• 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.

Spokane LEO Encounter

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
"I'm detaining you for being suspicious." Just because you ask doesn't mean they're going to answer anything further than 'yes, you're being detained.'

Well, in theory, I suppose it would remind the cop that what he is doing is illegal, and force him to try to justify his lawbreaking to himself, in hopes that by repeated application, his conscience will kickstart and clue him into the fact that what he is doing is not only illegal, but wrong.

This is presuming of course, that the average street cop with whom one is likely to come into contact possesses a scintilla of intellectual honesty, a topic on which I remain a persuadable skeptic.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
I'm not sure why you say they were both being professional. Neither was. They asked for an ID in absence of legal right since there was no RAS, and it appears both of them lied and said the owner didn't like it.

Some day someone will say 'I'm going to call 911 and tell them there are two people here in uniform at a restaurant who obviously don't know the law and they're harassing me, send a sergeant immediately and protect me from these possible fake LEOs.' Then we will have something.

Sorry that happened to you. Glad you ended it peacefully.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
"I'm detaining you for being suspicious." Just because you ask doesn't mean they're going to answer anything further than 'yes, you're being detained.'
... of course, it's not really going to help in the following lawsuit when they're only articulable suspicion, in it's entirety is "I saw him standing there, out in public, talking on a cellphone, with a firearm on his side."

Yeah, "you're under arrest for resisting arrest," was one of the best lines I've ever heard from a police officer. It was from a police check point in Texas.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Mainsail said:
When the officer asked for your ID you should ask the officer, "Am I being detained?"
If he says no, then go on about your business.
I believe it's a recommendation from Citizen (who may be by to speak for himself), but if you have to ask, you're already being detained.

Instead of "am I", ask "why am I being detained".
If s/he can't come up with a legal reason, or is unprepared for the question & says "you're not", say goodbye.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
I believe it's a recommendation from Citizen (who may be by to speak for himself), but if you have to ask, you're already being detained.

Instead of "am I", ask "why am I being detained".
If s/he can't come up with a legal reason, or is unprepared for the question & says "you're not", say goodbye.
Yeah, what do I know, it's not like I've ever been detained, or cuffed, or arrested for open carry.
 

Levi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
188
Location
Tacoma
Clarification on the use of Military Identification

A service member is required to show military ID to another active duty military member upon request, in or out of uniform. This is regardless of rank or branch of service. A seaman recruit has the right to ask an admiral or a general for military ID, though one should have cause to do so or may suffer the political backlash. This is military regulation and exists to prevent someone from misrepresenting himself. A service member is also required to present to a DoD employee acting in an official capacity(NCIS, civilian base security, ect.)

A service member is not required to show military ID to anyone not on active duty or officially representing the DoD. (Reservist are on active duty for weekend drills and two week duties.) Military ID cannot be demanded by LE or any other non-DoD authority directly. This is law that was enacted to protect servicemen from local LE that may have a negative attitude towards Military members. Today, it's rarely a problem but it has been in the past in some locations. Some circumstances my require the presentation of Mil ID like having a DL that states "Not valid without Mil ID" (like mine did for 5 years) or being in possession of a fully automatic weapon in the state of Washington.

Sadly, many senior military personnel don't know the regs and try to enforce what they think rather than doing the research. In many cases, I've seen Navy Chiefs and Officers give instructions that actually violated regulations.

DISCLAIMER: If you plan to put anything I've written here into action, do your research and cite the regs (MILPERS) for yourself. I don't want to be the "some guy on the internet" you quote and start a WTF storm.
 

jm9584

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
10
Location
Spokane
OP responds

To clarify, i chose to hand over my mil ID when asked for ID as opposed to a DL or other ID i was carrying. Nothing necessarily gave away the fact that i was active duty (though a detail aware person could likely have guessed so, due to haircut, style of dress, and bearing).

MIB - I did so because i wasn't thoroughly comfortable with my knowledge of require-to-ID laws in Washington as i was with those on Open Carrying. In other situations, i may elect to not provide identification, but i thought that it would be to my benefit in this case. Similarly, that was my reason for passing (and i always do, even during traffic stops) my mil ID. "Professional Courtesy" is often extended, though never to the extent of LEO-LEO PC, and this has smoothed my interactions with LEOs in the past.

That said, Levi is correct on his description of mil ID requirements. I am not required to show it to an LEO. Leadership often suggest that junior members show their Mil IDs, however, for just such a reason as i mentioned above. Call it stacking the deck in your favor.

Thor - I'm surprised i haven't seen you around, we seem to travel in similar areas. I don't think i've ever actually seen another person OCing around Spokane, and that always surprises me.

In regards to the "Think of the Children!" comment by the LEO...i, too always groan upon hearing this. You'll notice that when people don't have a rational argument to make, in virtually any moral/political/legal disagreement, this is often thrown up. It was, in this case, as in almost every other, a non-sequiter. The irony is that a week or so previous, i had been to HuHot with the same lady, and her two daughters...carrying openly. Think of the poor children, indeed :) The kiddos the LEO was referencing were at a table behind us...they didn't even notice my pistol until the police showed up and came to the table, attracting the attention. In retrospect, i'm happy with how i handled it, though i can think of a couple of places to improve. One such would be to directly mention the illegality of the course of action suggested by concealing my weapon.

Mainsail - I can understand your desire to be absolutist in terms of our rights when interacting with LEOs, but i am a pragmatic man by nature. I try to pick my battles and arrive at outcomes that are most advantageous to me with the least effort and given the situations at hand. In this case, surrendering ID seemed to be the best course of action...losing the battle to win the war, as it were. Other than that, do you really think i did so poorly? I finished my meal without ever leaving my seat, being disarmed, or having to kowtow in other ways. The individual that wasted police manpower by calling them to the restaurant got to see that other people are not scared of a citizen acting lawfully with a firearm. And the management of HuHot got what was probably a good reminder that OC is completely legal, and that those who are nervous about it are the likely causes to disturbance of their ambiance, not the OCer hirself.

To all, thanks for the welcome to the forums. I'll try to be an active participant, and am interested in any OC and firearm in general related activities in the local area.

Also, on a side note, does anyone have any suggestions for a good local gun shop? What about an Android App that would be good for video/audio recording in a situation similar to the one i described?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
To clarify, i chose to hand over my mil ID when asked for ID as opposed to a DL or other ID i was carrying. Nothing necessarily gave away the fact that i was active duty (though a detail aware person could likely have guessed so, due to haircut, style of dress, and bearing).

MIB - I did so because i wasn't thoroughly comfortable with my knowledge of require-to-ID laws in Washington as i was with those on Open Carrying. In other situations, i may elect to not provide identification, but i thought that it would be to my benefit in this case. Similarly, that was my reason for passing (and i always do, even during traffic stops) my mil ID. "Professional Courtesy" is often extended, though never to the extent of LEO-LEO PC, and this has smoothed my interactions with LEOs in the past.

This isn't an attack on you, but how does this help normalize the open carry of properly-holstered handguns by citizens in society?


While I'm glad that a citizen has less hassle from the State's armed enforcers, for whatever reason, being a federal government employee should not get you preferential treatment from state government employees.
 

jm9584

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
10
Location
Spokane
While I'm glad that a citizen has less hassle from the State's armed enforcers, for whatever reason, being a federal government employee should not get you preferential treatment from state government employees.

I agree. That's the world we live in right now, however, and i would be foolish to not recognize it. Is it immoral to do so? I don't think so, seeing as how i'm not actively creating the situation. It's much the same, in my mind, as people who believe that certain tax reforms need to happen, but still take advantage of tax deductions in the current code that benefit them. You can advocate for political change that doesn't benefit you personally, but still make use of contrary benefits as they are given to you until those policies you advocate are put into effect.


This isn't an attack on you, but how does this help normalize the open carry of properly-holstered handguns by citizens in society?

The mil-ID and the OC in general are mostly separate topics, i would think. In this instance, you're right, they did have a glancing interaction...and i would say that passing my mil-ID was neutral on the OC topic, or possibly slightly positive. My reasoning is thus: if passing a mil-ID leads to a smoother interaction with LE, the other witnesses in the area (of which there are many) will see a profound non-event. The LEOs, also, will chalk the event up as a non-issue. This adds yet another data point in the minds of everyone (to include the original panicked caller) that OC is a non-issue, and the salient fact in people's minds will be "citizen carrying holstered weapon", not "military member carrying holstered weapon". Most wont even know a mil-ID was passed, and those that do, it will be glossed over mentally.

