Question about an officer demanding identification

JoeSparky · 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

YES, it is! And with the added criteria I withdraw my request of a cite from you to support the ORIGINAL claim.

I also recognize my asking you to provide a cite that SOMETHING did not exist in Washington State Statutes was going to be impossible to provide WITHOUT a full and comprehensive in depth study of ALL the Washington State Statutes.

Others have kindly provided a cite specifying one must ID themselves when being arrested of cited for an infraction.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 14, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
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.

Exactly, most people voluntarily comply when they so not have to, knowing the difference is understanding freedom or not IMHO.

kparker · Mar 15, 2014

Vitaeus said:
(Requesting ID, handing it to fellow officer who recorded information and handed it back to citizen within 30
seconds

OK, sure. 30 seconds is actually cited right there in the dictionary definition of de minimis. Still shouldn't happen, but the harm is so slight it can't realistically be quantified. But to have one's progress held up for minutes while TPTB engage in communications about whether they can find a reason to hold you further? Of course that's being detained.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 15, 2014

I don't care what the courts and statist judges say that is still a detention. The bending over by them to accommodate infringements by the states street warriors is so frustrating.

tombrewster421 · Mar 15, 2014

Vitaeus said:
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)

So if I don't want to hand over my papers I don't have to. They NEVER hand it back to you within 30 seconds. I have been seized twice now not including motor vehicle violations. And I was never suspected of committing a crime. It won't happen again without a rock solid case against the state aggressors. I hope it never comes to that.

Mainsail · Mar 15, 2014

I've been there, a half dozen times or more. It doesn't matter whether the cops might lie, or if the cop is friendly (which is a tactic), or whatever. If the officer demands ID and all you're doing is carrying openly- ask, "Am I being detained?"

If no, politely wish him a nice day and walk away. I've done that more than a few times, and that was back when OC was a little more dangerous than it is now.

If the officer says yes, that you are being detained, then ask, "For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?" After all, there is a chance that the officer stopped you completely regardless of your OC. If so, stonewalling would not be your best choice. This is rare but it happens.

If the officer doesn't answer your question then you should realize that he knows he's on thin ice. He is trying to get you to start talking, and he doesn't care what you want to talk about, just as long as you start talking. Once you start talking, debating, arguing, citing RCWs or case law, or flashing pamphlets, you have consented to the encounter. From here on out you have no case against the officer if he does something questionable- because YOU volunteered to talk to him.

You can find, if you look hard enough, some horror story about an officer or officers screwing up, but if you insist on living based on those instances you're better off not carrying a gun at all.

Dario · Mar 15, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Back in the old days, an honest person would carry openly, but someone who wanted/needed to conceal (as almost any criminal might) required permission do to something that an honest person wouldn't. As with a lot of other things, the meaning seems to have done a 180-degree shift.

Did you know that describing something like the Sistine Chapel as "awful, artificial, an egregious example of what manufactured artwork can be" is actually complimentary?
Awful - Inspiring wonder or awe
Artificial - artfully and skillfully constructed
Egregious - something that is remarkably good
Manufactured - something made by hand, from "manual"
All those mean the opposite of what they were understood to mean long ago.

What I find funny is that my State's Constitution specifically protects OC but local ordinances can prohibit it in certain areas, while CC is excluded in the Constitution but can only be prohibited by Federal law :crazy:

509rifas · Mar 16, 2014

"When required by law"

Can anyone cite the law where it says where you are required to?

kparker · Mar 16, 2014

509rifas said:
"When required by law"

Can anyone cite the law where it says where you are required to?

Just another example of how badly written much of our state's firearms law is.

509rifas · Mar 16, 2014

kparker said:
Just another example of how badly written much of our state's firearms law is.

I support badly writing laws as long as they are badly written in favor of freedom.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 16, 2014

Rule of lenity.

There is a recent thread where the judges pretty much said they can't demand your ID for investigatory reasons or just to check if you are in compliance.

I think these laws are written vaguely on purpose much of it as a compromise move to anti liberty minded.

509rifas · Mar 16, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Rule of lenity.

There is a recent thread where the judges pretty much said they can't demand your ID for investigatory reasons or just to check if you are in compliance.

I think these laws are written vaguely on purpose much of it as a compromise move to anti liberty minded.

