Tuesday, December 05, 2006

We don't like the competition

Oregon Library Introduces Therapy Dogs to Help Children Read
The Salem Public Library in Oregon has launched a unique initiative this month. Amidst the rushing around and stress that typically accompany the holiday shopping season, parents and caregivers can take their children to the pet-reading program at the library.

However not everyone is excited about the new reading program. "We believe that if you support these mutts then you are helping to ruin public education" said OEA president Larry Wolf. "Instead of focusing on the fact that we can't seem to get kids to read at their grade level in public schools why don't you just give us more money?"

But parents are cautiously optimistic. "My child has been going to public school for 6 years and all he ever came home with was lice. We're glad that finally our child will have someone help him to read who doesn't have approximately 1/3 of the year off."

Governor Kulongoski was quick to denouce the reading program as "ineffective" saying that "I believe that finding a stable funding source for the teachers union is the best way to teach childrent to read."

When asked about this picture Kulogoski attempted to distance himself from Hershey the dog by saying that they had a "working relationship" but he "doesn't support his political views."


RINO WATCH said...

The dope with the dog looks so "ebullient" don't he? (sic)

Anonymous said...

See pics of britney's you-know-what:


Tim said...

Geez give me a F*#*#g break. This is what you get with liberals in charge. "Feel Good" crap instead of results. In the end, it's about throwing money at problems instead of solving them.

Don't worry Ted will look for new and exciting ways to separate more money from working Oregonians to pay for more and more spending on crap like this. Isn't it grand to have Socialist in charge?

Anonymous said...


"Geez give me a F*#*#g break. This is what you get with liberals in charge. "Feel Good" crap instead of results. In the end, it's about throwing money at problems instead of solving them."

Geez. Take out the word liberal and replace it with conservative and replace "Feel Good" with "mass carnage and civil war", and you have accurately summed up our war effort in Iraq.

I prefer the feel-good crap, myself. Always useful to put things into a comparative perspective.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:11,

You want some feel good about Iraq? Here is some for you: Saddam and his terrorist regime is sentence to either death or a very long time in prison (hey no more pushing men off a building if they don't agree with you). While the country is having issues with insurgents they always have had this problem it's just in the news more.

Jobs are being created they have a new government and despite what the left wants us to believe and pushes on MSM their prospect for the future are looking really good.

However back to education while I would not use the language that Tim used I really do agree with him liberals love to throw money towards feel good projects that amount to alot of taxes for no good reasons.

Anonymous said...

"...While the country is having issues with insurgents they always have had this problem it's just in the news more.

Jobs are being created they have a new government and despite what the left wants us to believe and pushes on MSM their prospect for the future are looking really good."

You have got to be shitting me! Do you realize that there is not one kernel of truth to what you have just written. Prior to Saddam's ouster (and due largely to the fact that he was a tyrant) there was absolutely NO INSURGENCY in Iraq! Prospects looking really good?!?! Are you seriously telling me that the massive and prolonged slaughter of innocents is a media fabrication? Good Christ!

Anonymous said...

I never said it was a media fabrication I said that the media is misleading that nothing good is happening in Iraq when that is not true. How many soldiers have to come home and say why is no one reporting the good that goes on? Please do not tell me that there is no good just because CBS, NBC, CNN etc... reports only the bad does not make it so.

And just so you know the insurgents that are there now are all linked to Saddam. Please get your head out of the sand Saddam killed more innocent men, women, and children then anything that is going on now.

I will admit that things are shaky there but as long as the insurgents have liberals and democrats on their side things will not get any better.

Anonymous said...

"And just so you know the insurgents that are there now are all linked to Saddam."

Really? What about the multitudes linke to Muqtada al Sadr? Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? Apparently not many in our government do either. Hence, this quagmire.

Please. I'm dying to hear you make the case that insurgents have democrats and liberals on their side. What is your definition of "insurgent"? If it includes people engaged in sectarian violence -- Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds -- then how can liberals be on the side of all three? My understanding of the democratic doctrine is to take NO sides, get the fuck out, and let them figure out how to run their country.

Anonymous said...

Off topic but one of Daniel's favorite subjects:

YAKIMA -- An illegal immigrant with a history of drug arrests has been sentenced to five years and a month behind bars for the traffic death of a popular community college educator.

The prison term for Marcos Ramos Medina, 35, a twice-deported Mexican national who most recently lived in Portland, was the maximum under state guidelines for vehicular homicide. His criminal record in Portland included possession of cocaine and the sale of heroin for profit, and he also had a federal firearms conviction.

Medina was convicted last month of being high on methamphetamine when his car crossed the center line on U.S. 95 near Satus Pass on Aug. 4, 2005, and collided nearly head-on with a 2000 Lexus driven by Peggy Keller, 53, a radiology expert and dean of distance education and technical services at Yakima Valley Community College.

Defense lawyer Jeff West said the verdict would be appealed.

During the trial he argued that Medina acted with recklessness or negligence, which would be treated less severely, rather than driving while impaired, which is grounds for a vehicular homicide conviction.

Speaking through an interpreter Friday, Medina asked for forgiveness from those in Yakima County Superior Court.

Let me quess he just wanting to live the American dream right?

Anonymous said...

Hey,nice blog!!! I found a place where you can make an extra $800 or more a month. I do it part time and make a lot more than that. It is definitely worth a visit! You can do it in your spare time and make good cash. Make Extra Cash

Anonymous said...

Teachers already make too much money for their part-time job.

R Huse said...

Oh yeah, Iraq was a paradise until we got involved there. No insurgency in the North with the Kurds. Yep, and all those people Saddam gassed? Hey that was for parking violations.

I love the liberal way. Total isolationism unless we have absolutly no interests in the region. Then its full steam ahead al la Bosnia/Kosovo.

Oh wait, I guess we did have interests there, deflecting from the Monica testimony.

Ok then full steam ahead on military action only if there is a Democrat in the white house. Then its noble. After all no one died when Clinton lied.

Oops, except for all those people in Bosnioa/Kosovo and Sudan aspirin factories and all those cruise missile attacks. Damn, Ok then one more try.

Full steam ahead on military action no matter what the reason if its a Democrat running the show. If its a Republican then this country sucks and its imperialism.

There, I think I got it finally. Hey, you know there is a certain idiotic clarity to the whole left wing idiology. I love how you really dont have to think, just look at which party is in the White house and base your morality on that. NEAT!

Bryan Saxton said...

“Oh yeah, Iraq was a paradise until we got involved there. No insurgency in the North with the Kurds. Yep, and all those people Saddam gassed? Hey that was for parking violations.”

All too true. The only difference now is that we’re the ones killing civilians, not Saddam.

”I love the liberal way. Total isolationism unless we have absolutly no interests in the region.”

Not exactly. We didn’t go to war in Bosnia on a false pretense. We actually achieved desirable results in a short amount of time, as opposed to this war where we have actually worsened the situation for about three years now.

I’m not saying that it was right for us to go into Bosnia. I am saying it was wrong of us to go into Iraq.

R Huse said...

As for Iraq being based on a false pretense while Bosnia was not, good luck. We went into Bosnia on the premise of stopping ethnic cleansing. When the extent of the “ethnic cleansing” was found to be nowhere near what was believed, the press suddenly went silent. The Muslims then went on a virtual killing spree of the Serbs after our entry into the region. The press made far less of it than they do the sectarian violence in Iraq. I had to read it in National Geographic of all things.

I think it would be hard to argue it was wrong to go into Iraq at the time that decision was made. Saddam was in direct violation of the terms of his surrender. He was also clearly harboring terrorists as evidenced by the numerous videos of him handing out the famous $25K checks to suicide bomber families and ansar al-Islam’s total freedom to base their operations in Iraq. Those reasons remain valid to this day. When it was found that France and Germany were essentially taking bribes in the oil for food scandal, that pretty much cleared up why the UN would never enforce the 14 resolutions they passed against Iraq.

What has changed in recent years is revealed in your comment. Bosnia was over quick so it was judged successful; Iraq is ongoing so it is a failure. The American people simply do not have the understanding that a war can go on for a very long time. WW2 saw American troops in Europe for decades and was judged a success. The press dubbed Iraq a failure after a few months.

As I see it we can get out of Iraq now and simply wait for the next 9/11, which will come. People who have sworn to exterminate you tend to keep coming back, and that is what will happen.

Diesel said...


Most of the time I tend to agree with you, but when you write a generalization like,

"We're glad that finally our child will have someone help him to read who doesn't have approximately 1/3 of the year off."

I've got to say screw you, guy. In my opinion, you don't know jack about teachers or the teaching profession. I just got home from a 16 hour day teaching, 8 of which I was paid for. Why are you complaining about teachers getting the summers off, when they don't get paid for it? The district takes money out of my pay check all year in order to pay me over the summer, the summer when I HAVE to take (and pay for!) classes in order to keep my teaching license. Not only that, but if you think dealing with dirtbag, spoiled, unaccountable kids everyday is a cake job, you're welcome to it.

Keep spouting your generalizations man, but you just lost a reader.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Diesel.

Daniel, you don't know what you're talking about. You continue peddling in stereotypes and generalizations that are essentially fabrications spun by right wing talk radio. Your attempts at humor play about as well as Michael Richards'.

Your dis on teachers is unfair. Both of my parents were teachers growing up. they worked dawn to dusk during the school year and painted houses during the summer to keep our family afloat. Teaching is the most important and most underpaid profession. Stop disparraging it. Our country has declined drastically relative to others in educational achievement. Who can turn this around? Educators.

Screw you, Daniel!

R Huse said...

You know, it always sort of amazes me when teachers use the phrase “teaching profession” or “professional”. If they want to be treated as such, then I would suggest acting as such.

I know of few salaried professionals or salaried professions where it is appropriate to act as if one is entitled to overtime pay whenever a long day is put in. I also know of no professions that do not have ongoing education requirements that are quite frequently paid for by the professional themselves.

Lawyers, Engineers, Dentists, Auto Body Mechanics and HVAC technicians are but a few examples of professionals who have to pay for ongoing education.

In addition, how teachers calculate their monthly salary has little to do with anything. Whether they decide to have their paycheck spread over the nine months they do work, or the entire year is their own affair. The gross pay is the same and the fact of the matter remains; teachers get far more time off than the vast majority of professionals.

I do agree that teachers often have to deal with rotten undisciplined kids. I am sure more than a few parents view school as a dumping ground; yet are ready to pounce on the first teacher who lays a hand on their vermin like little darling. Teacher’s hands are probably tied more than they should be in this regard and for that they surely have my sympathy.

rickyragg said...


If you don't want public scrutiny and comment and you don't want to deal with "...dirtbag, spoiled, unaccountable kids..." get the hell out of the PUBLIC school teaching "profession". The tone of your comment tells me that you're not emotionally, or perhaps, intellectually, suited for it.

You do have the "victim" thing down, though. The OEA is good for something.

You sound like another disillusioned lib who thought that society OWED you a job, OWED you free continuing education and can't understand what went wrong.

If you sincerely think you're not being paid for your summers off and your alleged 16 hour days, your own education is lacking; your perspective on capitalism as well.

You teach Social Studies? Sounds like it's probably Socialism Studies.

Anonymous said...

rikkyrag - the number of comments in response to your rambling postings on your own blog are testimony to the insightfulness of your comments, you piece of shit.

rhuse - you use so many words to say so little. get a fucking job.

rickyragg said...


Enlightened discourse from...

Who was that masked man?

Oh, yes, he doesn't have one.

Well, thanks anyway for reading my blog. Some of us are secure in their beliefs and don't need the comments of others for validation.

Thanks also for the honor of dissing me in company with rhuse - who, almost always, says it much better than I.

BTW, if you can't type my blogger name correctly, there's always "cut and paste".

Anonymous said...


Who do you think you’re kidding? In this State a teacher’s salary and benefits are excessive for a part-time job! And don’t start with that crap about how many hours you put in. I know lots of teachers and they live by every clause in their contract which means they work a school day from 8AM to 4PM.

Teaching must be the only profession an individual can go into knowing full well how they will be compensated and then spend the next 20 years bitching about it! You are very well compensated so stop whining.

R Huse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
R Huse said...

Wow anonymous 11.50

Sorry my word usage is so threatening to you.

Im sorry, but I do have a job. I'm also inclined to believe that I make a little more money than you since poor word usage would seem to be your forte. After all, “if ya talk stupid, ya probly get paid stupid”.

Anyway, rather than dispense career advice to others I would suggest maybe you should concentrate on phonics, linguistics and reading comprehension. Get that under your belt and you will be ready to take the GED test again.

Good luck in your studies! Cheerio!

Bryan Saxton said...

"Anyway, rather than dispense career advice to others I would suggest maybe you should concentrate on phonics, linguistics and reading comprehension. Get that under your belt and you will be ready to take the GED test again."

You're right. It's not like the guy had to get his master's or anything to teach. Obviously, he knows nothing.

Seriously, knocking teachers for getting three months off from teaching (even though they have to attend classes and pay taxes, not to mention cope with being underpaid) is completely counterproductive to solving the problems that the public education system presents us with.

Bobkatt said...

The generalities abound on both sides of the teacher equation. Teachers do get an enormous amount of time off. They do require a lot of education but is it really all necessary? Do you need a masters to teach 3rd. grade?
"Why are you complaining about teachers getting the summers off, when they don't get paid for it?" Well, I get paid every other Friday, is that just for those 2 days every month?
"Teaching is the most important and most underpaid profession. Stop disparraging it." While teaching is very important, I hardly think it is the most important nor the most underpaid profession. In my humble opinion I think teaching is being disparraged is because they never shut up about how underpaid or overworked they are and it's always about the kids. They're our future you know. I can't remember one time in my 57 years that education didn't claim to need more money. If you teachers were serious about smaller class rooms you and your union would join with us that are screaming about illegal invaders crowding our schools and every other public service. How much of that 16 hour day is spent trying to learn Spanish or teach children that don't understand English? I think most of us are not satisfied with what we get for our money and telling us how hard you have it won't change that. We don't want the history revision, the socialist humanist agenda you offer and if we ever get vouchers you will find your class rooms are no longer crowded.
But I digress. As far as the reading to dogs, I think it's great. Anything that can reach a kid and make them eager to read and learn is OK by me.

R Huse said...

Bryan – How do you know Anonymous 11.50 has a masters? You are assuming he is a teacher? Why?

And yes, I was knocking teachers for whining about wanting to be treated about professionals and not acting like it.

I am so sorry they have to attend classes and pay taxes. Virtually all other professionals, as I listed in my post, have to do exactly the same thing I have little sympathy.

As for being underpaid. What a joke. Let’s got to the Big Board:

Average Oregon Teachers Salary including PERS: 48,175.00 (source - http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/average.htm)

Average Oregon Wage: $35,000 (source - http://www.econ.state.or.us/AveWageORoverview.pdf)

So there you have it, a little long division ciphering and we find Oregon teachers make close to 38% above the average wage. And, this is for working nine months out of the year compared to the average worker who gets a couple of weeks off if they are lucky.

