Kristen Anderson, Former Port Townsend Chief of Police

Chief Anderson Emails (2005-02-11 to 2005-02-23)

• Initial Letter from Jordan to City of Port Townsend
• Chief Anderson's First Reply Letter
• Jordan's Reply to Anderson's First Reply
• Anderson's Reply
• Another Reply from Anderson
• .. And Another
• Jordan's Reply
• Anderson's Reply
• Jordan's Reply
• Anderson's Apology
• Jordan's Thank You

Chief Anderson of Port Townsend Police Department, Regarding Foot Scooters

Jordan's Letter to City Council, Chief Anderson, and Surrounding Local Newspapers

Date: 2005-02-11 13:26

Dear Port Townsend, February 4, 2005

Back in the olden' days, a person had to rob a bank, hi-jack a train, or steal
some of a cattle rancher's herd in the middle of the night to be a "bad guy."

Yesterday, a person had to smoke pot or drink too much and drive down the road
at 2 o'clock in the morning, to be a "bad guy."

Today, a person has to break a law enforcement officer's opinion of what the
law is. Is it “Law Enforcement” or “Opinion Enforcement?”

I write to you now, not to vent or cause an issue, but to resolve, as local
traffic enforcement has detained me on multiple occasions within the Port
Townsend City limits, for driving a totally legal motorized electric foot
scooter.

The moral of the story is "A person's ignorance of the law puts them in front
of a judge and slaps them with a fine, possibly even jail time.., but when
law officers are ignorant of their RCW handbook and falsely accuse, detain
and waste a civilian's time, when is justice going to protect the people?
(incidentally, who pays an officers wages to know the laws???). One must
face the title wave, because the wave will get bigger! Misinterpretation of
the law leads to corruption, as many civilians trust law enforcement to keep
the streets safe from dangerous motorized foot scooter riders! :-)

The course of events, that occurred last night (Feb. 3rd, 2005), are the final
straws of my silence in watching law enforcement officers degrade the legal
system with their own opinions. I cannot begin to illustrate how frustrating
it is, that I, a civilian, must know the law ON MY DIME, in order to be free.
It's not right, that the people of Port Townsend should tense up every time a
black and white car drives by. “Intimidation” is definitely the word to
describe a Port Townsend City Law Enforcement Officer, but hopefully not all.
In the olden' days, I'm sure the people felt safe when the Sheriff was in
town. Today, as nicely as I can put it, I feel safer without such confusion
of the law.

Last night (Feb. 3rd, 2005), I was cruising my electric foot scooter into
town, down Sim's Way, when Sergeant Green pulled me over next to the boat
yard, lights, siren and all. Ten seconds later, another officer arrives to
the right of me; I guess in case I should make an attempt to outrun them with
my little foot scooter! :-)

[START]

"Here we go again..." I thought to myself, "I wonder who's law I'm breaking
now."

The officers stepped out of their cars, and together, they confronted me.
"What are you doing on the road with this thing?" Green asked. "Don't you
know, this is untagged, unlicensed and is illegal on the road?"

"Officer, if you have a moment, let's read some of the RCWs and find out what
I'm doing wrong. This foot scooter has the same rights and follows the same
laws on the road as bicycles." as I reached into one of my scooter pouches
for Senate Bill SB5450, which passed the Washington Legislature on 4/27/03.
This bill provided incentives to reduce air pollution through the use of
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and Motorized Foot Scooters.

"No it doesn't. They are off road vehicles.." he exclaimed, while his
partnering officer nodded silently in agreement, "Do you have ID?"

I pulled out my wallet and handed Officer Green my ID.

I began to read Sec. 5. RCW 46.61.710 (5), "Electric assisted bicycles and
motorized foot scooters may have access to highways of the state to the same
extent as bicycles. Sir, I don't see how I am breaking the law."

"You're only reading part of it!" he blurted..

"Let's read the whole thing then.. Nowhere does it say a foot scooter is not
allowed on the roadways." I replied.

After a quick negotiation over his shoulder mic with dispatch, he said "You
have a criminal history! No wonder you like to argue. Well if you're gonna
keep arguing with me, I'm going to write you up." with an "I-got-you" look.
"I'm going to let you go this time, but if I see you on the roads on my
shift, I'm going to write you up. Don't drive this on the road anymore."
Officer Green said sternly.

"Can you prove to me that I am breaking the law?" I questioned.

"I just did!" he said. "If you want to keep arguing with me, I'm going to
write you up."

"Officer, I would rather you write me up now, because I will keep riding this,
as the law permits me to. If you write me up, we will be going to court over
your error." I was getting frustrated with his behavior in not being one bit
curious to read or know the law that pertained to the reasons he pulled me
over, detaining my time and turning down my volunteering effort to educate
him on 3 or 4 RCW sections.

"I'd like your card or badge number please." I bit my tongue in politeness to
ask.

He handed me his card and said "get this off the road," as he and his partner
departed in their cars.

[END]

This is not the first, and nor do I have any signs yet of it being the last,
until my home town law enforcement takes a crow bar to their RCWs, stops
harassing both the people who pay their salary and protects the law abiding
citizens, who shouldn't be harassed for obeying the law. Does the City of
Port Townsend get paid to promote oil burning, war starting and kids dying in
the middle East? Then why should promoting a cleaner environment for
tomorrow be ignored? The more I drive my electric foot scooter, the more
reserve fuel is available for law enforcement to rush off to a real crime;
instead, we have a bottleneck in the not-so law abiding law enforcement
officers.

$70k salary a year would be more than substantial for me and to study my law;
to serve and to protect. How is it that the City of Port Townsend has room
for 27 cops? Would you swim in any water with 27 sharks lurking? What
incentive do I have to enter the city limits of Port Townsend? Until the law
is being upheld, our freedom as Americans are being held up.

I have been pulled over nearly every third day I ride my foot scooter, but
never twice by the same officer. I don't question it anymore.. I've given up
trusting law enforcement. I feel as though I am interviewing while educating
my local law enforcement; that's twice I pay my taxes. I drive a scooter to
save; that includes saving lives!

Every time I am confronted, the officer has a different reason. Here are a
few to start:

PT officer Corrigan: "I have some documentation here for you that you might
want to take home. You'll be sad to find out that those things are illegal.
You're sitting on it, so it means it's a pocket bike.." He hands my friend
and I a flier on pocket bikes, which the state has made illegal. However, we
don't ride pocket bikes, but foot scooters, and we were very aware of the
states laws on them; a definitive explanation in Sec.1 of RCW 46.04 reads as
follows: "Motorized foot scooter" means a device with no more than two
ten-inch or smaller diameter wheels that has handlebars, is designed to be
stood or sat upon by the operator..."

STATE Trooper: "Where is your helmet, motorcycle endorsement and
registration?" Again, I pull out my senate bill papers and read under Sec.
4. RCW 46.20.500, "No driver's license is required to operate a motorized
foot scooter..." Unfortunately, this officer refused to give me his card
when I requested it. Instead, it was "I'm late for an appointment.. gotta
jet.."

STATE Trooper: "Where is your headlight?" after he pulled me over in a
private parking lot. I pull out my Senate Bill from 2003 and read under Sec.
4. of RCW 46.20.500, "Motorized foot scooters may not be operated at any time
from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise without
reflectors of a type approved by the state patrol." He drove off because he
couldn't find his paperwork. :-)

This has become a full time job; with the only incentive of remaining innocent
and protecting my environment. Due to the amount of ignorance of my local
law enforcement, I have been illegally and without probable cause, pulled
over and detained, not to mention, having my time sucked up that could
otherwise be spent earning a living to pay their salary. This situation has
developed to the point of harassment.

When is justice going to be served to yourselves? Train your officers. Have
a group meeting, read a few laws, as I referenced here. It's 2 or 3 minutes
within your salary, not mine.

With all due respect, I can't think of any other words to describe what law
enforcement blurts to me. I've had my run ins. I've paid my price. I've
turned around. I believe it's your turn to stop playing IGNORANCE with the
LAW.

For a set price, I and another energy and RCW aware individual will personally
come to the police station during our business hours and offer a class on
this more-than-a-year old law, put in place by the state to promote a safer,
cleaner environment.

Thanks for your time!

Sincerely,

--
Jordan Peterson
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
EV Awareness
http://www.evawareness.com

Chief Anderson's First Reply Letter

Date: 2005-02-17 16:44

Hi Jordan,

I have been responding to Mr. Wilde's e-mails about this same issue - are
you in communication with him about that or should I be responding to you
both independently? I don't want to make assumptions - but since I
received lengthy e-mails from both of you on the same day, on the same
subject, I did think perhaps you were working together.

