Stopped by Kent PD today

maclean said:

Refusing ID isn't uncooperative or confrontational.

It isn't even particularly douchebaggy.

Click to expand...

Ok now that was funny.

Better let BPD know . (After thought they did get mine, though. They don't pick on me for the gun directly now although I caught them following me a few times. When I was on foot.

Don't smile at officer Bass he'll write down in his report and describe it as a "Bizarre Grin".

sudden valley gunner said:

Ok now that was funny.

Better let BPD know . (After thought they did get mine, though. They don't pick on me for the gun directly now although I caught them following me a few times. When I was on foot.

Don't smile at officer Bass he'll write down in his report and describe it as a "Bizarre Grin".

Click to expand...

Dunno BPD.

Being on foot is better than behind the wheel, eh?

(From a search and seizure standpoint, that is.)

1245A Defender said:

"But can I take a peak at your ID? Just to be sure you're not a felon or anything."

asking for a peak,, is part of the trickery,
but its None Of Their Business if i am a felon or anything!!!
the 5th amendment was written specifically to protect a felon from helping the police find that out!!
if i was a felon or had a warrant it would be my right and duty to hide that fact from the cops!

That the law,,, it is not Moronic.

Click to expand...

Being able to refuse is not in question.

You suggesting they can't ask is the moronic part.

maclean said:

He asked, you said yes. Not a seizure.

Not a surrender of your fourth amendment rights either. Consensual contacts are consensual. You can begin them or end them any time you wish.

Nice job, good contact. Cop had a sense of humor and handled it with humor.

The whole "ask if he could see it didn't ask if he could run it" is moronic. Anything that can be seen can be run without your specific consent in addition.

LTNS Aaron. Hope things are well.

Click to expand...

After review of everything, it doesn't seem like an unnecessary experience at all. The cops were super cool, with a good sense of humor. They had no intentions of harassing me at all.

It's been a little while since I've been on the forum. I've been pretty wrapped up. I am currently in the midst of the application process with Port of Seattle PD and SCORE Jail.

I also don't see how respectfully asking for ID is unacceptable behavior.

maclean said:

Dunno BPD.

Being on foot is better than behind the wheel, eh?

Click to expand...

Bellingham Police Department.

Don't know if its better I'd rather be driving, makes trying to work hard but got issues to work out ....again....at least this time I got notice.

Aaron1124 said:

I also don't see how respectfully asking for ID is unacceptable behavior.

Click to expand...

It's *expected* behavior.

How you deal with it is your choice.

Good luck on your tests.

Thanks! I actually passed both my written and physical, and am now waiting for oral board(s).

sudden valley gunner said:

Bellingham Police Department.

Don't know if its better I'd rather be driving, makes trying to work hard but got issues to work out ....again....at least this time I got notice.

Click to expand...

I edited - the reference was related to the unusual issues in WA with vehicles, not to whatever your personal issues are.

Good luck with those, on a serious note.

That was NOT intended to make light of any issues you have in that arena.

Not a surrender of your fourth amendment rights either. Consensual contacts are consensual. You can begin them or end them any time you wish.

Click to expand...

Word games.

Surrender is not the same as waive.

In the first place, police wouldn't ask at all unless they were investigating. And, police ask while investigating because they are restrained by 4A case law on one hand from compelling or demanding, but some 4A case law says consensual is authorized, meaning consent is in fact a 4A issue. The request by a cop is literally a request that the investigate-ee waive his 4A protections.

Despite any sophistry to the contrary, even by the courts, consent is only an issue because police are investigating. And, it is precisely those circumstances where 4A comes into play. When courts say consensual encounters don't implicate the 4A, they either mean a genuinely consensual, non-investigatory or social contact. Or, they mean it from the perspective that consent renders the 4A issue moot because consent automatically makes reasonable the contact or search. While busily ignoring the fact that the consent was requested precisely to get around the fact that the contact or search couldn't be compelled.

Citizen said:

Word games.

Surrender is not the same as waive.

In the first place, police wouldn't ask at all unless they were investigating. And, police ask while investigating because they are restrained by 4A case law on one hand from compelling or demanding, but some 4A case law says consensual is authorized, meaning consent is in fact a 4A issue. The request by a cop is literally a request that the investige-ee waive his 4A protections.

Despite any sophistry to the contrary, even by the courts, consent is only an issue because police are investigating. And, it is precisely those circumstances where 4A comes into play. When courts say consensual encounters don't implicate the 4A, they either mean a genuinely consensual, non-investigatory or social contact. Or, they mean it from the perspective that consent renders the 4A issue moot because consent automatically makes reasonable the contact or search. While busily ignoring the fact that the consent was requested precisely to get around the fact that the contact or search couldn't be compelled.

Click to expand...

That was a really big mouthfull that said the same thing I did.

You can consent, or not. Consensual means consensual.

If you expect them not to ask, you're deluding yourself.

maclean said:

I edited - the reference was related to the unusual issues in WA with vehicles, not to whatever your personal issues are.

Good luck with those, on a serious note.

That was NOT intended to make light of any issues you have in that arena.

Click to expand...

Didn't think you were making light. No offense was taken. Thanks for wishing me luck I need it.

And I agree it is better on search and seizure issues, and unlike Aaron when it comes to driving I wouldn't have the choice of saying no to ID.

Aaron1124 said:

Actually he did ask if he could run it to "check to see" if I was a felon. I just forgot to add it in my post. And why is it such a problem if I consented to it? I have no obligations to do it, even though I am within my rights not to. I don't see any harm being done by me consenting to this. Not all police officers have an agenda against a firearm carrying citizen.

Click to expand...