I understand the philosophical points you are trying to make, and while i agree with half of what you said (though practicality may win out), i think the other half may be slightly incorrect. In any case, i don't think passing a mil-ID would cause damage to the cause of OC for citizens in general.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
I can understand your desire to be absolutist in terms of our rights when interacting with LEOs, but i am a pragmatic man by nature. I try to pick my battles and arrive at outcomes that are most advantageous to me with the least effort and given the situations at hand. In this case, surrendering ID seemed to be the best course of action...losing the battle to win the war, as it were. Other than that, do you really think i did so poorly?

The problem is that you are making it more difficult for the rest of us who OC. what you did was re-enforce the officers improper behavior under color of authority. we are trying to get them used to OC again. when you give in they expect all of us to give in even when they cannot legally demand it.

I know your comparatively new to the forums, but there is a mantra you will hear over and over again-

WHY AM I BEING DETAINED OFFICER?

If you are being detained demand the nature of the crime they are investigating, know the laws so that you can stop them in their tracks whent they try to misapply firearms laws.

If they say your not being detained. then tell them as you are not being detained or doing anything illegal you are terminating this concensual contact.

Always be polite, but also be firm.

Just so you know i also have had contact with LEOs while OC the entire incident lasted less than 30 seconds.
No ID was given(it was requested and declined) and the law was respected.
 
Last edited:

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
I have OCd in that HuHot more times than I can count. Unless the management has called the police, and is having them ask you to leave, I am not sure I would give the police the time of day.

If I were you (the OP) I would do a FOIA request to see how the call was received, handled and dispatched. Then I would talk to the training officer for the Sheriffs Dept and discuss my disdain at having my meal interupted by officers who do not understand the law. I am assuming they didn't talk to any one else legally enjoying their dinner?

bob
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Ah, ok, yeah. He's a fireman and was worried

It's good bet that the fireman called 911 when he saw that the owner/manager wasn't going to do what he expected.

I can't even begin to count the number of firemen that think THEIR badge makes them some kind of cop. Evidently they picked up the wrong job application.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
"I'm detaining you for being suspicious." Just because you ask doesn't mean they're going to answer anything further than 'yes, you're being detained.'
... of course, it's not really going to help in the following lawsuit when they're only articulable suspicion, in it's entirety is "I saw him standing there, out in public, talking on a cellphone, with a firearm on his side."

They can not detain you on mere "suspicion" in Washington. There are court cases on this, they need other facts to back up their suspicion (carrying a gun is legal in this state so it is insufficient to back up reasonable suspicion or PC). Or there are exigent circumstances that allow the cops to detain you.

Unless he can point to facts that back up his claim you are breaking or about to break the law, it don't mean squat.

Here's an interesting case on it......http://aclu-wa.org/library_files/2008-11-04--Order re Ds' SJ Mtn.pdf

I'm going to go against the flow here and say you did not do that well.

When the officer asked for your ID you should ask the officer, "Am I being detained?" If he says no, then go on about your business. If he says yes, that he is detaining you, ask, "For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?" The police cannot detain you for behaving lawfully. If he answers something similar to, "Well, you're carrying a gun" remind him that it is legal to do so and say nothing else. Nothing. Don't debate, don't try to teach them the law, sit there quietly and make a note of the time.

Most of the time the officer will attempt to avoid the question because he knows he cannot detain you, but he can have a consensual chat with you just like anyone else. He may try to appeal to your law abiding citizen side, like he did when he mentioned the children in the restaurant (what does that have to do with anything?). He may tell you he has to contact you because it's an investigation. Whatever.

Am I being detained?
If no- "Have a nice day officer" and go on about your business.
If yes- "For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?" and say nothing else.
.
+1 yet I change it to why am I being detained it puts them on the defensive. And if they say you are not, you can dismiss them. (whether they dismiss themselves or not moves it into detainment / harassment)
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
Most wont even know a mil-ID was passed, and those that do, it will be glossed over mentally.

The reason these guys are saying something is because you handed over ID. They don't care that it was a MIL-ID. Most people don't know what a military ID looks like and unless you flashed it around, held it up and announced what it was then nobody knew.
All they saw was a trouble maker handing over his ID. As far as they are concerned the police are infallible. They wouldn't be there if you weren't breaking the law.
It is a growing number of people that are beginning to realize that police are public servants, not the other way around.
I am one of those people. My line of thinking has changed dramatically in the last few months. (Orphan helped though I still disagree on a couple things)
The point is that you didn't need to ID yourself. That is why people brought it up. The fact about the MIL-ID only came into question as concerns DoD Regulations for LEO ID purposes.
Other than that one thing you did a great job handling the situation. You were calm and polite. You stayed indoors where you had a legal right to be. You didn't cause any problems. So, good job.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Definition of CONSENSUAL
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing <a consensual contract>
2: involving or based on mutual consent <consensual acts>
The contact was not consensual, you did not invite them.

