Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: R.a.s.

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    R.a.s.

    R.a.s.
    Sorry if this is off topic or in another post but can anyone give me the R.C.W. about cops stopping without reasonable suspicion, and if they can stop you to check your ID just to run your name and see if something comes up

  2. #2
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Umm, I don't believe there are R.C.W.s that allow those two acts. IANAL

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Washington does not have a "Stop and ID" statute. Any "stop" just for the purpose of "seeing what turns up" is a 4th Amendment violation. Several court rulings have affirmed this.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Washington does not have a "Stop and ID" statute. Any "stop" just for the purpose of "seeing what turns up" is a 4th Amendment violation. Several court rulings have affirmed this.
    It's cool if you stop someone to see what turns up and bust a few caps in them though. That's legal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I thought I read in one of our Superior court cases that just driving a vehicle isn't proof enough to show your license, they still have to have RAS, for the stop or detainment. I could be mistaken though, happens.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    If you're referring to driving I think if a LEO wants to pull you over on a hunch, they just have to follow you long enough and they'll most likely find a "legal" reason to do so. You weren't driving a straight enough line, a tire hit or crossed the white/yellow line (because you were nervous or distracted watching them follow you...), your license plate light was out etc... If you're a ped walking around town, I don't know what you'd have to do in order for them to compel an ID except for the obvious breaking of a law?

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    here,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I thought I read in one of our Superior court cases that just driving a vehicle isn't proof enough to show your license, they still have to have RAS, for the stop or detainment. I could be mistaken though, happens.
    wis state v. petersWisconsin Court of Appeals Docket No. 07-2731
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 02-16-2011 at 11:43 PM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor80 View Post
    If you're referring to driving I think if a LEO wants to pull you over on a hunch, they just have to follow you long enough and they'll most likely find a "legal" reason to do so. You weren't driving a straight enough line, a tire hit or crossed the white/yellow line (because you were nervous or distracted watching them follow you...), your license plate light was out etc... If you're a ped walking around town, I don't know what you'd have to do in order for them to compel an ID except for the obvious breaking of a law?
    That's a pretext stop, and illegal.

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in...name=281922MAJ

    In State v. Myers, 117 Wn. App. 93 (2003), a police officer observed and began to follow a driver he knew to have had a suspended license in the past. The officer requested a license check and followed the driver. As he waited for a reply, the officer observed the defendant make two lane changes without a signal. The officer stopped the defendant for the traffic infractions to verify the defendant’s license status. The passenger was arrested on an outstanding warrant and a search incident to arrest of the vehicle yielded coffee filters with a methamphetamine residue. The driver was arrested and a search incident to arrest yielded methamphetamine in the defendant driver’s wallet. A search warrant was granted for the trunk where the officer found a methamphetamine lab. The Appellate Court held that the traffic infraction offered as the reason for the stop was a pretext for the true reason of investigating the license suspension and evidence obtained subsequent to the traffic stop was suppressed.

    In State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343 (1999), police officers on a proactive gang patrol selectively used traffic infractions to initiate contact for intelligence gathering. While suspecting the driver was involved in drugs, the police stopped a vehicle for expired tabs and searched passenger Thomas Ladson’s jacket, finding a firearm. Ladson was arrested and searched which resulted in the discovery of cash and marijuana. The Court rejected the rational from Whren, found a pretextual traffic stop and suppressed evidence obtained subsequent to the stop.

    In State v. DeSantiago, 97 Wn. App. 446 (1999), a police officer observed the defendant drive into a small apartment complex associated with drugs. The defendant entered an apartment, returned a few minutes later and drove away. The police officer suspected the driver had bought drugs and wanted to stop the vehicle. The defendant turned left out of the apartment complex and then moved into the far right lane without a signal. The officer stopped the defendant for the traffic infraction, determined that the defendant’s license status was suspended and that he had an outstanding warrant. A search incident to arrest yielded a handgun and drugs. The Appellate Court found a pretextual traffic stop and suppressed evidence obtained subsequent to the stop.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I thought I read in one of our Superior court cases that just driving a vehicle isn't proof enough to show your license, they still have to have RAS, for the stop or detainment. I could be mistaken though, happens.
    Correct - - reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is required to make the stop. See State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002).
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Correct - - reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is required to make the stop. See State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002).

    When court cases are cited I often see a series of numbers and letters after the name of the case. For instance in this case that you cited you put "146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513".

