• 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.

Produce ID for the police?

If the police want to see your ID because you are OCing, should you give it to them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • No

    Votes: 82 68.3%
  • Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

    Votes: 18 15.0%

  • Total voters
    120

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
SNIP

However, Officers realize all this stuff is complete bullcrap and dont mess with citizens for it.

But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

SNIP

I realize why there's some unsettling excitement over QilivinLEO's post, but if I may say something about what I think is the most important words found in the partial quote above...

Specifically
"I'm going to use every bit of the power YOU HAVE GIVEN ME"

We gave them the power. It is our fault that we get the results we do. It is our fault a LEO can find a violation so easily while we're "driving". It's never been a secret what happens when power is given to agents of the government. It WILL be used for tyranny. We as a people have asked the government to watch our every move and then we whine and cry when they actually do it.

I see some here want to educate the "new readers". Well I hope a major portion of that education is to remove the mindset that we need to be regulated when we "drive" or when we walk or when we ride a bicycle etc...

If we take the power back then Mr. LEO will become much more respectable to us and to himself. He may murmer to himself "a$$ho1e LAC", but there won't be anything he can do about it.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I realize why there's some unsettling excitement over QilivinLEO's post, but if I may say something about what I think is the most important words found in the partial quote above...

Specifically
"I'm going to use every bit of the power YOU HAVE GIVEN ME"

We gave them the power. It is our fault that we get the results we do. It is our fault a LEO can find a violation so easily while we're "driving". It's never been a secret what happens when power is given to agents of the government. It WILL be used for tyranny. We as a people have asked the government to watch our every move and then we whine and cry when they actually do it.

I see some here want to educate the "new readers". Well I hope a major portion of that education is to remove the mindset that we need to be regulated when we "drive" or when we walk or when we ride a bicycle etc...

If we take the power back then Mr. LEO will become much more respectable to us and to himself. He may murmer to himself "a$$ho1e LAC", but there won't be anything he can do about it.

Good point. Very good point.

I might phrase it a little differently. Basically, I did not give my consent to cops, the constitution, or laws. Thus, I am in no way responsible for what some knuckleheaded cop does. However, I can take responsibility for changing things. Thus, instead of treating responsibility as blame, I might word it more as an opportunity to do something about it.

Also, having just written that, it occurs to me how QuilvinLEO is using the responsibility angle. Basically, he is saying he will use our own good intentions against us. We empower cops to protect us and secure our rights. And, ha ha! gotcha! I am going to turn that around and use it against you! What kind of low-life thinks that way? Moreover, what kind of low-life uses it as an argument? That's pretty despicable--to try to get us to believe or even accept that we're complicit in our own damaging. Jeezus, what a nasty, dark little soul must reside behind that keyboard.
 

Mark 1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
94
Location
Munster, IN
I'm an Indiana resident. IN code says the officer can ask to my permit (LTCH in Indiana) and that I must show it to him upon request. However, after I have shown him a valid LTCH, he should not ask for further ID, and I am not required to show it per IN code.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
These got me wondering. Can a LEO legally lie to you about having RAS or PC in order to get you to provide ID? They are legally allowed to to deceive during an investigation.

If ,as shown in twoskins' post,they must communicate the reason why they are asking for ID, could they not simply fabricate a reason that fit the situation and say that such a fabrication was used to further the investigation?

In all probability such a deception would go undiscovered since after getting what they wanted and seeing that the person is not wanted they would never file a report. No paperwork= No trail= No problem. Seems like another good reason for some type of audio/video recorder.

This situation would seem to be a very good reason for one to have an audio and or video recording of the event. For if the LEO would lie to you in this case, what else might show up in the report that was "misleading", to be kind!
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can

Wow did you really just say that? Wow.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Unfortunately, pretext stops, if grounded on an actual violation of some law, are "constitutional" as far as I know. Meaning, the courts seem to find them constitutional.

Separately, but related, State v Ladson says the same thing. The pretext stop of Ladson was constitutional because there was an actual violation of law, even though it wasn't the violation the cop was fishing for. Basically, the cop had heard the driver was involved in drugs, and when he saw the driver in a car with expired license tabs, he used that expiration as the justification to stop the driver. Ladson was a passenger and got caught with a stolen gun and some drugs.* http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1361092.html

But, that is a little different than QuilinLEO's discussion. Here he's not threatening a pretext stop, he's enforcing laws he thinks are crap after the detainee shows him "insufficient" respect. Presumably, the he is citing the detainee for genuine violation of actual laws.


