Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: What ID/info must be provided to LEO during a stop?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances...

    1.When a LEO stops you to ask questions, not detaining you. When you are free to leave (i.e. not being detained), must you provide ANY info to a LEO?

    2. Whena LEO stops you and tells you that you are being detained (whether or not he details the RAS). Now that you are being detained (maybe not arrested just yet), does the law require you to provide more information, such as an ID?

    3. When a LEO spots you getting into a car, does he then have the lawful means to demand to see your driver's license? This is for the case when no unlawful act has been committed with the motor vehicle. I do understand that, if you were OCing, he now has the ability to demand to see your CPL.

    Any help from the knowledgeable folks out there? I want to know exactly when I can simply walk away from a cop, rather than wait for him to run my info and return my ID to me.

    Further question...

    4. Assume that you were OCing and he just saw you cover your gun. You DO have a CPL. Must you only show the cop the CPL, or must you provide your ID too? This situation is probably the same as getting into a car.

    Thanks!
    IBTL

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kitsap & Whatcom Counties, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    ShooterMcGavin wrote:
    I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances...

    1.When a LEO stops you to ask questions, not detaining you. When you are free to leave (i.e. not being detained), must you provide ANY info to a LEO?

    2. Whena LEO stops you and tells you that you are being detained (whether or not he details the RAS). Now that you are being detained (maybe not arrested just yet), does the law require you to provide more information, such as an ID?

    3. When a LEO spots you getting into a car, does he then have the lawful means to demand to see your driver's license? This is for the case when no unlawful act has been committed with the motor vehicle. I do understand that, if you were OCing, he now has the ability to demand to see your CPL.

    Any help from the knowledgeable folks out there? I want to know exactly when I can simply walk away from a cop, rather than wait for him to run my info and return my ID to me.

    Further question...

    4. Assume that you were OCing and he just saw you cover your gun. You DO have a CPL. Must you only show the cop the CPL, or must you provide your ID too? This situation is probably the same as getting into a car.

    Thanks!
    IANAL, but....

    1. No, you are not required to show ID or engage the LEO and can leave at any time.

    2. Yes, when being detained, you must provide LEOs with your identity. You do not have to discuss anything with them.

    3. As you are required to have a CPL to carry in a vehicle in (nearly) all circumstances, if asked, I would show it to the police officer. Whether or not I would be legally obligated to show it, I'm not sure ebcuase I can see two sides. The first being that the officer doesn't have RAS; the second being that if you are driving a vehicle (carrying or otherwise), LEOs can ask to see your license. In that way, the two acts might be seen as analagous, both being legal only when licensed.

    4. For the same reasons as #3, not sure.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    I have to disagree with you on #2 carhark.

    In HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., SCOTUS upheld his conviction for refusing to identify himself because there was a clearly defined Nevada state statute that required him to do so when:

    ...the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion ....
    As I've posted here before, there is not such 'Stop and Identify' statute clearly defined in the state of Washington, and the cops KNOW it....or reasonably SHOULD.

    As I've also posted here before, it is my opinion that if an officer does indeed have true and valid RAS to detain you he should have no problem revealing same to you when detained. Otherwise, the detainee has NO WAY OF KNOWING if his detainment is lawful or not, which has a direct bearing on what his legal requirements and protections are from that point on. Make em justify their actions on the spot, when it happens....don't give them a few days to work on their 'story' for the judge.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course....
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    bugly wrote:
    You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course....
    I posted this over on the Nevada board, but it bears repeating here:

    Here's the problem I have with people who think and believe the way you do:

    In the state of Oregon it is not a defense against a charge of 'resisting arrest' if the arrest is illegal.

    Think about that one for a moment. IT. IS. NOT. A. DEFENSE. EVEN. IF. THE. ARREST. IS. ILLEGAL.

    A police officer could be beating the ever living (bleep) out of you, and regardless if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE or not, it is a CRIME to resist in any way shape or form if he claims to be arresting you. You are required to just lay there and take the beating, and file a complaint later..........if you live.

