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.
The article did not say who alerted the police to this man's "problem" and does not mention what exactly he was alleged to have done to indicate that there was a problem. I mention these things as a way to point out that this most relevant information is missing from the article and, not knowing why it is missing, I am not faulting the author of the article or anyone who may have posted the article or commented on it.
WOW! Talk about 'profiling'. And lack of due process.
Yes, I am outraged, FMC. Sadly, my sense of outrage has been dulled over the decades by the shenanigans at all levels of law enforcement, from local police right up to the FBI, BATF, and CIA. Of course, the CIA is not chartered to act as law enforcement within the United States, but it cheerfully does so anyway.
How about this rationale?: "Hey, he looks like one of those disgruntled white male extremists! You know, the kind Janet Napoleonato warned us about."
Not being the posting police, just don't be surprised if it doesn't get the attention that it deserves.
I believe those are excellent questions. They deserve some answers too. What precipitated this? So far there’s no excuse whatsoever lofted.
In that we’re certainly in agreement. IMO, this guy has a quality case against the city. Either they need to come up with a reason, or this guy should be compensated.
And if someone filed a false report, they need to be held accountable.
That compensation is a rather hollow victory, because it’s clear this guy could have been executed if he was afraid and refused to come out. That means there was likely a false report made, with implications related to a mortal situation.
What bothers me is that the police take the brunt of this, because they probably refuse to release the name of the person who made the report. And operating on that report, they not only take unnecessary action, but cause the reputation of good officers to suffer in the process.
This really does stink.
The police should take the brunt of it. It’s their responsibility to vet their informants and intel before acting on it.
I believe the two Border Patrol officers who shot the Mexican drug runner in the behind were so charged, and though he did not die, got something like 10 years each, thankfully commuted.
At least one such case has recently been concluded, about a year ago, with a prison term, in Gary, Indiana. DOJ Press Release *here*
I couldn't begin to tell you how many there've been nationwide; hundreds, at least. Here's some info on a few of them. And here's some more info on one patrticularly notorious example, in which I believe at least one guilty plea has been accepted in order to avoid the possible imposition of the maximum possible penalty.
I can better track them down by federal court district, if there's one in particular in which you're interested. And of course, Section 1983 civil penalties may also be applied as well or instead, as in this Los Angeles case
BTTT!
His supervisor did. The supervisor reported three other employees over the last year. And no one can get an answer as to why.
Well, I’m not totally in disagreement there.
If someone tells you they heard him say something, it’s nearly impossible to check it out though.
I do think it would have been a good idea to check with the people involved with the negotiations to resolve his case. Then again one of them may have been a wing-nut.
Sounds to me like a neighbor may have seen him with, of all things, sit down, wait for it, a gun or guns. They probably embellished that with the fact he’d recently lost his job too. It’s just tough to tell right now.
It shouldn’t be. My beef with the officers is that they are not telling what they know. They don’t have to give out names, but they should do more than they have to resolve this.
The public should not be placed in a situation where they think it’s only a matter of time until this happens to them. And this guy should probably have never been challenged.
If they let him go by noon, it’s very evident they had nothin’, and that may very well include (or in this matter exclude) probable cause.
Why wasn’t a judge involved? Most departments have a judge they can rely on. That they didn’t have one involved is probably the first indication that they were on very shaky ground here.
I think this guy is lucky to be alive frankly.
ping
This seems like a nice big fat lawsuit waiting to happen.
Even 25 years ago, No knock warrants were rare and had to have a good reason to be used. Now they are so common as to be unremarkable. They have not worked well. Most of the reason for their existence is the stupid war on some drugs. If we scaled back SWAT teams to the very rare use of no knock warrants we would reduce these problems by about 90 percent.
You have it backwards. He himself was using the prescribed grievance process. According to much older stories, it was one or more supervisory personnel in the O-DOT that passed their "fears" to the police.
I don't know any of the key words or titles to look it up, but I read it (posted on FR) as a news story right after it actually happened.
Now it appears "several coworkers" were afraid of him: coworkers had reported frequent outbursts by Pyles. It goes on to say that after learning of Pyles gun purchases, several ODOT employees left their homes and went to motels.
And here is the Medford Mail Tribune's initial story about it: Police act swiftly after gun purchases
There just barely might a thin coating of Teflon on the cops. My personal opinion is that the O-DOT a-holes should be hung out to dry, and the cops need a good knuckle-busting by the courts, as well.
Which movie is that?
The lawyer is barking up the wrong tree with the kidnapping IMHO. They should look at Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law, 18 USC 242. Normal immunities don’t apply, either. Again, IMHO.
People on Freerepublic need to wise up, you aren’t going to get things changed by making these “cold dead hands” type of statements that I see over and over, it only confirms what people outside of this community think about us, “just a bunch of rednecks and nut jobs”. The guy in Oregon did the right thing, go peacefully and then sue the bastards into the ground when you get out. He’s alive to fight the only way we can, in the courts.
Get these idiots attention, and be sure to remind everyone what happened.
Thanks.
So rare as to be non-existent. They were only first approved under the Reagan administration.
Most of the reason for their existence is the stupid war on some drugs.
Actually that was the only reason they were first approved.
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.