*I only briefly skimmed the facts of the case presented in the court opinion, but it is interesting to me that Ladson argued the pretext of the traffic stop, not the search of his person that discovered the stolen gun and drugs. He was personally searched as part of the car search incident to the driver's arrest. I'm thinking searching him personally as part of the search incident was unconstitutional. Certainly I would have huge objections if it happened to me under that theory. I'm wondering why he/his lawyer did not pursue that angle as well. I'm wondering if the courts allow that after an arrest, cops can search everybody nearby incident to that arrest; meaning, is this already in the case law. Or, is this maybe a poorly worded decision?

Pretext stops are not allowed in Washington and the evidence is tossed out as fruit of the poisonous tree.

From State v. Montes Malindas where Ladson is quoted heavily.

If a pretextual stop occurs, the Washington Constitution requires that “all subsequently uncovered evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.”  Id. at 359, 979 P.2d 833.

 State v. Myers, 117 Wash.App. 93, 94-95, 69 P.3d 367 (2003) (reversing conviction where officer admitted that he pulled a driver over to check if the driver's license was suspended, rather than to cite the driver for making two lane changes while signaling simultaneously).   Thus, “t is not enough for the State to show that there was a traffic violation.   The question is whether the traffic violation was the real reason for the stop.”  State v. Meckelson, 133 Wash.App. 431, 437, 135 P.3d 991 (2006) (citing Ladson, 138 Wash.2d at 358-59, 979 P.2d 833), review denied, 159 Wash.2d 1013, 154 P.3d 919 (2007).
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
Wow. Way to blow it completely out of proportion.

One thing you guys are completely forgetting about with all the arguements. Police Discretion. A law maybe stupid, but it has been placed into effect by our lawmakers, appointed by our citizens, for a reason. However, if it is not a felony, I have a choice of if I should arrest or not.

Now, if this person has been an ******* in the past, My discretion is going to lean towards the arrest/citation side of things. Verbal warnings will not work on this individual because their attitude, in my personal observations, has already shown they have no respect for the "good" of the community. All of this is, of course, is based upon a lawful stop.

That is not unconstitional by any means. If you think it is, maybe one day I will see you in court






******************************************
A good example of all of the above is marijuana. My city has declared marijuana to be a infraction, punishable by a citation (money) as long as it is not more than 35 grams. However, I have the discretion to cite the violator for a state charge, which includes jail time (probation) and alot more money. How do I make this decision? Past experience with the individual, IE their attitude.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Wow. Way to blow it completely out of proportion.

One thing you guys are completely forgetting about with all the arguements. Police Discretion. A law maybe stupid, but it has been placed into effect by our lawmakers, appointed by our citizens, for a reason. However, if it is not a felony, I have a choice of if I should arrest or not.

Now, if this person has been an ******* in the past, My discretion is going to lean towards the arrest/citation side of things. Verbal warnings will not work on this individual because their attitude, in my personal observations, has already shown they have no respect for the "good" of the community. All of this is, of course, is based upon a lawful stop.

(snigger) (skynxx) Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Too late. It was already quoted. And, evaluated in the light most favorable to freedom. You have been measured and found wanting.

Trying to change it now, or assert it was blown out of proportion isn't going to work.
 
Last edited:

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
(snigger) (skynxx) Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Too late. It was already quoted. And, evaluated in the light most favorable to freedom. You have been measured and found wanting.

Trying to change it now, or assert it was blown out of proportion isn't going to work.



Changes were not made. But thanks! Edit was for spelling
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
So long as it's a lawful stop :). Stop someone unlawfully and you might find yourself sitting on the other side of the courtroom. I'm sure a fun time will be had by all.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think you meant a legal stop??? There is a clear difference between legal and lawful. Most stops are on a legal basis, not a lawful basis.

Just this morning I came across something very interesting that speaks to what I think you are saying: judicial review gone wrong.

In this country, it is generally acknowledged that judicial review was cemented in this country by the the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury vs Madison.

Here is the interesting stuff. My source is Jefferson 1942 (abridged) by Saul K. Padover. The Federalist political party was composed primarily of propertied and monied interests, and hated and despised democracy. The incumbent in the election of 1800 was Federalist John Adams. The challenger was his vice-president Thos. Jefferson, a solid supporter of democracy and the common man.

