Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: WA: When am I required to provide ID / name / age / address, etc?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    116

    WA: When am I required to provide ID / name / age / address, etc?

    I can't find any information on this, but want to be prepared in case of a stop.

    I open carry a SA 1911 loaded SS everyday in Bellevue, WA. I carry it legally, and also have my CPL, but no good CC holsters at the moment. Waiting for my Crossbreed, and will likely conceal from there on out.

    I do not like providing police with information. There's nothing on my record, but something about it makes me feel like a criminal. Can anyone provide some insight on when I have to provide police with my information if I am open carrying?

    Thank you!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Washington is not a "Stop and Identify" state, there must exist a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have recently committed, are committing, or are about to commit a criminal act for an officer to legally detain you.
    So, with that, you aren't required to give your identification to each and every Officer Friendly that comes up to you. However, should you be under arrest, be a material witness to a criminal act or incident, or being booked you could possibly be charged with Obstruction for ... well, for obstructing the officer in his duties.



    Now, the question is, does Washington require you to carry a firearms license and other identifying documents when you are carrying a firearm and does Washington require you to produce them upon demand?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    116
    AFAIK, only when carrying concealed, do you need to present your CPL.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    This thread needs cites. Please.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

    RCW 9.41.050
    Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

    (b) 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 or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

    (2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

    (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

    (3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

    (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

    (4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    RCW 46.61.021 requires you to provide your name and current address only if you are stopped for a traffic offense is the only statute I can find dealing with the issue. The US Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v Nevada that a police officer is not violating your rights under the US constitution to make you produce your name to a police officer if he has PC for a detention. I'm unsure of how WA courts have ruled about the state constitution at this time

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    RCW 46.61.021
    Duty to obey law enforcement officer — Authority of officer.


    (1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

    (2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

    (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.

    [2006 c 270 § 1; 1997 1st sp.s. c 1 § 1; 1989 c 353 § 7; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 4.]
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Copy and paste old response in another thread. This is a popular question.


    In Washington state, you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation RCW 7.80.060 or driving a vehicle RCW 46.61.021.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Since your ne here theaero

    first welcome to the forums,

    now repeat after me-

    when stopped by an officer assuming you were not knowingly breaking any laws(IE speeding etc)

    Step 1
    "why am i being detained officer?"

    if the reply is that you are not being detained then it is a concensual encounter and you are free to leave whenever you choose. which is usually best replied to by saying-

    Step 2-
    "well if i am not being detained in accordance with the law i assume i am free to leave, have a nice day officer"

    Alternate step 2-
    if he says you are being detained-
    "what crime are you investigating."

    Now we have gotten to this point make sure your up to speed on the laws because it is real easy to tell if he is BSing you just to use his color of authority to get your info.

    Wa state is an open carry state therefore a lawful activity, it cannot be a legit terry stop- futher Deberry VS US held that it is unlawful to stop someone carrying a fdirearm where it is legal to do so simple for the act of carrying as it is not grounds for a lawful terry stop.


    Be aware that law enforcement and some others can demand to see your CPL in a situation that requires it t be present by law-an officer sees you get into/out of a car carrying. you get on a public bus/train/trolley since you are required to have a CPL to carry in a vehicle in this state.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  10. #10
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    Since your ne here theaero

    first welcome to the forums,

    now repeat after me-

    when stopped by an officer assuming you were not knowingly breaking any laws(IE speeding etc)

    Step 1
    "why am i being detained officer?"

    if the reply is that you are not being detained then it is a concensual encounter and you are free to leave whenever you choose. which is usually best replied to by saying-

    Step 2-
    "well if i am not being detained in accordance with the law i assume i am free to leave, have a nice day officer"

    Alternate step 2-
    if he says you are being detained-
    "what crime are you investigating."

    Now we have gotten to this point make sure your up to speed on the laws because it is real easy to tell if he is BSing you just to use his color of authority to get your info.

    Wa state is an open carry state therefore a lawful activity, it cannot be a legit terry stop- futher Deberry VS US held that it is unlawful to stop someone carrying a fdirearm where it is legal to do so simple for the act of carrying as it is not grounds for a lawful terry stop.


    Be aware that law enforcement and some others can demand to see your CPL in a situation that requires it t be present by law-an officer sees you get into/out of a car carrying. you get on a public bus/train/trolley since you are required to have a CPL to carry in a vehicle in this state.
    you left out one word , "loaded", there is an entire recent thread on that issue http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...060-discussion

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Don't carry your papers unless required by law.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rob G's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    11
    I found this training article and video from the Blue Sheepdog to be very helpful in understanding the Terry stop.

    I hope you do, too.

    http://www.bluesheepdog.com/three-ti...en-encounters/
    Last edited by Rob G; 08-08-2012 at 10:59 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob G View Post
    I found this training article and video from the Blue Sheepdog to be very helpful in understanding the Terry stop.

    I hope you do, too.

    http://www.bluesheepdog.com/three-ti...en-encounters/
    Good general article, but most of his examples in the RAS section are not acceptable in WA due to Art 1, sect. 7. for citations see this thread

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...060-discussion

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Posession of a firearm is not a crime. You may openly carry a sidearm in a holster pretty much anywhere you can legally be without a CPL. restriction are in RCW 9.41.300.

    Without a reason to suspect criminal activity you cannot legally be stopped and have our ID demanded. State v Casad.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    RCW 46.61.021 requires you to provide your name and current address only if you are stopped for a traffic offense is the only statute I can find dealing with the issue. The US Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v Nevada that a police officer is not violating your rights under the US constitution to make you produce your name to a police officer if he has PC for a detention. I'm unsure of how WA courts have ruled about the state constitution at this time
    A subtle but crucial point. Hiibel didn't say quite that. Hiibel said a state statute compelling the giving of identity did not violate rights.

    "While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him."

    See the next to last paragraph: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...54/#writing-ZO

    Thus, if there is no state law or local ordinace compelling identity, there is no violation. Also, do keep in mind that the law may be more than just a statute or ordinance to that effect. It could also be charged as obstruction to refuse to identify if all the rest of the constitutional conditions are met. Any given state may have appeals court or supreme court rulings that refusing to identify counts as obstruction. In a nutshell, if you want to be mostly safe about refusing to identify, you'll want to look a little further than just looking for a stop-and-identify ordinance or statute.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Need to run loff, but there is no "obstruction"charge for failing to provide identity during the investigation in Washington, you provide ID in a traffic stop, since teh LEO has PC prior to the stop. I will add cites later.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    In Washington state, you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being written a citation RCW 7.80.060 or driving a vehicle RCW 46.61.021.
    .
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Need to run loff, but there is no "obstruction"charge for failing to provide identity during the investigation in Washington, you provide ID in a traffic stop, since teh LEO has PC prior to the stop. I will add cites later.
    Wait a second. You provide ID in a traffic stop because the cop has PC prior to the stop? Or, you provide a license during a traffic stop because you are engaged in a licensed activity and the state requires display of the license?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a second. You provide ID in a traffic stop because the cop has PC prior to the stop? Or, you provide a license during a traffic stop because you are engaged in a licensed activity and the state requires display of the license?
    Because the cop has PC. Washington Article 1 section 7 protections are extremely strong, in fact WA's constitution protects virtually all of a citizens rights more so then the federal constitution. A police officer needs probable cause to pull over your car (WA State Patrol regulation manual Chapter 1 sD ssE)

    Pretextual stops for a minor offense as an excuse to conduct a criminal investigation are illegal (State v Ladson)

    The cops can't even search your garbage without PC (State v Greenwood)

    They can't stop you just to check your ID, but they can compel you to produce a drivers license if you are driving and they stop you becuase they had PC to make the stop.

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Actually state v Boland was the garbage case, not greenwood. my mistake

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You provide ID in a traffic stop in order to comply with the Revised Code of Washington:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.020

    RCW 46.61.020
    Refusal to give information to or cooperate with officer — Penalty.

