• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Required to show ID in Wa.?

arby

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
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
 

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
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.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.
 

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.)
 

arby

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
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:uhoh:)?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

arby wrote:
p2a1x7 wrote:
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
 

arby

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

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

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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/template.htm?view=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/template.htm?view=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.
 

nathan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
227
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top