How to repond to LEO request for ID

sudden valley gunner said:

The problem is no matter how politely you try to stand up for your rights and unwanted intrusions. The second you take a stand it tends to end the civility and politeness of the "officer" who has approached you. This has been the case every encounter I have had with LEO when this type of situation arises.

Click to expand...

We all tend to speak from our own experience sets. It seems as if your experiences lead you to believe that all LEOs will become confrontational when their 'authority' is questioned. That has not been my experience, so my basic practice is to remain polite but firm in my determination to provide all lawfully-required information -- but no more than that. It works for me.

Grapeshot said:

The predictor is already there when you are "approached" for doing nothing wrong or even suspicious. Have never had an officer come up to me and say, " That sure is a nice way to legally carry a gun without a permit. Be safe now, ya hear."

I have had LEOs take notice, nod and smile, and continue on with what they were doing.

Click to expand...

Yes, and isn't that a good change from automatic (or even "semi-automatic" :lol aggressiveness toward someone openly carrying? It takes a long time to change acculturation after many years of experience and training, moving from one law-based response to another ... and there will always be a subset of slow learners. Staying polite and friendly and being slightly amazed that they would even ask the question when they have no legal right to do so seems to me to be the best strategy. We here in NoVA seem to enjoy fairly good acceptance of open carry, both on the part of the general population and the LEO community -- how many times do we read in these fora that "I went here, here, here and there and got no reaction?" It's getting better, but there is still much work to do in changing attitudes in places such as Surrey County....

Grapeshot said:

The predictor is already there when you are "approached" for doing nothing wrong or even suspicious. Have never had an officer come up to me and say, " That sure is a nice way to legally carry a gun without a permit. Be safe now, ya hear."

I have had LEOs take notice, nod and smile, and continue on with what they were doing.

Click to expand...

Yes, the actual act of walking up to a lawful carrier and challenging him is hard not to be seen as rude and uncivil. However, it is entirely possible that the officers simply don't know the law and are being civil, but wrong. That has been my experience.

Until an officer goes beyond ignorance into rudeness, I will be polite, seeing the encounter as an opportunity to educate--and it is hard to educate someone during an uncivil encounter.

There are definitely officers and departments out there for whom only an official hammer will get their attention. But we can still be polite, but firm, during the encounter. Apart from it being just plain the right thing to do, it will sound really good to the jury during the civil suit. Heh, heh, "civil" suit.

Grapeshot said:

The predictor is already there when you are "approached" for doing nothing wrong or even suspicious. Have never had an officer come up to me and say, " That sure is a nice way to legally carry a gun without a permit. Be safe now, ya hear."

I have had LEOs take notice, nod and smile, and continue on with what they were doing.

Click to expand...

I have had some do the same, our state troopers have had an excellent reputation for doing so (at least with me) and I even started a thread about that.

I am not necessarily talking just about OC though. I've tried filing complaints and treated horribly in doing so, was approached by deputies at Starbucks, who demanded ID, I thought it was about OC turned out later it wasn't, and they were very to put it politely "irritated" and instantly labeled me as uncooperative and belligerent even though I re-iterated several times I am not trying to be uncooperative I just don't want to inadvertently give up rights.

A few weeks ago, was called by a sheriff about my car in a ditch, I was at home getting a tow truck to get it out, he asked if I wanted to tell him what happened, I told him no offense but due to bad police encounter and advise from a lawyer I don't feel comfortable doing so. Well in started the threats of arrest and accusations of me again being "uncooperative".

These are just two examples of the many encounters I seem to have. My situation were I received a settlement from the city of Bellingham, brought about because of OC was even worse. Threatened with continual harassment. Which sadly seems to be the case. Recently officer Bass of BPD, looked me up (he knew who I was) lied to the DOL for the reason of doing so. Called me on my private cell phone to "discuss" the matter.
So in my experience they absolutely do not like their "authority" questioned, no matter how polite you do so.

sudden valley gunner said:

......started the threats of arrest and accusations of me again being "uncooperative".

These are just two examples of the many encounters I seem to have. My situation were I received a settlement from the city of Bellingham, brought about because of OC was even worse. Threatened with continual harassment. Which sadly seems to be the case......

Click to expand...

Trust that you are maintaining a well documented file.

palerider116 said:

A bad shoot or excessive force or corruption can't be waved away with a magic wand.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, all too often they are.

JamesCanby said:

Lacking RAS, the next question would be either "Am I free to go?" or "Am I (or, Why am I) being detained?" And the recorder would be running from the moment of first contact.

Click to expand...

That would be my STARTING point. Don't get into a debate over RAS with somebody who either doesn't know RAS from a dead raccoon, or who doesn't care.

"Am I free to leave?" If the answer isn't "yes", he either THINKS he has RAS or thinks you're too ignorant to know your rights. Shut up and refuse to talk without benefit of counsel. That will either shut him down cold, or at worst prevent you from inadvertently incriminating YOURSELF. Make HIM do all of the work, whether he means well or ill. Don't put your freedom in the hands of a total stranger whose motives you neither know nor indeed CAN know.

Deanimator said:

That would be my STARTING point. Don't get into a debate over RAS with somebody who either doesn't know RAS from a dead raccoon, or who doesn't care.

"Am I free to leave?" If the answer isn't "yes", he either THINKS he has RAS or thinks you're too ignorant to know your rights. Shut up and refuse to talk without benefit of counsel. That will either shut him down cold, or at worst prevent you from inadvertently incriminating YOURSELF. Make HIM do all of the work, whether he means well or ill. Don't put your freedom in the hands of a total stranger whose motives you neither know nor indeed CAN know.

Click to expand...

That "starting point" seems unnecessarily confrontational to me and seems more of an "in your face" response that would automatically generate an authoritarian response on the LEO's part. I'm going to give the LEO the benefit of any doubt that he's a person just like myself who is doing his job and wants to finish his shift safely.

I'm going to assume that he's a reasonable person unless he proves otherwise. Even if he does, I'm going to remain polite and firm in my position that he's entitled to only that information required by the law.

That means that I better be certain in my knowledge of the law in any given jurisdiction in which I find myself. Carrying -- OC or CC -- is a right that carries the responsibility to know what one is doing. Failure to know the law and to act out confrontationally or in a hostile way can only end badly and will deny one the "teaching moment" that could be provided in a less confrontational setting.

JamesCanby said:

That "starting point" seems unnecessarily confrontational to me and seems more of an "in your face" response that would automatically generate an authoritarian response on the LEO's part. I'm going to give the LEO the benefit of any doubt that he's a person just like myself who is doing his job and wants to finish his shift safely.

I'm going to assume that he's a reasonable person unless he proves otherwise. Even if he does, I'm going to remain polite and firm in my position that he's entitled to only that information required by the law.

That means that I better be certain in my knowledge of the law in any given jurisdiction in which I find myself. Carrying -- OC or CC -- is a right that carries the responsibility to know what one is doing. Failure to know the law and to act out confrontationally or in a hostile way can only end badly and will deny one the "teaching moment" that could be provided in a less confrontational setting.

Click to expand...

Know the law; obey the law. Experience and observation have taught me NOT to expect that from LEOs. Not that I don't demand that they do so. I just don't EXPECT them to.
I have ZERO desire to interact with law enforcement, certainly not on an involuntary basis, and especially certainly not on the basis of their ignorance or disdain for the law. Save the "banter" for reruns of "Law & Order". The odds are you are always going to talk your way INTO more trouble than out of it. My best friend here is an experienced criminal defense attorney. If anyone would know what the best course of action is, it would be him. Guess what HE advises.

I have EVERY right to assert my rights as a citizen, and I don't care if that LEO sees it as "confrontational" or as heresy against Mother Church. He can obey the law or not. "Not" isn't going to work out well for him. I don't need that cop to like me. I just need for him to obey the law.

Grapeshot said:

Trust that you are maintaining a well documented file.

Click to expand...

Trying I get to get a better recorder. I record what I can on my cell phone, and am working on some other ways with others who are tired of the "game".

Deanimator said:

Know the law; obey the law. Experience and observation have taught me NOT to expect that from LEOs. Not that I don't demand that they do so. I just don't EXPECT them to.
I have ZERO desire to interact with law enforcement, certainly not on an involuntary basis, and especially certainly not on the basis of their ignorance or disdain for the law. Save the "banter" for reruns of "Law & Order". The odds are you are always going to talk your way INTO more trouble than out of it. My best friend here is an experienced criminal defense attorney. If anyone would know what the best course of action is, it would be him. Guess what HE advises.

I have EVERY right to assert my rights as a citizen, and I don't care if that LEO sees it as "confrontational" or as heresy against Mother Church. He can obey the law or not. "Not" isn't going to work out well for him. I don't need that cop to like me. I just need for him to obey the law.

Click to expand...

If you find that that confrontational strategy works out well for you, then by all means pursue it. I happen to believe, based on some experience, that respecting people until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect works out better for me in almost every case. I agree with you that everyone has the right to assert themselves as citizens. Where we differ, it seems, is in HOW we assert our rights.

JamesCanby said:

If you find that that confrontational strategy works out well for you, then by all means pursue it. I happen to believe, based on some experience, that respecting people until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect works out better for me in almost every case. I agree with you that everyone has the right to assert themselves as citizens. Where we differ, it seems, is in HOW we assert our rights.

Click to expand...

If an LEO sees my refusing to endanger my liberties as "confrontational", then he's ALREADY decided that he not only has no respect for me, but for the highest law of the land, the US Constitution.

Whatever respect I have for any individual LEO isn't 1/10,000 of the respect I have for the US Constitution and the hundreds of thousands of good men and women who have died over more than 200 years to defend it. Waiving your rights as a citizen doesn't show respect. It shows SUBMISSION.

Deanimator said:

If an LEO sees my refusing to endanger my liberties as "confrontational", then he's ALREADY decided that he not only has no respect for me, but for the highest law of the land, the US Constitution.

Whatever respect I have for any individual LEO isn't 1/10,000 of the respect I have for the US Constitution and the hundreds of thousands of good men and women who have died over more than 200 years to defend it. Waiving your rights as a citizen doesn't show respect. It shows SUBMISSION.

Click to expand...

Nice strawman. No one -- certainly not me -- suggests that anyone should waive their rights. All I'm suggesting is that how you approach an interaction with a LEO can have direct positive or negative consequences on the outcome of the event. Do what makes the most sense to you, and good luck with your confrontational style.

JamesCanby said:

SNIP...good luck with your confrontational style.

Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out where Deanimator articulated a confrontational style.

Stating strong convictions here does not translate into impolite or confrontational style on the street during a police encounter.

Did Deanimator somewhere in this thread advocate being gruff or disrespectful to a cop during an encounter?

Citizen said:

I'm still trying to figure out where Deanimator articulated a confrontational style.

Stating strong convictions here does not translate into impolite or confrontational style on the street during a police encounter.

Did Deanimator somewhere in this thread advocate being gruff or disrespectful to a cop during an encounter?

Click to expand...

It's simply the sense I inferred from his contrast of his proposed interactions with the LEOs and that of the polite and non-confrontational approach I advocate.

JamesCanby said:

It's simply the sense I inferred from his contrast of his proposed interactions with the LEOs and that of the polite and non-confrontational approach I advocate.

Click to expand...

I see.

Might be smart to verify that inference. I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've learned it the hard way over the last few years. I've been accused of being confrontational. Yet, the accusers somehow missed other posts of mine where I suggest:

"No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?"

Half-pages of thread were wasted arguing before it got figured out.

JamesCanby said:

Nice strawman. No one -- certainly not me -- suggests that anyone should waive their rights. All I'm suggesting is that how you approach an interaction with a LEO can have direct positive or negative consequences on the outcome of the event. Do what makes the most sense to you, and good luck with your confrontational style.

Click to expand...

My ONLY approach is the letter of the law. Any LEO who objects to that is up to no good.

Citizen said:

I see.

Might be smart to verify that inference. I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've learned it the hard way over the last few years. I've been accused of being confrontational. Yet, the accusers somehow missed other posts of mine where I suggest:

"No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?"

Half-pages of thread were wasted arguing before it got figured out.

Click to expand...

I'm no more or less polite to LEOs than I am to any other stranger of unknown intentions.

What some people want is not politeness, but fawning obsequiousness.

I can politely stand on my rights without making any apologies or sucking up.

"Am I free to leave, officer?" If yes, I leave. If no, there will be NO further conversation without benefit of counsel. I don't want to talk to LEOs. I ABSOLUTELY am not going to talk to them where I am being detained and could inadvertently incriminate myself.

Deanimator said:

SNIP I'm no more or less polite to LEOs than I am to any other stranger of unknown intentions.

Click to expand...

I kinda figured. I keep an eye out for inferences like the one being discussed, having been the target myself a few times.

The instant I notice/suspect it directed my way from another poster, I point out the distinction.

JamesCanby said:

It's simply the sense I inferred from his contrast of his proposed interactions with the LEOs and that of the polite and non-confrontational approach I advocate.

Click to expand...

Inferring is a lot like assuming, and we all know where that leads.

I am polite, non-aggressive, speak in level tones and generally try to project a pleasant demeanor. All of that said, I will NOT cooperate in abrogating my rights.

Next time a LEO says, "Please open your trunk." or "Mind if I take a look in the back of your truck?" - let me know how that works out for you. They have a license to fish; many of us have learned to not take the bait. ymmv