    (1) It is unlawful for any person while operating or in charge of any vehicle to refuse when requested by a police officer to give his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or for such person to give a false name and address, and it is likewise unlawful for any such person to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any police officer or to refuse upon demand of such police officer to produce his or her certificate of license registration of such vehicle, his or her insurance identification card, or his or her vehicle driver's license or to refuse to permit such officer to take any such license, card, or certificate for the purpose of examination thereof or to refuse to permit the examination of any equipment of such vehicle or the weighing of such vehicle or to refuse or neglect to produce the certificate of license registration of such vehicle, insurance card, or his or her vehicle driver's license when requested by any court. Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such.

    (2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
    Actually, I think RCW 46.61.020 only applies when the officer or agent has authority of the court and is more broad then RCW 46.61.021 which is the RCW which requires you to identify yourself when operating a vehicle and your pulled over for a traffic infraction.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.021
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 08-08-2012 at 03:39 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I'm afraid you are mistaken. Notice that producing driver's license is mentioned twice in the statute. The first time is your requirement to show it to a cop. The second time is your requirement to show it to a court.

    (1) It is unlawful for any person while operating or in charge of any vehicle to refuse when requested by a police officer to give his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or for such person to give a false name and address, and it is likewise unlawful for any such person to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any police officer or to refuse upon demand of such police officer to produce his or her certificate of license registration of such vehicle, his or her insurance identification card, or his or her vehicle driver's license or to refuse to permit such officer to take any such license, card, or certificate for the purpose of examination thereof or to refuse to permit the examination of any equipment of such vehicle or the weighing of such vehicle or to refuse or neglect to produce the certificate of license registration of such vehicle, insurance card, or his or her vehicle driver's license when requested by any court. Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such.
    Your right. Sorry for any confusion.

    Either way, under both 020 and 021 you are:
    a) Required to stop when signaled
    b) Required to identify yourself when requested
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a second. You provide ID in a traffic stop because the cop has PC prior to the stop? Or, you provide a license during a traffic stop because you are engaged in a licensed activity and the state requires display of the license?
    An officer MUST have a ticketable REASON to stop you when you are driving a vehicle...there are no random stops for license checks in WA. That is why you are required to provide ID at a traffic stop, there has been an infraction/crime. There are even things like seatbelts that they can ticket you for if they stop you, but they cannot stop you to check if you have your seat belt on...like with my old 73 Pickup...it only has lap belts...you cannot observe from outside whether the occupant has it on or not, but they cannot stop you to check.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    An officer MUST have a ticketable REASON to stop you when you are driving a vehicle...there are no random stops for license checks in WA. That is why you are required to provide ID at a traffic stop, there has been an infraction/crime. There are even things like seatbelts that they can ticket you for if they stop you, but they cannot stop you to check if you have your seat belt on...like with my old 73 Pickup...it only has lap belts...you cannot observe from outside whether the occupant has it on or not, but they cannot stop you to check.
    Thanks guys. My point here was not RAS or PC, but whether one was providing identity or proof of licensing for a licensed activity.

    It seems the WA statute covers both scenarios. Which, if you think about it, makes sense. If the traffic-stopee forgot his wallet, it might be handy (from a government point of view) to compel him to give his name and address. Also, avoids the whole issue of probable cause for a search for a license in case he lies and says he forgot his license when it was actually suspended.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-08-2012 at 04:41 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thanks guys. My point here was not RAS or PC, but whether one was providing identity or proof of licensing for a licensed activity.

    It seems the WA statute covers both scenarios. Which, if you think about it, makes sense. If the traffic-stopee forgot his wallet, it might be handy (from a government point of view) to compel him to give his name and address. Also, avoids the whole issue of probable cause for a search for a license in case he lies and says he forgot his license when it was actually suspended.
    There was a case in which the person did have her license suspended, did have contraband,,,,etc...and gave the officer a false ID, there was a search in this case, other contraband was found,,,and that did stand up in court. However, if you are, who you say you are, it usually doesn't go any father... I have lived and carried in WA since 1970 and have never been asked to ID myself, been disarmed, or even asked for my CPL, even when the officer could plainly see the weapon on my hip. Yes, I have had traffic tickets, and yes I have given ID then, and yes, WA your CPL is tied to your DL, so the officer already knew I had a CPL, why ask.

    I have left my ID at home before, but now I normally just leave it in the car, even when shopping. You don't need any ID when on foot. (I always OC)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •