Question about an officer demanding identification

deanf · Mar 13, 2014

Would they be within their right to do so?

"they" being the State of Washington.

If you're going to be a freedom fighter, please use the correct language: Governments do not have rights, only authority. Only individual people have rights.

A police officer is an agent of the state. When he asks for ID, it's the State of Washington asking, not a person.

"Would they be within their authority to do so?"

Maverick9 · Mar 13, 2014

Jeff Hayes said:
In Washington one only has to identify them selves if they are being arrested or cited if you are not being arrested or cited then you do not have to show ID simple as that. When asked for ID my first question is what crime do you suspect me of having committed am committing or are about to commit. If they say none then the Cop gets no ID simple as that.

I am not going to cite because this has been discussed over and over again on this site.

If you resemble a person they're seeking, you won't even get that far, but remember I'm saying it's hazardous to fail to obey an officer's DEMAND. That got one woman's window busted out who was stopped for an equipment violation and she got thrown to the ground.

[video=youtube;S4K5Lr0y7Pw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K5Lr0y7Pw[/video]

Vitaeus · Mar 13, 2014

Nightmare said:
The difference between display and surrender is the difference between Fourth Amendment security in your papers and a warranted seizure. If he wants to hold your papers, them make him document the arrest and warrant. Feel the love.

Nice sentiment, but WA case law doesn't really support your assertion.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf

Simply holding your license/CPL isn't a seizure, there has to be further restrictions/conditions.

bebop4one · Mar 13, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
I refuse to waive any of my rights simply because of what an officer MIGHT do.

+1

Jeff Hayes · Mar 13, 2014

Maverick9 said:
If you resemble a person they're seeking, you won't even get that far, but remember I'm saying it's hazardous to fail to obey an officer's DEMAND. That got one woman's window busted out who was stopped for an equipment violation and she got thrown to the ground.

[video=youtube;S4K5Lr0y7Pw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K5Lr0y7Pw[/video]

Cops can demand all they want, I really do not care if I am being arrested in Washington I will verbally ID myself bu not until I am under arrest. I believe that Cop that busted the window out is under investigation at this point.

OK so I resemble someone that just robbed the bank down the street, either the Cop can arrest me or let me go, they get no ID until I am under arrest. You seem to forget that I do not have to ever talk to a Cop for any reason.

I have refused to ID my self many times and so far I have walked away every time. Please do as you please, if you are scared then give them your ID, if you want to encourage Cops to behave in an aggressive manner then please give them you ID. The only lawful order that gal failed to obey was when he asked her to get out of the car. I really do not understand people like you that defend unlawful demands by Cops.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 13, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
I refuse to waive any of my rights simply because of what an officer MIGHT do.

Here here well said.

Geerolla · Mar 14, 2014

You're not required by law to identify yourself, ever... even when under arrest.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

JoeSparky · Mar 14, 2014

Geerolla said:
You're not required by law to identify yourself, ever... even when under arrest.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Cite please from Washington State Statutes to support this claim.

I do believe there IS a Washington State statute that DOES require one to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES when under arrest.

Geerolla · Mar 14, 2014

JoeSparky said:
Cite please from Washington State Statutes to support this claim.

I do believe there IS a Washington State statute that DOES require one to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES when under arrest.

Cite plz.

Oh, I should append to mine... if you haven't committed a crime or aren't operating a motor vehicle. Is that better?

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Freedom1Man · Mar 14, 2014

Geerolla said:
Cite plz.

Oh, I should append to mine... if you haven't committed a crime or aren't operating a motor vehicle. Is that better?

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

I'll find the case again but you're not required to have a license to use a car on the roadways, per the Washington (I am think it was a Supreme) court ruling.

OC for ME · Mar 14, 2014

Jeff Hayes said:
Cops can demand all they want, I really do not care if I am being arrested in Washington I will verbally ID myself bu not until I am under arrest. I believe that Cop that busted the window out is under investigation at this point.

OK so I resemble someone that just robbed the bank down the street, either the Cop can arrest me or let me go, they get no ID until I am under arrest. You seem to forget that I do not have to ever talk to a Cop for any reason.