I can cc you on our correspondence if you prefer that. FYI, he and I have
agreed to meet soon to discuss this. I'm trying to get some clarification
from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

As a side note, I'm not sure where you heard that we had 27 cops, but we
don't have anywhere near that. In fact, we have 10 uniformed officers who
are assigned to patrol duties, 24/7, 365 days a year (which means we average
2 officers on duty in the city at any given time.) There are 5 other
commissioned officers here who have other assignments as part of their
daily duties.

Kristen Anderson, Chief
Port Townsend Police
385-2322

Jordan's Reply to Chief Anderson's Reply

Date: 2005-02-17 18:00

Hi Kristen,

Although I know Roderick and his indication to me that you're communicating
these matters, I would appreciate the isolated feedback as we are different
people, falsely detained on our own time, who by exchanging our own course of
events, have figured out how much enforcing is really going on in Town.

So if only two cops in town on duty, I was so lucky to have them all to myself
with a scooter? things that make you go "hmmmmmmm..." :)

In reference to something you mentioned here, why does one need clarification
from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission when there is an RCW book with
ALL THE LAWS written in them on this? I'm not really sure what is to be
waited for. The RCW's aren't real?

I want to thank you for whatever it is you've done, because I have not been
harassed on my electric foot scooter ever since the sending of my letter.

Thanks for the reply and I wish to be included on these matters..

Sincerely,

Jordan

Reply from Chief Anderson

Date: 2005-02-18 12:45

Jordan:
FYI, I'm copying you on an e-mail exchange between Roderick and I this afternoon.
Kristen

Hi Kristen,

I am hoping to clarify something with this note. You had stated that you were
waiting to hear from the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. I have
been doing a bit of reasearch, which is what I do a lot of, and I can't find
a link between RCWs and this organization. I spoke with them today and they
told me they are basically an educational organization and that they provide
grants. I know they are consulted sometimes when a new law is before the legislature.
I have personally experienced this first hand several years ago when it took me
two years to get a law passed. This was due to problems at thier sister
organization, The National Traffic Highway Safety Administration. I worked
with an acquaintence of mine who was a Senator at that time. Brad is now Lieutenant
Govenor. We had to reword the law with an exemption to get it past that organization.
From what I understand, once a law is passed they have no influence on it
whatsoever. Am I missing something here. Please explain. I look forward to
your response.

Roderick

Roderick:

Your information is correct. The WTSC provides training and traffic enforcement
resources for law enforcement agencies across the state. They have conducted
trainings for officers on the subject of foot scooters, pocket bikes, etc.
No, they don't have any influence over a law once it has been passed, however;
they do assist us in interpreting those laws.

As I indicated before, the RCW's are not always clear and can often be
interpreted different ways. The WTSC trains and advises officers regarding
traffic laws and the laws' intent, since they are (as you mentioned)
frequently involved in the legislation process.

Here's my position: I would like to find a way for this to work; a way
for you and others to be able to continue using these environmentally friendly
modes of transportation, but we do need to work within the law and what is safe.
I am hoping that you are willing to work with us in this manner, also. This
should not be an adversarial relationship - neither of us will gain anything
that way. There is no systemic harassment or malicious intent on our part -
we are doing the best we can to be fair and do what we've been mandated to do.
Sometimes there is a lack of clarity on what exactly that is.

Kristen

Another Reply from Chief Anderson
Date: 2005-02-18 12:45

Dear Chief Anderson,

 

  Thank you so much for your response. I would love the opportunity to discuss motorized foot scooters with you and your safety concerns. I feel I may know more about them than most people in this community. I am aware that you have a busy schedule and I will make time in mine if there is such a time we could get together and discuss this. Thanks again for your response. Yes, I admit that I was a bit angry because of my passion for the environment and for these extremely energy efficient vehicles. If you got to know me you would find that I can be very rational. I am looking forward to any further information you can provide concerning case law on motorized foot scooters or any interpretations of the laws cited from Mr. Watts or from the County or State Judiciary.  

 

Roderick Wilde

----- Original Message -----

From: Kristen Anderson

To: Roderick Wilde

Cc: John Watts ; David Timmons ; Conner Daily ; Ed Green ; Joseph Kaare ; Bill Corrigan ; City Council

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:08 PM

Subject: RE: Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse!

 

Mr. Wilde:

 

I understand your concerns about this issue - unfortunately it is a bit more complicated from an enforcement standpoint. Even the State Patrol, whose patrol focus is almost solely traffic law enforcement, is not completely clear on this.  My officers generally do not get training or legal updates from me as my role is not as a legal authority or interpreter; they generally receive training and information through official publications we subscribe to or from the legal experts we employ through City, County or State sources.  Sometimes what a law says and the way the courts interpret can be very different, and case law can change enforcement practices even if the wording doesn't change.  These things can make an officer's job all the more complicated; this is also why, as a non-attorney, I do not attempt to provide legal training or interpretations to my staff.

 

It is unfortunate that you chose to address this as you have - I certainly would have been happy to discuss it freely at any point on the phone or in person if you had asked.  As I have received no other complaints on this matter in the past year since NEV's first landed in PT, I was not aware that it had become the problem you describe.  Your anger is evident in your e-mail; I'm just sorry that I didn't get the chance to speak with you about this before it got to this point. 

 

The main concerns we have about foot scooters have to do with safety.  I am looking into the matter and will let you know what the latest legal recommendations to law enforcement are.  Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further or have any other dialogue on the issue.

 

Kristen Anderson

385-2322

-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Wilde [mailto:roderick@evparts.com]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:14 AM
To: Kristen Anderson
Cc: bburke@ptleader.com; sbell@ptleader.com; ken@visforvoltage.com; nick.koveshnikov@peninsuladailynews.com; walkers@mail.olympus.net; crobinson@ptcitycouncil.org; msandoval@ptcitycouncil.org; kkolff@ptcitycouncil.org; gmasci@ptcitycouncil.org; ffenn@ptcitycouncil.org; fbenskin@ptcitycouncil.org; lmedlicott@ptcitycouncil.org; City Council; David Timmons; John Watts; Kyle Kinnan; David Sewell; Conner Daily; Lyn Dewitt; Sherry Erickson; Michael Evans; Tony Polizzi; Ed Green; Jason Greenspane; Molly Harlich; Dan Huynh; joek@police.ci.port-townsend.wa.us; Kay Pownall; Troy Surber; Matt Krysinski; Bill Corrigan
Subject: Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse!

 

Dear Chief Anderson,

 

  First off I would like to say that I've always held you in high regards due to your progressive programs for troubled youth in our community. It is sad that I have lost some of that respect. I first wrote you on January 18th concerning Senate Bill 5450 which passed in April of 2003 concerning the legalizing of NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) and Motorized Foot Scooters. I included the definition of Motorized Foot Scooters under RCW 46.04 and also informed you of RCW 46.61.710, Section 5 concerning access to the highways of the State of Washington to the same extent as bicycles. I also included other RCWs concerning Motorized Foot Scooters as well. I first presented this revolutionary form of clean and efficient transportation to the general local public through Geoff Masci's cable show "Slings and Arrows" over a year ago. The reason I wrote you on January 18th was that your officer Corrigan had approached myself and my friend and tried to tell us our motorized foot scooters were illegal. I wanted to make you and officer Corrigan aware of the law. I did not receive an answer from you or officer Corrigan even though I sent two emails requested such. I know for a fact that you read your emails. The reason I am writing again is that you have not yet informed your officers of these RCWs and they continue to pull people over and detain them without due cause, thus violating their constitutional rights. Can the City of Port Townsend afford to lose litigation concerning these matters? I spoke with one of your officers yesterday who I personally know to be very honest and he informed me that you have not educated your officers on these RCWs that are almost two years old now. Knowing that you have been informed of the law and you continue to allow your officers to harass people illegally makes you part of the problem. It is not the officers fault. They are just doing what they perceive to be right due to unawareness of the law. With all due respect Chief Anderson, since you have been informed of the law you cannot use ignorance of it as any kind of excuse. It should not be up to a citizen to inform the police department of laws which have been on the books since 2003. That should be part of your duties.

 

For a complete transcript of the last encounter with the Port Townsend Police Department go to www.evawareness.com and click on last few interviews.

I should also inform you that this is part of an ongoing investigation for an article in the International magazine "V is for Voltage". These articles may also appear in publications by TASH www.tash.org and AARP www.aarp.org, both of which I am a member. This is due to their relevance for affordable personal mobility transportation for the elderly and handicapped who don't have health insurance and cannot afford the three to six thousand dollars for other personal mobility devices. 

 

Roderick Wilde,  President,  EV Parts Inc.
         Your Online EV Superstore
               www.evparts.com
                1-360-385-7082
Phone: 360-582-1270  Fax: 360-582-1272
        PO Box 834, Carlsborg, WA 98324
108-B Business Park Loop, Sequim, WA 98382

Another Email from Chief Anderson

Date: 2005-02-18 13:07

Jordan,

I will continue to keep you informed. I will invite you to be a part of
our meeting when we can get that set up, if you would like to be.

