if stoped oc,ing walking down sidewalk

imported post

Venator wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

bossbart wrote:

in mi. if stoped by police while oc,ing and police ask to see i.d. are u required by law to show i.d. or to just give your name

Click to expand...

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10941--,00.html


This only pertains to those with a CPL.

Click to expand...

Only if the gun is carried concealed, if open carried the officer knows you are armed and you do not have to show him your ID or your CPL. A CPL is NOT needed to open carry. Therefore a person could open carry without any form of ID, whether you have a CPL or not..

Click to expand...

I agree.I was just citing the requirement to ID which only pertained to those carrying concealed, with CPL

imported post

OK so despite all the Sarcasm here who among us have never heard of 'Provable cause"?

Any refusal can be assumed as an admission of guilt and now you are under a form of arrest and when he ask the second time and you try to give them grief you are going to go to jail.

Isn't it a whole lot easer to say, I forgot my wallet, or just comply, why are you afraid to ID? The only time you refuse is when asked if it is OK to search you or your vehicle, then you reply with "As soon as I call my lawyer and he gets here" will usually put the kibosh to that idea.

Old guy here, been around a bit, been part of a heap of legal discussions, know a heap of Police chiefs and Prosecutors, grass roots stuff, and know all my reps on a first name basis, so basically BTDT.

Oh one more thing... doesn't this small print bug anyone else?

imported post

Have never heard of "Provable cause" Is that anything like probable cause?

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

OK so despite all the Sarcasm here who among us have never heard of 'Provable cause"?

Any refusal can be assumed as an admission of guilt and now you are under a form of arrest and when he ask the second time and you try to give them grief you are going to go to jail.

Isn't it a whole lot easer to say, I forgot my wallet, or just comply, why are you afraid to ID? The only time you refuse is when asked if it is OK to search you or your vehicle, then you reply with "As soon as I call my lawyer and he gets here" will usually put the kibosh to that idea.

Old guy here, been around a bit, been part of a heap of legal discussions, know a heap of Police chiefs and Prosecutors, grass roots stuff, and know all my reps on a first name basis, so basically BTDT.

Oh one more thing... doesn't this small print bug anyone else?

Click to expand...

Sheldon, what sarcasm? And, I know you meant Probable Cause.

I believe this thread has been nothing less than an intelligent, fact-based (mostly)conversation of legally when, how, why, etc. to ID when OCing.

Probable Cause: When walking down the sidewalk and dispatch sends out a BOL on a subject in which you fit the description...probable cause.

Not Probable Cause: When you are walking down the sidewalk and there is no reason to believe a crime has been or will be committed...not probable cause.

We, are not afraid to ID, it'sthe principle of it...how many moreRights do you want the government to take away from us.

And no, refusal to ID is not automatically "admission of guilt", inand of itself.

Please provide an example of your "admission of guilt"...on foot, driving (CPL required, of course), etc.? Please be specific so others "here" may address your views.


Edit to add:

Sorry Sheldon if my reply seems a bit venomous, it is not meant to be so. I believed you when you said you know those people (Chiefs & Prosecutors), I'm just not sure where you and those people are getting the information.

This is the only reason I asked you to provide an example.

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

Any refusal can be assumed as an admission of guilt and now you are under a form of arrest and when he ask the second time and you try to give them grief you are going to go to jail.

Click to expand...

Springer was being nice, so I'm just gonna come out and say it. You're full of crap. Refusing to present ID is NOT an admission of ANYTHING. Before "probably cause" comes into play, there's that thing called "reasonable articulable suspicion(RAS)", aka a reason to stop and detain someone in the first place. If a cop stops you just for carrying a gun, he doesn't have the RAS to stop you in the first place, and has no business seeing your ID.

Please stop giving out false information.

imported post

Sheldon, what sarcasm? And, I know you meant Probable Cause

Click to expand...

Not on your's but some post have led in that direction N my bad small print and the spell checker got me.

So if a LEO requested that you give him $50, you would??

Click to expand...

I sure hope that was scarcasm..


side note: Where I got the information is in the meetings we have hadlocal officalsattend at our grass roots group, (yes they actually attend them too if you invite them that is) BTY our County COP is very pro 2A as is our prosecutor, and yes as is in most cases their's is a "opinion" bassed upon experience, and not actual legal precedence.