When it comes to teachers pay – Cry me a river.

Scottiebill said...

Of course the dog doesn't share Teddy's political views. The dog is smarter than Teddy.

rickyragg said...

bryan's opinion that teachers have to "...cope with being underpaid..." is just baseless. What teachers "have to cope with" is being bound to a contract which their union negotiated and which they ratified.
In other words, they have to face reality, act like responsible adults - which most of them do just fine - despite bryan's predictable empathy for the *whiners (surprise, surprise).

*Contract? Well, we want MORE (stomp feet here). We have to work harder than we thought, We get comments from the taxpayers that hurt our feelings. We didn't understand what we were getting into, and, besides, it's just not fair.


If the vast majority of teachers would just stand up to the union and their enabling of the whiners, we'd be at least halfway to "... solving the problems that the public education system presents us with."

Anonymous said...

FILED: May 20, 2004



Respondent on Review,



Petitioner on Review.

(CC C000009CR, C000111CR; CA A111137 (Control), A111138; SC S50279)

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted March 3, 2004.

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**


The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

*Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Timothy P. Alexander, Judge. 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003).

**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


The issue in this criminal case is whether a police officer lawfully engaged in a precautionary patdown (1) of defendant in accordance with the officer safety rule set out in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 747 P2d 991 (1987). Because there were multiple charges against defendant arising out of separate police patdowns and a subsequent search of defendant's residence, we first set out the procedural history in some detail.

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on evidence uncovered during a patdown (the patdown at issue here) conducted in August 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence that the police discovered during that patdown. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress that evidence.

The same indictment also charged defendant with two other counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a result of evidence uncovered in a patdown that the police conducted in September 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that patdown, and the trial court granted that motion.

Finally, the police executed a search warrant at defendant's residence in December 1999 and seized evidence that led to defendant being charged separately with seven other weapon and drug-related crimes. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence as well, and the trial court denied that motion.

The court consolidated all charges and tried them at the same time. Defendant ultimately was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized as a result of the August patdown and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized during the December search of defendant's residence.

Defendant appealed, contending that the police had relied on the evidence that they discovered during the August patdown to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of the evidence seized during the December search of defendant's residence. A divided en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motions to suppress evidence discovered during the August patdown and the December search of his residence. State v. Miglavs, 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003). We allowed defendant's petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the August patdown was lawful and, therefore, affirm the trial court judgment and the decision of the Court of Appeals.

We take the following facts from the Court of Appeals majority opinion:

"Just after midnight in August 1999, Officer Brown, who was on patrol alone, saw defendant and another man standing outside a car, talking to a woman seated in the car, in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Beaverton. They were below an apartment overhang, which caused the area to be fairly dark. Because Brown suspected that all three individuals were under 18 years of age and possibly violating curfew, she approached the group. On approaching, she saw alcohol in the car. She asked for identification so that she could determine if any alcohol-related or curfew violations may have occurred. Defendant and the woman in the car gave Brown their identification, which she kept while she ran a records check on them. The other male said that he was 17 years old and gave his name and date of birth in lieu of other identification. The dispatcher reported that defendant was a possible runaway, but defendant told the officer that he had recently turned 18. He also told the officer that he lived in the apartment complex, even though his identification listed a different address. He was unwilling to tell the officer in which apartment he resided.

"Because she was on patrol alone, Brown called for backup while she was checking the ages and identities of the three individuals. Two backup officers arrived within a couple of minutes. By the time they arrived, Brown had determined that the driver of the car was 21 years old and therefore lawfully in possession of alcohol. She also had determined that defendant was 18 years old and therefore not violating curfew. Brown returned defendant's and the driver's identification to them, making no overture to cite or hold them. They were then free to go, but Brown did not expressly tell them that. They remained while Brown continued her investigation of the 17-year-old for a possible curfew violation.

"At that point, Brown was concerned for her personal safety and that of the backup officers. Defendant and his male companion were wearing distinctive clothing commonly associated with a gang called the '18th Street' gang. Typical of that gang, defendant had a shaved head and was wearing baggy tan pants and a baggy black shirt with the term '18th Street' printed on the back in large white letters. Defendant's companion also was wearing baggy gang-style clothes and had a three-dot tattoo under his eye that is associated with gang membership. The baggy style of the clothing concerned Brown because, in addition to signaling gang affiliation, the clothing permitted easy concealment of a weapon. Within the preceding year, Brown had come into contact with a similarly attired gang member in the parking lot of the same apartment complex who, on a patdown search, was found to have a weapon concealed in his waistband under his baggy clothing. Also, based on her training and experience more generally, Brown knew that members of the 18th Street gang commonly carry weapons--in particular, guns.

"One of the backup officers, Officer Cockreham, shared Brown's safety concerns. His concerns arose because of defendant's 18th Street gang-affiliated clothing, as well as the way in which defendant's shirt was draped over his waist. Cockreham had personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members in the same general area (i.e., along Allen Boulevard between Hall and King); one such encounter occurred 'just previously to this incident' and the weapon he found on the gang member was a gun. Brown directed Cockreham to patdown defendant for weapons. On doing so, Cockreham found a gun concealed in the waistband of defendant's pants."

186 Or App at 422-24 (footnote omitted).

In affirming the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun, the Court of Appeals majority relied on this court's earlier decision in Bates. There, this court held that

"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present."

Id. at 524. The Court of Appeals majority began its analysis by characterizing the basis for the officers' particularized suspicion of defendant:

"The officers' safety concerns here were not stereotypical in the sense that they derived only from a generalized and oversimplified view of how all members of a broad group behave in all circumstances. Rather, Brown and Cockreham had particular training in and experience with members of a particular gang--the 18th Street gang--and its local activities. The officers, based on training and experience relating to that particular gang, knew that its local members commonly carried concealed weapons. They knew, moreover, that guns were often the weapon of choice for members of the 18th Street gang."

Miglavs, 186 Or App at 427 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that several factors contributed to the officers' reasonable fear for their safety:

"On whole, then, we have this: defendant was a likely member of not just an urban gang but of a particular gang known to operate in the area--the 18th Street gang--whose local members commonly carry guns; he was wearing clothes that could have concealed a gun; the officers had both longer-term and very recent experience with members of the 18th Street gang in the area who were armed with concealed weapons; it was late; it was dark; and defendant chose to protract the encounter with the officers. The totality of what the officers knew and the circumstances with which they were confronted went beyond a generalized understanding of the practices of urban gangs and encompassed a specific and particularized reality as to defendant and the 18th Street gang, of which defendant was a likely member."

Id. at 428. The court thus affirmed defendant's convictions.

Judge Haselton agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to clarify that the court's decision did "not authorize 'officer safety' searches based solely on a citizen's 'suspicious' appearance or possible association with a potentially dangerous group." Id. at 435 (Haselton, J., concurring). He further explained that "our holding does not write a blank check for 'officer safety' patdowns resulting from officer-initiated contacts with young men or women wearing 'gang style' clothing." Id. (Haselton, J., concurring).

Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong dissented in separate opinions. Judge Edmonds asserted that the constitutional right to associate requires that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply equally to "those who belong to gangs, wear baggy gang-related clothing, or identify with groups known to be violent" as they do to others. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). He opined that defendant's decision to remain at the scene after Brown concluded her investigation of him was the only fact that could have contributed to her concern that defendant might pose an immediate threat to her safety or that of others. Id. at 436 (Edmonds, J., dissenting). But that fact, Judge Edmonds asserted, was of little significance in light of defendant's cooperative attitude and the fact that Brown did not tell him that he was free to leave. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). Judge Edmonds further posited that Brown's failure to direct defendant to leave indicated that she did not perceive defendant to be a greater threat at the end of the investigation than she had at the beginning. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). According to Judge Edmonds, the majority's decision would permit the police to patdown "any person dressed in gang attire and present in a mall or other public place * * * even in the absence of individualized suspicion[,]" contrary to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. (2) Id. at 436-37 (Edmonds, J., dissenting).

Judge Armstrong similarly believed that the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang, and their prior experiences with that gang, were not "sufficient to give the officers a reasonable basis to believe that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang who, because of that membership, was reasonably likely to be carrying a gun." Id. at 439 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He also could not discern a difference between the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of a particular gang that was known to carry guns and their knowledge that members of a particular type of gang carry guns. Id. at 440 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). "In either case" Judge Armstrong observed, "the state seeks to rely on a syllogism that people of a particular group often carry weapons, that the defendant appears to be a member of that group, and that it is therefore reasonable to suspect that the defendant is carrying a weapon." Id. (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He noted further, as did Judge Edmonds, that Brown did not have a reason to fear for her safety because defendant was cooperative and because Brown had not waited for the backup officers to arrive to conduct her investigation of the three individuals. Id. at 440-41 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). In Judge Armstrong's view, defendant's failure to leave when Brown returned defendant's identification was of no significance because Brown should have understood that defendant merely wished to resume his encounter with his friends. Id. at 441-42 (Armstrong, J., dissenting).

In this court, defendant relies on the dissenting opinions by Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong and argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in its application of the Bates rule because Brown did not have a particularized suspicion that defendant was armed and might pose a threat to the officers' safety. He observes that, when Brown had concluded her investigation of defendant, she did not tell him that he was free to leave, from which he argues that his failure to leave should not have contributed to Brown's safety concerns. He notes further that he was "cooperative and unthreatening" and, thus, should not have made the officers feel that he presented an immediate risk to their safety.

The state responds that this court needs to decide only whether "the officers' belief that defendant might be armed and dangerous [was] a reasonable one." In its view, "the officers reasonably believed that this defendant might pose an immediate threat primarily because he had expressly affiliated himself with a particular gang, the local members of which operate in the immediate vicinity and, in the officers' training and experience, often are armed." Further, the state argues, "[t]hat suspicion was sufficiently particularized because it was based on characteristics shared by a narrow and well-defined category of persons with whom the officers had specific experiences and about whom the officers had received training." For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state.