Adams was very bitter about Jefferson winning the election of 1800. Adams made many midnight appointments to federal office after he knew he lost the election. He also appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court, although I forget whether it was a midnight appointment. For sure, though, Marshall was a definitely a Federalist and strongly disliked Jefferson. (Oh, it must have been a midnight appointment because Marshall was Secretary of State to Adams.)

So, Jefferson, when he takes office, is confronted with some 100 federal office holders opposed to him, appointed by Adams. He did not much care for the idea of turning people out of their jobs, but felt the country was not entirely safe with a bunch of anti-democratics in office. So, he started removing them from office. This gave rise to the court case.

Marbury was appointed federal marshall by Adams in a midnight appointment. Jefferson, as president, later caused* his commission to not be delivered to him. Without the commission in hand, Marbury was nullified in executing his duties as a federal marshall.

We all know now that John Marshall wrote the decision supporting Marbury and undermining Jefferson.

So, I cannot help but wonder if the outcome of the case was strongly influenced not by law but by politics and personal animosity. Did Marshall and the other Federalist appointees on the Supreme Court find a way to side with the Federalist animus against democracy and rule by the common man's vote? Or, was it really just a matter of law?


*Another curious point about the case was that as Adam's Secretary of State, John Marshall was supposed to be the guy who delivered Marbury's commission to him. The sources I've read tend toward saying there were so many commissions, Marshall could not get them all delivered before his secretaryship expired with the Adams presidency. Thus it fell to Jefferson's administration to deliver the commission. But, a very good question I've seen asked: How was the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court able to rule on a case in which he was personally involved?
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Voted yes, because in MN, you have to show them your ID and Carry Permit if they ask for it.



I'd very much like to see some discussion regarding that claim.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

(a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer

In particular, I'd like some opinions on the "lawful demand".

An example: In Minnesota, while in the field hunting or fishing, as evidenced by the presence of firearm or fishing gear, apparently the presence of those items warrants you being detained by a game warden, and enables that warden to request your hunting/fishing license. It seems that you consent to this on purchase of the license. Is the same premise used for those with carry permits? Does this not make targets of us who open carry as apposed to conceal carry, thus showing a prejudice towards a lawful activity?

I'm contending that the RAS concept might apply...Officer Friendly has no legit suspicion....no ID for you Officer Friendly.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
If all demands by Officer Friendly are 'lawful demands' except the illegal ones, then is a demand by Officer Friendly to take a picture of him standing in front of his patrol car with a free pastry, or a demand by Officer Friendly to chew with your mouth closed also a 'lawful demands'?
 
Last edited:

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
My opionion is during the stop all commands by law enforcment should be obeyed. You can deny requests by law enforcement, but a demand is a demand. Just do it. If its breaking your rights, thats what court is for. Not the side of a freeway. If you are working with a corrupt officer or an officer doesnt know the law but begin a fight with your attitude, somebody might not walk home.

Argue your rights in the courtroom, not on the freeway.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
My opionion is during the stop all commands by law enforcment should be obeyed. You can deny requests by law enforcement, but a demand is a demand. Just do it. If its breaking your rights, thats what court is for. Not the side of a freeway. If you are working with a corrupt officer or an officer doesnt know the law but begin a fight with your attitude, somebody might not walk home.

Argue your rights in the courtroom, not on the freeway.

I am NOT advocating resistance but how does your recommendation square with the US Supreme Court ruling that you have no right to remain silent UNLESS you verbally/vocally and clearly invoke this right and by extension.... must clearly invoke ALL our rights or we have given them up in the face of a request that is pursued and enforced as if it were a demand without legal justification?

As is said on this Forum, "A Right Unexersized is a Right Lost!"
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
I am NOT advocating resistance but how does your recommendation square with the US Supreme Court ruling that you have no right to remain silent UNLESS you verbally/vocally and clearly invoke this right and by extension.... must clearly invoke ALL our rights or we have given them up in the face of a request that is pursued and enforced as if it were a demand without legal justification?

As is said on this Forum, "A Right Unexersized is a Right Lost!"




I think that is quite the jump in logic. You are not unexercising your right to carry a firearm. You are picking the correct time to invoke it. By activily resisting while in possesion of a firearm, there is a chance somebody could end up dead. Wait until your day in court to invoke your rights because the dead have no rights.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think that is quite the jump in logic. You are not unexercising your right to carry a firearm. You are picking the correct time to invoke it. By activily resisting while in possesion of a firearm, there is a chance somebody could end up dead. Wait until your day in court to invoke your rights because the dead have no rights.

I think Stalin must have had the same idea.
 
Top