Vehicle definitions can change depending on the manner in which a person
chooses to use them. That seems to be where the confusion lies, which is
why we are asking for help from the WTSC. So yes, the RCW's are real; at
the same time they can be interpreted in different ways, just as people can
modify vehicles and utlize them in different ways which may not be specifically
addressed by the language used in the RCW.

I would ask one thing: I understand that you have some emotion tied up in this
matter as it is something for which you have passion, and I respect that.
However, it is counterproductive to be accusatory or insulting. There is no
malicious intent on our part. I am taking you seriously and am attempting to
treat you with respect in this process - I think you will find me most reasonable
and inclined to do whatever I can to help resolve this if you treat me the same way.

Kristen

Jordan's Reply to Chief Anderson

Date: 2005-02-18 13:09

Hi Kristen,

Thanks for the emails of previous conversations between you and Roderick
Wilde.

My thoughts on this matter, having read through the archives:

It's okay to have error. I don't think that our emails are targeting you
personally, but I think it would be easier to argue what law is written,
rather than evade the point with gray zones like "The Safety Commission"...

Is this subject no longer legal but personal now?

It's not about scooters anymore. It seems authority will not compromise that
image by admitting their error. You're a chief.. so what if you're wrong..
Everybody makes mistakes.. but it's alot of work trying to cover it...

We just want the legal system to stay legal, not personal..

Welcoming your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Jordan

Chief Anderson's Reply

Date: 2005-02-18 13:32

Jordan,

I never take any of these things personally - I wouldn't still be here if
that were the case. (I've had a lot worse hurled at me!) The WTCS is not
a "gray zone" but is the State's authority on traffic laws and enforcement;
I would think you would welcome an objective opinion on this rather than me
just telling you what I think.

I am completely open to the notion that we are wrong and will humbly apologize
if that is the case. Doing anything else would be unacceptable to me and I
stand to gain nothing by it.

Kristen

Jordan's Reply

Date: 2005-02-18 13:50

Kristen,

Thanks for the continuation of info. I am appreciative to be included in a
future meeting and would very much like to be a part of it.

I understand that vehicle definitions can change, depending on what way a
person sees the RCW. However, if it were in Washington's Interest to allow
only one interpretation of what a motorized foot scooter is, they would have
described a bit more detail, as they do in other, less flexible RCWs. In my
case, I have stuck to the facts of what is written, being careful not to
interpret wrongly. However, even if these interpretations get out of hand,
the RCW's still say 10 inch or less wheels, 18 inch handle bars, has a board
and can be rode or sat upon, etc. These sound pretty clear. Speaking of
interpretations, how would a law enforcement officer interpret a motorized
foot scooter without reading or observing what it is within the RCWs? Also,
there's only like 3 or 4 motorized foot scooter riders in Town.. I think we
do need this meeting, because it seems there is a hidden agenda for the
actions taken here in town about scooters.

Kristen. I'm really sorry that I come across as being passionately emotional
about scooters and what not. Like I said before, it's not you personally,
but the entity you represent as chief. I really don't want to be a bother to
you. I will work with you, and I'll give it my best to keep it toned down,
if you can pretend, for one moment, that the RCW's are detailed enough and
law enforcement has overlooked this area.

I'm not really looking for an excuse for booboos.. I just want to know that
you have considered these incidents and will fix them from happening further.

This isn't my hobby; to make waves.. I just don't agree that law enforcement
should consider themselves exempt from the law they enforce. Long story
short, I'm kind of waiting for you to say "I apologize for our unawareness to
Washington's SB5450, stopping you when it wasn't needed, and we will read up
on these laws". I would say nothing more than "Thank you!" and forget about
the past.

Sincerely,

Jordan

Chief Anderson's Reply a few days later

Date: 2005-02-23 16:49

Jordan,

I've been a bit swamped but haven't forgotten you. From the officers I've
spoken to since we've started this dialogue, the manner in which you ride
your scooter sounds legal and correct - so unless I'm missing something here,
we do owe you a very sincere apology. Trust me, there is no hidden agenda here.
I hope you can forgive the misinterpretation on our part.

I am sorry for the inconvenience and frustration this has caused you. I still
intend to include you in the ongoing dialogue with Roderick as we continue to try
to find ways to make this work.

Kristen

Jordan's Reply

Date: 2005-02-23 17:06

Dear Kristen,

Thank you!! :)

... and thanks for taking the time to write an apology in the midst of a busy
schedule.

Sincerely,

Jordan