    Please excuse my ignorance but I have never really understood what it all means. Could you explain it to me and others so we can have a better understanding of what we are looking at when we see court cites in the future. It would also help me to be more accurate/proper when I cite cases myself. Is the year that is included the year the case was filed or the year of the decision?

    Thanks



    Edit: fix typo
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 02-17-2011 at 04:27 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  11. #11
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,,hay!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I thought I read in one of our Superior court cases that just driving a vehicle isn't proof enough to show your license, they still have to have RAS, for the stop or detainment. I could be mistaken though, happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Correct - - reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is required to make the stop. See State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002).
    your case of duncan is ridiculous, my cite to peters is simple, and shows the difference
    between a real stop and one that is made up!
    I myself, used peters to stymie a cop that was trying to get me to pass him,
    so he could follow me, looking for an infraction.
    when he turned around to go back, he looked me over, parked there, legally, off the highway,
    and i could see his eyes, and he was pissed!!
    but it worked, and i drove home unmolested.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    State v. Peters is a case in Wisconsin, it doesn't have much validity in the state of Washington. If you tried to cite that case in a Washington court I doubt the court would allow it.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    yea???

    i wonder if my cop was trying to figure out if duncan
    was the reason he couldnt harass me by calling it a trafic stop??
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest
    R.A.S. should be changed to reflect the real world: Line of Crap Presented, or L.C.P.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Correct - - reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is required to make the stop. See State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002).
    Thanks Lammo, now if I only had that specific case, before my last mailed summons. which almost resulted in my arrest for missed court date because I don't get mail at my house. (something the local PD know, but keep pretending they don't)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    R.a.s

    Thanks to all for the answers: It is a big help I know I could get some answers from you folks, Thanks again

  17. #17
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    When court cases are cited I often see a series of numbers and letters after the name of the case. For instance in this case that you cited you put "146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513".

    Please excuse my ignorance but I have never really understood what it all means. Could you explain it to me and others so we can have a better understanding of what we are looking at when we see court cites in the future. It would also help me to be more accurate/proper when I cite cases myself. Is the year that is included the year the case was filed or the year of the decision?

    Thanks

    Edit: fix typo
    No worries, after 24 years it still sometimes looks like Greek to me. Washington has two official reports for court decisions, the Washington Reports (Wn., Wn.2d) for the Supreme Court and the Washington Appellate Reports (Wn.App.) for the Court of Appeals. After the original series hit 200 volumes, they started the 2nd series for the Washington Reports. The Appellate Reports will probably do that eventually as well - - it's currently somewhere in the 150s. In addition to the official publications, Washington decisions can also be found in West Publishing's Pacific Reporter which includes decisions from 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming). The practice here has long been to include both the official citation and the West citation.

    The example above, State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002), translates as follows:
    Volume 146, Washington Reports, 2nd Series, Page 166, relevant language found at pages 173 through 175, also found in Volume 43, West's Pacific Reporter, 3rd Series, Page 513 (decided in 2002).

    It can be even more confusing when you look at US Supreme Court citations as there are three sources: the official reporter (U.S.), the West Supreme Court Reporter (S.Ct.) and the Lawyer's Edition (L.Ed., L.Ed.2d) by the Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Company. Almost all citations to US Supreme Court cases will include all three citiations. For example, included in the Duncan opinion is a citation to the Terry case, which is: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

    Hope this helps without digging too deep into the weeds. The second paragraph actually has the short answer to your question without the history lesson. If it's too much, that'll teach you to ask a lawyer a question. :-)
    Last edited by Lammo; 02-17-2011 at 08:05 PM.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    your case of duncan is ridiculous, my cite to peters is simple, and shows the difference
    between a real stop and one that is made up!
    I myself, used peters to stymie a cop that was trying to get me to pass him,
    so he could follow me, looking for an infraction.
    when he turned around to go back, he looked me over, parked there, legally, off the highway,
    and i could see his eyes, and he was pissed!!
    but it worked, and i drove home unmolested.
    Not sure what makes Duncan "ridiculous". The fact that some in law enforcement stretch the definition of "reasonable" does not make the decision ridiculous.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200
    well I have a standard question when stopped and ask before anything is said and that is ...what seems to be the problem officer?...then take it form there

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    ohhh,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Not sure what makes Duncan "ridiculous". The fact that some in law enforcement stretch the definition of "reasonable" does not make the decision ridiculous.
    now ive read duncan, and peters both, twice!
    peters is straight forward, legality of the stop question, period!
    duncan is all tied up with drugs, searches, confessions, motions to exclude,
    its confusing, and filled with all kinds of distracting paraphernalia,
    having little to do with the question,
    of the legitimacy of demanding ID!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    No worries, after 24 years it still sometimes looks like Greek to me. Washington has two official reports for court decisions, the Washington Reports (Wn., Wn.2d) for the Supreme Court and the Washington Appellate Reports (Wn.App.) for the Court of Appeals. After the original series hit 200 volumes, they started the 2nd series for the Washington Reports. The Appellate Reports will probably do that eventually as well - - it's currently somewhere in the 150s. In addition to the official publications, Washington decisions can also be found in West Publishing's Pacific Reporter which includes decisions from 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming). The practice here has long been to include both the official citation and the West citation.

    The example above, State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 173-75, 43 P.3d 513 (2002), translates as follows:
    Volume 146, Washington Reports, 2nd Series, Page 166, relevant language found at pages 173 through 175, also found in Volume 43, West's Pacific Reporter, 3rd Series, Page 513 (decided in 2002).

    It can be even more confusing when you look at US Supreme Court citations as there are three sources: the official reporter (U.S.), the West Supreme Court Reporter (S.Ct.) and the Lawyer's Edition (L.Ed., L.Ed.2d) by the Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Company. Almost all citations to US Supreme Court cases will include all three citiations. For example, included in the Duncan opinion is a citation to the Terry case, which is: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

    Hope this helps without digging too deep into the weeds. The second paragraph actually has the short answer to your question without the history lesson. If it's too much, that'll teach you to ask a lawyer a question. :-)

    No, not too much info at all.
    Thanks it was appreciated
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    now ive read duncan, and peters both, twice!
    peters is straight forward, legality of the stop question, period!
    duncan is all tied up with drugs, searches, confessions, motions to exclude,
    its confusing, and filled with all kinds of distracting paraphernalia,
    having little to do with the question,
    of the legitimacy of demanding ID!

    Well, you go ahead and try citing a Wisconsin case in a Washington court and see how far that gets you.

    Out of state court cases can shed some light on how another state's court MIGHT rule on a case, but should not be too heavily relied upon. When in court it would be much better to have a decision from a court of the same State.

    If I have a choice between two cases to cite in a Washington court, one being a WA. Supreme Court case and the other being an out of state appellate court case, I will choose the WA State case. It doesn't really matter what one is an easier read.

    Even if it is a Supreme Court Case from another State.
    For example a district court of Washington State should render its decisions based on precedent set by the Supreme Court of Washington, it is under no obligation to consider Cases from the Supreme Court of Illinois.

    Remember, each State is a sovereign with its own set of laws, the courts of one State are ruling based on that State's laws.

    Generally speaking all States are bound to the decisions of SCOTUS, but not of courts from another State.

    Lammo, can you back me up on this or am I way off base?


    I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  23. #23
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Well, you go ahead and try citing a Wisconsin case in a Washington court and see how far that gets you.

    Out of state court cases can shed some light on how another state's court MIGHT rule on a case, but should not be too heavily relied upon. When in court it would be much better to have a decision from a court of the same State.

    If I have a choice between two cases to cite in a Washington court, one being a WA. Supreme Court case and the other being an out of state appellate court case, I will choose the WA State case. It doesn't really matter what one is an easier read.

    Even if it is a Supreme Court Case from another State.
    For example a district court of Washington State should render its decisions based on precedent set by the Supreme Court of Washington, it is under no obligation to consider Cases from the Supreme Court of Illinois.

    Remember, each State is a sovereign with its own set of laws, the courts of one State are ruling based on that State's laws.

    Generally speaking all States are bound to the decisions of SCOTUS, but not of courts from another State.

    Lammo, can you back me up on this or am I way off base?


    I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice.
    All correct. The only time Washington courts will rely on decisions from other states is if the area of the law is new. For example, in when the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 changed felony sentencing in Washington, we had to look to other states for case law interpreting this new type of system. Since our new law was very similar to Minnesota's, our courts found Minnesota decisions helpful but only until we developed our own body of law. The only other place I have seen it recently is in the area of uniform laws, such as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (you really don't want to know what that is all about), where several states have all agreed to follow the same law in a particular area. That kind of thing is probably more likely to happen in the civil arena, such as with the Uniform Commercial Code and it may be more common there than I think - - crime is my life. :-)

    As far as Federal cases go, SCOTUS decisions are binding on everyone but Circuit cases are only binding within the Circuit, or, in our case, the Circus. We don't have to follow the 2nd Circuit but we are, sadly, stuck with the 9th Circus.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •