• 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.

Stopped in Vancouver for Open Carry

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Mainsail said:
They can "ask" you for anything; they cannot compel you to provide ID while engaging you in a friendly chat. If they demand ID it usually means that you are detained.
Click to expand...

That is what I would have said. Yet, a few posts above, Olypendrew quotes case law that would seem to indicate even a request for ID needs a RAS. Here is the quote again:

"[A] mere request for identification from a passenger for investigatory purposes constitutes a seizure unless there is a reasonable basis for the inquiry." Rankin, 151 Wash.2d at 697, 92 P.3d 202.

"A mere request". Although the court here is talking about a vehicle encounter, at the moment I cannot imagine the concept would not apply to, say, foot encounters, too.

Is there other case law on this that clearly supports? Or, maybe the explanation/clarification is in the text of the opinions cited by Olypendrew?

In the OPer's encounter, he was already seized before the ID request/demand. So, in my mind the question becomes whether the your state has a stop-and-identify statute requiring a citizen to comply with an RAS-supported demand for identity info. Although, in the present case it is a little moot because the OPer gave his info over consensually, it doesn't hurt to know the legalities for next time.
 
Last edited:
O

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
The Rankin/Allen holding appears limited to vehicle passengers

Citizen said:
That is what I would have said. Yet, a few posts above, Olypendrew quotes case law that would seem to indicate even a request for ID needs a RAS. Here is the quote again:

"[A] mere request for identification from a passenger for investigatory purposes constitutes a seizure unless there is a reasonable basis for the inquiry." Rankin, 151 Wash.2d at 697, 92 P.3d 202.

"A mere request". Although the court here is talking about a vehicle encounter, at the moment I cannot imagine the concept would not apply to, say, foot encounters, too.

Is there other case law on this that clearly supports? Or, maybe the explanation/clarification is in the text of the opinions cited by Olypendrew?

In the OPer's encounter, he was already seized before the ID request/demand. So, in my mind the question becomes whether the your state has a stop-and-identify statute requiring a citizen to comply with an RAS-supported demand for identity info. Although, in the present case it is a little moot because the OPer gave his info over consensually, it doesn't hurt to know the legalities for next time.
Click to expand...

For a fuller discussion of other relevant factors in determining if an encounter with someone who is not a passenger in a vehicle was consensual or not see State v. Harrington, 167 Wn.2d 656, 222 P.3d 92 (Wash. 2009)
 
P

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
Mainsail said:
They can "ask" you for anything; they cannot compel you to provide ID while engaging you in a friendly chat. If they demand ID it usually means that you are detained.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Mainsail...they can't compel you to ID yourself (even VERBALLY) regardless if they have 'detained' you or not.


Relevant portion:
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”
Click to expand...

:banana:
 
S

ShooterMcGavin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Location, Location
SirCastic said:
...Then asked, though his tone implied I had better comply, that I cover it with my shirt to not cause any more alarm and to not waste his or my time...
Click to expand...
That is different than using a threat to get you to comply. I would have responded "I will consider your suggestion. However, through my tax money, I pay you to protect and serve, NOT for advice on how to carry my side-arm.".

It's so easy for me to figure out the perfect thing to say from the safety of my computer.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
That is different than using a threat to get you to comply. I would have responded "I will consider your suggestion. However, through my tax money, I pay you to protect and serve, NOT for advice on how to carry my side-arm.".

It's so easy for me to figure out the perfect thing to say from the safety of my computer.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could OC our laptop and get our response when stopped by LEO!

:banana:
 
Last edited:
DEROS72

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
Vancouver meet

I think at the Willow lake meet Aug 15th we could discuss a time and place to meet up in Vancouver...TIme for this s#$t to stop......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top