Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Can police required you to ID yourself while open carry?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125

    Can police required you to ID yourself while open carry?

    Yeah, I just had 4 police came to me and tell me to put my hands on the table and do nothing funny (while his hands on his own weapon). Then he tells me to get my ID and I said "No, I will not give my ID, but I will tell you my name". The officer got my name and then required my phone #, addresses, date of birth, and why am I here.

    My question is can a police officer by law, required me to tell him all the information he wants? I thought just my first name is all, but my phone, address, dob, and why am I here, I thought I am not required to tell him that.

    Also, can a police officers take my firearm as he please? I ask this because one of those officers tells me he can under some statute.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Something tells me you did not have, or did not have your digital audio recorder running.

    Why not? If you did, tell us the statute he cited.

    Hope you got on ok after that assault.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  3. #3
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Oregon Does not have a 'Stop & ID' statute, so no, they cannot demand ID from someone without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

    Further, Medford City Code states that open carrying a holstered Handgun is not unlawful possession.

    5.154*Unlawful Possession of Firearm

    (1) Except where ORS Ch. 166 provides to the contrary, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
    (a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person; or
    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle.
    (2) This section does not prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person's place of residence or place of business any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person's place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, "residence" includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.
    (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    I had a camera, but I was scared. Now I will use my camera on every encounter, but I haft to informed every person that I am audio recording them.

    The officers that came to interrogate me was because a scared individual call for them. The officers had no reasonable suspicion of a crime, yet they intimidate me and force me to give them what they want and even want to take my handgun from me, but I said "I don't consent to searches and seizure on my person or property" twice. So that seemed to worked, but I was still not completely sure if I had to give them all my information to them. Now I know I don't have to give them all that information except a name.

    I would still like to find a statue that I can based this information.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    Yeah, I should of known that they were lying to me. They would not even give me there reasonable suspicion and would not ID them selves. They just give me there piece of mind and intimidate me, but at least I stood strong and did not give up my right!

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Public conversations have no requirement to inform.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    SNIP Oregon Does not have a 'Stop & ID' statute, so no, they cannot demand ID from someone without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
    Just to clarify:

    1. Can they demand identity--verbal or document--with RAS?

    2. Is there a penalty for refusal?

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    You don't even need to give your first name. Oregon lacks a stop and identify statute (see sidebar on the right) and even if we had one police can only ask for you to identify yourself if they have reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    NOTE: The below section is incorrect as We-the-People points out in post number 13 of this thread.
    Also, Oregon is a one-party notification state with regards to audio recording. You should be able to record public conversations by public officials without a single iota of a requirement to inform them that you are doing so.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 06-17-2011 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Segregating incorrect information

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    1. Can they demand identity--verbal or document--with RAS?
    If Oregon had a stop and identify statute, but it doesn't so I don't believe they can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    2. Is there a penalty for refusal?
    If Oregon had a stop and identify statute, then there could be a penalty (under Hiibel), but since there isn't one, there isn't a penalty.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Drouin View Post
    Yeah, I should of known that they were lying to me. They would not even give me there reasonable suspicion and would not ID them selves. They just give me there piece of mind and intimidate me, but at least I stood strong and did not give up my right!
    I've never heard of a court case requiring cops to disclose their reasonable suspicion or the circumstances they observed that caused them to be suspicious.

    The other side of this coin is that even if the cop did give his RAS, how in the heck is the citizen going to know whether similar has already been judged by a court to be RAS or not? Correctly guess whether the judge will rule RAS existed? Know whether the cop is lying about his RAS? Know whether the cop is giving only part of his RAS to see if the citizen will admit to something or lie about something?

    Trying to figure out RAS during a police encounter is a little pointless. It wouldn't be wise to act on it any differently than if it was not known to the citizen. Meaning, what would a fella do differently during the encounter if he knew the cop had no RAS?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    (reply just above)
    OK. How about localities, municipalities, and counties that might have stop-and-identify ordinances? Got any of those? For example, in VA we have a number of local jurisdictions that have such ordinances.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    Thanks Bigtoe, you are right. Your information is correct and I will no longer informed the police of who I am.

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Okay, as a Medford resident and always open carrier.....

    Oregon does NOT have a stop and ID statute. Absent RAS (open carry is not RAS as it is legal) you do not have to identify yourself. (there is no CITE for either of these as there is no regulation to CITE)

    With RAS you are required to identify yourself. First and Last name, address, and date of birth....ORALLY....YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PRODUCE ID AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EVEN HAVE ID (if you are carrying in a location that requires a CHL as an exemption such as "public buildings" then you would need to produce the CHL) (Citation is Etablished Case Law) (CITE for definition of "public buildings" is ORS 166.360 (4))

    We have state preemption of firearms laws (ORS 166.170) and cities and counties are ONLY allowed to regulate the carry of loaded (unloaded can not be regulated) firearms but CHL holders are exempt from any and all such ordinances (ORS 166.173).

    State law specifically states that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed (CITE ORS 166.250 (3))

    Oregon does have a draconian "wiretap" regulation that can and is applied to audio recordings, even those made in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. The requirement that must be fulfilled to lawfully record is that the person recording must INFORM (you do not need permission, mere to inform). (CITE ORS 165.540 (1) (c))
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  14. #14
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Warren, have you downloaded and read the OC PAMPHLET that is the "stickied" first thread in this Oregon Forum? It is full of good scoop and references to the Oregon Revised Statutes. I would recommend printing a couple out and keeping them on your person for such encounters.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Okay, as a Medford resident and always open carrier.....

    Oregon does NOT have a stop and ID statute. Absent RAS (open carry is not RAS as it is legal) you do not have to identify yourself. (there is no CITE for either of these as there is no regulation to CITE)

    With RAS you are required to identify yourself. First and Last name, address, and date of birth....ORALLY....YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PRODUCE ID AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EVEN HAVE ID (if you are carrying in a location that requires a CHL as an exemption such as "public buildings" then you would need to produce the CHL) (Citation is Etablished Case Law) (CITE for definition of "public buildings" is ORS 166.360 (4))
    No offense, but from what you've written, it doesn't make sense. I'm hoping its just the way you worded it, and a little clarification can sort it out.

    First you say no state stop-and-ID (S & I) statute. Then you say absent RAS you don't have to identify yourself. Wait a second. If there is no S & I statute, then RAS is irrelevant with regard to IDing yourself to cop. So, I can't figure out why you say the second sentence, "Absent RAS..."

    But, then in the next paragraph you say you are required to ID yourself if there is RAS. Then some parenthetical data about about CHLs. Then I can't quite tell where the case law cite is supposed to apply. Is it case law that requires verbal identification to a cop with RAS?

    If it is case law that requires verbal identification, do you have case cite? Is there a penalty for refusing? (For example, is refusing lumped under "obstruction of a police officer, with that offense's penalties applying?)

    I ask because this can be painfully important. Simply put, the OCer has a real good chance of having no idea whether the cop has RAS. Its not the cop or the citizen who determine RAS--its the courts. After the fact. Meaning, after you're arrested for refusing to identify yourself. The OCer will have no way to know what was reported to the cop in the 911 call. And, even if the OCer does know, how is he going to correctly guess whether the court will back him up (after his arrest and attorney fees?)

    And, all this still overlooks whether there are any localities with S & I ordinances. A fella might refuse to identify himself because of the absence of a state statute, only to have a cop say, "Haha! Gotcha! There is a town ordinance requiring it. Turn around and put your hands behind your back."

  16. #16
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No offense, but from what you've written, it doesn't make sense. I'm hoping its just the way you worded it, and a little clarification can sort it out.

    First you say no state stop-and-ID (S & I) statute. Then you say absent RAS you don't have to identify yourself. Wait a second. If there is no S & I statute, then RAS is irrelevant with regard to IDing yourself to cop. So, I can't figure out why you say the second sentence, "Absent RAS..."

    But, then in the next paragraph you say you are required to ID yourself if there is RAS. Then some parenthetical data about about CHLs. Then I can't quite tell where the case law cite is supposed to apply. Is it case law that requires verbal identification to a cop with RAS?

    If it is case law that requires verbal identification, do you have case cite? Is there a penalty for refusing? (For example, is refusing lumped under "obstruction of a police officer, with that offense's penalties applying?)

    I ask because this can be painfully important. Simply put, the OCer has a real good chance of having no idea whether the cop has RAS. Its not the cop or the citizen who determine RAS--its the courts. After the fact. Meaning, after you're arrested for refusing to identify yourself. The OCer will have no way to know what was reported to the cop in the 911 call. And, even if the OCer does know, how is he going to correctly guess whether the court will back him up (after his arrest and attorney fees?)

    And, all this still overlooks whether there are any localities with S & I ordinances. A fella might refuse to identify himself because of the absence of a state statute, only to have a cop say, "Haha! Gotcha! There is a town ordinance requiring it. Turn around and put your hands behind your back."
    I STAND CORRECTED....Thank you.

    In Oregon there is no "stop and ID" statute and so, in researching my answer to you I have found that I was misinformed and had misread. Since there is no "Stop and ID" statute, Hibel does not apply.

    Apparently we are under no obligation to identify ourselves at any point.

    However, in practice, should an officer articulate a TRUE RAS (as opposed to "you're carrying a gun") then I would SUGGEST (unless you want to be hauled in and become a test case) verbally identifying yourself.

    Personally, I carry sterile as much as possible and have my IPod information password protected. Just realized I don't have that on my cell phone and need to do that or remove identifying information from it.

    Thanks for calling me on that Citizen.....I learn more on this forum than I do in a week at college.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    OK. I understand. Glad we cleared it up.

    Now, we still have the question about whether some localities--towns, cities, counties have stop-and-identify ordinances. For example, in Northern VA, some localities have what are essentially stop-and-identify ordinances.

    I can't keep up with which localities do and don't. Ten months from now, if I'm stopped in Manassas, VA, there is no way I'm going to clearly recall whether they have a stop-and-identify ordinance. Some of these ordinances have some pretty serious penalties.

    We also have the other angle--how is the citizen going to know whether the cop really has RAS? The possible combination of circumstances reported to the cop, or observed by the cop, is nearly unlimited. For example, maybe the 911 caller said, "Man with holstered gun, but he keeps looking at the bank suspiciously." Wanta bet a pro-cop judge would later rule that enough for RAS? Or, maybe the 911 caller just lies and says the man with gun keeps touching the gun while glaring at passersby. Its not the facts as we view them. Its the information the cop has.

    My solution to the nexus of those two problems--judging whether RAS exists + not knowing whether there is a local stop-and-identify ordinance--is to 1) determine whether I'm being detained, and 2) if I am being detained or my identity is being demanded, just hand over my ID while politely refusing consent.

    This keeps me from being cited or arrested for violating some local ordinance I didn't know about, while my refused consent preserves my rights for this point in a formal complaint or lawsuit later.

    You see, the cop is gonna learn my name when the formal complaint or lawsuit lands. So, I'm not all that concerned whether he learns my name during the encounter.

    Also, cops usually demand an identity document, rather than verbal disclosure, and rather than request identity. I'm no expert who's read them all, but in my experience, its a rare stop-and-identify statute that compels giving an identity document. So, from the very first demand, "Lemme see your ID," I've probably got our hero-in-blue on making a demand for which he had no authority.

    And, the final point that ties it all together is that there will be at least a formal complaint. That's my policy. Any police investigative encounter, even a consensual contact from a cop, over my OCd gun gets at least a formal complaint. Every time.

    Now, you might say, "Whoa! That's too harsh." Before you do, also consider that police so frequently screw up something during even a consensual encounter, its likely I'll have some grist for a formal complaint anyway. By shifting to complaining every time, I'm not really adding all that much additional complaining. In short, carrying a gun, exercising the basic human right of self-defense, absolutely cannot be suspicious. If a cop sees my OCd gun and just feels he has to pay attention to me, he can observe from a distance. If he just can't resist contacting me, he'd better make not one single mistake about anything because his internal affairs bureau is going to hear about the encounter.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-17-2011 at 09:58 PM.

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And, the final point that ties it all together is that there will be at least a formal complaint. That's my policy. Any police investigative encounter, even a consensual contact from a cop, over my OCd gun gets at least a formal complaint. Every time.
    I think this is awesome. You're my hero of the hour and I think I may just have adopted this policy.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    not trying to stir the pot here but the OP in his short time on the site has posted 3 or 4 encounters with police and non OC citizens that were extremely confrontational, all in the medford area..... i have been open carrying in the Southern oregon , rogue valley area for a few years now..... as does my room mate and at least one other person that i know personally , who is also a member here.... and in all that time neither myself or my friends have had that many encounters and NONE have been confrontational (if i am wrong, my friends will jump in and correct me)...... i am wondering if the OP is not attracting attention to himself in some way (even if unintentional) and then feeling persecuted ,he is causing the interaction to escilate (even if unintentional) .....

