|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Washington > What ID/info must be provided to LEO during a stop?
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Washington > What ID/info must be provided to LEO during a stop?
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ShooterMcGavin Regular Member
|
I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances... 1. When a LEO stops you to ask questions, not detaining you. When you are free to leave (i.e. not being detained), must you provide ANY info to a LEO? 2. When a LEO stops you and tells you that you are being detained (whether or not he details the RAS). Now that you are being detained (maybe not arrested just yet), does the law require you to provide more information, such as an ID? 3. When a LEO spots you getting into a car, does he then have the lawful means to demand to see your driver's license? This is for the case when no unlawful act has been committed with the motor vehicle. I do understand that, if you were OCing, he now has the ability to demand to see your CPL. Any help from the knowledgeable folks out there? I want to know exactly when I can simply walk away from a cop, rather than wait for him to run my info and return my ID to me. Further question... 4. Assume that you were OCing and he just saw you cover your gun. You DO have a CPL. Must you only show the cop the CPL, or must you provide your ID too? This situation is probably the same as getting into a car. Thanks! |
|||||||||
|
carhark Opt-Out Member
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances... IANAL, but.... 1. No, you are not required to show ID or engage the LEO and can leave at any time. 2. Yes, when being detained, you must provide LEOs with your identity. You do not have to discuss anything with them. 3. As you are required to have a CPL to carry in a vehicle in (nearly) all circumstances, if asked, I would show it to the police officer. Whether or not I would be legally obligated to show it, I'm not sure ebcuase I can see two sides. The first being that the officer doesn't have RAS; the second being that if you are driving a vehicle (carrying or otherwise), LEOs can ask to see your license. In that way, the two acts might be seen as analagous, both being legal only when licensed. 4. For the same reasons as #3, not sure. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
I have to disagree with you on #2 carhark. In HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., SCOTUS upheld his conviction for refusing to identify himself because there was a clearly defined Nevada state statute that required him to do so when: ...the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion .... As I've posted here before, there is not such 'Stop and Identify' statute clearly defined in the state of Washington, and the cops KNOW it....or reasonably SHOULD. As I've also posted here before, it is my opinion that if an officer does indeed have true and valid RAS to detain you he should have no problem revealing same to you when detained. Otherwise, the detainee has NO WAY OF KNOWING if his detainment is lawful or not, which has a direct bearing on what his legal requirements and protections are from that point on. Make em justify their actions on the spot, when it happens....don't give them a few days to work on their 'story' for the judge. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member 
|
You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course.... |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course.... I 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: |
|||||||||
|
sv_libertarian State Researcher 
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
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. Which is why mine stays in the car!  |
|||||||||
|
sv_libertarian State Researcher
|
Since I ride the bus or take my bike downtown, I don't have that option usually. But OTOH the cops around here already know who I am... |
|||||||||
|
okkid Regular Member
|
Myself I would show it. I have been ask my the police if I always carry open and ask them if they would like to see my ID and was told no. So I have np showing them. If they are being an a butt about it I would drag it out as far as I had to before I showed them but I have never had that problem. |
|||||||||
|
ShooterMcGavin Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course.... Do you have any problem with the police harrassing you? When you are lawfully going about your business, do you want to spend an hour of your time while the police run searches on you, call in backup, etc.? If you have nothing to hide, just answer all their questions even if you are not being detained. Also, just consent to any and all searches. You have nothing to hide, right? It could only take an hour to tear your car apart. I'm not looking to hide anything. I'm looking to excercise my right to not be harrassed and to not waste my time answering questions about my perfectly lawful activities. If you show the police that you know your rights, they may tend to back off and be less aggressive (less harrassing) - I think. |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances... 1. No. Though I have and will provide my name and phone number. It's the bare minimum needed to get a FOIA/public request, so I just give it to them so they know I'm following up. 2. No. Washington has no "stop and identify" statute. I often don't carry ID with me while OCing, so how could I provide it? 3. Yes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.021 4. Yes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: bugly wrote:Pretty much true. In all my experiences, a polite "no" response has gotten me out of a situation faster than any acquiescing. In fact, a group I was with was detained, and I refused to give ID. The rest of the group said "oh, come on, just give it to them" and I still said no. I was the first let go by almost 30 minutes.You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course.... |
|||||||||
|
ShooterMcGavin Regular Member
|
Tawnos wrote: 3. Yes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.021 Regarding #3, according to 46.61.021... (3)Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address. First, it states that this requirement is based upon an investigation of a traffic infraction. All of the requirements in that law are when a cop is working on a traffic infraction, but my example is outside of an offense committed with the vehicle. Second, "identify hiself... and give his or her current address". It does not state "must provide a WA issued driver's license". Regarding #4, according to 9.41.050... That says nothing about providing a WA issued driver's license. Based on that, why do you think the answer is "yes" for 3 and 4? |
|||||||||
|
BigDaddy5 Regular Member 
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
Because the law says it's "yes." http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.017 |
|||||||||
|
uncoolperson Regular Member
|
I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving) Have to provide a CPL when doing something requiring a CPL (in a car, CC). Other than that name/DOB if the situation warrants, or "have a nice day" (if things arn't simple I tend to screw them up) Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:29 pm by uncoolperson |
|||||||||
|
BigDaddy5 Regular Member
|
uncoolperson wrote:I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving) Nope. Anytime you are being investigated for ANY civil infraction, including non-traffic (i.e. jaywalking), you MUST identify. And in WA there are only a few ways to identify: Driver's License, WA State ID Card, Passport, etc. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060 |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
BigDaddy5 wrote: uncoolperson wrote: Not so fast, BigDaddy5. Read the law in your link again. It states quite clearly that: A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard. By specifying RCW 7.80.050 (Notice of infraction - Issuance, service, filing), the scope of this particular section of code is limited to THAT section only. Nowhere in RWC 7.80.050 is there ANY text regarding 'investigation'. It is solely concerned with the issuance and documentation process for civil infractions. You are NOT required to identify yourself when simply 'under investigation'. |
|||||||||
|
uncoolperson Regular Member
|
just says if you don't then they keep you around until they can figure out who you are and that an ID of some form helps that process along. |
|||||||||
|
carhark Opt-Out Member
|
Phssthpok wrote: I have to disagree with you on #2 carhark. Good thing I'm not a lawyer! I wouldn't have many clients. :-) |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
Phssthpok wrote: BigDaddy5 wrote:uncoolperson wrote: Phssthpok hit it right on the head. Only when being served or issued a civil infraction must you give your name, address, and date of birth. Note, also, that it says upon request, you shall produce reasonable identification. This is a different burden than 46.20.017, which requires you have identification on your immediate person and you display it upon demand whenever pulled over for any reason. |
|||||||||
|
Johnny Law Regular Member 
|
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 
|
Phssthpok wroteI posted this over on the Nevada board, but it bears repeating here: 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 
|
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
|
Johnny Law 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. |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
Johnny Law, more evidence your statement is incorrect: https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/aug04.pdf
|
|||||||||
|
Johnny Law Regular Member
|
Tawnos wrote:
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
|
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 06:54 pm by Phssthpok |
|||||||||
|
uncoolperson Regular Member
|
I'm guessing johnny's stories have more to them. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
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." 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
|
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
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
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. 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
|
Johnny Law wrote: Tawnos wrote: 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
|
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
|
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
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: Let me make sure I have this all straight... 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
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: RCW 9A.76.020 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
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: 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? So you find it perfectly acceptable for a cop to stop you, a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong and demand to see "your papers?!?" And then what if the cop wants to disarm you because you are doing nothing other than carrying? And then what if the cop wants to hand cuff you in the interest of officer safety while he asks you who you are and what you are doing carrying the gun that way? What if two or three cops decide to tackle you on the way out of Wal Mart because some nilly called 911 about a lunatic with a gun? All of that has happened to perfectly law abiding citizens doing absolutely nothing wrong. So where do you draw the line? Unless a cop has actual Reasonable and Articulatable Suspicion that we are actually committing a real crime or have recently committed a real crime, we have every right, as American Citizens, for the cops to leave us the hell alone. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
