Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: ID Statute WA State

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2

    ID Statute WA State

    Good evening,

    New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

    Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnkeys View Post
    Good evening,

    New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

    Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.
    simple. in this state, you are NOT required to provide ID unless you are under arrest, at which point, all they can do is search you and take your ID from you. I have had officers ask me for my name and such and I usually respond "am I required to tell you?" They always tell me "no". cannot provide a cite as I do not believe there is any RCW that requires you to provide ID.

    and just for completeness... a simple search of "washington state ID requirement RCW" provided this link LINK
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 01-04-2013 at 03:00 AM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    No
    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Absent any "stop and ID law", "Terry" pretty much covers it all in WA.

    FWIW, there's no "weapons exception" in Terry so if a Police Officer just sees you carrying in a lawful manner that isn't proper justification for a stop.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Our state's Article 1 Section 7 is consider to be a strong protection than the U.S. constitutions 4th amendment. So judges have ruled it protects us greater than SCOTUS's Terry ruling.
    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)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    If it is not expressly prohibited, you are legal. Washington will not tell you if you are legal, but will tell you when it is not.

    I have been asked to "show ID" to prove I was "OK" by LEOs. I did not. You do not have to either (unless arrested), but, and this is a biggie, BE CAREFUL when standing up for yourself. Voice your rights, but do not resist.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Here is the only non vehicle, non cpl related Identification statute I can come up with:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

    RCW 7.80.060
    Person receiving notice Identification and detention.

    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

    A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

    Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.

    A good source for the limits and interpretations of Case law in regards to Washington LEOs is the following:

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/ind...=137&Itemid=80

    "The Law Enforcement Digest is prepared by Ms. Shannon Inglis of the Washington State Attorney General's Office as a service to criminal justice practitioners. Each month Ms. Inglis selects court cases she feels are significant to the law enforcement community."

    written by an AG for law enforcement

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    simple. in this state, you are NOT required to provide ID unless you are under arrest, at which point, all they can do is search you and take your ID from you. I have had officers ask me for my name and such and I usually respond "am I required to tell you?" They always tell me "no". cannot provide a cite as I do not believe there is any RCW that requires you to provide ID.

    and just for completeness... a simple search of "washington state ID requirement RCW" provided this link LINK
    The only requirement to even HAVE ID is when you're driving a motor vehicle.

    Then as for the arrest statement you are only required to produce ID IF you have state issued ID AND it is requested/demanded.
    Now if arrested you must ID yourself with; name, address, and birth date. If you're being issued a citation the same applies.
    The only other time that I can find is when you are in charge of (maybe it's associate with?) a motor vehicle. It's been awhile since I've looked that one up.
    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)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Here is the only non vehicle, non cpl related Identification statute I can come up with:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

    RCW 7.80.060
    Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

    A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or her
    self to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

    Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.

    A good source for the limits and interpretations of Case law in regards to Washington LEOs is the following:

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/ind...=137&Itemid=80

    "The Law Enforcement Digest is prepared by Ms. Shannon Inglis of the Washington State Attorney General's Office as a service to criminal justice practitioners. Each month Ms. Inglis selects court cases she feels are significant to the law enforcement community."

    written by an AG for law enforcement
    Hmmmm. Now, that is interesting. I wonder how that part of the statute would hold up against Kolender v Lawson. In Kolender, SCOTUS shot down a California stop-and-identify statute that required some sort of identity document without specifying what sort of document would satisfy the statute, leaving too much latitude for the cop to decide whether the statute was satisfied and whether he could arrest the detainee for violation of the statute.

    Oh, I guess I just answered my own question. Part of the issue with the statute in Kolender was that it penalized not showing the vaguely defined identity document. The Washington statute above doesn't seem to penalize the detainee; it just allows the cop to detain longer in order to effect identification.

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../352/case.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-04-2013 at 01:40 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.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hey fellas,

    One of the little hitches we have here in VA is that there is no state stop-and-identify statute; but some localities have stop-and-identify ordinances. One made it a pretty stiff misdemeanor for violation.

    Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?
    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
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2
    Thanks all for the quick replies and the links to further research. I'm impressed how versed some of you are with case law. (I keep a copy of US Ct. App, 1st Cir. No. 10-1764) on my phone when defending my right to video.


    I found this one particularly helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    If it is not expressly prohibited, you are legal. Washington will not tell you if you are legal, but will tell you when it is not.
    I came across mention of this in a general sense last night, that it's based on British cannon. Sadly, at midnight, the wisdom escaped me.

    Citizen: Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?
    That's my next step.

    I'm not one to cause trouble simply to buck the system, but after being subjected to civil rights violations by a couple LEO's, (and not knowing how to better assert myself), I decided it was past time I armed myself with some education and facts. We only have a couple bad apples, but as a whole, locals are used to meekly complying. And a simple "I do not consent to searches." Tends to piss off the LEO's. I'm hoping with a bit more research (including the excellent links shared here) to spread the message and help hold those in uniform more accountable.

    I've been interrupted a few times and feel like I'm rambling, so... thanks again, all.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Copy and paste from old post. Cites linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    In Washington state (where you and I are from), you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnkeys View Post
    Good evening,

    New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

    Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.
    WA constitution A1S7 and A1S24 are stronger protections than the US 4A and US 2A. WA state supreme court rulings have affirmed that.

    Road Blocks to do DUI checks are legal in some states, the US Supreme court has ruled such...random stops for license checks are not (Prouse V Delaware) (that is US wide)

    State Supreme Court said Road blocks for DUI/license and insurance checks are not legal, several cases one each for WA, OR and ID> I have cites, but not off the top of my head.

    Therefore "papers please" (or stop and ID) is not legal in WA, OR or ID (I know that for a fact).

    In all three states, if you have committed, or are suspected of committing, a misdemeaner, or a felon, then you must give your name, but you do not have to present a phyisical "ID". If you are stopped for a traffic violation you must present a drivers license, auto registration and proof of insurance. If you do not, it is not a "crime" but a traffic violation.
    Last edited by hermannr; 01-04-2013 at 06:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnkeys View Post
    , but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL,:
    You have to be careful with RCW 9.41.050(1)(b). It does not mean what you may think. There is no specific law the states in this instance you must supply your CPL..that is, WA does not have anything in law that states what OR does in ORS 166.360-380, where OR specifically states if an officer askes for you CHL while in a "public building" (see .360 for a definition of "public building") you must suppy one.

    WA does not have such a law, so you must take that into account when you read .050(1)(b). The effect is, though this "must present when required" exists in law, (it is a residual left over from a time when there was a requirement in law, but thrown out later because of WA constitution A1S7) there actually is no time or place that states "in this circumstance you must present your CPL" in WA law.

    I do believe this phenomina exists because it is legal to Openly carry without a license, almost everywhere you can openly or concealed carry with a license, and if you meet an execption in RCW 9.41.060, even conceal and/or carry loaded while in a vehicle. How can you have a law that states you MUST present a CPL, where none is required?
    Last edited by hermannr; 01-04-2013 at 06:57 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hey fellas,

    One of the little hitches we have here in VA is that there is no state stop-and-identify statute; but some localities have stop-and-identify ordinances. One made it a pretty stiff misdemeanor for violation.

    Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?
    .
    The short answer is No. WA Constitution Article 1 Section 7 does not allow for any such.

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hmmmm. Now, that is interesting. I wonder how that part of the statute would hold up against Kolender v Lawson. In Kolender, SCOTUS shot down a California stop-and-identify statute that required some sort of identity document without specifying what sort of document would satisfy the statute, leaving too much latitude for the cop to decide whether the statute was satisfied and whether he could arrest the detainee for violation of the statute.

    Oh, I guess I just answered my own question. Part of the issue with the statute in Kolender was that it penalized not showing the vaguely defined identity document. The Washington statute above doesn't seem to penalize the detainee; it just allows the cop to detain longer in order to effect identification.

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../352/case.html

    In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

    I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.

    Big difference.
    Last edited by amlevin; 01-05-2013 at 10:54 AM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

    I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.

    Big difference.
    Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?
    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)

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    SNIP In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued.
    Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I totally missed that earlier.
    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 Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?
    I'll ask the same question by quoting SVG.
    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)

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?
    Good question.

    Even SCOTUS, in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court, acknowledged that giving identity info could violate one's 5A right against self-incrimination. In that case, while holding that Nevada's stop-and-identify statute was constitutional, they said in the last paragraph that a situation could arise where such did violate the 5th Amendment.

    So, I too am at a loss for why someone is a [bleep] for refusing to provide identity.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    they said in the last paragraph that a situation could arise where such did violate the 5th Amendment.
    I can think of a couple situations where identifying could be incriminating. Suppose you escaped from prison or violated parole/probation by being found where you are standing? Then identifying yourself would be self-incrimination.

    The same would be true if Osama bin Laden had been Terry stopped somewhere in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. Giving his name would produce an immediate response. For that matter, someone with the same name arguably would be risking their life if they identified themselves as such.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    I can think of a couple situations where identifying could be incriminating. Suppose you escaped from prison or violated parole/probation by being found where you are standing? Then identifying yourself would be self-incrimination.

    The same would be true if Osama bin Laden had been Terry stopped somewhere in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. Giving his name would produce an immediate response. For that matter, someone with the same name arguably would be risking their life if they identified themselves as such.
    That is the problem when they start watering down things like the 4th and creating standards like RAS, they end up conflicting the very reasons the bill of rights were put there to begin with.
    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)

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753
    Originally Posted by amlevin
    In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

    I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.



    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?
    In WA if you are driving and receiving a citation, you are required by law to provide ID. Preferably, a driver's license but in absence of that by providing name, etc.

    "Attempting to cite" is the key here.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    I can think of a couple situations where identifying could be incriminating. Suppose you escaped from prison or violated parole/probation by being found where you are standing? Then identifying yourself would be self-incrimination.

    The same would be true if Osama bin Laden had been Terry stopped somewhere in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. Giving his name would produce an immediate response. For that matter, someone with the same name arguably would be risking their life if they identified themselves as such.
    In Hiibel, the court referred to a chain of evidence. As in supplying one's name might create a link in a chain that leads to evidence that can be used against him. Its in the very last paragraph of Hiibel.

    It should be noted that we've had an OCer fall into this problem. A California OCer had his ID seized involuntarily from his wallet. The cops let him go at the end of the encounter. A little later, the prosecutor decided to twist the law and went after him. The prosecutor even got a judge to redefine the word "public" so as to convict the OCer. Of course, if the cops hadn't gotten his name from his wallet without his consent, they wouldn't have known who to try to go after when the prosecutor entered the picture. So, there is some risk in supplying your name. It may not be much in any given situation, but its not zero.
    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 Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by 911Boss View Post
    Originally Posted by amlevin
    In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

    I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.





    In WA if you are driving and receiving a citation, you are required by law to provide ID. Preferably, a driver's license but in absence of that by providing name, etc.

    "Attempting to cite" is the key here.
    You did not mention the whole motor vehicle thing in the first place. That changes the story a little bit.

    He may have not been engaged in commercial traffic and so saw no need to proved any state issued permission card.
    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)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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