We begin with a review of Bates. In that case, a City of Eugene police officer stopped the defendant for "'excessive vehicle emissions'" at 4:40 a.m. Id. at 521. The stop occurred in a "'high crime'" area and the officer called for assistance. Id. Two officers approached the defendant's vehicle and one officer asked for the defendant's driver license. Id. The officers noticed that there was a "television and a videocassette recorder [VCR]" on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle. Id. One officer also noticed "an object on the floorboard between [the] defendant's feet." Id. The other officer also took note of the object and "'asked [the defendant] if he would reach down and very cautiously pull that item from between his feet," so that the officer could see what it was. Id. The defendant refused and instead "reached under the seat and remained in that position" while the officer repeatedly asked him to pull the item into plain view. Id. The officer then pulled his gun and ordered the defendant to step out of the car. Id. The officer then obtained the bag from under the seat, felt something hard inside, opened it, and discovered "several rounds of live ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia." Id. at 522.

The court began its analysis by noting the state's reliance on the Supreme Court's analysis of officer safety searches in Michigan v. Long, 463 US 1032, 103 S Ct 3469, 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983), and this court's own previous analysis in State v. Riley, 240 Or 521, 402 P2d 741 (1965), in which the court had acknowledged that "police officers are entitled to take steps reasonably necessary to their safety." Bates, 304 Or at 523. The court then held, as set out above, that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution "does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect "might pose" a danger to the officer or others. Id. at 524. The court explained that

"it is not [this court's] function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made."

Id. at 524-25 (emphasis added). See also State v. Amaya, __ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (April 29, 2004) (same).

The Bates court concluded, however, that the officers had exceeded the permissible bounds of the rule. Id. at 525-26. It reached that result by assessing the significance of each factor that the officer identified as contributing to his conclusion that the defendant posed an immediate threat. Id. The officer testified that the vehicle's out-of-state license plates, the time of day, the high crime area, the defendant's appearance, the fact that there was a television and a VCR on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle, and the fact that the defendant did not comply with the officer's instruction to pull into plain view the item that he could not see fully, all contributed to his concern about the defendant's possible dangerousness. Id. at 525.

This court, however, concluded that none of the identified factors, even when considered collectively, supported a reasonable suspicion that the defendant posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety. The court observed that the suspicions of the officer who ordered the defendant out of the car

"may have been an excellent guess–-the kind resulting from a sixth sense that many officers develop over the years. But, again, there is no objective quality to them that entitles them to any weight, either individually or collectively, in the constitutional calculus. Neither the hour nor the 'high crime' nature of the area tells us whether this defendant is likely to be a criminal, unless there is some reason to think that everyone driving in that particular area at that time of night is up to no good[.]"

Id. at 526 (emphasis in original). As in Bates, our inquiry in this case is limited to whether the precautionary patdown was reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at that time.

Here, the officers testified that the following factors contributed to their determination that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety: (1) defendant "was wearing bagg[y] tan pants and a black bagg[y] shirt that had '18th' written on the back of the shirt in large white letters[,]" (3) which the officers associated with the attire of 18th Street gang members; (2) the young man with defendant also had a gang-related tattoo consisting of three dots in the shape of a triangle that Officer Brown knew meant "'[m]i vida loca'" or "'my crazy life' in English" and his shirt also had the number 18 on it; (3) both defendant and the man with him were wearing, "untucked[,]" "extremely bagg[y clothing that] could easily conceal weapons"; (4) the officers knew that 18th Street gang members operated in the vicinity of the encounter and that they carried guns; (5) Officer Cockreham personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members and had, just previously to this incident, had removed a gun from an 18th Street gang member; and (6) neither defendant nor the woman in the car chose to leave after Brown returned their identification.

Before evaluating the factors described above, we first address defendant's argument that his cooperative attitude and lack of suspicious behavior was sufficient to dispel any concerns that the officers had for their safety. Defendant is correct that those circumstances must be considered in the overall assessment of the reasonableness of the officers' decision to engage in the patdown. However, defendant's attitude and demeanor are just two circumstances that the officers and, ultimately, this court must consider in determining whether the totality of the circumstances justified the decision to engage in a precautionary patdown. See State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 83, 854 P2d 421 (1993) ("totality of the circumstances" are considered in determining whether officer's suspicion was reasonable). As we now explain, those countervailing circumstances, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, are not sufficient to dispel the reasonableness of the officers' particularized suspicion that defendant might have posed a danger to their safety.

Under Bates, a limited precautionary patdown is authorized under Article I, section 9, only when the initial contact between the police and the individual is lawful. Here, defendant concedes that Brown was engaged in a lawful contact with defendant. Brown had approached the vehicle to investigate possible curfew, and later, alcohol violations. She requested defendant's identification and, upon concluding her investigation, promptly returned defendant's identification to him. In other words, as noted previously, the police contact was not initiated solely (or at all) because defendant and his companion were wearing gang attire.

Next, Bates requires an evaluation whether the factors that the officers claim supported their belief that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety are sufficiently particularized to defendant as required under Article I, section 9. This court repeatedly has explained that a person's appearance alone never can support a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 628, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (explaining that "shined shoes, sharp clothes, neat 'Afro' haircuts and people who stand and stare at officers" cannot say much about those people engaging in criminal activity); Bates, 304 Or at 525 (explaining that fact that defendant was "an 'Indian' with long hair and beard" wearing black leather jacket could not support reasonable suspicion to believe that he was dangerous). A police officer's suspicion must be particularized to the individual based on the individual's own conduct. State v. Stanley, 325 Or 239, 245-46, 935 P2d 1202 (1997); Bates, 304 Or at 525; Valdez, 277 Or at 628. Regardless of the officers' belief that gang members wear baggy clothing, that type of clothing alone could not support a reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a risk to the officers' safety. That is, nothing about such attire alone could tell the officers anything about defendant, except that he liked to wear baggy clothing. Nevertheless, a particular style of attire may be a circumstance that, when considered in the overall context or totality of the circumstances of a police-citizen contact, contributes to the reasonableness of an officer's safety assessment.

Similarly, clothing that announces a gang affiliation does not, by itself, give rise to the kind of individualized suspicion of a safety threat required under Article I, section 9. However, officers reasonably may draw inferences about human behavior from their training and experience. See Stanley, 325 Or at 246-46 (in officer's experience, people who commit robberies often are armed); Ehly, 317 Or at 80-81 (in officer's experience, drug users often are armed). In this instance, the officers knew from training and recent personal experience that the gang identified on defendant's shirt operated in the immediate vicinity of the contact and that members of that gang carried weapons. Furthermore, one of the officers recently had removed a gun from one of the members of that gang. Under those circumstances, the officers' safety concerns regarding defendant were not based solely on generalized or stereotypical information about gang behavior but, instead, were sufficiently particularized, based on specific training about and recent personal experience with a narrowly identified group, viz., members of the local gang to which defendant and his male companion proclaimed their allegiance and which operated in the area where the officers encountered defendant.

Finally, in addition to defendant's self-proclaimed gang membership and the officers' training and recent experience with other gang members, there are other factors that contribute to the reasonableness of the officers' safety concerns. First, the contact with defendant and his two companions occurred at a late hour in a darkened area in the general vicinity where one of the officers recently had encountered armed members of the 18th Street gang. Defendant was uncooperative during the initial investigation when he refused to reveal the location of his residence in the apartment complex. See Amaya, ___ Or at ___ (refusal to leave purse-like bag in vehicle when requested to do so was one factor that heightened officer's safety concern).

Second, although defendant was free to move from the immediate area after his identification was returned to him, he chose to remain in the area near where the police were conducting an ongoing investigation. When defendant remained in that close proximity to the officers, the officers' safety concerns reasonably were heightened because the officers needed to focus their attention on defendant's companion and were not able to watch defendant as closely as they could before that time. As this court explained in Bates:

"A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations."

Bates, 304 Or at 524 (emphasis added).

Here, the combination of factors that the officers identified were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable and individualized suspicion that defendant might have posed a safety threat to them. That individualized suspicion justified the limited precautionary patdown of defendant that occurred in this case and did not violate defendant's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.


1. Our use of the term "patdown" is intended to mean "an external patting of a person's outer clothing," as described in ORS 131.605(3).

Return to previous location.


2. Judge Edmond's concern notwithstanding, this case is not about whether Article I, section 9, would allow the police to patdown a known gang member in a public place for the sole reason of performing a patdown for weapons. Among other differences, the patdown in this case occurred in the context of a lawful police investigation and took place at night in the general area where one of the officers had recently encountered an armed member of the same gang.

Return to previous location.


3. Officer Cockreham testified that defendant's shirt "actually said '18th Street' on it[.]"

Diesel said...

R huse,

I'm concerned here. You say all these professions are virtually the same because doctors, lawyers, HVAC tech's, and teachers take continuing education classes and have to pay for it. Well, just a quick google search will show you where these professions are not equal. Among them, HVAC tech's and teachers are the most comparable in salaries.

Were you serious when you alluded that doctors, lawyers, and teachers all get paid the same, and that doctors and lawyers just don't complain about it? I was always under the impression that docs and lawyers took lots of time off, at least they're never around when I call.

Additionally, to all the haters, you guys haven't read my stuff if you think I'm a lib.

Last point, you guys tell teachers to quit whining and complaining. What profession (besides the Presidency) is as attacked as teaching?

I was told by my financial planner the other day my PERS pension will be 40% of my salary when I retire. I've got 32 years until retirement, when my PERS pension will be $24,000. Is that something I should be thankful for, after earning a B.S., an M.A., and enough "other" credits to earn another degree? Does that compare with your job? I'm just curious.

Bobkat said...

Mr. Diesel- again most of the teacher bashing stems from the constant barrage of how underpaid they are and how important they are and if we don't appreciate it more then you'll take your ball and go home. You also have something none of us will have and that is tenure.
I also have a problem with your logic on your PERS pension. You state, "my PERS pension will be 40% of my salary when I retire. I've got 32 years until retirement, when my PERS pension will be $24,000.The question is if your pension will be 40% of your salary when you retire you will get $24,000 a year. And you have 32 years till retirement. How can you possibly know what your salary will be in 32 years? Are you suggesting it will be $60,000?

Bryan Saxton said...

“I am so sorry they have to attend classes and pay taxes. Virtually all other professionals, as I listed in my post, have to do exactly the same thing I have little sympathy. “

Pay for additional classes? I can’t think of a single lawyer, doctor, or engineer that has to take additional classes after receiving a job. Out of those three, the only profession I can think of where any additional “classes” are required is the occasional bar review that attorneys undergo. They don’t have to pay to do this, however.

Have you looked at the average salary of those professions?

According to Studentdoc.com, Family pediatricians averaged $142,516 a year. In fact, the lowest reported salary was $111,894.

Attorneys in San Diego average $75,000 a year, while those in San Francisco, Washington, and New York made more.

The median income for a Level 1 engineer was $54,561 (http://swz.salary.com/). A bachelor’s degree is all that is required to receive an engineering degree.

”As for being underpaid. What a joke. Let’s got to the Big Board:”

Yes, let’s go to the “Big Board”.

Every profession you mentioned makes a significant amount of money when compared to teachers. It is true that doctors go to school for eight to twelve years before practicing, but lawyers receive only one year more of schooling than teachers do.

Let’s look at this in relative terms:

Average Teaching Wage in Oregon: $35,000
Average Teaching Wage in Japan: $45,515
Average Teaching Wage in Australia: $43,225
Average Teaching Wage in New York: $45,500

It’s undeniable that teachers get screwed in Oregon. But you know what? Screw teachers. I mean, you guys are all already out of high school? What do you care about the Oregon Public Education System? It doesn’t affect you.

I mean, you guys really don’t give a damn whether or not teachers move out of the state or country in search of competitive wages, right? It only screws Oregon in the long run, which means that you guys will be able to blame Oregon’s future educational problems on the Dems, so I guess it does work out for you in the long run.

Bryan Saxton said...

Sorry. "engineering degree" should be "engineering job."

R Huse said...

Bryan – Teachers make out like bandits in Oregon. The sources that I cite on teacher pay and state ranking are teacher union run web sites. You are going to argue with that?

Teachers on average make $48k not $35k. This is according to their web site, which I cite in my post.

Teachers in Oregon rank 13th in pay compared to the rest of the country – This according to the American Federation of Teachers – source http://www.aft.org/salary/2004/download/releases/SalarySurvey-OR.pdf

These are the teacher’s union’s own numbers.

Lawyers and Doctors make more than teachers? Sure, so what? I was listing professionals that have continuing education. Not comparing salaries.

I can tell you, from personal experience, engineers do have to take additional classes throughout their career. The EIT and PE testing levels would be one example of this.

A bachelors in engineering is a little bit harder to get than a masters in Education. I know this because I happen to have an engineering degree myself and my ex ran a section of the continuing Ed program for teachers at UO. Four years of engineering school is far more demanding than five years of ED school. Not even close on that one.

Want to be treated like a professional? Quit whining about having to deal with things all of us have to deal with. Quit whining about being underpaid, it’s a lie and your own union web sites provide the figures.

rickyragg said...

"What do you care about the Oregon Public Education System? It doesn’t affect you."

and on, and on...

There you go again with your hasty generalizations, jumping to conclusions not supported by facts and arguing with straw men.

Your inability to refrain from imputing and twisting the motivations of other commenters and your continued personal attacks, coupled with your chameleonlike changing of the foci of arguments when challenged, connote someone who has trouble separating reality from fantasy.

For instance the fantasy that your statistics about relative pay for Oregon teachers v. teachers elsewhere and other professionals prove that Oregon teachers are "underpaid". Your stats may demonstrate that Oregon teachers earn less than teachers elsewhere or other professionals, but the logical gap between that fact and your conclusion is a chasm. Toss in the fact that you cherry pick and fudge numbers to try to support your argument and you get a position that's simply untenable. Contract language such as the OEA's is quite specific on tthe subject of compensation. If teachers were paid less than what the contract spells out, they would, indeed, be "underpaid".

But, the unfortunate truth is, they're not.

Anonymous said...


Do you continuously whine everyday? If you are that unhappy with your compensation as a teacher then go do something else. I do not believe anyone could possibly be productive with a negative attitude like yours. Incidentally, the average teacher’s compensation package in Oregon (wages and benefits) is close to $70,000 per year. That’s pretty sweet for a part time job.

Please enlighten me why most teachers complain continuously about their pay when they knew that they would be paid before they started teaching.

rickyragg said...

Now, let's be fair. I honestly doubt that "...most teachers complain continuously about their pay when they knew that they would be paid before they started teaching." - don't you?

What gets me is that those who do complain fell as is they're somehow immune from public reaction to their complaints. What part of "public employee" don't they understand.

Hey, complain away - I'll do the same.

It's the double standard that rankles.

Or, the attitude that, to paraphrase (context, at least) bryan as he put it succinctly in a comment on another post, if you don't agree with complaining teachers, "You shouldn't be allowed to speak."

rickyragg said...

"fell" = "feel"

bryan, 2