Road rage? Sounds more like 'roid rage.

“Are you going to take me to jail?” the driver asks.

“Maybe, right now you’re obstructing,” Belgarde says.

jesus christ, what a thin-skinned tiny -dicked baby. so glad he has a gun. fucking clown shoes SPD

SPD and KCSD pull these kinds of bullshit moves all the time: I've personally witnessed cops flashing their lights to run stop signs and yellow/red lights, pass heavy traffic via turn lanes, exceeding speed limits, etc., etc. And no, they're not doing it because they just got a call, because as soon as they pass whatever "obstruction" is making them late for their donut break, they turn off the lights and slow down. It's like driving a cop car, whether marked or no, gives them the impression they can just flagrantly break traffic laws they'd pull civilians over without a second thought.

it's the *rounding error of cops that give the other *rounding error of cops a bad name.

"The OPA did recommend discipline against Belgarde in 2016 after he and two other officers shot and killed Cornielous Morris, an unarmed Black man."

Not to rush to this assholes defense or anything but the linked story says he missed and the guy lived

Fact Checking Ashley:

TRUE: " Honking a horn to alert someone you might hit them, as the driver said he did, does not appear to be illegal under Washington law."

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway." - RCW 46.37.380

FALSE: "Washington state law prohibits unmarked police cars from making routine traffic stops, unless an officer directly witnesses a crime."

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.08.065
https://wspinsideout.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/wsps-unmarked-vehicles-explained/

FALSE: That its unclear the driver violated any laws by refusing to hand over his license.

"The driver then denies having road rage and refuses to give Belgarde his ID while they wait to hear from the driver’s supervisor. ... Whether or not the driver violated any laws, he may still face consequences from Metro."

RCW 46.20.017 requires drivers to produce a license on demand at any traffic stop for an alleged traffic infraction, whether or not a traffic infraction actually occurred, or their was "reasonable suspicion" of a traffic infraction (that is for a court to decide, not the driver at the side of the road). Other statutes require the driver to provide Proof of Insurance and Registration, but the cop didn't ask for that. If he had, both should be present on the bus.

The Metro Driver will face discipline from Metro for failure to comply with the law, and Metro policy, which will likely be sustained.

The Detective may face discipline for violation of some yet to be identified SPD policy that could be applicable.

It's not a good look for either public employee, or public agency.

The reporting on it is not a good look for The Stranger. One out of three facts critical to this story, is being reported correctly.

See @5, for another incorrect fact, in addition to those in @6, in Ashley's reporting.

Can we at minimum not hire cops that get into bar fights. Can we put the bar that high?

@5 and @6
Thank you for catching those, they needed to be corrected. - Ashley

@10, Welcome. Thanks for being willing to take a critical look at your own work.

@10 Always! You all keep me humble.

SPD should be prohibited from hiring any more ‘apples’ until they can demonstrate their ability to effectively remove any and all ‘bad apples’ they currently have in their ‘barrel.’

@11 @10 @Ashley Nerbovig - Don't correct the article yet. I think Ahab's interpretation is incorrect, or it is a gray area.
According to Spokane Police here: https://spokanepolicereforms.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/unmarked-vehicles-fact-sheet.pdf - it is disallowed
According to this Kitsap Sun article: https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2020/01/17/legality-using-unmarked-cars-speed-enforcement/4504427002/ - it seems to be a gray area that police departments are taking advantage of.
And from my own reading of the RCW, only the WSP is allowed to use unmarked cars for traffic violations if it is part of the ADAT team. Local police and sheriffs are not allowed to use unmarked cars unless it is for "special undercover or confidential investigative purposes" - and traffic control is not a special undercover or confidential investigative purpose.

It seems to me that departments are getting away with how poorly the RCW is written, but this creates an unsafe scenario for carjacking and impersonating officers. Perhaps instead of correcting the article, you should dive deeper into this gray area.

@12: Na, blemished apples are better than no apples. Such apples can still pull over drunk drivers and take down paranoid schizos with machetes.

@6 what traffic infraction was alleged? "Road rage" isn't an infraction, and I don't know any law that says a driver needs to show identification to an officer having a temper tantrum. The bus driver should be fully exonerated

@13, "Getting away with how poorly the RCW is written." If the RCW doesn't prohibit it, its permitted.

If they, like the rest of us, are using the RCW to permit what they want to do, because the RCW, or a court ruling interpreting the RCW, doesn't clearly and expressly prohibit what they want to do, they more power to them, and to us.