I have refused to ID my self many times and so far I have walked away every time. Please do as you please, if you are scared then give them your ID, if you want to encourage Cops to behave in an aggressive manner then please give them you ID. The only lawful order that gal failed to obey was when he asked her to get out of the car. I really do not understand people like you that defend unlawful demands by Cops.

It is odd that a cop who thinks you resemble a bank robber would also think that knowing your name would change what he thinks.

Cops who demand ID to see if you are the bank robber are idiots. Unless, of course, they know the bank robbers name. But, cops do not need to know any details, they only need to narrow down that a bank robber is within a couple of miles from a bank to violate every citizen's 4A.

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 14, 2014

The only reason Officer Friendly wants to know your name is so that he can see if there are any warrants for your arrest because you're not the guy he's after but he might get lucky with you anyway.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with him knowing my name, I do have a problem with him knowing my home address. If you don't think anyone should worry about that, just ask Officer Friendly to show you some state issued identification with his home address and see what his reaction is. "If you have nothing to hide --------", right?

MSG Laigaie · Mar 14, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Depends on the situation. There have been times they have demanded and I didn't comply, because I knew I was in the right.

For me, and your mileage may vary, it all depends on the presentation of the LEO. I am an irritable, grumpy old man and I go out of my way to be polite and personable. If I am approached by a LEO with a smile on his face and a song in his heart, I will react favorably. If a LEO, or anyone for that matter, approaches me with "the attitude" I am not as congenial. I do not "comply" just because you have a badge or think you have some "ahhthoritee" over me. Case in point was Monday of this week. I was at the VA in seattle for an appointment. I do not carry in the VA (prohibited place) but I do not take off my empty holster. A LEO saw the holster and said "Would you step into the (LEO) office Sir? Expecting me to "comply" he was quite surprised when I answered "No, is there a problem?" "I can see your holster, are you armed?" "No, says I, this is a prohibited place, I left it home in the safe but I don't take the holster off, I'll put the weapon back in it when I leave here." " You can understand why I asked?, says he. ": No problem, you're OK." Says I as I walked away.

On the other hand, I had an incident with my favorite ""leo" bellingham offisir allen bass. We started off friendly but that quickly deteriorated. He made demands, I chided him for not knowing the law. He escalated it, I verbally abused him to the point of him "soiling his trousers".

Do not attempt this without confidence. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by the people who work for you. They are not omnipotent, but they are armed and dangerous. If you are in doubt of what to do during a confrontation, practice what you will say beforehand. Get the rap down so you don't sputter and stutter in reality. Be strong, but be correct.

Maverick9 · Mar 14, 2014

I just said 'may be hazardous' I didn't suggest people bend over and have rights trampled. The problem is vague laws and LEO transplants from more restrictive places, the need for departments to have a 'loose cannon', the fact that LE can lie - it all adds up to a toxic soup for the LAC. And let's be honest - these are not directed at criminals, they're directed at making all LAC subservient.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 14, 2014

OC for ME said:
It is odd that a cop who thinks you resemble a bank robber would also think that knowing your name would change what he thinks.

Cops who demand ID to see if you are the bank robber are idiots. Unless, of course, they know the bank robbers name. But, cops do not need to know any details, they only need to narrow down that a bank robber is within a couple of miles from a bank to violate every citizen's 4A.

Exactly, I can not believe how many people are conditioned to comply the government brain washing has worked rather well.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 14, 2014

MSG Laigaie said:
For me, and your mileage may vary, it all depends on the presentation of the LEO. I am an irritable, grumpy old man and I go out of my way to be polite and personable. If I am approached by a LEO with a smile on his face and a song in his heart, I will react favorably. If a LEO, or anyone for that matter, approaches me with "the attitude" I am not as congenial. I do not "comply" just because you have a badge or think you have some "ahhthoritee" over me. Case in point was Monday of this week. I was at the VA in seattle for an appointment. I do not carry in the VA (prohibited place) but I do not take off my empty holster. A LEO saw the holster and said "Would you step into the (LEO) office Sir? Expecting me to "comply" he was quite surprised when I answered "No, is there a problem?" "I can see your holster, are you armed?" "No, says I, this is a prohibited place, I left it home in the safe but I don't take the holster off, I'll put the weapon back in it when I leave here." " You can understand why I asked?, says he. ": No problem, you're OK." Says I as I walked away.

On the other hand, I had an incident with my favorite ""leo" bellingham offisir allen bass. We started off friendly but that quickly deteriorated. He made demands, I chided him for not knowing the law. He escalated it, I verbally abused him to the point of him "soiling his trousers".

Do not attempt this without confidence. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by the people who work for you. They are not omnipotent, but they are armed and dangerous. If you are in doubt of what to do during a confrontation, practice what you will say beforehand. Get the rap down so you don't sputter and stutter in reality. Be strong, but be correct.

+1 We have been seasoned a bit against them.....

Maverick9 said:
I just said 'may be hazardous' I didn't suggest people bend over and have rights trampled. The problem is vague laws and LEO transplants from more restrictive places, the need for departments to have a 'loose cannon', the fact that LE can lie - it all adds up to a toxic soup for the LAC. And let's be honest - these are not directed at criminals, they're directed at making all LAC subservient.

Oh definitely can be hazardous and one must think about it seriously, they do lie even in the little things. I still applaud those who move out and draw fire, and take a stand.

solus · Mar 14, 2014

MSG, alas i also secure my firearm but leave my holster in place and have experienced the same mentality from those in 'authority' but unfortunately, i am not as kind as you and rather curt, boarding on the point of rude actually, to questions centering on where my firearm is.

most are curtly answered while walking away from the encounter. interestingly, one individual made a slight tactical error and grabbed my upper arm to restrain my forward movement. we ascertained he must have slipped as i assisted him back to his feet as he hobbled away.

as my speech instructor stated...practice in front a mirror so you do not falter and then have friends role play to ensure you have the appropriate self assurance to confront 'authority'

ipse

tombrewster421 · Mar 14, 2014

Vitaeus said:
Nice sentiment, but WA case law doesn't really support your assertion.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf

Simply holding your license/CPL isn't a seizure, there has to be further restrictions/conditions.

Sorry, but if a cop takes something that belongs to me, then I can't just walk away now can I? That constitutes a seizure.

Vitaeus · Mar 14, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
Sorry, but if a cop takes something that belongs to me, then I can't just walk away now can I? That constitutes a seizure.

exerpt from the link, what we consider and what the Courts consider vary a bit....

State v. Hansen, 99 Wn. App. 575 (Div. I, 2000) June ’00 LED:17 (Requesting ID, handing
it to fellow officer who recorded information and handed it back to citizen within 30
seconds, radioing information, and then conversing with citizen in non-coercive manner,
was not seizure under totality of the facts)
State v. Crane, 105 Wn. App. 301 (Div. II, 2001) June ’01 LED:08 (Requesting ID and
holding it for several minutes, while standing with subject, and checking by hand-held radio
for outstanding warrants was seizure under totality of facts, and the seizure was not
justified by the mere fact that the person had been observed approaching a residence for
which police were in the process of obtaining a search warrant)
State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (2003) April ’03 LED:03 (Washington Supreme Court
holds that no seizure occurred where officer spotlighted a car parked in a market parking
lot, then followed up by asking the person in the driver’s seat about his presence there and
by asking him for ID)

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 14, 2014

I thought the difference between seizure and non seizure were well illustrated.
In the examples presented, a citizen's papers were requested (and presumably handed over voluntarily).
In the first example, "Requesting ID, handing it to fellow officer who recorded information and handed it back to citizen within 30 seconds..." no seizure occurred because the surrendered documents were returned to the citizen without undue delay. (Not a seizure.)

However, in the second example, the volunteered papers were kept in the officer's hands past the time required to record the information and the citizen was prevented from leaving lest he be deprived of his effects.
Note - "Requesting ID and holding it for several minutes, while standing with subject, and checking by hand-held radio for outstanding warrants..." (Seizure).

Any demand to surrender papers is a seizure, and any continued withholding of a citizen's papers and effects beyond the time required to record the information can be deemed a seizure.

Question about an officer demanding identification

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member