Yet, there are several significant exceptions. That absent a consensual encounter whereas the OP gives up the information, the officer could not gain proper information.
Which leaves the officer unable to check for an exemption, assuming you're correct, which leaves him having witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. Handcuffs time.
While the officer may have RS, the officer does not have enough information. (without consensual information). Therefore, absent any other observed factual information, I would think the officer would not write a ticket, nor even have cause for an investigative detention.
Reasonable suspicion is not enough for an arrest. I've never claimed it is. It also does not rise to the level of probable cause. But there is enough doubt for an officer to investigate whether a crime has in fact been committed, when he sees behavior happen in front of him that may be a crime. It's not illegal for you (or a hired locksmith) to pick the lock on your own door if you're locked out, but would you argue an officer has no RAS to wander over and ask a question or two if he sees someone working on a door with lockpicks?
Depending on the answers he gets, he may or may not continue to have RAS, he may or may not reach probable cause. But He can only act on the information he has available, and remember, loaded carry on a vehicle is a misdemeanor. This is why RAS is distinguished from PC; To acknowledge that there is a level of evidence that can trigger an investigation but is insufficient to haul someone down to the station to answer those questions. If it's true that seeing someone commit a crime does not generate any RAS that a crime has been committed, then it would be nearly impossible to ever prove probable cause, and nobody could ever be arrested.
There is a difference between RS and PC, but your argument seems to be equating the two.
Disagree, I OC on my motorcycle I need a CPL to do so, it does not create RAS, or in this state RS the officer simply cannot assume you are breaking the law, he needs 'facts' to back up his suspicion you are engaged in unlawful activity.
Read Terry carefully and read our state cases carefully the cop needs facts to back up his suspicions.
Terry is about suspicion a crime has been committed. It runs on the RS standard. But if an officer actually witnesses a crime being committed, that's probable cause. If there is some doubt as to whether a crime was actually committed, that drops the PC back down to RS. Without all those exemptions, it would indeed be probable cause to see you OC on a motorcycle. But because they exist, there is only RS, and only enough RS to investigate. By the standard you are implying, 99.99% of all arrests are false arrests; While I'll acknowledge the possibility, I find it unlikely that nobody has noticed before, if that is in fact the case.
Fact: It is a crime in this state to possess a loaded weapon in/on a vehicle.
Fact: You possess an openly carried, holstered firearm on a vehicle.
Suspicion: That weapon is loaded since it's silly to carry an unloaded weapon for self-defense.
Fact: The officer cannot see that you are exempted from the law.
Fact: The officer has witnessed a misdemeanor being committed.
Fact: The officer has a duty to enforce the law.
Outside of places like California, that sure sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me. So the officer investigates. He discovers you do have a CPL. He apologizes for taking up your time and lets you continue on your way.
Walking around loaded OC is legal. Walking around inside the secure area of a courthouse loaded OC is a crime, unless exempt. Being on school property loaded OC is a crime, unless exempt. Just like vehicular loaded carry is a crime, unless exempt.
It would be ok if some cop was so stupid as to arrest me for getting on a bus with a handgun...More money for me.
Providing you can actually get past qualified immunity, which is doubtful. Have you ever considered the possibility that your own viewpoint is an unreasonable one? That the reason you don't see RS in this discussion is that you are the abnormal one?
A bus and a courtroom are a little bit different...a courtroom is not legal under any circumstance, the exception is when that particular Judge grants an exemption, and it would be a one time only exemption.
A courtroom is not legal under any circumstances? You need to re-read the laws, particularly RCWs 9.41.050, 9.41.060 and 9.41.300. There are a fair number of people who can carry legally in a courtroom. If carry in a courtroom is not legal under any circumstances, then by the same standard of logic, doing so in a bus is not legal under any circumstances. But we both know that is false.
An Open Carried handgun on a bus has a ton of exemption...you can start with a CPL exemption and move on to RCW 9.41.060..your reasoning if false. There is no reasonable suspician that a crime has been/is being committed just because someone got on the bus with an openly carried sidearm in a holster.
So RCW 9.41.050 has effectively been abolished by 9.41.060? The fact that some people are exempted from a law repeals that law for everyone? You are quite mistaken. Violating 9.41.050 is a misdemeanor. Unless you have your CPL tattooed or taped to your forehead, it is not obvious from looking at you that you are exempt. But it is obvious that 9.41.050 specifies that loaded carry in a vehicle is a crime. The fact there are so many exemptions is why it is only reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to see carry on a vehicle; Without those exemptions, it would be probable cause.
You missed the point with the guy in the bar...unfortunately it appears you only read what you want to.
Did I? Someone apparently got a little hysterical and typed that example VERY poorly. Since I didn't want to guess about unwritten meanings, I answered the example as it was written. Perhaps you are the one who doesn't read?
