• 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.

Question about cops asking for ID

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:
He says "yes, we suspect that you were involved in a crime" or he tells you that you "match a description" but will give you no other information.

He is lying, but there is no way to know.
Of course there's a way to know. Call LESA and ask them if there was a crime reported in that area. If there was, ask for a description of the perpetrator; it either matches you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, call the officer's sergeant and make a complaint or file a lawsuit. If this were to happen to me, I would ask the officer for the call number that he is investigating (at the end of the detention that is).

The ‘reasonable officer’ standard could not be stretched to allow an officer to fabricate a complaint, use that fabricated complaint as reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, and then detain you. Imagine a cop trying to explain that to a judge! Such an act would very likely not allow the application of qualified immunity, leaving the officer without that protection. If you believe that happened, it would be relatively easy to verify the call he’s supposedly investigating.
 

ShooterMcGavin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Location, Location
imported post

antispam540 wrote:
Poosharker wrote:
Rather ask a what-if then a what-now.
+1

I'm stealing that.

Very well put.

I didn't raise this topic to imply something crooked about LEOs. I asked because I am thinking outloud about something that could be used to restrict the rights of someone stopped for OC.
 

Bo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
123
Location
, ,
imported post

Outstanding post, Mainsail, and it appears I was so focused on looking at it from an officer's p.o.v. that I didn't address the proper response to the OP, which you did very well.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
Thanks, Mainsail! Who are, or what is, LESA and do you have any contact info, by any chance?

MD
Law Enforcement Support Agency. They're the peeps on the other end when you dial 911. You can reach them through their non-emercency line. That's all for the Tacoma area, others are typical.
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
imported post

Bo wrote:
Outstanding post, Mainsail, and it appears I was so focused on looking at it from an officer's p.o.v. that I didn't address the proper response to the OP, which you did very well.
Yeah, every once in awhile he manages to come up with a decent piece of advice. :)
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:
A while ago, I asked about cops requesting ID while you are walking down the street. It was in this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/27931.html

I learned a lot from that discussion, but a new question has come up. It is lawful for cops to lie to people. What about this scenario...

Acop approaches you and asks for ID. You ask if you are being detained. He says "yes, we suspect that you were involved in a crime" or he tells you that you "match a description" but will give you no other information.

He is lying, but there is no way to know. Also, there is no way for you to know that it is an unlawful detainment. At that point, you can either comply or you will be arrested for obstructing an investigation. One option is to call his bluff. If there is a real investigation, he will get the info he seeks by arresting you. BUT, if it was a real investigation and you don't comply, then you are in some serious crap for obstruction, even if you had no involvement in the crime. Otherwise, you must bow down and comply to having your rights taken. Thoughts on this?

The reason I asked about this is because it is a simple lie that a cop can tell you to get you to give up your rights.
you are weaving a lie of responsability for your self to comply with the cop, out of fear of unlawfull arrest.
in this scenerio it is your resposability to protect your rights, (that is your job!)
it is the cops job to investigate the alledged (crime)

you say nothing, except that you refuse concent to any searches of your person or effects.
you ask if your being detained. if the cop says anything differant than "yes", turn and walk away!
if the cop says you are being detained, say you want your laywer, then keep your mouth shut!
if you fail to follow these simple steps, you are just making it that much easier for the cops to illegaly stop aand hastle people any time they want, and they will keep doing it more and more!
Edward Lawson v kolender read what your rights are!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:
SNIP [theOP] Thoughts on this?

The reason I asked about this is because it is a simple lie that a cop can tell you to get you to give up your rights.
I suspect the rights were given up when legislatures wrote stop-and-identify statutes (and the earlier vagrancy laws from which they arose). Long before the hypothetical cop lies about a detention to obtain identification.

Part of this picture is what a statute does not address--the effects on the ground, the grey areas, and the loopholes. By this I mean, a statute, on its face might only go so far, but in practice it might have further implications. For example, in Virginia, in the state court opinion Commonwealth v Hill,* the court said it was illegal for a citizen to physically resist an illegal police detention, saying that questions about whether the cop had genuine reasonable suspicion should be sorted out in court, not fought-out on the street. Also, the court said that it saw no reason to extend the privilege of resisting false arrest to resisting false detention. Fine. Good. Except that if you are in hand-cuffs from a false detention, there is no damn way you can resist a false arrest if the cops decide to escalate, plant evidence, etc. Thus, Hill diminished the right to physically resist false arrest, while purportedly only refraining from creating a legally-recognized right to resist false detention. These "further implications" as I call them are a direct outgrowth of the statute or case law. Meaning, the infringements on your rightsmight go further than the black letter of the court opinion or statute.

I'm not particularly brilliant. If I can figure some of this out, imagine what a cop canfigure outriding around in his patrol car all day. Then multiply that by some 900K cops in this country.

Don't worry about whether the cop will scrupulously observe your rights. Assumehe won't, and be prepared todeal accordingly.

For myself, I plan to comply with any ID demands while politely, verbally refusing consent. For example, "I will provide my ID, officer. (reaching for wallet). However, I do not consent to giving you my ID. I am only providing it because you have demanded it in a way that makes think compliance may be compelled."[suP]2[/suP]

Done this way, I don't have to wonder whether I am in a locality that has, or thinks it has, an S & I (stop-and-identify) statute. By giving the ID document, I have satisfied anyS & I statute requiring verbal ID that I didn't know about. Also, I have satisfied any S & I statute requiring a document-ID-if-carried. And, best of all,if it turns out he did not havegenuine reasonable suspicion, I've got another point for my lawsuit or formal complaint. And, if it turns out he demandedan ID document when he only had authority for a verbal ID, I've got another point for my lawsuit or formal complaint.

I have decided that any investigative contact with me from a police officer about my OC is going to result in at least a formal written complaint. Even a consensualinvestigative contactproves the cops think exercising the basic human right to self-defense is suspicious. Intolerable. Plus, most if not all police contacts I've experienced in the last several years contained some error or violation by the cops. It is almost guaranteed I will have something to legitimately complain about. So, since the cop is going to find out who I am when the complaint or lawsuit lands, I don't really care whether he learns my name during the detention.

1. I can't provide a link to Commonwealth v Hill. My HTML link went dead when the VA Court of Appeals website converted fully to .pdf in 2008 or so.

2. US v Mendenhall: Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. (emphasis added)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html
 

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
Machoduck wrote:
Thanks, Mainsail! Who are, or what is, LESA and do you have any contact info, by any chance?

MD
Law Enforcement Support Agency. They're the peeps on the other end when you dial 911. You can reach them through their non-emercency line. That's all for the Tacoma area, others are typical.
Just as an FYI - some agencies will answer questions, other won't. My agency will provide general info, but I know for a fact, that SNOPAC (Everett/Snohomish Co. Sheriff dispatch) won't give any info about what is going on.

I had a full-blown SWAT response on my culdesac a few years ago, I called 9-1-1 to ask what was going on and see if we should clear out. They would not provide any info whatsoever, said if I need to leave, officers would come and tell me so.

I went out and talked to one of the officers on a perimeter position near my house who told me my neighbor (long history of bat-shit crazy behavior) called in as a barricaded and armed suicidal subject.

I can't imagine having people call me when they see cops in full riot gear and toting AR's down the street, and NOT giving them some information on what is going on and suggesting options for them.

Different agencies have different mindsets.
 

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
I'm working on finding contact numbers for the scenario in question for King County.
King Co. Sheriff and the cities of:

Shoreline
Kenmore
Woodinville
Sammamish
North Bend
Beaux Arts
Newcastle
Covington
Maple Valley
Burien
SeaTac

as well as Metro Transit Police and Sound Transit Police are all covered by King Co. Sheriff and the main 7-digit number for the dispatch center, 24/7/365, is 206-296-3311.

General questions about what is going on or were recently going on will be answered in general terms. Example: "Why are all the cops in my neighborhood?" - would be answered along the lines of "There was a report of a domestic disturbance, it is under control and you don't need to worry". What won't be said is "Over at 14325 178 CT, Mr. Smith beat the crap out of Mrs. Smith again...".

If there is suspect in the area that is being looked for, a brief description of what and who might be given such as "An officer had someone run from a traffic stop and they are looking for him, if you happen to see a white male in his 30's wearing a green jacket, please give us a call".

After the fact, FOIA requests are handled by the Legal unit, but I don't have that number memorized.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:
A while ago, I asked about cops requesting ID while you are walking down the street. It was in this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/27931.html

I learned a lot from that discussion, but a new question has come up. It is lawful for cops to lie to people. What about this scenario...

Acop approaches you and asks for ID. You ask if you are being detained. He says "yes, we suspect that you were involved in a crime" or he tells you that you "match a description" but will give you no other information.

He is lying, but there is no way to know. Also, there is no way for you to know that it is an unlawful detainment. At that point, you can either comply or you will be arrested for obstructing an investigation. One option is to call his bluff. If there is a real investigation, he will get the info he seeks by arresting you. BUT, if it was a real investigation and you don't comply, then you are in some serious crap for obstruction, even if you had no involvement in the crime. Otherwise, you must bow down and comply to having your rights taken. Thoughts on this?

The reason I asked about this is because it is a simple lie that a cop can tell you to get you to give up your rights.


Not in Washington.

See the August 2004 edition of the Law Enforcement Digest which states in relevant part:

LED EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

In State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 (1982), the Washington Supreme Court invalidated parts of the former “obstructing” statute at RCW 9A.76.020, discussing, but not resolving, some of the Fourth Amendment issues that were addressed in Hiibel. The White majority opinion primarily focused on the unconstitutional vagueness of the former obstructing statute and on the Washington constitution’s exclusionary remedy barring admission of the fruits of an arrest made under an unconstitutional statute. It is not clear whether, over two decades later, the Washington Supreme Court would come out differently from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional rulings in Hiibel based on “independent grounds” under the Washington Constitution. However, at this point, we think that is an academic question. That is because Washington does not have a narrowly drawn stop-and-identify statute like the Nevada statute that was before the Supreme Court in Hiibel.

Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance. Washington officers are, however, free to ask suspects in Terry stops to identify themselves or to show ID documents, and also may do so when conversing with pedestrians during non-Terry “citizen-contacts” (however, as to requesting ID from non-violator MV passengers, see the Washington Supreme Court’s Rankin decision digested below in this month’s LED at 7-13).

As always, officers should check with their local prosecutors and legal advisors for their views on the issues discussed here.


(Emphasis mine)
 
Top