• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My first police encounter

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
even during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless the subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added). So even if there were there to come a time that a Washington law enforcement officer properly seizes a person pursuant to RAS for brief investigatory purposes, the officer is not entitled to seize an openly carry weapon absent "reason to believe that the suspect is . . . [also presently] dangerous." Id. Should an open carrier stopped validly under Terry consensually produce a Concealed Pistol License, this fact weighs heavily against any officer's claim that the suspect is "presently dangerous" such that the gun maybe lawfully seized and serial numbers obtained. Accordingly, suppression of any evidence obtained in seizing the gun is likely under these circumstances.



You can refuse to give consent. I would not recommend physically resisting. Whatever actions the officer(s) take without your consent can then be challenged in court. If you consent, then you must prove in court that your consent was coerced.

You may wish to remind the officer that not only do you not consent, but also that if he does so he is in violation of RCW 9A.80.010 which is a gross misdemeanor.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.80.010
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
I think the 'right' way to handle it is:

1. Run your recorder
2. State 'I do not consent but I will not resist even unlawful attempts to...(yada, yada)

IMO.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
NavyLCDR
You missed the most important part

when and if required by law to do so.
You are not required by law to show a CPL when OC and as such you are under no obligation to show it. If you are CC and the officer notices and wants to see a CPL thats an entirely different story.

However to bring the point home lets look at the law-

A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If the cop asks you to give him your gun to "clear" it, can I legally refuse?

Depends on the circumstance and your determination on how far you will stand. I had a talk with deputy chief Doll of Bellingham and told him unless there is RS or PC I will not voluntarily surrender my weapon "for officer safety" he doesn't like it his cops don't like it but he agreed I had the right not too.

I think this is why officer Allen Bass didn't disarm John on his illegal detention/arrest.

But and this is a big but, inform yourself talk to a lawyer don't just do something because we talked about it on the internet. Educate yourself and the legalities and the danger of refusing consent.
 

Samantha86

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
48
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
You can refuse to give consent. I would not recommend physically resisting. Whatever actions the officer(s) take without your consent can then be challenged in court. If you consent, then you must prove in court that your consent was coerced.
Awesome, thanks. I have heard so many different opinions about this, some people say that I am not legally allowed to refuse, some say that the officer has the right to take it no matter what. I am doing research and these answers you guys have match up pretty good. I appreciate it!
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Officer Allen Bass (yes we are talking about you) did ask for my weapon offhandedly. He told me he wanted my weapon (for officer safety) and I did not refuse. I immediatly challenged his RAS, told him I would not consent to an illegle search and continued to face him rather than allow him to get behind me with his weapon drawn. The officer decided not to disarm me.
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
um, "upon demand" would then likely NOT be a consensual encounter with the LEO?

LEO "Hello, citizen"
Citizen "Hello Officer"
LEO "I demand to see your CPL"--->welcome to a detainment, which requires RAS and/or PC

how is this any different from the minimum requirements for a terry stop? Did I miss that the LEO is citing you for an infraction or "investigating" a crime? Unless I am performing or observed performing an act which REQUIRES a CPL, how is not a fishing expedition? If the officer only asks the folks that are open carrying a firearm, not every person he passes, isn't he in violation of my 4th and 5th amendment rights?
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
"Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license AND shall display the same upon demand to any police officer..."

IANAL, but my understanding of reading RCW's would lean towards you are subject to the DEMAND, if and only if you are performing an action requiring it. Otherwise a LEO can use this RCW to go up to anyone and demand a CPL carrying or just walking down the street. Am I misunderstanding the use of the AND?
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

I drive a car... I will NOT show my DL to cops, unless they are investigating a driving infraction..
See Florida V. Peters.

I carry concealled... I will not show my CPL to cops, unless they are investigating a gun use infraction.

I thought I had cleared up all these stupid CPL fishing ideas 2 1/2 years ago..

Remember... I, am "any other person"... I demand that you display your CPL... as required by law,,

I can go fishing too,, using some ILLOGIC.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
RCW 9.41.050 tells me specifically "when and if" I am required by law to display my CPL to any police officer. The "when and if" is UPON DEMAND. "Upon demand" is the "when and if" I am required to display the CPL to any police officer by law. "Upon demand" ONLY applies to displaying the CPL to a police officer. If I am in possession of my CPL, there is no legitimate reason why I cannot comply with displaying it to any police officer upon demand.

"Upon demand" certainly does NOT apply to "any other person". There is no requirement of "upon demand" if I ask to see your CPL. The "when and if" as it applies to "any other person" would be if I desired to waive the waiting period for a handgun purchase by displaying my CPL to the FFL - or if I desired to remain in a city operated/owned convention center using the CPL exception, I might be required to show my CPL to a representative of that city government.


Yet again you are ignoring the text of the law

1.open carry is a legal act rather i have a CPL on me or not. it is not required by law to produce it for a police officer as such he cannot demand it absent RAS (terry VS ohio) of a crime involving my firearm. as well i am not obligated to produce it absent RAS. "Upon demand" is NOT enough reason for legal justification to produce a CPL. an officer can demand i do not drink pepsi in his presence, or demand i not look at him, he can demand all he wants and it means nothing because his demands in this case are not lawful orders that must be obeyed.


2.
So, even if you did violate the law and not show him your CPL upon demand,
This is a completely incorrect statement not in adherence to the law. you did not violate the law by refusing to produce a CPL because the officer has no legal authority to demand it absent RAS of a crime. In both rulings of terry VS ohio and state VS peters absent RAS of a crime ID cannot be demanded (specifically a CPL in the peters case.)

You can keep saying "upon demand" is all they need, however the courts, specifically the US supreme court among others, says otherwise. their ruling on the matter holds alot more weight than your personal opinion in a court of law.
 

Samantha86

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
48
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
I was stopped for speeding by pacific pd. politely informed him I was armed and had my cpl. He was cool about the situation. Had me step out of the car checked and cleared my gun. All in all great experience. He was calm I was calm. He thanked me for being upfront with him. Still got the ticket though. :cry:
I know that you were being polite by telling him you had a gun with you, but I don't think you legally have to tell him unless he specifically asks you... correct?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That is correct. There is no legal requirement to inform the officer about the legally carried gun or possessing a CPL. I personally don't see telling them about my gun or CPL is being any more or less polite than telling them about my cell phone or what CDs I have in my stereo. I don't think there is anything less polite about NOT telling a cop about anything that I legally possess or carry.

+1 I also feel its a civil responsibility not to volunteer information to cops. It enables bad behavior or expectations.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
You can do whatever you want or not do, Schlepnier. If I were before a judge for an open carry incident and charged with violating RCW 9.41.050, my first argument would not be relying upon "if and when required by law to do so" applying to a police officer's demand. My first argument would be to toss out the evidence that I was actually in possession of my CPL at the time when I was not legally obligated to have my CPL in my possession because the search required to find my CPL in my possession would be illegal.

If an officer asks for my CPL because I am open carrying my answer is still going to be, "I am not required to be in possession of a CPL because I am not in possession of a concealed pistol." If you want to tell the officer "I am not required by law to show it to you", be my guest, but I won't advise others to say that.

I've already had my encounter with law enforcement while OC, the conversation lasted all of 20 seconds. he asked for ID i cited terry VS ohio, he agreed i was under no obligation to produce ID and we both went our seperate ways.

My answer will always be something far more effective than a long winded reply
-why am i being detained officer? under terry VS ohio what is your RAS of a crime? what crime are you investigating?

depending on how the LEO answers i may ask if i am free to leave absent RAS of a crime or i may have to cite further applicable law.

Additionally your argument is a red herring RCW 9.41.050 only applies to conceal carry as such you cannot be charged under it for open carry, CPL or not.
 
Last edited:

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
You were pulled over for a traffic infraction (not a crime) and you gave up your right to be silent(5A) and you gave up your right to be secure in your personal affects(4A), why? Why tell him at all unless you are asked to step out of your vehicle. Did you admit to speeding as well? Did you let him search your car for contraband? I am confused as to why people tell the officer about something that is unrelated to the stop.

I'm not going to say someone should or should not but I think it does show respect
 

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
1. An officer asking for ID and an officer asking for a CPL are two completely seperate and unrelated issues.

2. You certainly can be CHARGED under RCW 9.41.050 for open carry. You can also be CHARGED under RCW 9.41.270 for open carry.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by charged could you specify? How can you be charged with something that is not illegal?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It's typically called ".....yeah yeah Buddie.....tell it to a judge." The cop is hoping to get you to violate the law to get himself off the hook for illegally arresting you. Delaying tactic, you touch his pinky-toe with a piece of lint from your shirt....voilà...assaulting a police officer.

The fewer words you exchange with a cop, the better for you and the cop. I'll drink beer all day long with my 'cop buddies', but as soon as they put on their badge it is all business.

Consider a 'consensual contact' as a 'soft detainment', I do. The 'consensual contact' is the prelude to getting cuffs slapped on you if you let it get that far.

Unless you called the cop over, there is nothing consensual about the contact, it is a adversarial encounter regardless of the tone and tenor of the cop's words and demeanor. Only the cop can make the encounter a non-adversarial encounter, not you.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
In a word, "You may beat the rap, but you will not beat the ride." The enforcer suffers no commensurate penalty for an unjustified ride.
 

badkarma

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
333
Location
Duvall, Washington
I was stopped for speeding by pacific pd. politely informed him I was armed and had my cpl. He was cool about the situation. Had me step out of the car checked and cleared my gun. All in all great experience. He was calm I was calm. He thanked me for being upfront with him. Still got the ticket though. :cry:

I hope you learned a valuable lesson in posting your experience. Expect to get **** from the Mafioso.
 
Top