May i see your ID?, LEO 1.
You provide your ID and now the contact is consensual.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
jm9584,

The way you handled your encounter places you in more legal peril than necessary. Here's why. What if the officers had written you a citation (wrongfully) for violating RCW 9.41.270, Unlawful Display of a Weapon, and you had to go to court to fight it?

The first, and usually easiest way, to get a charge dismissed is to prove that the initial detainment was illegal. Everything after is tossed out and there is no longer a case against you. In order to prove an illegal detainment, the first thing that must be answered in court is, "Would a reasonable person feel that they were detained, without legal ability to leave the encounter?" In your case, you willfully cooperated with almost every request the officers made. This puts you into the position of proving that you felt like you had no choice. The officers will claim the encounter was voluntary and consentual.

That is why it is vitally important to not consent to cooperating the officers right from the beginning. Establish beyond any reasonable doubt the you do not consent to the encounter, and that you are being detained. The easiest way to do this is to first ask, "Am I being detained?" Just get it out right from the start. After that, if they say that you are being detained, declare to them that you do not consent to any encounter with them, that you will make no statements to them without an attorney present, but that you will not resist efforts they may make to arrest you. Put the ball squarely in their court. Then, in court, the first question that will have to be proven is not whether or not you were detained; instead it will be up to the officers to articulate a reasonable suspicion upon which they lawfully detained you.

By cooperating with the officers fully, like you did, you almost always lose the very first defense you will have in court. When an officer is approaching you in a situation such as yours, you have no idea what their intentions are. They may very well be looking for any reason to issue you a citation....there is no reason for us to offer them anything to aid them.

Articulated very well John! Everyone should read this, then re-read this and print it out and understand this reasoning. It is spot on.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I agree. That's the world we live in right now, however, and i would be foolish to not recognize it. Is it immoral to do so? I don't think so, seeing as how i'm not actively creating the situation. It's much the same, in my mind, as people who believe that certain tax reforms need to happen, but still take advantage of tax deductions in the current code that benefit them. You can advocate for political change that doesn't benefit you personally, but still make use of contrary benefits as they are given to you until those policies you advocate are put into effect.

OK, fair enough, but by taking advantage of the status quo, you are doing nothing to help change the status quo. That's totally fine, and you are under no obligation to make any sacrifices for any cause, no matter how small, but just understand that you are not helping to change things by playing along.

The mil-ID and the OC in general are mostly separate topics, i would think. In this instance, you're right, they did have a glancing interaction...and i would say that passing my mil-ID was neutral on the OC topic, or possibly slightly positive. My reasoning is thus: if passing a mil-ID leads to a smoother interaction with LE, the other witnesses in the area (of which there are many) will see a profound non-event. The LEOs, also, will chalk the event up as a non-issue.

Wrong. The witnesses will think you are required to produce ID for the police when you have done nothing wrong (or even worse, they may have thought it was a permit), and the police think it's OK for them to demand ID when they have no authority to do so. Again, the status quo is maintained, no one is educated, and, in fact, a few people may be misled outright.

:(
 
Last edited:

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
snip...
He may try to appeal to your law abiding citizen side, like he did when he mentioned the children in the restaurant (what does that have to do with anything?). He may tell you he has to contact you because it's an investigation. Whatever.

Washington police, guns and children are a lethal mix. On April 11, 2012, a Spokane LEO left his gun unlocked in his house and his daughter shot herself in the leg, and on March 10, a Marysville LEO left his gun unlocked in his car and his 3 year-old shot himself to death. Apparently, its the LEOs who shouldn't have guns around children in Washington.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
...I change it to why am I being detained it puts them on the defensive. And if they say you are not, you can dismiss them. (whether they dismiss themselves or not moves it into detainment / harassment)

To each his own; I certainly don't have a problem with that phraseology.

I absolutely love the idea of dismissing the officer though!
“Officer am I being detained?”
“No, I just…”
“Then you are dismissed.”
 
Top