NavyLT wrote: bugly wrote: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? So, I guess in Oak Harbor that's a big problem? I lve in the hilltop neighborhood of Tacoma, I have had ZERO run-ins with the police there or anywhere else recently. Maybe it's because I don't act weird around people or look like I'm up to something. Funny, I look like a hoodlum, (a rather aged one, since I'm in my mid-forties) I have tattoos, I'm 6 foot tall about 205, and still the police seem to ignore me no matter what I'm doing. Maybe I'm invisible? I open carry to work and around when I go places, and still ZERO problems. In fact I've had people ask me a lot of questions on which guns are most reliable and what the laws are on open and concealed carry. My apartment manager LOVES the fact that I and a few others openly carry. So, where's this problem with being stopped? Are you being a normal Citizen or acting like a punk? Why would a professional police officer bother with me when there are REAL problems out there? Grow up and act right and this entire post will be a moot point. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member 
|
bugly wrote: NavyLT wrote:bugly wrote: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? Is it just me that has major problems with this. So you think someone is making an ass of himself for excercising his rights? Sorry to say this is the sad state this country is coming to when people are brainwashed into cooperating with the police state for our own good that Navylt mentioned. I am glad you have never been harrassed for carrying that should be no basis of telling other "hey its not so bad surrender your rights" . I have not been harrassed for carrying by LEO either I have at other times, and I tried to play the good cooperative guy and it worked against me each time, one time was the kirkland incident I had posted on another thread, every time the lawyer said I should have never volunteered any information. |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: 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? When OC, I often carry no ID. How is it making an ass of myself for refusing to say where I live, or how old I am? I give my name and phone number, the least required to procure FOIA information. Anything else can be used as a basis for discrimination, my address can put officers near my place looking to ticket me for violations, real or perceived. My age can cause my to be subjected to ageism (you're too young! raaah!). The fact is, I have no reason to give anything to officers who are requesting it without legal reason. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
bugly wrote:
No, in Oak Harbor it is not a big problem. It WAS a small problem, once. And a responsible open carrier, stood his ground with the police (for the most part, although he did cave in and show ID), followed up with the police to show them their error, several members of this forum came a long way to lend support, and we kept it from becoming a big problem. However, that same OC'er did tell the cop he was full of doo doo, did tell the cop he was not going to cover up his gun, and did tell the cop to just cut through the B.S. and make an arrest if he actually believed that any law was broken, but I guess that was being an ass. The only way we are going to keep this from becoming a big problem is if we do what we can when it is still a little problem to insist that cops actually follow laws they are guided by as well. Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:20 pm by NavyLT |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Well put NavyLt....and good job handling your encounter. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
So, I'm to hold my ground, get either beaten or arrested and have to go through the legal process to prove a point? Sorry, I think it better to NOT be confrontational, and if my rights are violated, I do follow up with the department and make sure it sticks. The issue at hand is whether or not to show ID, not to show your "papers", et-al... There are far better reasons to be confrontational with others, this is not, IMHO, one of those. Perhaps my parents raised me to be respectful of authority figures (including police officers), and some of yours didn't, that doesn't change the fact you should at least be courteous to someone who could very easily lock you up and make up a story about you that you can not refute. (It could happen, and I'm not saying it does very often). Good for all of you that stand up for your rights, it makes things soooo much easier for the rest of us, now that we're labeled as "radicals", or "wackos" |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
The idea is not to be confrontational, don't get me wrong. It is to calmly assert your 'Authority' remember respect is a two way street, and these "authorities" work for us. If they make it confrontational, that is their problem. But if you initially refuse unlawful requests, and are demanded to show your I.D. (wich is your papers) then you have a case in court for the violation of the 4th. But if you immediately acquies to requests of officers than you don't, you gave up your rights. I am not trying to berate or demean your stance, you do what you feel is best for you. But your compromising, does enable the polices feelings they have the right to do what they are doing. |
|||||||||
|
compmanio365 Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: So, I'm to hold my ground, get either beaten or arrested and have to go through the legal process to prove a point? Yup, cause damn it all, freedom is a "radical" and "wacko" idea. Better just hand over those papers, Comrade. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Look Bugly don't get discouraged because others don't feel the same as you do. I hope you are open carrying because in just doing that you are standing up for a right you are making a statement. That encourages me, but personally my feelings are if we don't stand up to unlawful orders, who will. Get your toes wet slowly, don't just jump in if not comfortable. I think you will find once you assert yourself once it gets easier and you feel better and liberated. Similar to open carrying, the first few times might be a little nerve wracking, but after awhile its natural and liberating. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
ShooterMcGavin wrote: RCW 9A.76.020 Look at it this way. If the officer is investigating a set of circumstances regarding a particular situation (say..a Qwikee-mart holdup), and you match the description, but cannot provide an alibi, then your specific identity should not be a factor in the investigation. It wouldn't matter. The officer could detain you (he WOULD have valid RAS at this point) for the purposes of returning you to the scene of the crime for visual ID by the victim. Again, your name, age, and address have no bearing on this situation at this point. Note also, that the fifth protects you from being compelled to provide evidence against yourself, so if you ARE the one who help up the Qwikee-mart, you wouldn't have an (honest) alibi, but you also could not be arrested for 'obstruction' simply because you kept your yap shut! They can detain you for further investigation, but they cannot force you to provide any information yourself. Same goes for your ID; if it is a direct factor in the investigation (you were NAMED as the robber) then being forced to provide ID would violate the fifth as it would incriminate you. SCOTUS said as much in Hiible. |
|||||||||
|
Washintonian_For_Liberty Regular Member 
|
bugly wrote: NavyLT wrote:bugly wrote: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? Bugly, have you even read my thread on my detainment? It is a problem in more places than people think. Just because you've had zero problems does not mean others have not. It is because we stand up for our rights that people like you never encounter what WE fight to stop. If we never stood up for our rights, you would have problems. It is in all likelihood that someone came before you as the trailblazer and dealt with the problem so all those to follow would not have the same issue. Don't be so quick to give up your rights... because they'll just keep encroaching further and further until you have no rights left. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
I'm just failing to see where answering a simple question (should that occasion arise) is a violation of my rights. I do have the right to refuse, but also the right to comply if I so wish. I don't think identifying myself is a problem, nor do I think it's a violation of my rights. The officer has a badge, clearly stating who he is...... If, however, an officer were to be a jerk toward me when asking, or decides I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, screw 'em, I wouldn't give him time of day in that case. Most of the times I've been asked it's been polite and calmly asked, so I don't have issues with that. Seems I'm the only one here that's been treated with civility or something, since the rest of you guys want to act medieval when confronted. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: I'm just failing to see where answering a simple question (should that occasion arise) is a violation of my rights. I do have the right to refuse, but also the right to comply if I so wish. I don't think identifying myself is a problem, nor do I think it's a violation of my rights. The officer has a badge, clearly stating who he is...... bugly, The biggest point we are trying to make is that we are NOT acting medieval, we are NOT being jerks, we are NOT being confrontational, we are NOT being any of those things. All we are saying is that we, as law abiding Americans, have every right to be left the hell alone by the cops, regardless of if the customer sitting across the restaurant from us is comfortable or not. Every time you have responded, you have called us some kind of name, or said we were acting in some way inappropriately. Why is it so difficult to admit that the inappropriate behavior that we are talking about is on the part of the police? First it starts with, "Who are you?" Then it moves to, "Can I see some ID?" Then it moves to, "Can I see your CPL (for open carrying!)" Then it's "You know you could lose this CPL". Then "How about you just cover it up." Followed by, "Maybe you should just leave." It doesn't matter if the cop is as sweet and nice as can be and is wearing an Easter bonnet. What matters is that we have every right to shop, and eat, and watch a movie, unmolested by the police as anyone else does. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
Understood, but if you look at a lot of the posts on this thread, the responses have been advocating opposition to the police. They are NOT the bad guys. Some are just doing what they think is best for society, I know not all of them are like that, but I figure I have nothing to hide and will continue to be courteous toward them as long as they are the same toward me. Asking for my ID is not, IMHO unreasonable, since I am carrying a deadly weapon on my side. I figure that if we were all more friendly toward the police, they will eventually understand that we are not bad guys either. It's a give and take situation. Yes, it seems to be a PITA to show ID, but its no different that showing it to a cashier when you purchase with a credit card or you're buying an age-restricted item. The name-calling is a bit over the top, but understand that many people out there refuse to see that there is a problem with refusing to cooperate with LEOs when they are just doing their job. I have seen people who are not carrying anything asked for their ID many times and what's the difference in those cases? |
|||||||||
|
compmanio365 Regular Member
|
Sorry bugly, but they ARE the "bad guy" IMHO. Police are the standing army the founding fathers warned us about, and now we are forced to deal with them and fight them to exercise our rights at every turn. Them "just doing their job" conflicts with MY rights. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they violate that oath every time they harass a law abiding OCer just because they are "doing their job". I don't buy it, and it's sad that you have so willingly played along with their statist game to circumvent your rights without a fight. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
