Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Devils advocate here....scenario.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas..soon Spokane
    Posts
    12

    Devils advocate here....scenario.

    I'm again learning how to oc here in spokane. Still have yet to do so...probably tomorrow...but please help me on this scenario.

    Lets say I'm walking outside in a parking lot or down the street and a Leo comes over and says he has a call/complaint about someone with a gun walking around. My gun has remained holstered,btw...how would you handle the situation if approached?

    In my mind the Leo is doing his job. He does have a right to investigate the call right?

    I have got the impression on here that the Leo does not have a right to detain me...because I'm breaking no laws,..but isn't part of a Leo investigation?

    If I explain to him I am in my legal right to carry my firearm....is it over...no other contact should be involved right? What if the Leo asks for my Id? Do I have to comply? The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.

    Thanks for the help.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    A LEO can come talk to you anytime you want. That is not nessessarily a detainment. My standard response would be "Am I free to go officer?" If they say yes, then leave. If they say no, you are being detained. Use your 5th amendment right. The mere sight of a holstered firearm is not RAS, so legally they need more than just that in order to keep you there for investigation.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    You don't really give enough info to determine whether a detainment is legal, but lets assume for the moment everything you said is all the information the cop has. It is the information the cop has, and his experience with dealing with criminal behavior that will be used by the court to determine whether reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) existed at the time of the encounter and justified temporarily seizing the person for investigation. See Terry vs Ohio for the beginnings of RAS and detainment analysis. Also, your state has stronger protections in some areas than the federal bill of rights. This may be one of those areas.

    So, lets assume what you have given is all there is.

    Then, no, the cop has no authority to detain you. He can investigate anything he wants, but he cannot involuntarily make you stay (seize you) while he investigates. In order to detain you, he must meet the minimum requirements of RAS that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed. If all he has is a report of someone doing something both entirely legal, and moreover an enumerated right, and he then actually observes that enumerated right being exercised in an entirely legal manner with nothing else to raise valid suspicion of criminality, then, no, he cannot temporarily seize that person.

    He could investigate you consensually. Meaning you could consent to answer his questions and give ID and so forth.

    Personally, I view it as a total outrage if a cop contacts someone to investigate them for exercising the fundamental human of self-defense. It is absolutely intolerable to contact and investigate someone for exercising an enumerated right. If a cop contacts and investigates you for mere OC, even consensually, it means that government agent considers an enumerated right to be suspicious! No. No. No. NO!!!!

    If the cop wants to investigate the report, he can observe the OCer from a distance.

    You can find Terry v Ohio and a number of other federal cases here, including some videos on how to exercise your rights during a police encounter:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2012 at 07:30 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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Superduty View Post
    I'm again learning how to oc here in spokane. Still have yet to do so...probably tomorrow...but please help me on this scenario.

    Lets say I'm walking outside in a parking lot or down the street and a Leo comes over and says he has a call/complaint about someone with a gun walking around. My gun has remained holstered,btw...how would you handle the situation if approached?
    "Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening officer/deputy/sergeant/whatever, for what reason do we meet today"

    In my mind the Leo is doing his job. He does have a right to investigate the call right?
    He has the right to investigate suspicious activity for which he has RAS or a specific criminal act for which he has PC. this generally means in the case of a call/citizen complaint he would have to have a specific allegation of an illegal act (OC itself is not an illegal act) from a named complainant, anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC. if neither of those exist he only has the right to investigate if you consent to the detention

    I have got the impression on here that the Leo does not have a right to detain me...because I'm breaking no laws,..but isn't part of a Leo investigation?
    To detain you for an investiation requires probable cause that you are commiting or have commited an illegal act. if the caller complainant said you were merely OCing none exists, if the complainant said you were brandishing or whathaveyou you may be in trouble, I would adopt the "name rank and serial number" approach to this. Officer My name is...... my current address is..... I am doing nothing illega.... I wish to speak with counsel prior to any further questioning"

    If I explain to him I am in my legal right to carry my firearm....is it over...no other contact should be involved right? What if the Leo asks for my Id? Do I have to comply? The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.
    If the call/complaint was only that you were OCing you should never have been contacted in the first place, if the officer is honest it should be over once you explain you merely OCing. The officer cannot compel ID if you are not driving.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    technically there is no obligation to ID yourself when not driving, however if being issued a criminal citation, that citation is a promise you will appear in court, and if you don't ID yourself the officer can arrest you to insure you come to court. if they're merely detaining you no they cannot compel ID but if they are citing you for a violation of RCWs Title 9 and 9A you should ID yourself or you might go to jail. however by merely OCing you are not violating any provisions of those titles.

    however it depends really on the nature of the complaint, and what you are being accused of, which is why you shouldn't argue your case on the side of the road, I give my name and address and answer all other questions in "yes" "no" or "I decline to answer" if you don't know what they're really investigation you can easily admit to something else not related or give them evidence of PC of something else. so keeping your mouth shut and saving your arguments for the courtroom is the best idea


    *IANAL, you must verify all of this indepedently for your own interests, this is the law as I understand it, please do not take my word As I can very well be mistaken or incorrect about any part of this
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Superduty View Post
    SNIP The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.

    Thanks for the help.
    This is your typical cop-talk designed to confuse. Let me help clarify.

    Personhood cannot be suspicious. If it were, the whole human race would be subject to temporary detention for investigation. Specific actions are what are what can raise legitimate suspicions.

    Did the caller report actions that raised valid suspicions? Behaviors that raised valid suspicions? Over his or her lifetime, did the caller carefully sort and evaluate his ideas about guns and self-defense so that his suspicions are raised only when genuinely valid? You see where this is going, right?

    This is a little like the cop assertion about a driver or a person making a furtive movement. Huh? How can a movement be furtive. It can only be a movement. Whether it is furtive is an evaluation made by the observer. Lets first hear what the movement was Officer, the we'll hear why you considered it furtive and evaluate for ourselves. Similar for suspicous person. First lets hear what he was doing, then we'll hear why you thought it suspicous, Officer.

    Basically police are trying to slip past you their evaluation about the activity so you don't evaluate it yourself. They want you to just accept it. Helps keep the questions to a minimum, don't you know.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2012 at 07:51 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.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    SNIP He has the right to investigate suspicious activity for which he has RAS or a specific criminal act for which he has PC. this generally means in the case of a call/citizen complaint he would have to have a specific allegation of an illegal act (OC itself is not an illegal act) from a named complainant, anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC. if neither of those exist he only has the right to investigate if you consent to the detention
    Cite(s) please. Forum Rule #5.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite(s) please. Forum Rule #5.
    My apologies, here in the cite.


    Quote Originally Posted by Florida v. JL Supreme Court of the United States
    : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    You "Am I being detained?"
    Officer "No"
    You "Have a nice day", continue on your way.

  9. #9
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    You "Am I being detained?"
    Officer "No"
    You "Have a nice day", continue on your way.
    The problem comes in when the officer says "stay right here you're being detailed"
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    My apologies, here in the cite.
    Thanks.

    You want to be careful about using that specific case. Florida v JL was not about guns. It was about anonymous tips. And, the gun involved was being carried concealed, not OCd.

    The reason we like the case is because the court expressly declined to modify standard Terry analysis of RAS just because a gun was involved. This was not expressed in the holding (the legally binding part of the opinion), it was expressed in the dicta (the discussion section where the court is giving among other things its rationale and analysis leading up to the holding. The guvthugs asked the court to loosen standards for suspicion when a gun is involved, and the court said no. But, that is all sideshow. The case was about anonymous tips. The real value to gun guys is that the court signaled its unwillingness to reduce the RAS standards if a gun is involved.

    So, if a caller gives his name, suddenly it is no longer an anonymous tip. And, Flordia v JL no longer provides the protection.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2012 at 08:18 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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    The problem comes in when the officer says "stay right here you're being detailed"
    I request the presence of my attorney, and invoke my right to remain silent.

    (then, and this is key)

    <silence>

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    The problem comes in when the officer says "stay right here you're being detailed"
    I always hate being detailed. Especially the steam-cleaning behind my ears.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thanks.

    You want to be careful about using that specific case. Florida v JL was not about guns. It was about anonymous tips. And, the gun involved was being carried concealed, not OCd.

    The reason we like the case is because the court expressly declined to modify standard Terry analysis of RAS just because a gun was involved. This was not expressed in the holding (the legally binding part of the opinion), it was expressed in the dicta (the discussion section where the court is giving among other things its rationale and analysis leading up to the holding. The guvthugs asked the court to loosen standards for suspicion when a gun is involved, and the court said no. But, that is all sideshow. The case was about anonymous tips. The real value to gun guys is that the court signaled its unwillingness to reduce the Terry standards if a gun is involved.
    Well my only point in that statement was that anonymous tips alone are not RAS for a terry stop. my statement was

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
    anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC
    Which is exactly what florida v JL ruled, also I know of specific rulings in state courts (Johnson versus Texas and Commonwealth versus Hawkins) in which anonymous tips were not ruled as RAS or PC either. So I had these three cases in mind to support that statement. my statement referred only that anonymous calls alone are not RAS or PC to conduct a detention.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I always hate being detailed. Especially the steam-cleaning behind my ears.
    *oops, I mean "detained" sometimes my brain works faster then my fingers...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well my only point in that statement was that anonymous tips alone are not RAS for a terry stop. my statement was...
    Oh, I see. Yes. I understand. I was working off the idea given in the OP where the call was neither anonymous nor had indicia of reliability. Then, I did not read your post closely enough to spot the narrowing to anonymous caller.

    I apologize.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2012 at 08:27 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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayd1981 View Post
    A LEO can come talk to you anytime you want. That is not nessessarily a detainment. My standard response would be "Am I free to go officer?" If they say yes, then leave. If they say no, you are being detained. Use your 5th amendment right. The mere sight of a holstered firearm is not RAS, so legally they need more than just that in order to keep you there for investigation.
    One thing that's worth noting here is that the officer does not need to tell you what his Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause is. He has to justify himself to his supervisor and maybe a judge. But not you, during the encounter (consensual or otherwise).

    His failure to advise you of his reasons for his actions doesn't negate them. He may choose to do so, and he may, in so doing, reveal that he's full of crap on his reasoning. Great. Your lawyer can use the record of him saying it on his dash cam recording when you reach court, to get the charges thrown out (if it's your trial) or to prove your rights were violated (if it's your lawsuit) or both. But resisting police tends to end badly even if doing so is legally justified, since the police force as a whole has more guns than you do.

  17. #17
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    Invoke citizen safety under the guise of unalienable rights and demand to disarm the officer.

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    One thing that's worth noting here is that the officer does not need to tell you Your lawyer can use the record of him saying it on his dash cam recording when you reach court, to get the charges thrown out (if it's your trial) or to prove your rights were violated (if it's your lawsuit) or both.
    I used to believe in the tooth fairy too.

    But key moments of the arrest that should have been captured on video are missing and it was unclear whether the officer intentionally neglected to turn on the dash cam. None of the released footage shows the officer in the moments he made the stop or kicked Lawson.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/seattle-arr...ry?id=15595576

    What this sort of behavior really means is "Sorry defendant, but the key evidence that would have exonerated is missing. Enjoy your time in prison." Followed by the common threat of "plead guilty to a lesser charge, or you'll face the maximum + whatever else we can tack on."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Superduty Are you free Saturday morning? If you are I will set up an OC meeting at The Donut Parade. That way you can come meet several of us that OC regularly and have you first Spokane OC experience in the company of others.

    I have only had one problem in several years of OCing in and around Spokane, Thor80 and I had a small problem at the Spokane Convention Center during a Ron Paul rally. Just so you know no one even so much as called the Cops. Mostly OC is pretty boring in Spokane, Eastern Washington and north Idaho, mostly no one cares as long as you are behaving in a responsible manner.

    I suspect that if you lived in Florida for very long you have simply become accustomed to having to conceal. It is perfectly normal to feel apprehensive at first. Once you OC for a while you won't think about it twice.

    Anyway welcome to Spokane, relax and enjoy the freedom you never had in Florida.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Superduty
    SNIP The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.
    Thanks for the help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is your typical cop-talk designed to confuse. Let me help clarify.

    Personhood cannot be suspicious. If it were, the whole human race would be subject to temporary detention for investigation. Specific actions are what are what can raise legitimate suspicions.

    Did the caller report actions that raised valid suspicions? Behaviors that raised valid suspicions? Over his or her lifetime, did the caller carefully sort and evaluate his ideas about guns and self-defense so that his suspicions are raised only when genuinely valid? You see where this is going, right?

    This is a little like the cop assertion about a driver or a person making a furtive movement. Huh? How can a movement be furtive. It can only be a movement. Whether it is furtive is an evaluation made by the observer. Lets first hear what the movement was Officer, the we'll hear why you considered it furtive and evaluate for ourselves. Similar for suspicous person. First lets hear what he was doing, then we'll hear why you thought it suspicous, Officer.

    Basically police are trying to slip past you their evaluation about the activity so you don't evaluate it yourself. They want you to just accept it. Helps keep the questions to a minimum, don't you know.
    ""Suspicious person"" calls are stock-in-trade for law enforcement, even when the original call doesn't allege any activity that is suspicious.
    Sometimes it doesn't work out for the officer involved and he winds up being taken to court for illegal detainment.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-23-2012 at 10:35 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    Welcome to Spokane Valley! I'm a semi Valley dweller. I live in the valley, but outside the "City Limits". If you like fishing, hit me up we have like 50 lakes/rivers to fish in within an hour and half or so drive. The Bass probably isn't as good here as in Texas, but they're pretty decent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Superduty Are you free Saturday morning? If you are I will set up an OC meeting at The Donut Parade. That way you can come meet several of us that OC regularly and have you first Spokane OC experience in the company of others.


    Anyway welcome to Spokane, relax and enjoy the freedom you never had in TEXAS.
    I'm down for a Donut Parade meetup Saturday morning! Could use a yummy Maple/Bacon Bar and we haven't met up all Summer so we're over due!

    -Thor

    P.S. Orphan, he came from Texas, not Florida.
    Let me make a short, opening, blanket statement. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people.

    - Charleton Heston

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    P.S. Orphan, he came from Texas, not Florida. [/QUOTE]

    Its been a long day, thanks for the correction.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299

    To make you feel a little better about OC.

    For your reading pleasure, the Spokane County Sheriffs training bulletin. (City of Spokane Valley Police Department is contracted to the County Sheriff, all SVPD are deputies.) You can see from this that they are pretty much aware and up to speed. I cant think of anyone here recently that has been hassled by Deputies. Also Spokane Police seems to be doing okay as there have been a few "positive" encounters with them.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SCSO Bulletin pg1.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	97.3 KB 
ID:	9267
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SCSO Bulletin pg2.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	95.7 KB 
ID:	9268
    Let me make a short, opening, blanket statement. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people.

    - Charleton Heston

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Never mind what EMNofSeattle has to say about the "name rank serial number etc" stuff.

    Never ever volunteer any information and yes that does mean don't give them your name, address, etc.

    Never disclose any more information than you are legally obligated to disclose. There is good information in the Washington area of the Forum that covers that.

    If you give them you name you might have the same or similar name as a wanted criminal and now that you have told them your name they will run it to find out if you're a known criminal.
    If your name comes back as "hot" you could be wearing nickle plated connected handcuffs.
    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)

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Never mind what EMNofSeattle has to say about the "name rank serial number etc" stuff.

    Never ever volunteer any information and yes that does mean don't give them your name, address, etc.

    Never disclose any more information than you are legally obligated to disclose. There is good information in the Washington area of the Forum that covers that.

    If you give them you name you might have the same or similar name as a wanted criminal and now that you have told them your name they will run it to find out if you're a known criminal.
    If your name comes back as "hot" you could be wearing nickle plated connected handcuffs.
    And if the officers issues you any form of citation and you don't ID yourself you might anyway.

    Whether or not to comply with ID requests is your choice, if you choose to not ID yourself that's your preference, I stated in my original post it's not mandatory but I do it anyway. to each their own
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

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
  •