    if medford and the surrounding cities have so many ill informed cops, who have chips on their shoulders and want to argue with OC'ers i surely have never seen them.... and i oc 24/7...... just wondering

    the fact that we open carry need not be any different than the fact that we wear shoes..... no need to point out constantly that we wear shoes.... no need to constantly be toying with our laces or adjusting the fit..... no need to talk about our shoes so as to make everyone aware of our shoes..... we have shoes, we wear them, they are our shoes and it is our right to do so unharrassed.....
    Last edited by Teddybearfrmhell; 06-18-2011 at 03:15 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Troll thread is successful. >.<

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    To teddybear, It because I go to the park all the time on a bicycle and there is always police activity there. 1st encounter was when someone was trying to grab my handgun and my friend called the police (Hawthorne park). 2cd encounter was when I past a police officer while at hawthorne park on the bike road. 3rd encounter was when I was at hawthorne park when there were preparing for a classic car show and someone called the police, because I was open carry.

    My goals is to protect my rights and educate the people.

    I hope that answer your question.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125

    Talking

    To Citizen, Thanks for the information, I will use it wisely.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    looks like 4 common factors in event.... you, your gun, the park and the police.....

    the gun is an object and is a constant, it can not do anything to change the situation in and of itself.....

    the park is a geographic location and also a constant, the park doesnt know or care if you OC anjd is not responsible for the situation....

    the police are responsive and not a constant..... they respond to calls or observations of people doing things out of the norm..... they do care who is doing what in the park with guns.....

    you are a catalyst and not a constant..... you control when you go into the park, when you carry your gun, how you react to confrontation or curiousity and how you educate or disseminate information....

    remove any of the 3 things you have control over and you no longer have an issue..... the gun, the park or yourself....

    until everyone in and around the park becomes used to an armed citizen who isnt a threat, perhaps you should take it all with a grain of salt and undterstant that you being hassled is part of thier learning curve.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    Yeah, I know I am being hassled, but a officers is required by law to stay in the law and not be the law. The officers in the 3rd incident did very much lied to me and did not identify themselves, which is unlawful.

    Yes, if any one of those I take out (gun, me , or place), I would no longer have that problem. Yet, I will not take anyone of those out and I will suspect the police to respond with professional, polite, respect, and knowing the laws. Yet, they should not come to me with the intent to harassed me, ready to use their firearm on me, required me to put my hands on the table, try to take my firearm, and ID myself.

    The 2cd encounter was professional, polite, respect, and knowing the law. Thanks to officer Strouse.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Okay, as a Medford resident and always open carrier.....

    Oregon does NOT have a stop and ID statute. Absent RAS (open carry is not RAS as it is legal) you do not have to identify yourself. (there is no CITE for either of these as there is no regulation to CITE)

    With RAS you are required to identify yourself. First and Last name, address, and date of birth....ORALLY....YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PRODUCE ID AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EVEN HAVE ID (if you are carrying in a location that requires a CHL as an exemption such as "public buildings" then you would need to produce the CHL) (Citation is Etablished Case Law) (CITE for definition of "public buildings" is ORS 166.360 (4))

    We have state preemption of firearms laws (ORS 166.170) and cities and counties are ONLY allowed to regulate the carry of loaded (unloaded can not be regulated) firearms but CHL holders are exempt from any and all such ordinances (ORS 166.173).

    State law specifically states that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed (CITE ORS 166.250 (3))

    Oregon does have a draconian "wiretap" regulation that can and is applied to audio recordings, even those made in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. The requirement that must be fulfilled to lawfully record is that the person recording must INFORM (you do not need permission, mere to inform). (CITE ORS 165.540 (1) (c))
    Cite please?

    If there is no "Stop and ID" statute, there is NO requirement to identify yourself, RAS or not.

    If there IS a "Stop and ID" statute, there is NO requirement to identify yourself without RAS.



    @Citizen, Hiibel references "State statutes" for Stop and ID. IMHO, municipal statutes may not carry legal weight, but I do not advocate "finding out by refusing." That is a decision each person should make for themselves.
    Last edited by wrightme; 06-18-2011 at 04:27 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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