And I don't think any of us here opose the police when they are carrying out their duties we hire them to do within the scope of the law and our rights. If they step outside that scope, yes oppose, that is our civil duty. In my opinion. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. When it becomes more, such as; "I need to run your info", even though you've done nothing, force them to comply with the law by asking them what you're being charged with. If they refuse, you have them by the 'nads. But until there is a REAL breach in confidence with them, thee is no reason to be confrontational, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to continue open carrying without harassment. If all the police see when they talk to open carryers is; confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment and they WILL make it difficult to even own guns, since this is becoming a more liberal, tree-hugging state. Note I said difficult, not impossible, they do have the means to shut down manufacture of guns and place restrictions on ammunition supply. All I'm saying is; don't screw it up for the rest of us by trying to be a tough guy when the cops want to talk to you. after a stop or two (if that even happens) they'll get to know who you are by sight and leave you alone for good. If you confront them or decide to be a hard case, they WILL harass you and like I said before, they'll recognise your face. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. The US Supreme Court has said that is a breach. |
|||||||||
|
antispam540 Regular Member 
|
NavyLT wrote: bugly wrote:Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. +1 |
|||||||||
|
ShooterMcGavin Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: ...When it becomes more, such as; "I need to run your info", even though you've done nothing, force them to comply with the law by asking them what you're being charged with. If they refuse, you have them by the 'nads. ... When you provide your ID, you are consenting to them running your info. After they have your ID, how do you "force them to comply"? You won't prevent them from running your info with physical force and you won't be able to convince them to stop. bugly wrote: ... it just makes it harder for the rest of us to continue open carrying without harassment. If all the police see when they talk to open carryers is; confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment and they WILL make it difficult to even own guns, ... You are saying that, if we step up and let them know that we know our rights, AND that we know when they (the police) are not acting within the law, they will increase harassment frequency? I must disagree. I think the opposite would be the result. The police would start to think before stopping someone who is clearly abiding by the law, just to harass them and waste their time. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
NavyLT wrote: bugly wrote:Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. The request isn't the breach, but when you politely decline to share personal information and they insist it is the breach. (I try to do it politely, but even if I wasn"t, I haven't done anything wrong.) They can't willy nilly stop people and ask for Papers. When they are asking for I.D. that is what they are asking for. Believe me they have all kinds of personal information on you once they have that. |
|||||||||
|
Ajetpilot Regular Member 
|
bugly wrote: ... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ... Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that? |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
Ajetpilot wrote: bugly wrote:... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ... Based solely on how responses have been written, civility is not part of the equation. The responses have been such that if asked by LEO to show ID, the response would be "kiss my @$$". Or so they have been interpreted. There is a fine line between assertiveness and militancy, where one draws that line may determine where he sleeps that evening...or ever again. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
I am not advocating not being civil either, hope you didn't infer that from my posts. I am telling you from personal experience they make you feel like you are being an ass for civilly standing up for your civil rights. |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: Ajetpilot wrote:bugly wrote:... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ... See, now you're just making stuff up. |
|||||||||
|
bugly Regular Member
|
Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired. I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole. I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up. |
|||||||||
|
Tawnos Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired. Seriously, you're going to have to pull sources. I just reread the thread, and the only "tough guy" (well, quasi tough guy, mostly pissed at the blatant and admitted breaking of the law by a supposed law enforcement officer) post was by me, calling Johnny Law a douche for arresting someone for not showing papers. You'll note that I am a person who has had a couple encounters with police, both here and in California. In no case did I ever provide identification, and in both I was let go with no charges filed nor any issue raised. Basically, the only one who is truly acting the part of "internet tough guy" here is you. You've made disparaging comments regarding the maturity ("grow up and act right" & "some day you might grow up"), actions under pressure ("usually pee themselves"), while excusing yourself from similar behavior ("screw 'em, I wouldn't give him the time of day"), and other such indications of the ITG profile. The only thing the rest of us have said is that we have a right to be secure in our persons and papers, and that any attempt to infringe upon that will be met with stonewalling. Why is that such a problem for you? |
|||||||||
|
ShooterMcGavin Regular Member
|
Tawnos, I know you are trying to use reason, but I think we should just let him leave the thread. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
bugly wrote: Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired. Interesting. I started out in foxholes in 1984. I haven't peed myself yet. Great, now I've got this song going in my head, "Another troll bites the dust. And another one gone, and another one gone. Another troll bites the dust." Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:46 pm by NavyLT |
|||||||||