• 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.

R.a.s.

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
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
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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. :(
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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. ;)
 

Thor80

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
299
Location
Spokane County, WA
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?
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=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.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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).
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,,hay!!!

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).

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.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
M

McX

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

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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)
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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:

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

bushwacker

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
203
Location
pottsboro,texas
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
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
ohhh,,,

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!
 
Top