If we haven't expressed what we want the rules of society are to be in the law, via are elected legislators, that's on us, not the person, or agency, doing something we don't like, because the law doesn't prohibit it.

Just the other day I watched a cop car (ahem, SUV) suddenly swerve into the path of a bus I was riding, forcing the driver to slam the brakes. But in this case the bus driver didn't honk. Apparently that moment of professional self-restraint saved us a half-hour of idling by the curb.

Personally I think Seattle has enough police officers. Perhaps not an excess number of them, but enough. They're just allocated in sometimes ridiculous ways. I don't know why a one- or two-person encampment sweep needs to involve a half-dozen cops, but that seems to be standard procedure. Now multiply that by the number of sweeps (a dozen? two dozen?) in an average day and it's no wonder real crimes don't get a faster response.

@16: "If we haven't expressed what we want the rules of society are to be in the law, via are elected legislators, that's on us, not the person, or agency, doing something we don't like, because the law doesn't prohibit it."

Actually we ought to expect a professional public safety agency to have a point of view on unclear laws relating to public safety, and to take the lead on establishing clarity.

@13 Ahab - the RCW DOES prohibit the use of unmarked cars from operations other than special undercover or confidential investigative purposes.

The exception clause is what is causing confusion:
"This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."

FACT: The “undercover or confidential investigative” requirement applies to all the vehicles in that
sentence. If that sentence did in fact cover two separate categories of vehicles, they would be noted
with an (a) and a (b) as is done in the very next sentence which reads: "This subsection shall not
apply to: (a) Any municipal transit vehicle operated for purposes of providing public mass
transportation; (b) any vehicle governed by the requirements of subsection (4)..."

It is expressly prohibited, but because people misread it, people like you are giving them powers they don't have. And then the reporter amends the article to further confuse people and take away our power one bit at a time.

This cop created an unsafe situation for both himself and others: escalating a situation over a honk at a car that wasn't identifiable. In similar situations, how would a citizen know the difference between an undercover cop making a prohibited traffic stop and a carjacking?

@16 you have a view of the law as terrifying as it is absurd. Law preserves the rights of citizens but constrains the powers of government. Police are empowered to make traffic stops ONLY to the extent authorized by law.

@19, So the confidential investigative purpose could be catching speeders, or other motor vehicle violations.

The law doesn't define or restrict that in anyway leaving the agency and/or its employees free to decide, unless there is some employment policy that restricts the nature of confidential investigations to certain crimes for civil violations.

One source that came up repeatedly when I looked into this was search engine optimized law firm web sites. Several said something like don't try using this particular statute, and that the car was unmarked, as a defense because it won't work.

I didn't go further to search Washington State Appellate Court rulings to see if that's correct, or they are just exaggerating to get someone to hire them for $400 bucks to quash their traffic ticket. Knock yourself out, and post what you find for us.

My point is that until there is an Appellate Court Ruling that says a stop like this one, with an unmarked car, can't be doing undercover traffic investigations, its permissible. Their would need to be some Appellate Court limiting the scope of enforcement that can be done undercover or confidential. To my knowledge there isn't and the attorney's websites would seem to suggest their isn't. That could be wrong.

There not their.

@20,

"RCW 46.61.021

Duty to obey law enforcement officer—Authority of officer.

(1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

(2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address."

So the driver of the bus used the horn. The Detective called it "road rage" on the video, but what would appear on the ticket is violation of:

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway." - RCW 46.37.380

As an aside, Metro drivers used to use three horn taps at a bus stop when they knew they had a passenger on board that wanted the bus in front of them. Metro policy prohibited that decades ago, after a number of "Karen's" near stops called the cops, and tickets for improper use of the horn were issued.

Note the statue says, "shall not otherwise use such a horn." So the "reasonable suspicion" to justify the traffic investigation would be that the driver of the Metro bus wasn't using the horn to warn the officer of impending danger.

The Detective could have gotten on the bus and asked as part of his investigation of a possible traffic violation, "Why did you lay on the horn back at _?" If the answer the driver gives is, "Because I am running late for my passengers and it was rude of you to slow my already slow bus down by taking the space in front of me and it pissed me off," the result may be a ticket.

Based on that statement, and the fact that the bus didn't strike the vehicle, and nobody on the bus was hurt by the braking maneuver, the use of the horn wasn't to warn anyone of danger. The preponderance of that evidence (the standard required to prove a civil infraction of the law) indicates an unlawful use of the horn.

A cop investigating anyone is NEVER required to state (unless you sue them alleging an unlawful stop) what their "reasonable suspicion" was that they are using to justify an investigatory stop. If they arrest you, they are NEVER required (same stipulation, with the addition of a criminal court proceeding where they would state PC) to state their probable cause.

In the context of a traffic stop you may never get a ticket and never know what their "reasonable suspicion" was. They may have seen you weaving with your lane ("reasonable suspicion" of impaired driving), stopped you to investigate that suspicion, then talked to you at your window, not smelled alcohol, see drugs, or develop any other evidence of impaired driving. They then let you go. They didn't tell you why they stopped you, you forgot to ask, or if you asked they declined to tell you. Happens all the time. Legal.

@21 Ahab

I actually did do some further investigation on this, I called SPD in the flesh and got a Sgt with traffic enforcement. I specifically asked what their policy was and how both a citizen and an officer would avoid a dangerous situation when unmarked cars are used for traffic enforcement (i.e. causing a citizen to suspect a carjacking in progress etc).

He offered no official policy but did make a point to say that currently SPD does not use any unmarked cars for their (shrinking) traffic enforcement group. That said, he also claimed that other groups like SWAT etc. could make traffic stops if they 'needed to'. So basically more gray area nonsense here - they think they can do whatever they want so long as they make up an excuse, regardless of the law.

To your comment about "confidential investigative purpose could be catching speeders, or other motor vehicle violations" - no, the SPD is not permitted to set up 'sting operations' for traffic enforcement by RCW 46.08.065(1) and this is evidenced by the fact that later in (3) it states that only the WSP can: "(3) .... Traffic control vehicles of the Washington state patrol may be exempted from the requirements of subsection (2) of this section at the discretion of the chief of the Washington state patrol." -- PROVIDED that the WSP Chief so orders, which is the special "Aggressive Driving Apprehension Team" (ADAT) that you previously linked. (Which while it seems to be allowed by the law, it also creates dangerous situations that I completely disagree with).

It might be true that arguing with this alone might be difficult, but its plain to see in this case with the Metro bus that the driver had no way of knowing this was a cop when he honked (justifiably). Had the car been properly marked it would have been obvious to the bus driver that maybe the cop was making the aggressive move in order to respond to a call etc and there would have been no problem. Having cops perform 'sting operations' by driving aggressively and then pulling people over when they react to it is essentially entrapment, and is forbidden in most cases (as it should be) on the road because of how extra dangerous that would be with moving vehicles for everyone involved.

The Stranger is now altering stories based upon some moron commenter's interpretation of the law? What the fuck?

@23 "nobody was injured so it wasn't a dangerous traffic maneuver" is an insane standard. Almost as insane as arguing the cops can do whatever they want as long as it isn't specifically prohibited by RCW and the public has only ourselves to blame

@25,

A moron commenter who's been banned from posting to the site literally dozens of times to boot.

@24, So no case law from an Appellate Court to support any interpretation of this law, one way or the other. Got it.

Absent that case law, SPD is free to interpret the law just as @24 describes SPD doing.

@30, IMO the use of the horn was justifiable as a warning of potential collision.

@23 is a hypothetical for purposes of example. It didn't go down that way.

"Special Victims Unit Detective Belgarde may also face consequences depending on what the OPA finds in its investigation."

This is the most naive part of the article. Does anyone believe that an SPD officer will face consequences over this? They can literally kill people without consequence. Whatever slap on the wrist that the OPA might suggest will be bitterly contested by SPOG, and it will become another in a long line of jokes that SPD officers will recount to each other in between running over pedestrians.

"As the driver explains over the radio what’s happening, he mentions that Belgarde wants to arrest the driver for obstruction. Belgarde then denies saying he planned to arrest the driver. One of the off-camera passengers quietly laughs and then mimics the officer saying, 'I might take you to jail for obstruction.’”

Just to be clear the video never shows Belgarde saying he "would" arrest the driver for obstruction. He said, "Maybe," as in "might". Big difference between it's an option or possibility, and a certainty.

@31 Public employees are not "at will," like private employees are. They may only be terminated "for cause", for violating a clear policy, set in advance, that is clearly applicable to any given conduct.

Further such policies must be demonstrated by the employer to be necessary to the performance of the duties for which the employee was hired, and must be the least restrictive to the employees civil rights. Courts don't want, and are hostile to, public employers using a livelihood to coerce citizens that accept employment from the government from exercising their civil rights.

Anthony Belgarde. One of Seattle's Finest. Bad cops make for bad police forces. And the city electeds obviously want nothing to do with the matter. Duck and run.