    Now... admittedly, this example is taking your sentiment to the extreme, but this begs the question... just how much violation of ones rights should one be forced to endure before they are justified in standing their ground against such an assault?

    You can apologize for the police all you want, but at the end of the day you are advocating, in application, complete supplication to jack-booted thugs, up to and including the extreme of my example.











  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    One thing to keep in mind is that given the vague wording of the law, you pretty much have to show your CPL at any time a cop asks for it and you have it with you.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    One thing to keep in mind is that given the vague wording of the law, you pretty much have to show your CPL at any time a cop asks for it and you have it with you.
    Which is why mine stays in the car!

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Since I ride the bus or take my bike downtown, I don't have that option usually. But OTOH the cops around here already know who I am...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hoquiam, , USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    Myself I would show it. I have been ask my the police if I always carry open
    and ask them if they would like to see my ID and was told no. So I have np showing
    them. If they are being an a butt about it I would drag it out as far as I had to before I showed them but I have never had that problem.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    bugly wrote:
    You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course....
    Do you have any problem with the police harrassing you? When you are lawfully going about your business, do you want to spend an hour of your time while the police run searches on you, call in backup, etc.?

    If you have nothing to hide, just answer all their questions even if you are not being detained. Also, just consent to any and all searches. You have nothing to hide, right? It could only take an hour to tear your car apart.

    I'm not looking to hide anything. I'm looking to excercise my right to not be harrassed and to not waste my time answering questions about my perfectly lawful activities. If you show the police that you know your rights, they may tend to back off and be less aggressive (less harrassing) - I think.
    IBTL

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    ShooterMcGavin wrote:
    I have done some searching on WA laws, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for. By law, what are we required to provide to LEO during a stop?? Assume this is a stop for questioning in a couple different circumstances...

    1.When a LEO stops you to ask questions, not detaining you. When you are free to leave (i.e. not being detained), must you provide ANY info to a LEO?

    2. Whena LEO stops you and tells you that you are being detained (whether or not he details the RAS). Now that you are being detained (maybe not arrested just yet), does the law require you to provide more information, such as an ID?

    3. When a LEO spots you getting into a car, does he then have the lawful means to demand to see your driver's license? This is for the case when no unlawful act has been committed with the motor vehicle. I do understand that, if you were OCing, he now has the ability to demand to see your CPL.

    Any help from the knowledgeable folks out there? I want to know exactly when I can simply walk away from a cop, rather than wait for him to run my info and return my ID to me.

    Further question...

    4. Assume that you were OCing and he just saw you cover your gun. You DO have a CPL. Must you only show the cop the CPL, or must you provide your ID too? This situation is probably the same as getting into a car.

    Thanks!
    1. No. Though I have and will provide my name and phone number. It's the bare minimum needed to get a FOIA/public request, so I just give it to them so they know I'm following up.

    2. No. Washington has no "stop and identify" statute. I often don't carry ID with me while OCing, so how could I provide it?

    3. Yes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.021

    4. Yes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    ShooterMcGavin wrote:
    bugly wrote:
    You may or may not be required to show anything to a LEO, but, if asked to show, just do it. What are you hiding? It may be a hassle or an indignity to have to do so, but if you have nothing to hide, just show it. If you have an issue with doing so, wait until after the LEO has left and make a complaint to his superiors. Arguing with him or being belligerent will NOT make things better, nor will it help your chances of being left alone. it's kinda like when your boss asks you if you f-d something up. He may or may not know you did it, but if he does know, and you lie, you're fired. He may forgive a mistake if you "man up", depending on how severe it was, of course....
    Do you have any problem with the police harrassing you? When you are lawfully going about your business, do you want to spend an hour of your time while the police run searches on you, call in backup, etc.?

    If you have nothing to hide, just answer all their questions even if you are not being detained. Also, just consent to any and all searches. You have nothing to hide, right? It could only take an hour to tear your car apart.

    I'm not looking to hide anything. I'm looking to excercise my right to not be harrassed and to not waste my time answering questions about my perfectly lawful activities. If you show the police that you know your rights, they may tend to back off and be less aggressive (less harrassing) - I think.
    Pretty much true. In all my experiences, a polite "no" response has gotten me out of a situation faster than any acquiescing. In fact, a group I was with was detained, and I refused to give ID. The rest of the group said "oh, come on, just give it to them" and I still said no. I was the first let go by almost 30 minutes.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote: Regarding #3, according to 46.61.021...

    (3)Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address.

    First, it states that this requirement is based upon an investigation of a traffic infraction. All of the requirements in that law are when a cop is working on a traffic infraction, but my example is outside of an offense committed with the vehicle. Second, "identify hiself... and give his or her current address". It does not state "must provide a WA issued driver's license".

    Regarding #4, according to 9.41.050...

    That says nothing about providing a WA issued driver's license.

    Based on that, why do you think the answer is "yes" for 3 and 4?
    IBTL

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    ShooterMcGavin wrote:
    First, it states that this requirement is based upon an investigation of a traffic infraction.Â* All of the requirements in that law are when a cop is working on a traffic infraction, but my example is outside of an offense committed with the vehicle.Â* Second, "identify hiself... and give his or her current address".Â* It does not state "must provide a WA issued driver's license".

    Regarding #4, according to 9.41.050...

    That says nothing about providing a WA issued driver's license.

    Based on that, why do you think the answer is "yes" for 3 and 4?
    Because the law says it's "yes."

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.017

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving)

    Have to provide a CPL when doing something requiring a CPL (in a car, CC).

    Other than that name/DOB if the situation warrants, or "have a nice day"



    (if things arn't simple I tend to screw them up)


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving)
    Nope. Anytime you are being investigated for ANY civil infraction, including non-traffic (i.e. jaywalking), you MUST identify. And in WA there are only a few ways to identify: Driver's License, WA State ID Card, Passport, etc.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving)
    Nope. Anytime you are being investigated for ANY civil infraction, including non-traffic (i.e. jaywalking), you MUST identify. And in WA there are only a few ways to identify: Driver's License, WA State ID Card, Passport, etc.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060
    Not so fast, BigDaddy5. Read the law in your link again. It states quite clearly that:

    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

    A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

    Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.
    By specifying RCW 7.80.050 (Notice of infraction - Issuance, service, filing), the scope of this particular section of code is limited to THAT section only. Nowhere in RWC 7.80.050 is there ANY text regarding 'investigation'. It is solely concerned with the issuance and documentation process for civil infractions.

    You are NOT required to identify yourself when simply 'under investigation'.








  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    just says if you don't then they keep you around until they can figure out who you are and that an ID of some form helps that process along.

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kitsap & Whatcom Counties, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    I have to disagree with you on #2 carhark.
    Good thing I'm not a lawyer! I wouldn't have many clients. :-)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    I thought it was have to show the Drivers license when a drivers license is required (driving)
    Nope. Anytime you are being investigated for ANY civil infraction, including non-traffic (i.e. jaywalking), you MUST identify. And in WA there are only a few ways to identify: Driver's License, WA State ID Card, Passport, etc.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060
    Not so fast, BigDaddy5. Read the law in your link again. It states quite clearly that:

    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

    A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

    Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.
    By specifying RCW 7.80.050 (Notice of infraction - Issuance, service, filing), the scope of this particular section of code is limited to THAT section only. Nowhere in RWC 7.80.050 is there ANY text regarding 'investigation'. It is solely concerned with the issuance and documentation process for civil infractions.

    You are NOT required to identify yourself when simply 'under investigation'.
    Phssthpok hit it right on the head. Only when being served or issued a civil infraction must you give your name, address, and date of birth. Note, also, that it says upon request, you shall produce reasonable identification. This is a different burden than 46.20.017, which requires you have identification on your immediate person and you display it upon demand whenever pulled over for any reason.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post





    RCW 9A.76.020
    Obstructing a law enforcement officer.

    [/b](1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

    (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.

    (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.





    If the Officer is INVESTIGATING any possible crime, be it infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, that falls under discharge of his or her official powers or duties. You do not however have to produce a physical document (unless driving offense-license) but do have to provide name, date of birth,address and phone #. If the Officer can verify that the info that was given verbally is correct/valid, that is considered adequate.

