Missouri Stop & Identify Laws

SavageOne said:

Not to be argumentative(OK, maybe a little ) but how can an officer work for a private corporation AND be a public servant that works for you? If they work for a private corporation(which I agree with) how are they answerable to you? Not trying to bust your chops, just pointing out that we can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

They are hired by the corporation, which is comprised of what?

The municipality. Who "owns" the municipality and pays the costs? The people.

peterarthur said:

Something else I have recently learned. A friend of mine has no drivers license. When he gets pulled over, he simply states to the officer that the city that the cop works for is a private corporation (this is legally true) and that since he never signed a contract with the coproration (getting drivers license), he is not bound by their statues or ordinances. He also refuses to sign the ticket because it is a contract. That's why they have you sign, to bind yourself contractually. And is never arrested and never pays a fine. And he knows many lawyers that say legally he is correct... I will be doing more research on this. He drives without a license because he has no contract with the state and has the right to free movement and peaceable journey... but I digress...

Anyway, know your rights and act like a free man.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that we should not be forced to identify ourselves, and I will even go further and agree that driver's licenses should not be required. However, I do occasionally hear this "corporation" thing popping up in the patriot movement, with some even claiming that the U.S. government post-14th Amendment is a private corporation. I must vehemently disagree.

Cities, counties, townships, highway districts, etc., are subdivisions of state government, as provided for in that state's constitution. Cities are granted charters, also per the terms of the state constitution. No one has ever explained to me how it could be that a city is a private corporation simply because it receives a charter. Corporations in states are organized completely differently from cities, go through a different process, and are "subject" to direct taxation by the state, which the city is not, because again, it is a political subdivision of the state. I think that the confusion may be a result of a misunderstanding of the word "incorporation," which means something completely different when speaking of the founding of a city vs. the founding of a company.

Some of us are old enough to remember when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger purchased a city.

Hell, St Louis City actually managed to proclaim legally that it is its own territory and is NOT part of St Louis county, I believe there are only 3 localities to have ever done this and one of them, Indy reversed it if I recall correctly.

As far as the ID thing goes, my position remains unchanged, it is an individual choice that can prevent the extension of detention in some instances and is wise to show it, in other instances it is just a control issue for the police and one should refrain due to various reasons with one of the best being the Sheriff having the ability to refuse a CCW based upon "frequent" issues with the police, this is a good reason not to allow your license to be run repeatedly.

RAS is required to demand it, RAS is not a high level at all and you can talk yourself straight into RAS so be sure and understand the rules if you are going to play the game. Your freedoms can be at stake and a slip of the tongue is all one needs to cost themselves a significant amount of coin.

Gotta run some honey dooooos ttl

LMTD said:

Some of us are old enough to remember when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger purchased a city.

Hell, St Louis City actually managed to proclaim legally that it is its own territory and is NOT part of St Louis county, I believe there are only 3 localities to have ever done this and one of them, Indy reversed it if I recall correctly.

As far as the ID thing goes, my position remains unchanged, it is an individual choice that can prevent the extension of detention in some instances and is wise to show it, in other instances it is just a control issue for the police and one should refrain due to various reasons with one of the best being the Sheriff having the ability to refuse a CCW based upon "frequent" issues with the police, this is a good reason not to allow your license to be run repeatedly.

RAS is required to demand it, RAS is not a high level at all and you can talk yourself straight into RAS so be sure and understand the rules if you are going to play the game. Your freedoms can be at stake and a slip of the tongue is all one needs to cost themselves a significant amount of coin.

Gotta run some honey dooooos ttl

Click to expand...

I agree, you can talk your way into RAS. I am betting that is what happened to Lancers. That is why you don't ANSWER their questions. Standing on your rights is not RAS. If they can articulate RAS, I will ID and then i will follow up to see if they lied. When I was in California some years back, a deputy pulled over at 1am on my way from the second shift. He said that my car matched a description of a suspicious vehicle. He told me to get out while he searched it. Of course he found nothing. Then he left me and my scattered belongings on the roadside to go after the next "suspect". I went to the substation the next day and inquired about my stop. By submitting a FOIA request, I found out that no such call had ever been made and the deputy was disciplined with an official letter of reprimand and eventually lost his job after several more reported incidents.

That could have gone several ways had I refused to ID or allow a search. Knowing I was innocent, I probably would have been let go, or illegally arrested and my car illegally searched or who knows what. Should I take the safe way out? Tough call for sure. But we need to resist as often and as strongly as possible risking as much as we are willing to risk. Think it through and know your limitation. I will risk arrest when I KNOW I am being rousted. If I think I really am a suspect, I will submit to clear myself faster.

Above all, shut up, never answer a question. You can't self-incriminate or create legal RAS by being silent. At most, ask THEM questions, put them on the defensive. The bad cops are afraid of being caught being bad, unless they are psychotic. In that case, anything can happen...

Just a bit of trivia on the subject

Back during the Civil War, Kansas City and St. Louis were considered to be pro-union, while the remainder of the state was sympathetic to the southern cause. The state government was extremely worried that St. Louis and KC would 'secede' from the state and close off the cities from the rest of the state. So the state government stripped KC and St. Louis' powers to create their own police force, and took control of it at the state level. This they thought would prevent such a thing from happening. Whether it was needed or not in the end is another matter.

That however is why KC and St. Louis have their police powers dictated in state statute as opposed to the rest of the cities within the state having their own powers to charter and create a a police force. Almost every year for the last 10-15 years, you see a bill in the house giving St. Louis and KC powers to create their own police force. And every year, it gets tabled. They always blame it on retirement benefits, or some union decision. But I think really its because they don't believe that those city governments can do much of anything right. :lol:

Superlite27 said:

what defines "reasonable"? I don't believe simply carrying a legally posessed object provides any reasonable articulable suspicion that any criminal act is, has, or is about to be committed.

Click to expand...

Delaware v. Prouse said that even the act of driving a car, which requires a license, is not sufficient reason to stop someone to check for a license, or a valid license.
Since RKBA is a protected RIGHT, it makes no sense that carrying would give RAS.

Therefore, if a cop walks up to me while OC'ing and demands ID, do I legally have to give it to him if I'm simply OC'ing and have not done any of the above?

Click to expand...

Not unless the state you're in requires a permit to carry,
or a permit to carry in certain places & you happen to be in one of those places.

Fallschirmjäger said:

If a law enforcement officer stopped me while I was carrying and asked/demanded my license/permit, the first thing out of my mouth would be the question "Am I being detained?" quickly followed by "Do you suspect me of illegal activity?" and most likely "Am I free to go?"

Click to expand...

Instead, ask "WHY am I being detained". If you have to ask "am I", you are.
Then they have to articulate their reasonable suspicion or tell you you're not being detained.
Usually they'll be surprised & tell you you're not being detained.
Similarly, ask: "Of what crime do you suspect me?" Since they detained you, they must have RAS of a crime, so they can tell you what that crime is.

yelohamr said:

if you sort of resemble someone the police are looking for and they have his name, one way to prove you aren't that guy is to show your picture I.D.

Click to expand...

That's RAS of a crime, & if they tell me my car resembles one used as a getaway, or child abduction, or whatever, I have no problem proving I'm not whoever it is they're looking for.

lancers said:

MO courts are clear that if the police demand ID, you must give it up.

Click to expand...

Only with RAS.

LMTD said:

as a general rule, while wrong, a vast majority of law enforcement are under the impression that anyone and everyone MUST comply with whatever they say and dramatically over react when someone does not.

Click to expand...

This.
It's a widespread attitude problem.

peterarthur said:

I am not surprised that LEO's "violate" Lancer's rights. His comments on the video in jail suggest an inability to control what he says, making me suspect that he creates most of his own trouble.

Click to expand...

Blaming the victim?

When the LEO's see you standing on your rights in a mature, calm manner, they realize what they are up against and move on.

Click to expand...

Sometimes.
Hasn't worked for me during the 2 nonconsensual encounters I've had, both chock full of 4A violations.
The first, their city ended up paying to settle the civil rights suit.
The second, the case is in process.

In the second, people who have listened to the 911 call I made (people claiming to be police won't leave my property, & threatening to break into my home, then uniformed officers breaking into my home) say I was quite calm & polite until they broke in the door.
After that, I started yelling a lot.
Then when the smart-ass SGT pointed out that they weren't leaving my house, so I may as well stop telling them to leave, I shut up. (At that point I was handcuffed face down in my living room. No, I hadn't done anything wrong. But the police did plenty, & keep digging themselves in deeper.)

MKEgal said:

Originally Posted by peterarthur
I am not surprised that LEO's "violate" Lancer's rights. His comments on the video in jail suggest an inability to control what he says, making me suspect that he creates most of his own trouble.


Blaming the victim?

Click to expand...

When the "victim" is caught on camera talking about how he could have shot the officers, yeah, I would guess he is immature and unable to control his tongue and might be creating his own problems. I might be wrong, but the video suggests I might be right.

peterarthur said:

When the "victim" is caught on camera talking about how he could have shot the officers, yeah, I would guess he is immature and unable to control his tongue and might be creating his own problems. I might be wrong, but the video suggests I might be right.

Click to expand...

Um, you obviously didn't see the video of me being arrested. All I ever said when the cop asked for my ID was, "Did I do something wrong?" I was then arrested. The video you are speaking of was the cut up edit job done by the police and the news. But you are from KC, and like the rest of your crowd over there, I have just come to understand you don't get it.

lancers said:

Um, you obviously didn't see the video of me being arrested. All I ever said when the cop asked for my ID was, "Did I do something wrong?" I was then arrested. The video you are speaking of was the cut up edit job done by the police and the news. But you are from KC, and like the rest of your crowd over there, I have just come to understand you don't get it.

Click to expand...

Well................Im from the KC area......and I think I GET IT..........You were stopped, asked fror ID without RAS, ID ran, arrested for a warrant, taken to jail, talked about killing cops and laughing.........they may have edited the jail video, but you said what you said, period.....this dead horse has been beaten way to long.......we all say stuff we wish we could take back, but in todays world you never know what you say in jest, will come back to bite you...Unfortunately the initial stop, and getting asked for ID isnt what anybody will remember..............they will remember you getting arrested for a warrant and laughing about killing cops...I learned some things from watching your video.........the question is.......Did you! What you went thru was unfortunate.......but its water under the bridge, we cant change the past, but can change the future...Good luck in the future with stops, as we all know all of us who open carry are GOING to get stopped and questioned by LEO's at one time or another.

Richieg150 said:

talked about killing cops and laughing.

Click to expand...

Saying "They knew I wasn't a threat at all, I mean they were standing right in front of me, I mean I could have shot them if I was a threat, or you know, i might not have gotten off all 17 rounds before they killed me" and laughing and the edited video version that played for TV which was:

cut "I mean I could have shot them" cut "I had 17 rounds" cut "laughing" cut

Anytime video is indeed edited, the context of the vent can be dramatically altered and when an anti-gun owned tv station runs with a story and edits the video to fit its agenda, taking their position lacks good judgment and merit in my book.

Mr Darrow and I are not friends and I have been one of his most vocal critics and have repeatedly insulted him over the years, that does not mean I will not stand in defense of his rights and the truth and while there are a great many things he and I have said over the years, there is no evidence what so ever that he did anything beyond openly carry a firearm and got a huge level of harassment out of the deal as well as his weapon STOLEN from him by the police department and the "warrant" was 100% bogus, it would have shown bogus if the officers had bothered to do as required and CONFIRM it as the case was in fact continued.

What’s my point? I do not care what your opinion of him is that is none of my business but when you make false statements as if he was actually talking about shooting cops and laughing about it, you are propagating a falsehood and it needs to be righted. He was talking about not being a threat and the officers KNEW he was not a threat otherwise they would not have stood in front of him some 50 feet away where if he was a threat he could have shot at them. As for the laughing, well I have met more than one man who laughs instead of cries when under extreme stress and I can see being put into jail unjustly as a high stress moment.

It gets said that Mr Darrow "caused more harm to gun rights that any other event ever" and I offer an alternative "the tv station who has an anti-gun agenda successfully edited video and presented mr. Darrow in such a negative light that they achieved their goal of dealing a great blow to gun rights at the expense of an innocent citizen" and it is without regard for my past clear and openly expressed negative comments about mr. Darrow.

When we start allowing ourselves to condemn the innocent because we do not find them to our liking, we are no better than the tyrants whom seek to restrict us because they do not like OC.

Its the bill of rights, I ain't gonna let the government pick and choose and I damn sure ain't going to start myself.

Richieg150 said:

Well................Im from the KC area......and I think I GET IT..........You were stopped, asked fror ID without RAS, ID ran, arrested for a warrant, taken to jail,

Click to expand...

Wrong order which makes a huge difference in relation to this thread. It was: stopped, disarmed, dragged into a room, asked fror ID without RAS, arrested for open carry/not giving ID, ID ran, charged with warrant after we were on the way to jail.

lancers said:

Wrong order which makes a huge difference in relation to this thread. It was: stopped, disarmed, dragged into a room, asked fror ID without RAS, arrested for open carry/not giving ID, ID ran, charged with warrant after we were on the way to jail.

Click to expand...

A FOIA request can back all this up and earn you a wad of cash, even if you had a warrant. Arrested and disarmed without RAS? Sounds like an open and shut case.

peterarthur said:

A FOIA request can back all this up and earn you a wad of cash, even if you had a warrant. Arrested and disarmed without RAS? Sounds like an open and shut case.

Click to expand...

My video confirms this. As far as a request, I have gone in circles with the department there and had to have the MO attorney generals office tell them to release the stuff they did. As for the narrative though, they can hold that while they are still "investigating". As of last week, they claim they are still waiting on St. Louis County to issue charges for fugitive with a warrant. Of course the county would never do this because they are the ones that issued the bad warrant and I know they declined it months ago, but the Maplewood PD continue to lie and say they didn't.

lancers said:

Of course the county would never do this because they are the ones that issued the bad warrant and I know they declined it months ago, but the Maplewood PD continue to lie and say they didn't.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the worthless bastards still have the gun they stole from him, the one that was not used in a crime, the one that is no part of a crime, the one that has nothing to do with the traffic citation the warrant was issued in error for, the one they just flat out stole from a citizen for no reason besides the simple fact that there are more of them and they could.

It makes me want to puke and every time I think of puking I can not help but prevent it because of my overwhelming desire to do so in a paper bag which I would then desire to hit the mayor of maplewood in the face with after his comments regarding the free people of this country.


I have a great deal of diffaculty with that reoccouring desire as it makes no sense as Mayor White is indeed PUKE so putting MORE puke on the pile of PUKE he is makes no sense.

Did I mention it all makes me want to puke on a puke?

Good luck Mr. Darrow and if they ever agree to give you your gun back, please call me and I will take you to taco bell for 26 bean burritos about an hour before we go get it so we can make maplewood city hall smell better than it currently does.

lancers said:

My video confirms this. As far as a request, I have gone in circles with the department there and had to have the MO attorney generals office tell them to release the stuff they did. As for the narrative though, they can hold that while they are still "investigating". As of last week, they claim they are still waiting on St. Louis County to issue charges for fugitive with a warrant. Of course the county would never do this because they are the ones that issued the bad warrant and I know they declined it months ago, but the Maplewood PD continue to lie and say they didn't.

Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance. But isn't there some kind of suit you could file to address these issues as well as your confiscated firearm?

This BS.It is just hard for me to swallow what they are doing. This is beyond illegal in my eyes.

I wonder if you couldn't file a suit against the news organization that ran the video under a "false light tort". A false light tort is something that is not TECHNICALLY false (I.e. You did say those things), but is misleading (edited to make people think you are dangerous and take your words out of context). This falls under defamation laws. (slander, libel, etc.). I'm far from being a lawyer yet but just throwing out the thought. Could be WAY off base but worth looking at maybe.

Freedom 1st said:

Forgive my ignorance. But isn't there some kind of suit you could file to address these issues as well as your confiscated firearm?

This BS.It is just hard for me to swallow what they are doing. This is beyond illegal in my eyes.

Click to expand...

If he had about 5k laying around to handle the fees for a lawyer to start on it. It takes coin to fight city hall.

LMTD said:

If he had about 5k laying around to handle the fees for a lawyer to start on it. It takes coin to fight city hall.

Click to expand...

If he actually has a case, lawyers will line up for the contingency fee. If it is questionable, I agree.

peterarthur said:

If he actually has a case, lawyers will line up for the contingency fee. If it is questionable, I agree.

Click to expand...

Not, not really. When it involves personal injury that is true because the settlement can be quite large, however, when you are indeed taking on the government the story changes a lot.

1. what are his damages? According to the rumor aka press he was unemployed so you have no loss of income or job due to being jailed.

2. his civil rights were only violated if they did not have RAS and RAS is not hard to develop. I personally do not think they had it however I know they can indeed develop a fantasey that indicates they did have it.

3. His post arrest comments as edited hurt his possibilities of a sympathetic jury and believeability in contrast to an officer.

4. the name of the game is time and money, the city has more than enough money to delay it a significant amount of time and when you consider what the settlement is likely to be and if you research it you will see 20 to 25k and even at 30k on a 33% contengincy your looking at 10k to the lawyer. Sounds good until you start and gonsider 1 through 3 and realize that his case is not likely to be on the upper end and more like 10k aka 3 grand which is not worth the time it would require and if it involved trial which it likely would as the city plants its feet due to the non-sympathetic client, it is a loser for the lawyer.

A retainer might get you a lawyer and a faster path but the pay out is not going to alter much.