IMPORTANT: Please Read concerning police encounters

Ruby · Aug 29, 2010

I was stopped a few weeks ago for a traffic violation. When the officer approached my vehicle, I notified him that I was armed. I was OC at the time. He asked for my DL, reistration, and insurance card, which I gave him. He then informed me that he was taking my gun and that I could have it back when we were through. I said that I did not give him permission to take my gun, but he reached in the car, unsnapped the retention strap and unholstered it and laid it on the roof of my car. I did not resist and had my hands on the steering wheel. I was not happy about it, but that was not the time to cause a fuss. I have since been told that LEOs can do this for their own safety. He was alone, not another officer present. When he came back with my documents, he picked up my gun and unloaded it, then gave it back to me. He gave me a verbal warning, no ticket. According to what Trigger Dr. posted, if I read it correctly, he violated my rights by taking my gun. No suspicion of criminal activity was mentioned. I understand his reason for taking it, but I don't think it was right.

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

joejoejoe said:
Leave your ID in the car. You are required to give your name and your address when asked by police. It is a general law. The only mention I found of this is in traffic stop laws. It mentions what the passengers must do. I would assume it is because the passenger is not "operating" the vehicle.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.61.021

It doesn't mention having to offer any form of physical I.D. when asked about a traffic violation. So it looks clear to me that it was only a verbal requirement.

Nevertheless, when asked for ID and you are not in your car, just say, "My name is BLAH BLAH and my address is BLAH BLAH." If they ask for ID again, just say, "I leave it in the car."

If they search you.. oooh boy if they search you.. just say "I don't give you permission to search me." Then let them do what they want. Anything found in an illegal search is thrown out. I just can't see an officer trying this hard to get your I.D.

I would leave a flaming bag of you know what on your attorney's doorstep.

Joe~

WRONG (at least in Washington.)

From the following link (Look at the URL closely):

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).

(emphasis mine)

RTWT...it's really quite informative, and clearly blows away any claim of 'qualified immunity' for any officer who arrests for failure to ID/obstruction/etc.

joejoejoe · Aug 29, 2010

What does RTWT stand for? Are you saying that if an officer asks for my name, I can say no? As far as I read, if you are detained, you have to comply with a name and address. Again, the only visible answers are in the traffic laws.
After reading yahoo answers and other forums offering legal advise (not including yahoo), all have said that during a detention, you are required to offer your name and address. I believe in the case of Hiibel, he was arrested for obstruction of justice for not producing his name. He claimed that giving his name was in violation of his right to remain silent. Anyways, if anyone can find a law that says what we must do when we are stopped by police in Washington State, let me know.

Joe~

amlevin · Aug 29, 2010

joejoejoe said:
After doing some more research, it appears that police can detain you long enough to investigate a crime they believe you committed. It can last up to 24-72 hours, but the entire time they have to be investigating YOU and not other leads. After the given time limit, it usually converts to an arrest. If you DO NOT ask to leave, then you voluntarily chose to stay. Police will often say, "I never detained him or arrested him; he was free to go at anytime." That is why it is important to ask, "Am I free to go?"

Joe~

If I understand the law correctly, after the investigation period you either have to be released or charged with a crime. This "detention does not automatically become an arrest. If charged, then the speedy trial clock starts.

Perhaps Lammo has a comment on this?

joejoejoe · Aug 29, 2010

According the Vancouver Municipal Code, Vancouver IS a 'stop and identify' city when you are detained.

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/Munic...D=10478&title=title_8&chapter=99&VMC=010.html

I think it would be wise to check your local city code. Unless you believe offering up your name would incriminate you, I would just hand over the name. It would suck to be in some place you do not know the local laws and decide that you are going to remain silent, only to be arrested for obstruction. It seems most layers claim that you will only get out of it if the detention was illegal.

The bottom line of this whole post is to not let an officer scare you into doing something. When I was at the Sheriff's station, I was told I had to turn off my video camera. I did only because I did not know the legalities regarding recording in Washington State. After speaking with the Sheriff himself, I found out I do not have to ask when recording a public servant. Next time, I will keep rolling the film.

Know your rights, your laws, and your options before being so bold as to openly carry your firearm. Your likelihood of being harassed by a police officer is higher when you have an open firearm. Because of this, it is wise to educate yourselves in the law. It seems that all of these "cases" are an outcome of "I didn't know, so I just let it happen."

Joe~

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

joejoejoe said:
What does RTWT stand for?

RTWT = Read the Whole Thing. The entire Aug 2004 issue. There are other entries that address the question of requesting ID from 'non-operators' in traffic stops.

Are you saying that if an officer asks for my name, I can say no?

In Washington state, yes.

As far as I read, if you are detained, you have to comply with a name and address.

Where did you read this?

Again, the only visible answers are in the traffic laws.

That which is not expressly forbidden, is allowed...that which is not expressly required, is not (required).

After reading yahoo answers..

Puh-leeeeese....

...and other forums offering legal advise (not including yahoo), all have said that during a detention, you are required to offer your name and address.

That depends on the state and the circumstances surrounding the stop. See next.

I believe in the case of Hiibel, he was arrested for obstruction of justice for not producing his name.

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” (Washington has no such law) In other words, there must be a legal basis for a lawful 'Terry' stop in order to invoke Nevada's S&I statute. Absent RAS, you can even tell Nevada cops to go piss up a tree if they request ID.(obviously not referring to Traffic situations here)

He claimed that giving his name was in violation of his right to remain silent.

Which the SCOTUS majority (wrongly IMHO) ruled was not the case.

Anyways, if anyone can find a law that says what we must do when we are stopped by police in Washington State, let me know.

Joe~

The non-existence of something is extremely hard to prove, however even the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (in other words, the State Government) is on record as stating that "Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute".

amlevin · Aug 29, 2010

joejoejoe said:
According the Vancouver Municipal Code, Vancouver IS a 'stop and identify' city when you are detained.

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/Munic...D=10478&title=title_8&chapter=99&VMC=010.html

You are not reading exactly what the muni-code says. It starts out by saying "if you are stopped for a civil infraction".

They are not stopping you just because they want to identify you as is allowed in other states. Once stopped by a Police Officer for a valid reason it is incumbent on you to provide ID when requested. If not you will most likely be "detained" (most likely at the Police Station) until they determine who you are and your "legal" status (warrants, etc).

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

Also..just what exactly is a 'civil infraction'?

Doug Huffman · Aug 29, 2010

As usual it depends on the jurisdiction. In Wisconsin the Statute Chapters above Chapter 900 are the criminal code.

ETA after lunch; Criminal penalties are expressed in terms of fine, incarceration, misdemeanor and felony, while civil penalties are forfeitures and judgements.

joeroket · Aug 29, 2010

Phssthpok said:
Also..just what exactly is a 'civil infraction'?

If memory serves correct it is a non-criminal infraction. Meaning that it is less than a misdemeanor and carries with it only a monetary penalty. There is no possible detention time with a civil infraction.

joejoe here is the RCW that matches the VMC you quoted. Again this is only applicable if you are receiving an infraction.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

antispam540 · Aug 29, 2010

So you're saying that if they have RAS, you're required to give them your name and address, but if they don't have RAS you aren't required to?

How are you supposed to know if they have RAS if they won't say anything other than demanding your ID? They could say a "concerned citizen" walked up to them and reported you waving a gun around - wouldn't that be RAS? If the officer claimed a walk-up, there would be no way to prove there was no RAS. Displaying your CPL (which the court says should weigh heavily against RAS) to remove suspicion so they can't ask for ID seems kind of pointless.

I seem to remember reading elsewhere on the forums that an officer *cannot* put you in cuffs/take your weapon/run the serial on report of a misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor was committed *in the officer's presence*. I seem to remember that that was some sort of temporary arrest, different from detainment?

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

antispam540 said:
So you're saying that if they have RAS, you're required to give them your name and address, but if they don't have RAS you aren't required to?

Read the Hiible ruling.

Only IF there is a valid S&I statute in place (which there is NOT in Washington) can you be compelled to provide ID (even verbally). Absent a S&I statute (read: a legal 'requirement') YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO JACK-DIDDLY-SQUAT when they request you ID yourself.

Period.

Full stop.

End of story.

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

joeroket said:
If memory serves correct it is a non-criminal infraction. Meaning that it is less than a misdemeanor and carries with it only a monetary penalty. There is no possible detention time with a civil infraction.

joejoe here is the RCW that matches the VMC you quoted. Again this is only applicable if you are receiving an infraction.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

Key word here folks.

The above linked statute is not applicable to investigative stops. ONLY when the officer proceeds to the action of actually ISSUING the civil infraction citation are you required to submit ID.

Lovenox · Aug 29, 2010

Alright...now that you guys have my head a-spinning lets set up some scenarios:

1) I am walking down the street OC'ing minding my own business when a LEO pulls up to me and initiates a "conversation." I can legally do what?

2) I am a passenger in a vehicle OCing when a LEO stops my friend for some sort of suspected moving violation. I am obligated to do what and legally I DONT have to do what?

3) I am walking in a city park (Yelm) that conspicuously stats "No Firearms Allowed" while Ocing when a LEO stops me and says "Don't you see what the sign says? No firearms are allowed in the park!" I say and do what?

joejoejoe · Aug 29, 2010

It seems you are required to give I.D. if a civil infraction is in question.

(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a civil infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of civil infraction.

Anyone failing to do so can be detained until the citizen is identified. If this is the case, then do you have to show I.D. when detained?

I understand that you DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW I.D. when you are voluntarily chatting with an officer. If an officer comes up to you and says, "I am detaining you because I received a call on a man waving his gun around, and the description fits you perfectly. I need to see your I.D." Am I required to produce I.D. at this point?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3181871/POLICE-NOTICE-NO-IDENTIFICATION-REQUIRED

The more I read into it, the more it looks like Washington State does not require I.D. of any sort - even while operating a vehicle.

AAANND of course phssthpok, I can't find my freaking lawyer website that said it is best to give your name and address when detained.

When are you required to offer your name and address? That is what I am trying to get at.

Joe~

amlevin · Aug 29, 2010

Phssthpok said:
Read the Hiible ruling.

Only IF there is a valid S&I statute in place (which there is NOT in Washington) can you be compelled to provide ID (even verbally). Absent a S&I statute (read: a legal 'requirement') YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO JACK-DIDDLY-SQUAT when they request you ID yourself.

Period.

Full stop.

End of story.

Perhaps, and then maybe not. The SCOTU ruling left open the door to some other possibilities.

"The opinion in Hiibel implied that, unless a specific local jurisdiction (city, town, county, township, etc.) has passed a “stop and identify” law, persons in states not listed above are not obligated to identify themselves when detained by police. However, the issue may not be settled absent a definitive state-court holding that identification is not required. And the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California caution:

“And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.”
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California go even further, recommending that a person detained by police

“... give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.”

This imply's that even though Washington State does not have a Stop and Identify law, one might encounter one in any City or County that HAS enacted one.

Phssthpok · Aug 29, 2010

joejoejoe said:
The more I read into it, the more it looks like Washington State does not require I.D. of any sort - even while operating a vehicle.

It would seem the Washington State Supreme Court shares this view:

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

and...

"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 1
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876
Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171
Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592
Hale v. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 US 116, 125. 2
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45
Marbury v Madison (1803). A void act is void ab initio. 2
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436, 491. 2
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1
Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. 1
Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 1
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. 1
State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427
Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 1
Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11
Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

But we digress......

END_THE_FED · Aug 30, 2010

joejoejoe said:
It seems you are required to give I.D. if a civil infraction is in question.

(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a civil infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of civil infraction.

Anyone failing to do so can be detained until the citizen is identified. If this is the case, then do you have to show I.D. when detained?

I understand that you DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW I.D. when you are voluntarily chatting with an officer. If an officer comes up to you and says, "I am detaining you because I received a call on a man waving his gun around, and the description fits you perfectly. I need to see your I.D." Am I required to produce I.D. at this point?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3181871/POLICE-NOTICE-NO-IDENTIFICATION-REQUIRED

The more I read into it, the more it looks like Washington State does not require I.D. of any sort - even while operating a vehicle.

AAANND of course phssthpok, I can't find my freaking lawyer website that said it is best to give your name and address when detained.

When are you required to offer your name and address? That is what I am trying to get at.

Joe~

If being detained for a civil infraction you are required to provide your name and address, and to sign the infraction. You are not required to provide an ID card. There is no law in Washington that requires you to have an ID on you (unless your driving a car).

sudden valley gunner · Aug 30, 2010

Luke said:
This is kind of off topic because I wasn't openly carrying, but I was charged with obstructing a police investigation for demanding ras when a leo asked me for ID. I was walking to my car in a parking lot when he detained me, and after about 30 minutes of us going back and forth about my rights, he finally said he was investigating an alleged trafic violation, so I gave him my ID. Two days later he tapes the citation to my door while im at work. I hired an attorney, the attorney advised me to plead guilty because I was required to give the police officer my ID for a traffic stop. Wether or not I actually broke the law, I don't know, I just followed my attorney's advice and ended up with a fine and a criminal record.

I guess my question is what do you suggest when the leo will not give ras?

This wasn't Bundy was it she pulled the same crap on me last year.....if so you need to file a complaint quickly. And your and my attorney sucked ( I had public defender). PM me if you don't want to talk publicly about this.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 30, 2010

joeroket said:
You have obviously not read about Eric Rachner and his dealings with SPD. They will try very hard to get your ID and in his case tried to hide it and lied through their teeth after the fact.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418746_video.html

Very true Joe, I can attest to this in several of my dealings with them, including my two "Open Carry" detainments. Where vehicles were not in the picture at at all.

IMPORTANT: Please Read concerning police encounters

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member