Identification w/CPL required?

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

G27 wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

I don't necessarily agree that you have to show any cop who asks for it your CPL if you are open carrying.

Click to expand...

On top of that you're only obligated to disclose your DOB and name if for some reason you are stopped and detained.

Click to expand...

Would you please post the citation to support your statement? That is not all of the information required according to RCWs.

Click to expand...

Again...if you are merely detained for investigative purposes (NOT for the purposes of issuing a citation which is a different scenario altogether) then you ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to tell them anything.

imported post

Sorry. I poorly worded that sentence. Thanks for correcting me.

imported post

I was just thinking the same thing, only in my case it was forty years ago and the place was the South China Sea/Vietnam.

It's hard to believe that we have to deal with these issues in our own country.

imported post

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding with what I said.

To all of you who assumed I implied that you need to show a Concealed Pistol License to open carry, you're wrong. I worded that incorrectly.

To the original poster, the LEO shouldn't have asked for your CPL. You didn't have to show it to him. Open carry is legal in Washington State (as we all know.)

I was just stating my opinion is that in the event I need to display my CPL I would show my other state/federal ID in conjunction. The only differences between my state ID and my CPL is a picture (at least in Washington State.) Which, well, pictures say a thousand words.

imported post

I am not sure what the RCWs say but personally I think any responsible adult will carry a current and valid WA DL/ and or other piece of photo ID other than a carry permit. Its just part of being a grown up. What happens if you are walking down the street and get hit by a car or jumped and left bleeding and unresponsive on the sidewalk? What happens when I show up in my Aid car or Fire Engine to help you? It really helps us out when you have somthing with your picture on it. If all I find on your person is a carry permit how it I know its really you? Like stated early in this post that could be any buddys permit.
Weather its "legal" or not lets not try and fight the police on every little detail. We have bigger and more important battles to fight. Personally every time I get stoped by a LEO what ever the situation my DL is the first thing to come out, they never have to ask me. I would want to see it to if I was on there side

imported post

If I was jumped and left bleeding, it's probable that all my ID, even if I had 10 forms, is gone, since it would all be carried together in my wallet.

imported post

fire suppressor wrote:

It really helps us out when you have somthing [sic] with your picture on it.

Click to expand...

I'm curious. How does that help you out? Are you going to treat me any differently depending on whether you see my ID? Is that the first thing you look for? How does that help you to treat/transport me?

imported post

"Unless an external force acts upon a closed system, that closed system will naturally tend to disintegrate into chaos. The natural movement of politics is for increased government oppression in the names of "safety", "the environment", "for the children", etc. The more submissive that government can make society, the easier it is for that government to function until the situation reaches a breaking point - a revolt. This country's revolt happened almost 2 1/2 centuries ago. If we don't stand by the principles founded out of that revolt - The Constitution and it's amendments - and if we don't ensure that government remains within the bounds of those principles - in all of it's affairs, we will find ourselves in the same situation which caused that revolt 2 1/2 centuries ago."

Kudos to NavyLT for a well reasoned summation of our current political state of affairs. I wholeheartedly agree, with one minor point of nomenclature. If government forces civil conflict upon us we will not be fighting to establish a new system of government but rather to restore our country to its adherence to that which we swore to uphold: The United States Constitution. Unlike the Founding Fathers, who had to develop a system as they went along, we already have a wonderful document for guiding government. We would not be developing something new, like some variation of Marxism, we would be seeking to return to a proven system. This is not revolution. It is restoration. If we have civil war, it will be a war of restoration.

MD

imported post

Excellent analysis, Machoduck.

imported post

To the original poster, the LEO shouldn't have asked for your CPL. You didn't have to show it to him. Open carry is legal in Washington State (as we all know.)

Click to expand...

It wasn't OC, it was poorly concealed, with a long shirt hanging over a holster. And he didn't ask for a CPL, he just told me he was detaining me and slapped some cuffs on me, all the while I was insisting I had a CPL, offered to get it out, told him where it was, told him the number, etc.

Why would you have any reason to think that the CPL was NOT mine? How about my gun, too? Do you want the serial number of my gun as well to make sure that my gun isn't stolen? It's just as likely that I am carrying a stolen gun as it is that I am carrying a false permit. Where does it stop?

Click to expand...

They ran the gun for stolen after my ID number, prior to running the CPL, and then they had no record of the license (one of the police clerks I dealt with to get my CPL now has multiple felony warrants on unrelated matters.)
Sunnyside, like many cities, has pretextual stops as a general matter of business. If you look at the arrest reports or court cases published in the paper, the arrests are mostly warrants, and so they try to run as many IDs as possible. I've been pulled over as a passenger for "not wearing a seatbelt" which the officer saw through tinted windows from behind (the officer had x-ray vision from what I understand) and been a "suspect" in an alarm call for walking out of a store nearby- I gave them my ID and no legal lip that time because I had been drinking and really didn't want to be patted down if you know what I mean. I'm white in a Chicano town, so I don't really get it as bad as some of my Hispanic friends though. A couple times it's just been the car pull up (or turn around and pull up) and they stare and ask how you're doing or some crap like that.
Like I mentioned before, I don't drive, so I don't need government ID, so I don't carry it. I don't feel the need to be tagged to be released into the wild.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

I couldn't find anything in the RCW to indicate that one must show ID to LEO when showing a CPL. Since my last "incident," I took my CPL out of my wallet and put it in a little hunting license carrier thing, and generally don't carry ID, so next time they ask for ID when they stop me "sorry officer, I don't have any on me, but here's my license, all the I am lawfully required to show you..."
Is there any legal problems with that? (And I am talking about concealed or semi-concealed.)

Click to expand...

The law may not require you to show your DL when you are asked for your CPL but unless your hobby is putting up with "Police Proceedure Hassles" it might be a good idea to do so.

In over 45 years of carrying a pistol (both concealed and open) I have never been asked to show my CPL. In those years I have volunteered it to an officer 3 times and have never had one ask me to relinquish my handgun for any reason.

IMHO one needs to make a choice. Be confrontational to make a point or just show the ID/CPL and be on your way. I guess it depends on what you want to do for an hour or so after being asked.

imported post

A Concealed Pistol License is not a primary form of ID. It is to be displayed in conjunction with State ID.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.035

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.58&full=true

(4) An identicard or a driver's license that includes a photograph that has been renewed by mail or by electronic commerce is valid for identification purposes if the applicant met the identification requirements of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section at the time of previous issuance.


Here's a link to the description of a "terry stop" for those who are curious.

http://www.halloran-sage.com/News/story.aspx?storyid=2309

You can find case references from the Supreme Court in the article. However, these are for the Connecticut Supreme Court. NOT WASHINGTON STATE.

I posted this because it is the best description of a "terry stop" I can find on the series of tubes.


And here's the definition from lawyers.com for "reasonable suspicion:"

Reasonable suspicion Definition - Noun
: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time
see also reasonable cause at cause
compare probable cause at cause terry stop
A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause.

Revised Codes of Washington 9.41.050: Carrying Firearms, Subsection 4:

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.


So... you put these all together and if an officer believes someone is carrying an illegitimate, stolen, non valid, or otherwise improper Concealed Pistol License while concealing a pistol, the officer is within his right to investigate it.

I'd want to see ID if a bearded man handed me a CPL that said, "Elizabeth Cunningham," for example.

--

I know, I know, because I see no reason not to show corresponding ID with a Concealed Pistol License that makes me akin to an "America Hating Totalitarian Who Doesn't Believe In The Constitution and Doesn't Use His Constitutional Rights He Fought For.(tm)"

At least we haven't degenerated to Godwin's Law yet.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

killchain wrote:

So... you put these all together and if an officer believes someone is carrying an illegitimate, stolen, non valid, or otherwise improper Concealed Pistol License while concealing a pistol, the officer is within his right to investigate it.

I'd want to see ID if a bearded man handed me a CPL that said, "Elizabeth Cunningham," for example.

Click to expand...

You have two different circumstances demonstrated there. The first circumstance is the officer believes someone is carrying an illegitimate, stolen, non valid or otherwise improper Concealed Pistol License -

My answer to that one is - SO WHAT? It doesn't matter what the officer believes. Without RAS the officer can believe whatever he wants. That does not give him the right, absent any other cause, for demanding ID. Let's say he just believes my CPL is false because I look too much like a gang banger to him. Is that RAS?

The second circumstance you demonstrate is RAS and is a valid reason to demand ID.

Circumstance #1, I am in line at the local stop & rob and I go to pay for my slurpee and I move my coat aside to get my wallet and reveal my previously concealed firearm in front of a cop. Cop asks to see my CPL. I show him my CPL (notice I am NOT required by RCW to surrender my CPL to him for inspection, I am only required to display it), my CPL says Mr. John H....., xxxx Jones Rd, Oak Harbor WA 98277, 360-720-xxxx - all valid information for name, address, etc. He now has no RAS to see an ID.

Circumstance #2, my CPL I displayed contains information that could reasonably be assumed to be false, or there is something obviously wrong in appearance, such as my Washington CPL is pink, now there is RAS to see ID.

Click to expand...

If the officer feels that the CPL is void for one reason or another, he can then cite the person for illegal concealment of a firearm for at which time the person MUST show ID.

And all of the legal forms of ID in the state of Washington I posted earlier. I thought I made it pretty clear, actually.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

fire suppressor wrote:

 It really helps us out when you have somthing [sic] with your picture on it.

Click to expand...

 

I'm curious.  How does that help you out?  Are you going to treat me any differently depending on whether you see my ID?  Is that the first thing you look for?  How does that help you to treat/transport me?

Click to expand...

After 28 years in the business, I can understand where Fire Suppressor is coming from. However, I've certainly lost my idealism over the years and take a more pragmatic approach.

First and foremost I save your life. Period.

ID is nice to have. If you are conscious and orientated you can refuse to provide me with ID. I don't care. No biggy, you are a "john Doe". I let the cops and medical institution worry about it. I treat you the same.

If you are unconscious, or unable to give informed consent then I look for any ID I can find. I assume it is yours. A first name, middle initial and last name with birthdate will find any medical records that may be pertinent to keeping you alive. I don't need a picture. If you are carrying someone else's ID, you will be treated based on that other persons medical records. Oops, sorry, not my problem. If your ID has been stolen, welcome to the world of John Doe again.

Being in the business fosters a sense of professional collaboration with law enforcement, and many friends are law enforcement officers. However, it also opens up ones eyes to the overzealous emergency responders AND law enforcement individuals. They exist in both professions. They are usually younger or newer into the professions.

I love this site because despite the years of experience, I never knew the nuances of constitutional rights, RAS, Terry stops etc. Didn't even know OC was legal, and thought exposing a CC weapon was against the law.

Most educational indeed.

What has amazed me, is that in 28 years and thousands of patients, I rarely if ever encounter an armed patient. ( we're talking lawful citizens here ). I've come to realize that those of us who carry are really the minority in the population.
It has also opened up my eyes to how many bad things happen to good people.

Cheers,
Bill

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

killchain wrote:

If the officer feels that the CPL is void for one reason or another, he can then cite the person for illegal concealment of a firearm for at which time the person MUST show ID.

And all of the legal forms of ID in the state of Washington I posted earlier. I thought I made it pretty clear, actually.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, now, and what you state here is true. I got hung up on the word "believes" in your post. The word "belief", just to me, does not have RAS associated with it. To me, "has reason to believe", would have RAS associated with it. I just misunderstood what you were saying because of the way I interpreted that one particular word by itself!

And that, actually, is a way I responded to the officer during my one incident - "if you "believe" that I am breaking the law, then write me a citation for it." That was when he backed off was when I called his bluff and told him to either take action or leave me alone.

Click to expand...

Duly noted... now I say I buy a round of beers to bury the damn hatchet, eh?

imported post

killchain wrote:

If the officer feels that the CPL is void for one reason or another, he can then cite the person for illegal concealment of a firearm for at which time the person MUST show ID.

And all of the legal forms of ID in the state of Washington I posted earlier. I thought I made it pretty clear, actually.

Click to expand...

Do we agree that the officer has to have some fact-based reason to 'feel' that the CPL is void? He can't say "I think it is fake, just because", right?

(*emphasis added to the quote)

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

amlevin wrote:

IMHO one needs to make a choice. Be confrontational to make a point or just show the ID/CPL and be on your way. I guess it depends on what you want to do for an hour or so after being asked.

Click to expand...

For me, that would be supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

Click to expand...

Like I said in my post, it all depends on what use you want to make of your time. I found that when I wanted to defend the Constitution as well as this country I put on a uniform and served in the Army. Getting into a confrontation with a Law Officer and convince them that they are wrong is like trying to teach a Pig (sorry, pun unintended) how to sing. It will take a real long time and in the end all you will accomplish is pissing off the pig.

Why not just comply and THEN, if you feel your rights were violated, file a complaint with the appropriate department. Go ahead and share your complaint with one of the numerous TV "Troubleshooters" as well as the endless talk show hosts. IF you have a case they will bring lots of publicity to the problem and the likelihood of a resolution favorible to your position is far more likely than having a "bitch session" with the LEO. If he is right you aren't going to accomplish anything. If he is wrong, you aren't going to change his mind. End result is the same, just lots of wasted time.

You don't have to compromise your beliefs, just make sure that your tactics will yield results.

imported post

On the other hand, Amlevin, I've refused to show a cop ID. He then claimed that I was obstructing an investigation. I replied, "No you're obstructing your own investigation; you've refused three times to tell me your RAS that a crime is afoot. If you articulate that, I'll cooperate fully." He never told me. I believe he thought I was pushing him toward actionable behavior. It was obvious that he wasn't conducting an investigation, he was conducting an intimidation, or trying to.

MD

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

killchain wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

killchain wrote:

If the officer feels that the CPL is void for one reason or another, he can then cite the person for illegal concealment of a firearm for at which time the person MUST show ID.

And all of the legal forms of ID in the state of Washington I posted earlier. I thought I made it pretty clear, actually.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, now, and what you state here is true. I got hung up on the word "believes" in your post. The word "belief", just to me, does not have RAS associated with it. To me, "has reason to believe", would have RAS associated with it. I just misunderstood what you were saying because of the way I interpreted that one particular word by itself!

And that, actually, is a way I responded to the officer during my one incident - "if you "believe" that I am breaking the law, then write me a citation for it." That was when he backed off was when I called his bluff and told him to either take action or leave me alone.

Click to expand...

Duly noted... now I say I buy a round of beers to bury the damn hatchet, eh?

Click to expand...

Do I have to show my ID for that?!?

Click to expand...

Under 40, they card... and since you're a Navy Lieutenant, I'm going to assume you are under 40 years old. But *I* won't card you.

(Come on meow NavyLT... we can get along and still disagree on something. )

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Been on the dark side of things since 2001. You need more than your fingers and toes to do that math!

Click to expand...

That's funny, I've always thought that the years over 40 were more "enlightened". :celebrate Don't do nearly as many "dumb" things as I did before then.