Was that new case law?
Terry v Ohio says refusal to give name, address, and other pertinent information cannot be the basis of an arrest.
WA SC incorporated that in a case (state v white I think) that refusal to give your name cannor be the basis for an arrest, and in a relatively recent LE Digest there was a thing about how obstruction requires more than words; even lying isn't obstruction (its a seperate charge, but not obstruction.)
Somewhere I have a stack of printouts on the cases. Problem I have when I use them is at least three cops usually show up, and there's always at least one that knows me, so its only a brief matter of time before they run my name anyway. As happened in the Nerd vs Cop video.
I've been hancuffed for 15 minutes for refusing to give my name. Wasn't arrested, as no law was broken. Other times I've just declined, explained why when asked, and went on my way.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 16, 2014

509rifas said:
Was that new case law?
Terry v Ohio says refusal to give name, address, and other pertinent information cannot be the basis of an arrest.
WA SC incorporated that in a case (state v white I think) that refusal to give your name cannor be the basis for an arrest, and in a relatively recent LE Digest there was a thing about how obstruction requires more than words; even lying isn't obstruction (its a seperate charge, but not obstruction.)
Somewhere I have a stack of printouts on the cases. Problem I have when I use them is at least three cops usually show up, and there's always at least one that knows me, so its only a brief matter of time before they run my name anyway. As happened in the Nerd vs Cop video.
I've been hancuffed for 15 minutes for refusing to give my name. Wasn't arrested, as no law was broken. Other times I've just declined, explained why when asked, and went on my way.

It's basically a reiteration of what many of us have been saying all along. The mere fact that the law requires us to carry a cpl in certain areas or engaged in certain activities, does not give the officers RS or PC to demand to see the CPL without a crime being committed.

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 16, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
It's basically a reiteration of what many of us have been saying all along. The mere fact that the law requires us to carry a cpl in certain areas or engaged in certain activities, does not give the officers RS or PC to demand to see the CPL without a crime being committed.

Agreed, any authority to demand anything is going to be statutory; there will be a section of state code making display/surrender of said instrument mandatory. For a driver's license, the main authority is RCW 46.20.017, but it's also in 46.52.020, 46.61.020 and 46.61.021.

Now.. where in the RCW are the codes relevant to the the statutory authority of an officer to demand a carrier's firearms permit?

509rifas · Mar 17, 2014

Mainsail said:
I've been there, a half dozen times or more. It doesn't matter whether the cops might lie, or if the cop is friendly (which is a tactic), or whatever. If the officer demands ID and all you're doing is carrying openly- ask, "Am I being detained?"

If no, politely wish him a nice day and walk away. I've done that more than a few times, and that was back when OC was a little more dangerous than it is now.

If the officer says yes, that you are being detained, then ask, "For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?" After all, there is a chance that the officer stopped you completely regardless of your OC. If so, stonewalling would not be your best choice. This is rare but it happens.

If the officer doesn't answer your question then you should realize that he knows he's on thin ice. He is trying to get you to start talking, and he doesn't care what you want to talk about, just as long as you start talking. Once you start talking, debating, arguing, citing RCWs or case law, or flashing pamphlets, you have consented to the encounter. From here on out you have no case against the officer if he does something questionable- because YOU volunteered to talk to him.

You can find, if you look hard enough, some horror story about an officer or officers screwing up, but if you insist on living based on those instances you're better off not carrying a gun at all.

That's not necesarily true about consenting to the encounter. There's the totality of circumstances as to whether or not a normal person would feel free to leave, as well as specific ones, such as controllingyour movement, making orders ("keep your hands where I can see them"), activatng the top lights, drawing weapons, blocking your path, multiple officers, even demanding ID etc have all been cited as amounting to a detention.
If you don't ask if you're free to leave (or don't when he says yes) or there is no other obvious indicators of a detention then yes, it was consentual. I don't think consentual conversations are a bad thing in general, but they can go any which direction so be careful and don't be a doushe.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 17, 2014

Would someone advise someone not to be a ****** if the other person in the consensual encounter wasn't wearing a uniform?

Safety first. :lol:

Difdi · Mar 17, 2014

Maverick9 said:
but remember I'm saying it's hazardous to fail to obey an officer's DEMAND.

It's hazardous to fail to obey a violent criminal's demand too -- but that doesn't mean their demand is justified.

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.

Especially if it's something you need to be able to leave without breaking the law -- a driver's license to drive, a CPL to walk away with a holstered concealed pistol, etc.

Fallschirmjäger said:
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.

Under state law (though I'm unaware if case law has covered this) snatching something out of someone's hand while armed with a dangerous weapon is a felony -- robbery -- regardless of the value of the object. If you hold up your ID for the cop to see and he grabs it, that would seem to meet the legal prerequisites for you to make a citizen's arrest upon him, as far as I am aware.

Question about an officer demanding identification

JoeSparky

Centurion

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member

kparker

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

tombrewster421

Regular Member

Mainsail

Regular Member

Dario

Regular Member

509rifas

Regular Member

kparker

Regular Member

509rifas

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

509rifas

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

509rifas

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Difdi

Regular Member