    If however the Officer cannot verify your identity, youCAN be arrested for obstructing and here's the rub; you will remain in custody (jail) until they are able to positively verify your identity.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote
    I posted this over on the Nevada board, but it bears repeating here:

    Here's the problem I have with people who think and believe the way you do:

    In the state of Oregon it is not a defense against a charge of 'resisting arrest' if the arrest is illegal.

    Think about that one for a moment. IT. IS. NOT. A. DEFENSE. EVEN. IF. THE. ARREST. IS. ILLEGAL.

    A police officer could be beating the ever living (bleep) out of you, and regardless if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE or not, it is a CRIME to resist in any way shape or form if he claims to be arresting you. You are required to just lay there and take the beating, and file a complaint later..........if you live.

    Now... admittedly, this example is taking your sentiment to the extreme, but this begs the question... just how much violation of ones rights should one be forced to endure before they are justified in standing their ground against such an assault?

    You can apologize for the police all you want, but at the end of the day you are advocating, in application, complete supplication to jack-booted thugs, up to and including the extreme of my example.
    If a LEO is beating the crap out of me, I'm going to defend myself to the fullest of my ability. ARREST does not equate to ASSAULT. Just because he's a LEO doesn't give him/her the right to assault or commit violence on someone. If I have done nothing illegal and a LEO attacks me there will likely be one less LEO. We have the right to resist illegal detainment. We have an obligation to stand up for our rights because if we don't the government WILL take them away.

  23. #23
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    One thing to keep in mind is that given the vague wording of the law, you pretty much have to show your CPL at any time a cop asks for it and you have it with you.
    Negative. The wording is quite clear. You only have to show it in a time and place where it is required. Hence, if you are carrying in a car and he asks, show it. If you are OCing out on the street, and the cop is harassing you for CPL, ID, etc......refuse.

    Ultimately, it's up to you, but the law is clear when it comes to when you have to show your CPL/ID. I don't have to show my papers to any LEO that has a bug up his ass and wants to harass me that day. If I'm being arrested, they are gonna take my wallet and find them anyhow, so let them. I won't make their job any easier than it already is. If they aren't arresting me, they don't need to see my ID or CPL.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Johnny Law wrote:
    RCW 9A.76.020
    Obstructing a law enforcement officer.

    (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

    (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.

    (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.

    If the Officer is INVESTIGATING any possible crime, be it infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, that falls under discharge of his or her official powers or duties. You do not however have to produce a physical document (unless driving offense-license) but do have to provide name, date of birth,address and phone #. If the Officer can verify that the info that was given verbally is correct/valid, that is considered adequate.

    If however the Officer cannot verify your identity, youCAN be arrested for obstructing and here's the rub; you will remain in custody (jail) until they are able to positively verify your identity.
    It is NOT obstructing an officer in the discharge of their duties to refuse to provide identification prior to being charged. Just because an issue is being "investigated" does not, in any way, lawfully require the surrender of your personal information. It is ONLY when you are lawfully required to provide information that the failure to do so would be hindering, delaying, or obstructing the officer.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Johnny Law, more evidence your statement is incorrect:

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/aug04.pdf
    UNDER THE 4TH AND 5TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SUSPECT WHO REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF WHILE LAWFULLY BEING HELD IN A TERRY STOP COULD BE CONVICTED UNDER THE CLEAR WORDING OF A NARROW NEVADA “STOP-AND-IDENTIFY” STATUTE (BEWARE -- WASHINGTON STATE HAS NO SUCH STATUTE)
    Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist of Nevada, Humboldt County, __ S.Ct. __, 2004 WL 1373207

    ...

    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. Washington officers are, however, free to ask suspects in Terry stops to identify themselves or to show ID documents, and also may do so when conversing with pedestrians during non-Terry “citizen-contacts” (however, as to
    4
    requesting ID from non-violator MV passengers, see the Washington Supreme Court’s Rankin decision digested below in this month’s LED at 7-13).
    As always, officers should check with their local prosecutors and legal advisors for their views on the issues discussed here.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •