Badmanhunter2 wrote:
I noticed that in a paragraph it said that he was certified and required to wear a uniform Identifying himself . i dont recall,In reading the article, him wearing any visible I.D. or clothing .. ??? while we are not required to notify LE we still have to IDENtify ourselves. Right ?! while we work outside the law ,we are not above the law .
Washington State law does not require any clothing identification unless you are performing a "planned forced entry" on a dwelling. Not even a badge is required, it is only optional. And you are correct, the agent did not have any identifying clothing or a badge, and apparently he didn't even verbally identify himself to the defendant. To me, all those factors should be practiced as common sense, but it won't surprise me if it ends up being legislated. Almost all the laws we have are written because some monkey didn't have the common sense to make the decision for themselves. Even when operating in my street clothes, I still wear identifying garments underneath and always carry my badge.
I think the overall perspective given by this incident shows that no common sense was used.
