"Detained" when asked for ID?

Another ruling to consider in discussing this topic is Regaldo v State in Florida.

The justices ruled correctly in my opinion that a mere requirement for a permit by law does not constitute RAS or PC, because cops can't glean by mere observation whether or not said person has a permit or not.

Citizen said:

OK.

*Snip*

Cops have a knack for getting annoyed at people who exercise their rights. They might charge you with violating the must-show provision of the permit statute. Also, cops enjoy their catch-all statutes: obstruction, disorderly conduct, etc. If an annoyed cop can find a way to wedge your situation into the obstruction statute, he just might do it, and let a judge sort it out. And, the judge just might agree with him.

*SNIP*

Click to expand...

Disturbing the peace....

The good news is that most of the time you can beat those charges based on the original cause.

Refusal to show ID when not required, cops go with obstruction normally. That is easy because they are not investigating any criminal activity if OC is legal.

Disorderly conduct, when a cop causes a scene when you stand up for yourself. There was no scene until the officer created one.

Disturbing the peace, similar to disorderly.

___

IMO it's best to not refuse but to question what statute requires your compliance with their request.
Don't answer questions, ask them! Am I free to leave? Why are you detaining me? Am I under arrest? What law are you claiming I'm violating? What did YOU witness?

SavageOne said:

I think the issue Superlite may run into here in MO is that you agree to produce your CCW, upon request of a LEO, when it is issued......

.....LEOs won't need RAS in these prohibited areas because they can request a CCW holder display their endorsement at anytime.....

.......So kiss the LEO's need for RAS to request ID goodbye, in these areas. They will simply be asking you to comply with the terms you agreed to when you aquired your permit

Click to expand...

Very succinctly summarized. You're better at speaking my mind than I am.

For example: What if the stipulation for obtaining a driver's licence required you to submit to a full search of your vehicle upon request by an officer?

If you didn't want to forfeit your 4th Amendment protections, you can just choose not to drive. By choosing to legally drive, you voluntarily forfeit your 4th Amendment protections, right?

You do so by agreeing to fork over your CCW upon request as the terms of its issuance. Same difference.

Superlite27 said:

Very succinctly summarized. You're better at speaking my mind than I am.

For example: What if the stipulation for obtaining a driver's licence required you to submit to a full search of your vehicle upon request by an officer?

If you didn't want to forfeit your 4th Amendment protections, you can just choose not to drive. By choosing to legally drive, you voluntarily forfeit your 4th Amendment protections, right?

You do so by agreeing to fork over your CCW upon request as the terms of its issuance. Same difference.

Click to expand...

A contract with the government is invalid if you're forced to surrender your rights to use the roads built using public money.

Freedom1Man said:

A contract with the government is invalid if you're forced to surrender your rights to use the roads built using public money.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, a permit is not a contract.

georg jetson said:

Furthermore, a permit is not a contract.

Click to expand...

You're right, its not. But, the agreement, by whatever name, is invalid.

Its a little like the charges filed against Snowden today. According to the CBS radio network, one of the charges is theft of government property. Hahahahahahah!!

The government has no standing in illegally obtained records. The government (appellate courts) will instantly tell an appellant that he has no privacy interest in stolen goods. I can't tell you how many times I've read appeals shot down because of something like that. If your average American has no privacy interest in illegally obtained property, then government has no secrecy interest in illegally obtained information. And, it certainly has no secrecy interest in the illegal programs that obtained the information.

Citizen said:

You're right, its not. But, the agreement, by whatever name, is invalid.
SNIP

Click to expand...

What is an agreement other than a form of contract?

Citizen said:

....

Its a little like the charges filed against Snowden today. According to the CBS radio network, one of the charges is theft of government property. Hahahahahahah!!

....

Click to expand...

There you go again, insisting that the laws made by the government to control the masses must equally apply to the government.

If you keep that up people will not be able to tell us apart.

stay safe.