Skip to comments.

MUST READ: SWAT team brings in a man, seizes his legally purchased guns-for a crime no one committed

REASON ^ | June 2010 issue | Radley Balko

Posted on 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.



TOPICS:

Crime/Corruption

Front Page News

News/Current Events

US: Oregon

KEYWORDS:

banglist

bloodoftyrants

civilrights

communism

corruption

davidpyles

donttreadonme

donutwatch

freedom

guns

jackbootedthugs

jbt

liberalfascism

lping

medford

medfordgestapo

medfordpd

militarism

nazistate

policemilitarization

policestate

precrime

pyles

rapeofliberty

swat

NUTS. Now if he were nuts, and based on some type of reasoned SOP than I MIGHT entertain the discussion of the ability of the police to do this. But, not to remove his legally obtained weapons, this is just NUTS. Anyone outraged by this article? If so pass it along, because the idea that you can search without a warrant, seize w/o a warrant, based on no crime, only the offerings of another that a man may be nuts is. Now if he were nuts, and based on some type of reasoned SOP than I MIGHT entertain the discussion of the ability of the police to do this. But, not to remove his legally obtained weapons, this is just NUTS. SWAT, what if he hadn't complied peacefully, it appears without a crime, they sure thought it was possible. It is worthy of a second read. Love the idea that this may rise to "kidnapping" If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. I am going to call our local cops to see what the SOP is here, offering to send this article as the purpose of my inquiry. Stunning article. ~FMC



To: Former Military Chick

Oregon has a Pre-Crime division. Not good.



To: Former Military Chick

It's called Pre-Crime ! Welcome to 1984. ...errr 2010.



To: Former Military Chick

The department of Pre-Crime grows. A decent defense attorney would have this guy sprung in about 10 minutes, and the DA backpedaling his butt off.



by 4 posted onby TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)

To: Former Military Chick





by 5 posted onby RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)

To: Former Military Chick

But, but, it’s for the “general welfare”, it’s there in the Constitution. Sovietesque. Not a crime, but a crime. Not an arrest, but an arrest. Refuse, and it’s a crime. Kinda like the Breathalyser. Nannyism uber Alles.



by 6 posted onby swarthyguy (KIDS! Deficit, Debt,Taxes!Pfft Lookit the bright side of our legacy -Ummrika is almost SmokFrei!)

To: Former Military Chick

Lawsuit filed?



by 7 posted onby rahbert (Only a poor snake charmer blames his snake..)

To: Former Military Chick

Here is the reason they failed: He did not respond the way they wanted him to. He gave himself up. What if he had said, “I’ve done nothing wrong, and unless you have a warrant, I expect you to leave my property.” Would it have escalated? Could they have said they have one of these “nutcase constitutionalist TEA baggers ‘holed up’ in his home”? I think they were the equivalent of a man poking a bear, just hoping it would swat at him so he could shoot it.



by 8 posted onby RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)

To: Former Military Chick

The cops have police powers. Best not to shoot it out with them, except later in court.



To: TChris





by 10 posted onby dblshot (Insanity - electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)

To: Former Military Chick

What I’m curious about is ....who filed a complaint against this man and started the series of events which unfolded? They should be held accountable.



by 11 posted onby LaineyDee (Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)

To: Former Military Chick

I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible, Leuenberger says. I want them criminally charged. Me too.



To: dblshot

Got a “no hotlinking” image instead... You’ll have to try a different source.



by 13 posted onby TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)

To: Former Military Chick

Just another random, isolated example of the 99% giving the 1% a bad name.



These cops should be criminally charged and police, when convicted, should be subject to substantially harsher penalties than citizens and should not be protected from serving their time in the general population.



If the police ever suffered legitimate punishment for breaking the law maybe they'd start to "serve and protect" again.



To: secretagent

If each Jew taken in Germany back in the ‘40s had shot just one...



by 15 posted onby benewton (Life sucks, then you die)

To: Former Military Chick

” what if he hadn’t complied peacefully, it appears without a crime, they sure thought it was possible. “ He would have been killed and the SWAT team would have found drugs in his house and child porn on his computer. They would have put them there, but, that is what the search would have turned up and after that they would have killed his dog and burned his house.



To: Former Military Chick

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. Always watch out for the professional liars - they're the worst. What Bloom isn't saying is that it is precisely the fact that these police abused their powers of evaluation to make this raid. Those powers are not devoid of responsibility. Put on the stand, these cops will not be able to justify their evaluatory conclusions, and the state will therefore not back them up since without justification, it was an abuse of power. So the suit will nail the cops for abuse, and the state for lack of oversight and training. Of course, in truth this was a political op to push the boundaries of acclimitization for civil SWAT raids with no probable cause to either shoot political enemies dead or throw them into psychiatric lockups. Sound farfetched? Read about the Soviet Union psych prisons - and then read Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan...



by 17 posted onby Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)

To: Former Military Chick

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. Frightening! Exactly where do they get this power? Are they exempt from the Constitutional restraints of Due Process, Illegal Search and Seizure or Equal Protection? Sounds like Soviet style "disappearing" tactics. What happens if you resist the Police "diagnosis," do they get to shoot you down like a dog?



by 18 posted onby JrsyJack (a healthy dose of buckshot will probably get you the last word in any argument.)

To: Former Military Chick

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. Good lawyer. Hope he fries them.



by 19 posted onby dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)

To: RobRoy

I think that you are correct.



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.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson