ID Statute WA State

Citizen said:

they said in the last paragraph that a situation could arise where such did violate the 5th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Difdi said:

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.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?

Click to expand...

Difdi said:

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.

Click to expand...

911Boss said:

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.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

911Boss said:

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.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

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.

Click to expand...

fire suppressor said:

Personally I always ask if I am being detained. If the answer is no the conversation is over and my ID stays in my wallet. As for being pulled over in a car I never read any RCW stating you had to inform the officer if you are carrying or not, same is true for when you are just out walking around. People love to debate weather you should inform the officer or not if pulled over. I don't want to get into that as it is your choice. But as far as the laws go I have never read anything saying to are required to

Click to expand...

hermannr said:

You are not required to tell LE that you are armed, because, unless you have committed a crime, it is none of their business. WA state constitution Article 1 section 7...you are to be secure in your private affairs/

Click to expand...

MSG Laigaie said:

This is Truth, caveat is that when you are pulled over (assuming you are in some sort of vehicle) and the LEO runs the plates. HUGE history comes back on the registered operator. I hear the CPL reports on the scanner. I keep one running in the background and things like that seem to pop out.

Click to expand...

911Boss said:

CPL return is not automatic when stopped on traffic. It is three separate queries to DOL. One for the vehicle, one for the person, and one for the person's CPL status. Some agencies may have programmed their systems to automatically run for CPL when a person is run, but there is still two separate queries going to the state ACCESS system though and those agencies that automatically check are in the minority in my experience.

While there is registered owner information linked to the vehicle return, there is no CPL info linked to the vehicle as is some states.

Click to expand...