Springer was being nice, so I'm just gonna come out and say it. You're full of crap. Refusing to present ID is NOT an admission of ANYTHING. Before "probably cause" comes into play, there's that thing called "reasonable articulable suspicion(RAS)", aka a reason to stop and detain someone in the first place. If a cop stops you just for carrying a gun, he doesn't have the RAS to stop you in the first place, and has no business seeing your ID.

Click to expand...

(scarcasm mode on)

Great words so just who do you plan on posting your bail when you give the police a attitude and there are no cameras there to help you?

(Scarcasm mode off)

Serous though your police agency must be a whole lot more relaxed then the ones around here.Ours are paranoid and mostly with good cause, gangs, drugs to name a few.

Stoppingsomeone forOC can very easily escalate and yes in some officers opinions and that is the real issue here is the opinion of a under-trained police officer, likely some testosterone poisoned 28 year old and this gives him the RAS, Probable Cause, and the attitude to go with it, seen it way too many times, at least the testosterone poisoned 28 ish with a attitude police officer part, in my wreckless youth that is all I seemed to ever bump into. Now the state boys are usually above that with superior training and more at one with the universe.

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

(scarcasm mode on)

Great words so just who do you plan on posting your bail when you give the police a attitude and there are no cameras there to help you?

(Scarcasm mode off)

Serous though your police agency must be a whole lot more relaxed then the ones around here.Ours are paranoid and mostly with good cause, gangs, drugs to name a few.

Stoppingsomeone forOC can very easily escalate and yes in some officers opinions and that is the real issue here is the opinion of a under-trained police officer, likely some testosterone poisoned 28 year old and this gives him the RAS, Probable Cause, and the attitude to go with it, seen it way too many times, at least the testosterone poisoned 28 ish with a attitude police officer part, in my wreckless youth that is all I seemed to ever bump into. Now the state boys are usually above that with superior training and more at one with the universe.

Click to expand...

Why are you so afraid of going to jail? If you can't post bail you stay in until you see a judge. (That's why I always carry a little bail money.) The charges will be dropped and you will have a decent case of false arrest. Cowboy up for your rights, it's people like you that are giving the power to the very people that work for you, the police, we are their mastersthey are not ours. Really, you can be arrested for anything, that doesn't mean charges will be brought against you. As I suggested earlier have a recorder, be polite but firm, don't be intimidated, and don't get chatty with the officer.

If you truly are afraid of arrest and associated costs then don't take any chances and continue to let them keep you down, that's your choice. It takes a brave man to stand up to what frightens us. Henry David Thoreau said:

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."


"The law will never make a man free; it is men who have got to make the law free."


"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

And finally the best for last.


"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

imported post

No, the $50 comment was NOT sarcasm. Why? Because a cop has the same right to ask you for that they would your ID. And, considering how quickly you seem to throw your rights away, I figured you'd toss $50 just to avoid problems, too.

Now you're right, normally the issues with LEOs stem from untrained/ill-trained officers. This doesn't mean, however, that we should give up our rights to the poorly trained ones just because they don't know any better!

Stoppingsomeone forOC can very easily escalate and yes in some officers opinions and that is the real issue here is the opinion of a under-trained police officer, likely some testosterone poisoned 28 year old and this gives him the RAS, Probable Cause, and the attitude to go with it, seen it way too many times, at least the testosterone poisoned 28 ish with a attitude police officer part, in my wreckless youth that is all I seemed to ever bump into. Now the state boys are usually above that with superior training and more at one with the universe

Click to expand...

WHAT gives them RAS?? It seems you're implying that just because they don't know better and because they're aggressive means they have it? RAS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT to stop someone...it's not just whether or not the cop feels like it.

Venator said it well. It takes a brave man to stand up to fear. It also takes a brave man to stand up for your rights. Lord knows a 28 yr old cop doesn't scare me, though. He's old in my book .

imported post

A few misstatements going around here...

Reasonable (articulable) Suspicion: If the officer thinks you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime. This is grounds for a Terry stop (detainment) where the officer may question you and perform an 'over the clothes' patdown for weapons.

Probably Cause: The officer beleives you are guilty of committing a crime which is the circumstance under which an arrest can be made.

---

The police are generally very strict on operating within these bounds as a good bust can be thrown away if they mean to detain but wind up arresting a person. (Arrest is not just defined as being placed in cuffs, but also having a gun drawn at you, surrounded by a dominant police presence, etc).

imported post

Wynder wrote:

(Arrest is not just defined as being placed in cuffs, but also having a gun drawn at you, surrounded by a dominant police presence, etc).

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sureit is defined as much less than being in cuffs. There is something called the 'free to leave' test and as I understand it, it goes something liike: if you are being questioned by an officer, and you are not allowed to leave, you have been placed under arrest. This doesn't apply to the questioning that occursin a Terry stop. I googled it and found this:

Many people think of an arrest as being a formal declaration by the police, "You are under arrest," followed by the reading of the "Miranda rights". (As seen on TV: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you.")

Reality is a bit more complicated. An arrest occurs when a person no longer reasonably expects that he is free to leave. A "Terry Stop" is not an arrest, even though the person can't leave during the investigatory questioning, as the detention is of short duration and is limited in its scope. (A "Terry Stop" may involve little more than a short series of questions, such as, "What is your name? Where do you live? Why are you here?") However, if a person is not allowed to leave the scene for an extended period of time, the person may be considered to be "under arrest," even though those words are never used. If a person is handcuffed, is locked in the back of a police car, or is otherwise restrained from leaving, the person will ordinarily be considered to be "under arrest."

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html

imported post

kmcdowel wrote:

Wynder wrote:

(Arrest is not just defined as being placed in cuffs, but also having a gun drawn at you, surrounded by a dominant police presence, etc).

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sureit is defined as much less than being in cuffs. There is something called the 'free to leave' test and as I understand it, it goes something liike: if you are being questioned by an officer, and you are not allowed to leave, you have been placed under arrest. This doesn't apply to the questioning that occursin a Terry stop.

Click to expand...

There are three kinds of stops...

Investigatory Stop: Police officer asks questions, you may or may not answer and leave at any time. Officer can do nothing.

Terry Stop: Is a detainment, requires reasonable articulable suspicion. You are not free to go, but you are not under arrest. Once the officer's investigation is complete or a certain time has elapsed, you will be arrested or set free.

Arrest: Requires probably cause -- you are not free to leave and your movement is restrained by cuffs, large show of police presence, being drawn down upon, taken to the police station, etc.

There are subtleties, but it's bit more complex than what was being described.

imported post

Venator wrote:

Why are you so afraid of going to jail? If you can't post bail you stay in until you see a judge. (That's why I always carry a little bail money.) The charges will be dropped and you will have a decent case of false arrest. Cowboy up for your rights, it's people like you that are giving the power to the very people that work for you, the police, we are their mastersthey are not ours. Really, you can be arrested for anything, that doesn't mean charges will be brought against you. As I suggested earlier have a recorder, be polite but firm, don't be intimidated, and don't get chatty with the officer.

If you truly are afraid of arrest and associated costs then don't take any chances and continue to let them keep you down, that's your choice. It takes a brave man to stand up to what frightens us. Henry David Thoreau said:

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."


"The law will never make a man free; it is men who have got to make the law free."


"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

And finally the best for last.


"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Those are Some great quotes there by some really great dead guys. No I am not afraid of arrest and I will not comment on my finances but will just let isset at that is not a issue either. It is just that after trying the walk the streets and protest gig back in the 60's and 70's I found out via the school of hard knocks that it is far easer to make changes from within that on the streets. That all those hippie days of mine although I have some great memories basically accomplished noting other than venting a lot of excess youth.

So listen for a second to an old fart that has BTDT the people you want to influence will listen a lot harder if you "Speak softly" in their office and "carry a big stick" of their respect. So Will Rogers up for your rights, Get politically involved, join local grass roots groups, donate time to the people that you want in office and get to know them on a first name basis. This is what will go a heap further than arguing with a under trained police officer on the street, risking going to jail which will accomplish less, and trying to sue for false arrest and a cash settlement where the only winner is the lawyer when he takes your check for his fees.

Pick your fights wisely, and only pursue the ones that you have the best chances of winning, and this is a winnable situation, if done correctly.

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

and I am not talking Wanna Be LEO AKA security guard,

Click to expand...

I object to that statement. I am a private security guard. I do NOT think of myself as a "WANNA BE LEO".

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

Oh one more thing... doesn't this small print bug anyone else?

Click to expand...

Actually, your large print makes it appear that you are YELLING!!!!

imported post

Sheldon wrote:

Any refusal to comply with a LEO's request can end up in your arrest. Further giving them the "I know my rights" and the "Go eat a donut"attitude will get you a heap of problems real fast.

