Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Is being evasive RAS?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I don't remember who it was that told me this, but I remember being told that being evasive during a stop is RAS for more searches.

    I have also, during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification to run my ID which they illegally took from my wallet. (as a side note, this was what happened when I tried to deploy wash rinse repeat)

    I have been doing some research, and can't find case law to support the idea that evasiveness = RAS. Is this the truth, or is it not? And if it's true, what case or what law dictates this?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I would say if you are not being detained, it is not illegal to run, flee, avoid or even ignore a cop. If a cop car was to roll up on a group of people I'd see no reason they could not walk, or run away. I remember that video on the Warren police, who rolled up on a group of kids.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I don't mean running away.

    In my case with the cops, I was disarmed, had my wallet taken, and I was asserting my rights by trying to use wash rinse repeat. They said I was being evasive.

    But for a more clear cut example, which is what I was told actually is RAS, is if a cop has someone stopped, and the subject is maybe arguing, and definitely being vague and evasive with what they are saying, but still bringing forth details. A terrible idea to do this, to be sure. But would this be RAS to say, run that persons ID? Or search their car? That was sort of what I gathered from the explanation I got from whoever it was that told me. Is this supported by any law or case, or is this nonsense?

    :?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    I would say if you are not being detained, it is not illegal to run, flee, avoid or even ignore a cop. If a cop car was to roll up on a group of people I'd see no reason they could not walk, or run away. I remember that video on the Warren police, who rolled up on a group of kids.
    I believe that running/fleeing from a Police Officer would then give them the RAS they need to detain you.

    If you Shut-Up during a Stop, then the Police Officer could probably claim Evasiveness to justify further searches but it would not pass the smell test. I can find no case law either!

    I believe it has been said the Police Officers will do as they please until told by a court that they cannot.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    I don't mean running away.

    In my case with the cops, I was disarmed, had my wallet taken, and I was asserting my rights by trying to use wash rinse repeat. They said I was being evasive.

    But for a more clear cut example, which is what I was told actually is RAS, is if a cop has someone stopped, and the subject is maybe arguing, and definitely being vague and evasive with what they are saying, but still bringing forth details. A terrible idea to do this, to be sure. But would this be RAS to say, run that persons ID? Or search their car? That was sort of what I gathered from the explanation I got from whoever it was that told me. Is this supported by any law or case, or is this nonsense?

    :?
    Being evasive is listed under Reids Rules (along with just about everything else). It isn't RAS. RAS is what they use to stop you. Asking to leave and then leaving is not RAS. You are not required to answer their questions, and not answering them is not RAS.

    It's an intimidation technique. Regardless, it doesn't matter at the time of the stop.

    http://www.mml.org/insurance/shared/...er/2008_12.pdf


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    ...during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification...
    Give this a read: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.p....+J.+1621#F109

    Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).
    ...when an officer approaches an individual and seeks voluntary responses to questions, the individual is not obligated to answer those questions.
    In fact, the person may ignore the questions and walk away.

    Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991).
    ...the Court clarified that police need more than a mere [*pg 1636] refusal to cooperate to justify detention.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    I don't remember who it was that told me this, but I remember being told that being evasive during a stop is RAS for more searches.

    I have also, during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification to run my ID which they illegally took from my wallet. (as a side note, this was what happened when I tried to deploy wash rinse repeat)

    I have been doing some research, and can't find case law to support the idea that evasiveness = RAS. Is this the truth, or is it not? And if it's true, what case or what law dictates this?
    Not by itself. You have every right NOT to speak to an LEO.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    If you run from the police, they're going to give chase on the reasonable suspicion that you're being 'suspicious'. Yes, it's incredibly stupid, but a guy running away from police with a gun is going to be their justification. That'll be 'reasonable suspicion' for them because why would you EVER flee a police officer unless you were doing something illegal, right?! It seems like a no-win situation to me to be honest. I don't particularly agree that Wash, Rinse, Repeat is the best way to handle LEO's to be honest; I know it works for some people, and clearly not for others. I simply refuse to believe that it's the best way to handle an encounter. What do I know though?
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    .
    Last edited by T Vance; 09-20-2010 at 12:48 PM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    what's "wash rinse repeat?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:

    It is not RAS to OC. It is not RAS to run from an officer (if no other crime has been committed). Put the 2 together, technically it is not legitimate RAS.

    Is it a good idea to run from an LEO? No!!!
    Is it legitimate? No. Will they use it anyway? Of course they will. :? That's what I was trying to say. lol.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    malignity wrote:
    T Vance wrote:

    It is not RAS to OC. It is not RAS to run from an officer (if no other crime has been committed). Put the 2 together, technically it is not legitimate RAS.

    Is it a good idea to run from an LEO? No!!!
    Is it legitimate? No. Will they use it anyway? Of course they will. :? That's what I was trying to say. lol.

    Use what? What are they going to do to you? What charge?

    Besides the original post asked about being evasive verbally not running away.

    I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea...walk away yes but not run away, besides I'm too old and fat to run anywhere.

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    The only way to bullet proof evasiveness RAS is to say nothing, absolutely nothing. Or, just keep repeating the same question: "Am I free to go?" And, go unless officer responds with clear "yes". You know, Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.

    And, of course, always carry your recorder. If officer is combative and you feel he is fishing, looking for excuse to detain or arrest, I think it is not a bad idea to inform officer that this encounter is being audio and video recorded (regardless if you are video recording). Now, this is the kicker: Tell the cop that you are not only recording but transmitting live signal to a secure remote location where that signal is being recorded. Make it clear that you are transmitting, not broadcasting (meaning that it is not for anyone to hear or see). Transmitting is perfectly legal. The reason you want to say this is because it will be impossible for the officer to confiscate your recorder without this act of illegal confiscation to be recorded. I do not see how any cop will risk to take recorder from you and be on record committing an illegal act.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.
    Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.
    Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.
    Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Oh yeah, I know you meant foot travel but just stating that for that one person who would take it out of context.
    Providing a DL is required for a traffic stop due to being required to have a DL on you when driving.
    Otherwise you are not required to carry identification with you and you are not required to answer their questions.

  17. #17
    Regular Member tygereye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Waterford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    347

    Post imported post

    petrophase wrote:
    what's "wash rinse repeat?"
    It is a thread that offers some guidelineson how to handlea police encounter...

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/17262.html

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.
    Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.
    Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws
    Does anybody know of local places in MI that have a stop and identify laws?




  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    wolverine1856 wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.
    Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.
    Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws
    Does anybody know of local places in MI that have a stop and identify laws?


    One of the better ways to search local ordinances is to go to this site: http://law.justia.com/michigan/cities/

    They have online ordinances for a lot of cities. See if places you visit most often are on the list. Use search function. I suggest to use word "officer" for your search. Any ordinance that has something to do with requirement to ID will have that word in it. It may take sometime, but bbe thorough.

    I live in Rochester Hills. I searched its ordinances, as well as city of Rochester ordinances. It appears that there are no laws in there that require ID upon being legally detained. I feel pretty comfortable in these localities to exercise my right not to provide any personal information while on foot or passenger in a car, including my name.

    It is very benificial for a citizen whenofficer can not getyour name during on foot encounter. If you refuse to ID and Wash, Rinse, Repeat after each and every officer's question, the encounter will quickly come to the end and you will be on your way. Officer is handicapped in his/her ability to check anything about you without ID. Officer can not flag you as POI (person of interest) in the database and this will prevent a lot of unwarranted stops when you are driving car.

    Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway. You are not legally required to disclose your ID even if you are arrested (if you are carrying ID, ploice will get a hold of it if you are arrested since at this point they are allowed to do deep search). You can always dislose your name later if you feel this is beneficial for you. It becomes beneficial if you are actually arrested. At this point concealing ID is pointless. It is actually detrimental at this point since you will be denied bond without ID even for minor offense.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    ...Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway...
    So very true. They need something to cite you on and you not providing ID does not break a law.
    I don't know for sure but I don't think a locality can make a show ID ordinance since the State
    does not have a law saying having a State ID is required.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    ...Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway...
    So very true. They need something to cite you on and you not providing ID does not break a law.
    I don't know for sure but I don't think a locality can make a show ID ordinance since the State
    does not have a law saying having a State ID is required.
    Unfortunately, this is not the case. Local ordinance can differ from the state law. State must have a specific preemption statute to prevent localities from regulating in a specific area of the law. Michigan does not have such a preemption law in respectto"stop and identify". So, you would have to sniff through local ordinanceswhere you visit on foot.We are fortunate enough to have statefirearms preemption law (MCL 123.1102). Here it is just for reference: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vu3...e=mcl-123-1102

  22. #22
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    Unfortunately, this is not the case. Local ordinance can differ from the state law. State must have a specific preemption statute to prevent localities from regulating in a specific area of the law.
    In my opinion, seizing ID in an unlawful stop related to OCing would be covered in part by preemption.

    Also covering the seizure of ID, I feel, is the 4th amendment.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    ...Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway...
    So very true. They need something to cite you on and you not providing ID does not break a law.
    I don't know for sure but I don't think a locality can make a show ID ordinance since the State
    does not have a law saying having a State ID is required.
    Unfortunately, this is not the case. Local ordinance can differ from the state law. State must have a specific preemption statute to prevent localities from regulating in a specific area of the law. Michigan does not have such a preemption law in respectto"stop and identify". So, you would have to sniff through local ordinanceswhere you visit on foot.We are fortunate enough to have statefirearms preemption law (MCL 123.1102). Here it is just for reference: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vu3...e=mcl-123-1102
    I'm not aware of any ordinances that say you have to give up certain rights protected by federal and state law. If you find one please post.

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    Savage.Detroit wrote:
    sasha601 wrote:
    ...Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway...
    So very true. They need something to cite you on and you not providing ID does not break a law.
    I don't know for sure but I don't think a locality can make a show ID ordinance since the State
    does not have a law saying having a State ID is required.
    Unfortunately, this is not the case. Local ordinance can differ from the state law. State must have a specific preemption statute to prevent localities from regulating in a specific area of the law. Michigan does not have such a preemption law in respect¬*to¬*"stop and identify". So, you would have to sniff through local ordinances¬*where you visit on foot.¬*We are fortunate enough to have state¬*firearms preemption law (MCL 123.1102). Here it is just for reference: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vu3...e=mcl-123-1102
    I'm not aware of any ordinances that say you have to give up certain rights protected by federal and state law.¬* If you find one please post.
    The problem is that Michigan does not have a state law that explicitly says that a person is under no obligation to provide ID when detained. If we would have such a law, then I would agree with you - it would be unlawful for any local government to have an ordinance requiring ID simply because it will be in direct violation of the state law. But because Michigan Law is mute on the subject, local governments can come up with their own. And, it is allowed per Hiibel vs. Nevada

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    I've been searching the web for a Michigan court decision that I once read but can't find it. IIRC the MI Supreme Court ruled a Detroit ordinance unconstitutional because it allowed DPD to ask for papers without RAS.

    I've looked but I'm not finding it.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Ė Thomas Paine

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •