needed.
>> What is a pre-crime?
Unconstitutional.
Folks, going in I’m going to tell you that I think we have over-swat teamed ourselves to the point of absurdity. Our federal government is out of control. There are definitely some serious problems in this area.
That being said, what would have been our reaction if this department had been warned, did nothing, then this guy went out and killed people setting up a hostage situation? Wouldn’t we have been angry about that too? I am reminded of the shooter at Fort Hood.
That may be a bad example, because I believe that guy was clearly headed for trouble, and yet nobody did anything.
Isn’t it possible this guy showed some very concerning warning signals too? We’re not privy to all the information on this yet are we?
Even people with no record go off sometimes. What’s the solution to this? We had officers to up to a home up near Valencia about seven years ago, and the occupant opened fire on the officers, so you can’t just waltz up to someone’s door and try to ask them questions in all instances either.
They also have police answers.
Part of the problem is that now every city and town has these neat SWATs and they are always looking for excuses to use them. It makes them feel heroic and efficient and technologically advanced.
You ask the million dollar question and we should know, because ANYONE can do this anyone one of us if they think we are disgruntled or out of sorts and there isn’t a law to support their (police) actions.
Excellent observation!
Your reply is dead on, look what happened with the little girl in I believe MI, she was killed for I believe POT. Listen breaking the law is wrong, but sending SWAT, I thought that was for the worst of the worst, imho.
Great comment!
The article only says this...
All three purchases required an Oregon background check, which would have prohibited the transactions had Pyles ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence or been committed by the state to a mental health institution. Pyles says he has no criminal record, and he says he never threatened anyone in his office. (Later reports confirmed that Pyles never made any threat of violence.)
We’re not privy to all the information on this yet are we?
This happened over two months ago. How long will it take to hear one single reason for this and who made the allegations?
Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles likely were acting within the state’s laws. Bloom says the police are permitted to decide on their own to take someone in for an evaluation, and that there’s no requirement that they first consult with a judge or a mental health professional.
As far as I know the police would have to have one of three criteria of a 5150(see below):
1) Danger to Others
2) Danger to self
3) Gravely disabled
If the alleged citizen meets one or more of these criteria the police are obligated to have a psychiatric exam however this sounds much more like some obtuse filed complaint in which the police overreacted badly. Could be a major lawsuit. Just entering a psych facility and not having the whole thing expunged completely can come back and bite this man thus taking away his 2nd amendment rights forever or else if no reprimand the police could continue this practice. He needs to fight this. The shrink is wrong according to his statement and should have knowledge of the criteria.
Perhaps NUTS is the wrong word, I just found it all NUTS, so forgive me if that was in poor choice.
I ask that you read the article again on how this was started and disgruntled could be considered mentally unfit, which I took to the since I thought this was NUTS ... using the word nuts.
I do appreciate your perspective and I thank you friend.
~FMC
The fact that he immediately turned himself in was really all the “Psychological review” he needed. :)
The fact that the employer was mentioned a couple times and the justification police used (his being put on home suspension)....makes me suspect a disgruntled co-worker who wanted to take the guy out of his company for good. Scary times.
If you get the chance contact your local police folks and ask how they would respond and post it I think this is a way to make our voices known once we know how many precincts would act this way.
trapped_in_LA:
No point in poking a bear with a stick. Maybe the geek would quietly walk backwards, out his front door, with his hands up.
I think many of us are outraged at the amount of power the police state weilds these days. From overzealous tazing, to confiscation of private property(no crime but, you have to prove you deserve it back) and these ridiculous SWAT engagements.
Some of us feel like we could make a difference by taking a stand, even though we know it would end badly for us, most likely.
Things have to change the state has to be reigned in and their powers restricted, so innocent people or people who have committed no crime are not endangered.
Not their persons, property or lifestyle.
I don’t understand your reply to me. I had no problem with the use of the word ‘nuts’ and used it myself in the same way you did. Why do I need to reread the article? I thought I comprehended it very well.
That is just what I was thinking. He was the only one who acted rationally. Everyone else involved now needs a serious psyche eval to go along with their prosecutions.
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in the article who alleged he was nuts or on what basis. I think everyone involved in this should lose their jobs and be barred from ever working as police officers or in any civil service job.
53 posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:09:32 PM by TigersEye (0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
TigersEye I have highlighted why I responded in the way that I did, I am not upset, only responding that you did not see the word, fair enough, I felt the implication differently. We can politely agree to disagree.
Sounds like the minority report movie. Catch the perp before they do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.