Any time you are stopped my a legitimate Police officer, and I am not talking Wanna Be LEO AKA security guard, you are under a form of detention. If you are courteous and respectful will end up with you gaining their respect, trust, and with you continuing on your mission un-impeded. Do anything else and you may get to see what the inside of a jail cell looks like. After all they are human and do not like being talked down too anymore than you do.

Click to expand...

I"m sure you didn't mean to be offend anyone on this forum, but know your members before you start calling security guards wanna be's. I am in fact a security guard and I am not no wanna be, and so you know when guards are working private property we have the same authority as police officers. In fact we have more a police officer can't legally stop you from carrying a firearm. On private property we can. Not complaining just letting you know the facts. And also a little bit of legal advice. If your on private property a security guard is working you must comply or you can be arrested.

imported post

Here's what wikipedia says, and backs it up with cites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes


Looks like Michigan has no stop and identify, so you don't
have to give your name or show id.

gridboy

imported post

adam40cal wrote:

If your on private property a security guard is working you must comply or you can be arrested.

Click to expand...

You're a funny man.

You should tell that to the 'guard' who wanted to try and tell me what I could and could not have in/on my vehicle when I was in a shopping mall... the little prick even went so far as to initiate a traffic stop with his little amber lightbar...

After 2 mins. of him going on about me being lucky he wasn't on his 'day job' (@ 2pm no less, implying he was a police officer), and a call to a communications supervisor of a LEA that I'm intimately familiar with, and the security guard walked away with one less security guard license, no job, 1 charge of unlawful detention, and 1 charge of impersonating a police officer.

You can tell me or ask me ANYTHING you want, the ONLY thing you can do is ask me to leave, that's IT. You can have a huge sign up that says "PEOPLE WITH PURPLE PANTS ONLY!", and I can walk right on by with green pants and you can tell me until your blue in the face that I need to wear purple pants, until you ASK ME TO LEAVE, you can't do jack.

EDIT: Your SOLE remedy, acting as a property owners agent, is in ejecting people from the property, that's IT.

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

EDIT: Your SOLE remedy, acting as a property owners agent, is in ejecting people from the property, that's IT.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you're in a retail store and an agent of the property actually witnesses a person conceal merchandise and attempt to leave the store, they do have a right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. I know that this is not exactly what the topic is about...

However, even though an officer needs to witness a misdemeanor in order to make an arrest, shoplifting is one of those exclusionary statutes where if a shopkeeper or agent thereof has probable cause to believe someone is guilty of shoplifting, they may detain them. Bearing in mind that while LEO's only need reasonable suspicion to detain, shopkeepers must have full reasonable suspicion, e.g. witnessed the crime.

States may vary on whether the person is required to leave the storefront or simply walk past the point of purchase.

imported post

Adam: I agree with you, yes the small script kills my bi-focals, thought it was just me!

To the subject, I too used to be a security guard in Flint back in the '70s. Sterling security, assigned to hurley hospital. It all depends on your area of guard, training, knowledge and attitude.On my first night of the job, I was handed a radio and a nightstick and told to walk the north parking lot. As he was explaining the route, a drive by occured in the street next to the parking lot! Small caliber, 6 shot pops. I looked at him and asked " I'm supposed to guard this area with a stick and a radio"! I worked 2wks and found another job.

The bottom line to all the scenario's in the threads is what has been quickly vanishing in this country for years---- COURTESY AND RESPECT---

I go by the rule similar to what I was raised with, treat someone the same way you want to be treated. You're not giving up your rights to show ID, just because you decide to be polite. If an LEO or ANYONE else approaches me with a question, I evaluate their attitude and respond in kind, to a point, i.e.-- be a smart a$$ and you will get s--t in return. Be polite and I will evaluate your request and make my decision then. And-- COMMON SENSE-- me, I really don't feel like wasting my time going to the grey bar hotel even for a minute, just to prove I was right. My time is much better spent doing what "I" want to do. There are many other ways to demonstrate your right to legally do something. Ourgreat andmeets say a lot for just that. I will, and have went toe to toe with LEO's more than once when I knew I was right and felt damn good doing it. As stated, you would be better off trying to educate the LEO and change his approach and attitude for future, similar situations. This is all just this old fart's opinion, but it has served me well for over 50yrs.

Jerry

imported post

To get this topic more or less back on the original topic of the initial question asked;

I realize that this PDF document (pages 1-3 for relevent content) applies ONLY to Wa State, but I think this is the kind of information the OP was looking for as applies to Mi. Apparently it is the opinion of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, that :

Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)