An Open Letter to Rob McKenna and the King County Young Republicans

Dear Knuckleheads,


Have you lost your damn minds?

I realize that it was just pants crappingly upsetting to have someone videotaping your little shindig, but the decision to call 911 did not represent your best work, I'm afraid.

The time that the 911 operators spent on your non-troversy was time they couldn't spend on such trivial matters as crimes involving weapons, drugs, and other non-camera related incidents.

I direct your attention to this youTube video. Link HERE.

Pay particular attention to the portion that starts at about 1 minute and 9 seconds into the video...

911 Operator: ...did you get his date of birth or anything?...


Knucklehead: ...um... Zach... What is your date of birth?... What's your date of birth...?


[Zach (last name deleted, but I assume it's Galifianakis at this point) in background gives Knucklehead his date of birth]


Knucklehead: Yes... um... (date of birth bleeped out)

Now, that part right there? That is your first clue that you are not experiencing an emergency.

I shall illustrate.

Say someone was calling 911 to report a home invasion...

911 Operator: ...did you get his date of birth or anything?...


Actual Crime Victim: ...um... Guy robbing my house..? What is your date of birth?... What's your date of birth...?


[Armed Burglar in background gives Actual Crime Victim his date of birth]


Actual Crime Victim: Yes... um... (date of birth bleeped out)

Or... say a physical assault...

911 Operator: ...did you get his date of birth or anything?...


Actual Crime Victim: ...um... Guy beating the crap out of me..? What is your date of birth?... What's your date of birth...?


[Assailant in background gives Actual Crime Victim his date of birth]


Actual Crime Victim: Yes... um... (date of birth bleeped out)

See how absurd that seems?

If you are able to have a conversation with someone and exchange information such as date of birth while making a call to 911 , it sends the message that you are not in need of immediate police protection from whomever you are making such an exchange.

More to the point, 911 calls are not appropriate moments for name dropping.

A number of times during the three 911 calls you made you mentioned that the Attorney General was present at the event. This has the unfortunate effect of making it sound like there are two levels of service provided by the police. The first level of service, provided to the unwashed masses, and the second VIP level of service offered to such worthy folk as the Attorney General. It doesn't work that way. An emergency is an emergency to the police, and dropping names doesn't really matter to them.

As the son of a cop, I personally know only one thing about police work. The most precious resource at any on duty police officer's disposal is time. It is the one thing they never have to spare. They have enough gas in their cars, they have enough bullets in their guns, they have enough ink in their pens. But they never, ever have enough time.

I saw my Dad get up from countless unfinished meals to take police calls. Cops drop literally everything they are doing to respond to a call, not the least of which happens to be a dinner fork.

So, when you call the police, you have an obligation to do so only when it rises to the occasion.

Furthermore, the Attorney General is supposed to be the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the State of Washington. That means he is supposed to know what rises to the level of requiring the intervention of law enforcement, and what does not.

You Knuckleheads have essentially outed Mr. McKenna as a person who has a startlingly limited understanding of his own chosen profession.

Then there is the matter of Washington State case law in regards to the reasonable expectation of privacy.

A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that takes place at a meeting where one who attended could reveal what transpired to others.
State v. Slemmer, 48 Wash.App. 48, 53, 738 P.2d 281
(1987).

In general, the presence of another person during the conversation means that the matter is neither secret nor confidential.
[State v. Modica, 149 P.
3d 446 - Wash: Court of Appeals, Div. 1 2006]

A party to a conversation is deemed to have consented to having his or her communication recorded when the person knows that the recording is taking place.
Townsend, 147 Wash.2d at 675, 57 P.3d 255 (party deemed to have consented to the recording of e-mail messages because he knew such messages would be automatically recorded on the recipient's computer). See also In re Marriage of Farr, 87 Wash.App. 177, 184, 940 P. 2d 679 (1997) (party deemed to have consented to the recording of message when he left the message on an answering machine, the only function of which is to record messages).[State v. Modica, 149 P. 3d 446 - Wash: Court of Appeals, Div. 1 2006]

The fact that a transaction is conducted with the public has been enough for us to find that such transaction is not private, even when the transaction takes place inside a private home, a location normally afforded maximum privacy protection.
[State v. Clark, 916 P. 2d 384 - Wash:
Supreme Court 1996]

In the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no obligation to obtain permission before recording a conversation or transaction in Washington State. Particularly on public property. Even on private property, if the public has been invited to attend an event there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding what is presented to the
attending public.

Finally, there's this matter of the same nonsense I heard from Doug Ericksen when he threatened to get the police involved when I was trying to plug into the PA system of his townhall meeting...

One of you Knuckleheads mentioned that you were renting the venue.

That doesn't make the venue private property. If it is a public facility, then you have rented a public facility.

Someone in that room had to know what the nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy was, and what state case law had to say on the matter.

In fact, there was one person present at the meeting who had to know this as a matter of professional necessity.

The Attorney General of the State of Washington.

Time for you Knuckleheads to cowboy up and order some bunching-resistant panties before your next meeting.

Sincerely,

ApexNerd