Because you then encourage the "norm".

Then when some citizens try to enjoy some privacy, all hell breaks loose because the police have been so used to folks looking at the ground touching their toes for them.

Yaddamean?





And just for fun,

The police are YOUR FRIENDS, they will HELP you! But for them to HELP you, you must tell them EVERYTHING!

maclean said:

That was a really big mouthfull that said the same thing I did.

You can consent, or not. Consensual means consensual.

If you expect them not to ask, you're deluding yourself.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I wasn't being internally tautological and trying to make it sound as if I was saying something else.

Citizen said:

Yes, but I wasn't being internally tautological and trying to make it sound as if I was saying something else.

Click to expand...

Says the man who uses the word tautological instead of repetitive.

Seriously man, are we going to play educational pecker measuring all night?

Aaron1124 said:

I also don't see how respectfully asking for ID is unacceptable behavior.

Click to expand...

I can explain that.

If they ask over mere OC, it means they believe the basic human right of self-defense is suspicious.

This is not just unacceptable; it is intolerable. It would be bad enough from a citizen. From a government agent it is completely intolerable.

Also, while the mouse cop is busily telling you it was oh-so legal and not a problem and properly handled and everything is fine, he is carefully avoiding telling you it was entirely possible for the police to observe from a distance without ever contacting you.

Those two reasons are why it is my personal policy to write a formal complaint for even a consensual contact from police about my OCd gun.

Now, to take a side-track for a moment, before anybody howls that I am being unreasonable for automatic formal complaints, 1) re-read what I wrote about why, and 2) understand that cops frequently screw up even consensual encounters. So, its not like I'm really adding all that much to the quantity anyway since there is likely to be a legitimate complaint point or points during even a consensual contact, even without the intolerable--human right aspect.

Back to my main discussion. You see, no matter how nice they are, they are investigating you. No matter how nice they are, it is an adversarial encounter. Their niceness is intended to lull you from the adversarial nature. They fully intend to investigate as much as they can until they are satisfied, meaning they fully mean to be adversarial. They just don't want you to understand that. They want you to be un-adversarial (while they continue being adversarial), because then you might invoke your rights and thwart their investigation.

Now, one could say, "Well, I have nothing to hide." Cops on this forum will sometimes even say, "If you have nothing to hide..." This is an incorrect importance. The correct importance is that we have no way of knowing whether we are being confronted by a good cop or a bad cop. Right on this very forum we've heard the police car audio recording of two cops who were oh-so nice to the OCer, but when back at the car, the audio showed one cop saying to the other, "There has got to be something we can get him for."

The nice cop is potentially the most dangerous. Remember, even the nice cop is adversarial.

maclean said:

Says the man who uses the word tautological instead of repetitive.

Seriously man, are we going to play educational pecker measuring all night?

Click to expand...

Here comes the evasions, folks. Tautological has a different meaning than repetitive, and an entirely different connotation, and implication during debate.

But, enough. I'm not gonna argue with him.

I read an interesting essay on the " If you got nothing to hide" statement and that really doesn't even deserve a response. It explained how those type of statements try to narrow down the meaning of the 4th amendment and trap you into responding in a way that would hint you had something to hide or was guilty of something, and misses the true meaning of the 4th amendment. Some of the common retorts show this....like " are you doing something illegal in your home, why do you need curtains"

I used to think like that and use retorts like that, now I simply say "having nothing to hide has nothing to do it".

When the security screener at Whatcom said that it makes him suspicous of me of why I don't want to leave my license for the key to the gun lock box (something the prosecutor has endorsed contrary to law in my opinion), I told him that tells me more about him than it does about someone who values his rights.

well,,,

a consensual encounter can be kind of fun, But
If you voluntarily Give them your ID, it becomes a SEIZURE!
now they have your property, stuff you need to have, stuff you wont leave without!
so what started out as nice and fun and fast,
Can turn into an arduous time wasting and possibly costly imprisonment!
once they have your name and numbers, they can run it through any and every data base
they want to,, till they are convinced your not a felon or something, Or
your name or number seems to match up with someone elses name or number,
that leads them to believe that a trip downtown will be needed to clear things up!

Aaron1124 said:

why is it such a problem if I consented to it? ... I don't see any harm being done by me consenting to this.

Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, you're reinforcing their belief that subjects will accede to their demands.
When the cops run into that rare someone who knows & protects their rights, they'll be less than pleased, and that citizen's encounter will be worse.

If the reactions were flipped, with the vast majority of people standing up for themselves and the tiny minority doing whatever they say, pretty soon they'd stop asking for ID.

As for wanting to check if you're a felon, if they had RAS or PC they could have acted. But they're not allowed to stop someone driving a car to check for a license; how much less legal is it to stop someone doing something that doesn't require gov't intervention (buying groceries, going armed) and check him out?

Citizen said:

If they ask over mere OC, it means they believe the basic human right of self-defense is suspicious.

Click to expand...

Mmmmm... I disagree. I think it means they believe that anyone (other than a uniformed LEO) carrying a gun is a criminal until proven otherwise. Still a wrong mindset, but focussed on a behaviour they can see (OC) rather than a concept they can't see (self-defense as a right).

Citizen said:

Now, one could say, "Well, I have nothing to hide."

Click to expand...

Yes, but even if everything you have in your home is perfectly legal in every dimension, there's no reason for the gov't (via its agents, the police) to be looking through it.

Even for someone who's an exemplary citizen, no criminal record, Gold Award Girl Scout, contributes to charities, likes kittens & small children, etc., there's no reason for the gov't (via its agents) to be doing a background check with no reason. Exercising a civil right is not a reason.