| Author | Post |
|---|
Johnny Law
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Puget Sound |
| Posts: | 460 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:02 pm |
|
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
(2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.
If the Officer is INVESTIGATING any possible crime, be it infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, that falls under discharge of his or her official powers or duties. You do not however have to produce a physical document (unless driving offense-license) but do have to provide name, date of birth, address and phone #. If the Officer can verify that the info that was given verbally is correct/valid, that is considered adequate.
If however the Officer cannot verify your identity, you CAN be arrested for obstructing and here's the rub; you will remain in custody (jail) until they are able to positively verify your identity.
|
sirpuma
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:09 pm |
|
Phssthpok wroteI posted this over on the Nevada board, but it bears repeating here:
Here's the problem I have with people who think and believe the way you do:
In the state of Oregon it is not a defense against a charge of 'resisting arrest' if the arrest is illegal.
Think about that one for a moment. IT. IS. NOT. A. DEFENSE. EVEN. IF. THE. ARREST. IS. ILLEGAL.
A police officer could be beating the ever living (bleep) out of you, and regardless if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE or not, it is a CRIME to resist in any way shape or form if he claims to be arresting you. You are required to just lay there and take the beating, and file a complaint later..........if you live.
Now... admittedly, this example is taking your sentiment to the extreme, but this begs the question... just how much violation of ones rights should one be forced to endure before they are justified in standing their ground against such an assault?
You can apologize for the police all you want, but at the end of the day you are advocating, in application, complete supplication to jack-booted thugs, up to and including the extreme of my example.
If a LEO is beating the crap out of me, I'm going to defend myself to the fullest of my ability. ARREST does not equate to ASSAULT. Just because he's a LEO doesn't give him/her the right to assault or commit violence on someone. If I have done nothing illegal and a LEO attacks me there will likely be one less LEO. We have the right to resist illegal detainment. We have an obligation to stand up for our rights because if we don't the government WILL take them away.
|
compmanio365
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:10 pm |
|
sv_libertarian wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that given the vague wording of the law, you pretty much have to show your CPL at any time a cop asks for it and you have it with you.
Negative. The wording is quite clear. You only have to show it in a time and place where it is required. Hence, if you are carrying in a car and he asks, show it. If you are OCing out on the street, and the cop is harassing you for CPL, ID, etc......refuse.
Ultimately, it's up to you, but the law is clear when it comes to when you have to show your CPL/ID. I don't have to show my papers to any LEO that has a bug up his ass and wants to harass me that day. If I'm being arrested, they are gonna take my wallet and find them anyhow, so let them. I won't make their job any easier than it already is. If they aren't arresting me, they don't need to see my ID or CPL.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
Johnny Law wrote:
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
(2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.
If the Officer is INVESTIGATING any possible crime, be it infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, that falls under discharge of his or her official powers or duties. You do not however have to produce a physical document (unless driving offense-license) but do have to provide name, date of birth, address and phone #. If the Officer can verify that the info that was given verbally is correct/valid, that is considered adequate.
If however the Officer cannot verify your identity, you CAN be arrested for obstructing and here's the rub; you will remain in custody (jail) until they are able to positively verify your identity.
It is NOT obstructing an officer in the discharge of their duties to refuse to provide identification prior to being charged. Just because an issue is being "investigated" does not, in any way, lawfully require the surrender of your personal information. It is ONLY when you are lawfully required to provide information that the failure to do so would be hindering, delaying, or obstructing the officer.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:42 pm |
|
Johnny Law, more evidence your statement is incorrect:
https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/aug04.pdf
UNDER THE 4TH AND 5TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SUSPECT WHO REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF WHILE LAWFULLY BEING HELD IN A TERRY STOP COULD BE CONVICTED UNDER THE CLEAR WORDING OF A NARROW NEVADA “STOP-AND-IDENTIFY” STATUTE (BEWARE -- WASHINGTON STATE HAS NO SUCH STATUTE)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist of Nevada, Humboldt County, __ S.Ct. __, 2004 WL 1373207
...
Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance. Washington officers are, however, free to ask suspects in Terry stops to identify themselves or to show ID documents, and also may do so when conversing with pedestrians during non-Terry “citizen-contacts” (however, as to
4
requesting ID from non-violator MV passengers, see the Washington Supreme Court’s Rankin decision digested below in this month’s LED at 7-13).
As always, officers should check with their local prosecutors and legal advisors for their views on the issues discussed here.
|
Johnny Law
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Puget Sound |
| Posts: | 460 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:50 pm |
|
Tawnos wrote:
It is NOT obstructing an officer in the discharge of their duties to refuse to provide identification prior to being charged. Just because an issue is being "investigated" does not, in any way, lawfully require the surrender of your personal information. It is ONLY when you are lawfully required to provide information that the failure to do so would be hindering, delaying, or obstructing the officer.
I respectfully disagree, and have personally made arrests on such grounds and had convictions on the charge. You may disagree, but my statement is correct.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 718 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:52 pm |
|
Shame on you Johnny Law.
I would think that one in your position (I'm presuming currently active LE) would know better. PARTICULARLY since it is spelled out in plain English (you ARE fluent in English, yes?) in the previously linked PDF from the WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING COMMISSION where it is states plainly on page 3:
Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance.
And officers wonder at people's lack of faith in them.
Again I say SHAME on you!
***ETA***
You beat me to it Tawnos!
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:54 pm by Phssthpok
|
uncoolperson
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bellingham |
| Posts: | 556 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
| I'm guessing johnny's stories have more to them.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 718 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
uncoolperson wrote: I'm guessing johnny's stories have more to them.
Even if taken at face value it means that Johnny Law illegally arrested, and the courts wrongfully convicted someone for simply exercising their rights.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 If Johnny Law is speaking the truth about his actions, he has just confessed to criminal, acts both Federal and State, on a public forum.
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:20 pm |
|
uncoolperson wrote: I'm guessing johnny's stories have more to them.
Just because a person is arrested, and just because a conviction is obtained, does not mean the arrest or the conviction were correct and proper. What it means is that the defendant did not have the means or the desire (one, other or both) to fight it.
I have been in that very situation myself, over a simple traffic ticket. It was just easier and less expensive to take the fine than it was to cough up the non-refundable filing fee which was more than the fine to file an appeal.
I agree with shame on Johnny Law.
|
uncoolperson
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bellingham |
| Posts: | 556 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:36 pm |
|
| I was saying if true his statements probably have more of a story to them, I couldn't see a prosecutor following through on those convictions.
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:46 pm |
|
uncoolperson wrote: I was saying if true his statements probably have more of a story to them, I couldn't see a prosecutor following through on those convictions.
Oh, heck, I could see a prosecuter following through with them in a heartbeat - how dare an ordinary citizen stand up to a uniformed police officer in that way! It plays right into the opinion that some people have that we are just to do whatever the cop says to do, regardless of rights.
|
cynicist
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Yakima County |
| Posts: | 464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:59 pm |
|
Case law has stated that "when required to do so by law" means when the LEO has RAS to believe you are carrying a concealed pistol.
Trying to find the case right now. I got a print copy somewhere, but I can't seem to find it online.
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:32 pm |
|
cynicist wrote: Case law has stated that "when required to do so by law" means when the LEO has RAS to believe you are carrying a concealed pistol.
Trying to find the case right now. I got a print copy somewhere, but I can't seem to find it online.
I would think it would be like this:
During a detainment for some RAS, IF the officer has RAS to believe the detainee is armed, THEN he has the lawful ability to conduct a frisk for the presence of weapons. THEN if he finds a concealed pistol, only NOW would it be required to produce a CPL.
Why in the world would an officer, during a detainment, if they had RAS of a concealed weapon, ask to see a CPL first?
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
Johnny Law wrote: Tawnos wrote:
It is NOT obstructing an officer in the discharge of their duties to refuse to provide identification prior to being charged. Just because an issue is being "investigated" does not, in any way, lawfully require the surrender of your personal information. It is ONLY when you are lawfully required to provide information that the failure to do so would be hindering, delaying, or obstructing the officer.
I respectfully disagree, and have personally made arrests on such grounds and had convictions on the charge. You may disagree, but my statement is correct.
And I disrespectfully am calling you a douche of the highest magnitude, contingent on your statement of arrest and prosecution for merely denying to provide identification when not formally being charged. You are the problem. Good day, sir.
|
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:50 pm |
|
Let me make sure I have this all straight...
According to 7.80.050 and 7.80.060, as long as I am not facing a citation for a civil infraction, I am not required to provide ID. If I have been told of an infraction for which I may be charged, it is within my best interest to provide ID (to avoid excess detainment).
The scary part about that is when an officer thinks I am committing a crime which is not a crime (i.e. OCing). He may think he has the right to demand my driver's license ID for issuance of a citation. If I refuse, because I know I am not committing a crime, then he can wrongfully cite me for obstruction of justice. Even if I am not charged for OCing, or if I successfully fight charges for OCing, I worry that the obstruction of justice charges could stand! Any thoughts on this one?
Certainly, I must provide a CPL if I am OCing and enter a car. Also, when operating a motor vehicle, I must provide a driver's license upon request.
|
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 12:13 am |
|
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
One of a LEO's duties is to investigate situations. Therefore, if you are holding back your driver's license when requested (i.e. 'investigating'), it could be argued that you are obstructing a LEO in the discharge of his duties. Right?
I would then suppose one could claim that any excercise of your rights is an obstruction of justice. They certainly don't make these laws easy to follow and retain your rights!
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 12:17 am |
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: Let me make sure I have this all straight...
According to 7.80.050 and 7.80.060, as long as I am not facing a citation for a civil infraction, I am not required to provide ID. If I have been told of an infraction for which I may be charged, it is within my best interest to provide ID (to avoid excess detainment).
The scary part about that is when an officer thinks I am committing a crime which is not a crime (i.e. OCing). He may think he has the right to demand my driver's license ID for issuance of a citation. If I refuse, because I know I am not committing a crime, then he can wrongfully cite me for obstruction of justice. Even if I am not charged for OCing, or if I successfully fight charges for OCing, I worry that the obstruction of justice charges could stand! Any thoughts on this one?
Certainly, I must provide a CPL if I am OCing and enter a car. Also, when operating a motor vehicle, I must provide a driver's license upon request.
Fruits of a poisoned tree doctrine. If the officer thinks you are committing a crime for something which is not a crime, you refuse to provide identification, and you are arrested and prosecuted, the whole chain falls apart. Unfortunately, this requires a trip to jail and the court, but such is the price of standing against encroaching police power.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 12:19 am |
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
One of a LEO's duties is to investigate situations. Therefore, if you are holding back your driver's license when requested (i.e. 'investigating'), it could be argued that you are obstructing a LEO in the discharge of his duties. Right?
I would then suppose one could claim that any excercise of your rights is an obstruction of justice. They certainly don't make these laws easy to follow and retain your rights!
Only if you are driving a motor vehicle, when you are legally required to provide identification. I linked to a law enforcement bulletin above, and both I and phssthpok pasted part of the document showing how it is NOT obstructing a law enforcement officer to refuse ID when simply being investigated.
|
bugly
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 02:32 am |
|
We can argue this point till the cows come home, but the fact remains that if you are requested to show ID, it just seems proper to show it. If you are carrying OC, it might show the appointed "good guys" that you are a stand-up kind of guy and have nothing to hide. Being belligerent has gotten me in more krap than being reasonable, and don't we all want the LEOs to trust us as much as they want to be trusted?
I'm not saying one should act like a subject, rather, it is more amicable to be honest and not appear to be hiding anything. Yes, I get it, there is a clause in the 4th Amdt. that precludes you from having to be subjected to "unreasonable searches and seizures", however, the LEO may think what he is doing is reasonable and it might be part of an ongoing investigation where you might even fit the profile of the one being sought. Go ahead, make an ass of yourself and refuse to show ID, the police and the state legislature might decide that open carry makes people into jerks and they might decide to pen some legislation against it. I don't know...
I'm a busy guy, I work 6 days a week for at least 10 hours a day, but if I'm stopped on the side of the road walking or I'm pulled over, I don't act like I'm in a rush to go somewhere and I certainly don't try to be the territorial type of jerkwad that some posters are trying to portray themselves as.
|
Current time is 12:44 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
