Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Required to show ID in Wa.?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    In the State of Washington, is it required that one show ID to a LEO when asked? I know that the recent case in Nevada (Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada) determined that in that state one must show ID when asked by a LEO. But this varies state by state, yes? What is the requirement in Wa.?

    Thanks,
    arby

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    If you are committing a civil infraction of any kind or any kind of traffic infraction or crime, then yes, you must show ID when asked.

  3. #3
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    If you are driving, you automatically have to show to prove you are licensed to drive. Otherwise, no, unless you are committing some crime, in which case it is less likely the LEO will ask and will just take.

  4. #4
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 is correct. ID is required whenever you're going to be cited for a civil infraction for investigatory purposes.

    compmanio365 is correct about being stopped while driving a motor vehicle. However, when it comes to criminal activity an ID is not required. In that case, all that is required is a name and (either address or Date of Birth or both can't recall). However, if you're arrested, they'll take your wallet and go through it anyways. If you don't have ID you're required to give the name and address/dob.

    As far as showing a CPL in WA, the law is rather vague as it states that you have to show it to an LEO when required by law to do so but it doesn't spell out when that is. I think it's a safe assumption to show the CPL to an LEO whenever you're doing something that requires you to have a CPL. (I typically decline to show my CPL when I am OC'ing.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    If you are committing a civil infraction of any kind or any kind of traffic infraction or crime, then yes, you must show ID when asked.
    Ok, so there must be reasonable suspicion (whatever that means)?



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    List of all the states with Stop and Identify statutes

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    p2a1x7 wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    List of all the states with Stop and Identify statutes
    Thanks! It seems that Wa. does not have a 'Stop and Identify' statute?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    Nope, neither do Oregon or Idaho.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    arby wrote:
    p2a1x7 wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    List of all the states with Stop and Identify statutes
    Thanks! It seems that Wa. does not have a 'Stop and Identify' statute?
    No, as previously addressed: https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/aug04.pdf

    Washington does not have such a statute. Moreover, the civil infraction law states (here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060 ) that you must provide name, phone number, address, etc. Upon request, you shall produce reasonable identification. This does not mean you must have it upon you, but that you may have to take a ride (either home to retrieve it or to jail until someone else can bring it to you, per the next paragraph where it says you may be detained until reasonable identification is found).

    *edit* fixed link
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    broken link but it comes up manually. this requirement for ID only applies of you are being "cited" for a violation! there is no ID requirement if you are just a LAC!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Thanks everyone my question is answered-- you guys are great!

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    compmanio365 is correct about being stopped while driving a motor vehicle.

    However, if you are a passenger in a motor vehicle that is stopped, and there is no justifiable reason for the officer to ask for ID (No visible contraband like drugs, open container alcohol, or signs that a crime has been committed/about to be comitted) then the passenger does not have to provide ID. This person is free to leave unless the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion to detain.

    State v. Rankin

    http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/wacourts/t...ew=mainresults

    Quote:

    CONCLUSION



    Pursuant to article I, section 7, an individual is free from government intrusion into his private affairs absent authority of law. I would hold: (1) without an independent reason for doing so, an officer may not require a passenger to produce his or her identification ( see Larson , 93 Wn.2d at 642 ); (2) an officer's mere request for identification from a passenger is not an infringement of privacy; and (3) a request for identification may be found to be coerced or compelled where there is a show of authority or circumstances presented that would lead a reasonable person to feel compelled to give their identification under the totality of the circumstances.




    On the subject of the passenger being free to leave, it might well be their best course of action as in the case of Spokane v Hayes:



    http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/wacourts/t...ew=mainresults

    Quote:

    "Mr. Hays was sitting in the passenger seat. He was therefore not seized and was free to walk away from the initial stop. He did not. He elected instead to remain in the vehicle. He was then seized when Officer Dashiell ordered him out of the car. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 222. Officers Dashiell and Yamada were nervous about Mr. Hays' intentions. Their safety concerns were reasonable, and therefore tipped the interest balance from Mr. Hays' privacy to officer and public safety. Id. at 220. It was reasonable to ask Mr. Hays to get out of the car."



    It would seem that Mr. Hayes best course of action would have been to merely get out of the car and leave (walk, don't run)when the initial stop occured.




    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    It would seem that Mr. Hayes best course of action would have been to merely get out of the car and leave (walk, don't run)when the initial stop occured.
    If he tried to walk away the officers would have been just as nervous and seized him anyway.


  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    It would seem that Mr. Hayes best course of action would have been to merely get out of the car and leave (walk, don't run)when the initial stop occured.
    If he tried to walk away the officers would have been just as nervous and seized him anyway.
    Read the entire opinion. If they do not have cause for detaining the passenger at the time of the stop, and they go ahead and detain the party, then they are violating the coercion statute. Read carefully the part where the court adresses officers that attempt to get the passenger to produce ID through intimidation.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

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