Statute questions

What statute says that you dont have to show ID to a LEO for OC'ing?
is it legal for them to try to intimidate you if you insist on not showing ID?
ive been watching OC encounters with LEO's on youtube and ive seen a couple of guys saying i dont have to show you ID OC is legal this is america.. and there all like.. yes you do you have to show me ID.. you dont want to test the waters with me.. bla bla bla i can take you in. bla bla bla. isnt that harassment?
what would be the smartest way to answer to en LEO in this position? including statute # articles, sections.. etc etc?

To Be Honest.. I just cant stop thinking about the day i finally get stopped for OC'in.. this is Arizona and Arizona is an open carry friendly state but i just cant get that off my mind.. I'm a decent looking guy no baggie clothes or anything, and every were i go I'm with my family or with my kids.. i guess it might be all those stories Ive read about LEO's taking people in for OC with out a real motive..

"IM IN TUCSON ARIZONA"

crackersillo said:

What statute says that you dont have to show ID to a LEO for OC'ing?
is it legal for them to try to intimidate you if you insist on not showing ID?
ive been watching OC encounters with LEO's on youtube and ive seen a couple of guys saying i dont have to show you ID OC is legal this is america.. and there all like.. yes you do you have to show me ID.. you dont want to test the waters with me.. bla bla bla i can take you in. bla bla bla. isnt that harassment?
what would be the smartest way to answer to en LEO in this position? including statute # articles, sections.. etc etc?

Click to expand...

You don't say what your location is, so that's pretty hard to answer. You are on the Arizona forum so I will assume that that is where you live. Check you state laws; it varies from state to state. As far as I know, AZ passed a law this year that allows open or concealed carry without a permit. But I have no idea what the ID laws are there.

I live in Washington state. There is no "stop and ID' law here. Open carry without a permit is legal here and concealed carry WITH a permit is legal. You cannot carry concealed legally without a permit in Washington state. If you are carrying in your car, open or concealed, IF your gun is loaded, you must have a CPL. We are not required to show ID unless it's a traffic stop of course, then you have to show your DL. Some people here solve the problem by leaving their driver's license in their vehicle when they are OC out of their vehicle.

One correction: In Washington state, you can carry concealed without a permit IF the gun is not loaded. As I said, it varies from state to state and so do the laws concerning ID. Do not take everything you see on YouTube for the gospel truth. They may be correct for where THEY live, but not where you live. As far as I know, harrassment by LEOs is not legal anywhere, especially if you are not breaking the law. Proving it is something else altogether; that's why a lot of OC folks carry voice recorders and/or video & voice recorders. That way there is no question about what happened or what was said. It is up to YOU to know the applicable laws where you live. Regardless of that, I highly recommend at the very least a voice recorder. Carry it with you whenever you are out with your firearm. You will also need to find out what the law is concerning that in your location. In Washington it is legal for a citizen to record by voice and/or video any encounter with LE as long as it is in a public place, without permission from the LEO. They don't like it, but it's legal. There have been a few cases of LEOs abusing the law that have been recorded by citizens, which greatly benefitted the person being abused. I recommend that you go to flexyourrights.com and watch some of the videos there to become better informed.

crackersillo said:

What statute says that you dont have to show ID to a LEO for OC'ing?
is it legal for them to try to intimidate you if you insist on not showing ID?
ive been watching OC encounters with LEO's on youtube and ive seen a couple of guys saying i dont have to show you ID OC is legal this is america.. and there all like.. yes you do you have to show me ID.. you dont want to test the waters with me.. bla bla bla i can take you in. bla bla bla. isnt that harassment?
what would be the smartest way to answer to en LEO in this position? including statute # articles, sections.. etc etc?

Click to expand...

Assuming your question is for Arizona, I believe this is what you are looking for. Although, OC'ing is not a reason to be detained (Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)). This is Arizona, for the most part the cops are pretty cool with the 2nd amendment. I don't see you ending up on youtube for this type of encounter anytime soon. IMHO

A.R.S 13-2412 Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Klown said:

Assuming your question is for Arizona, I believe this is what you are looking for. Although, OC'ing is not a reason to be detained (Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)). This is Arizona, for the most part the cops are pretty cool with the 2nd amendment. I don't see you ending up on youtube for this type of encounter anytime soon. IMHO

A.R.S 13-2412 Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much true in Washington state as well. In order to detain someone here, the LEO must have RAS or reasonable articulable suspiction that you have committed a crime, are committing a crime,are about to committ a crime. If the LEO doesn't have that, the detention is illegal. Ask if you are being detained. If the officer says no, bid them goodday and walk away. If the officer says yes, then you ask, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?" The LEO needs to be able to tell you. If he can't, the detention is illegal. Sometimes, the LEO will ignore the question. Ask if you are free to go. If not, we're back to For suspicion etc. UNLESS you are being detained or arrested, all interaction with LE is VOLUNTARY and you are not required to tell them anything, depending upon the laws of your state of course. IANAL and I do not give legal advice.

That is for name only. AZ *IS* a stop-and-identify state, but only your name. A driver's license is for driving a car, period, it is not a state ID card and there is no such thing. If you are stopped in your car then the officer can ask for it, but if you are walking down the sidewalk minding your business all you have to provide is your true full name.

roben haq said:

Basically why fix something if it is not broken? We are the ones who do not want to do or stick to your marriage vows... The only thing i might change is instead of obey we should both say respect and honor. Marriage should still be til death do you part and to love honor and cherish each other no matter what. Forsaking all others.

Click to expand...

Fairly sure this dude is a spammer. Mods plz.