Can police required you to ID yourself while open carry?

Warren Drouin · Jun 18, 2011

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.

Warren Drouin · Jun 18, 2011

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

Teddybearfrmhell · Jun 18, 2011

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.

Warren Drouin · Jun 18, 2011

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.

wrightme · Jun 18, 2011

We-the-People said:
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.

Citizen · Jun 18, 2011

wrightme said:
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.

He and I already cleared it up.

Yes, I understand Hiibel refers to state statutes. <chuckle> Its ironic. After Mike, Supermoderator, I probably hold the record for number of quotes and cites to Hiibel on the forum. (I learned about it from Mike). But, that's my luck. People citing back to me an opinion I know well.

I'm less certain about municipal statutes having legal validity. Having seen how prosecutors and judges can find even the tiniest distinction through which to squeeze a pro-government argument or ruling, I wouldn't bet on anything less than an a state statute expressly denying a municipality the authority to make a stop-and-identify ordinance. Anything foggier than that, and I'll bet a trial court judge could find some aspect of the police power of the state being delegated to a municipality and construe it to include an implied delegated power to make a stop-and-identify ordinance if the municipal legislative body "found" it was necessary to detect and prevent crime.

MKEgal · Jun 19, 2011

In re: asking for RAS... 2 things I've seen suggested here before:
"Why am I being detained?"
When they tell you you're not, either leave or ignore them.
[And in the most recent case, being approached/surrounded by 4 officers, you were definitely detained.]

"What crime do you suspect me of committing?"
If they can't explain, it's more reason they shouldn't be bothering you.
OC is not a crime & the peaceful exercise of a right can NEVER be twisted into a crime.

Since there are multiple problems w/ the police, esp. at this park, finding someone at the PD with some pretty pins on their collar or shoulders is in order.
At the minimum, a letter.
Phone conversation is better, meeting in person is best.
Have cites to state laws explaining exactly why what the officers keep doing is wrong.
File a complaint after every wrongful encounter.
Establish a pattern of abuse, establish that you have repeatedly notified them.
Perhaps involve the city attorney if the PD is unwilling to do some remedial training on the laws.

If the police are wasting time investigating non-crimes & harassing citizens who aren't doing anything wrong, they have less time to handle real problems.

Historyman1942 · Jul 22, 2011

bigtoe416 said:
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.

That only applies to TELEPHONE, read up on the Oregon Law a bit more. Audio recording in Oregon requires notification to the party (notification not permission). This varies from telephonic communication.... which yes you would be right.

Do not quote me for sure on this one however....
Video cameras if in plain view to the person can get audio and since a person would reasonably believe the camera is also capturing audio you do not need to notify. I am going to go research Oregon law to clarify this.

bigtoe416 · Jul 22, 2011

Historyman1942 said:
That only applies to TELEPHONE, read up on the Oregon Law a bit more. Audio recording in Oregon requires notification to the party (notification not permission). This varies from telephonic communication.... which yes you would be right.

I'm a little confused since you quoted the part I noted was incorrect, but it sounds like you disagree with We the People's assessment (from post #13 in this thread):

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))

Was the law intended to apply only to telephone conversations? Perhaps initially. My understanding is that the way it is worded, it applies much more broadly.

VW_Factor · Jul 22, 2011

Historyman1942 said:
That only applies to TELEPHONE, read up on the Oregon Law a bit more. Audio recording in Oregon requires notification to the party (notification not permission). This varies from telephonic communication.... which yes you would be right.

Do not quote me for sure on this one however....
Video cameras if in plain view to the person can get audio and since a person would reasonably believe the camera is also capturing audio you do not need to notify. I am going to go research Oregon law to clarify this.

I don't know about devices being plainly in the open, however reading farther into it.. It appears that you must indeed notify. (which kind of sucks) At any rate, nothing says you may not record, simply that you must notify.

Edit : I guess I should make clear, that when I went looking for this information initially.. I was searching for wiretapping laws (which have been used in other states to attack those who record). All the while, Oregon law has already gone above and beyond that. At least the law is somewhat on our side saying nothing about us not being able to record intereaction, nor having to follow "orders" to turn the recording devices off upon LEO request.

Historyman1942 · Jul 25, 2011

bigtoe416 said:
I'm a little confused since you quoted the part I noted was incorrect, but it sounds like you disagree with We the People's assessment (from post #13 in this thread):

Was the law intended to apply only to telephone conversations? Perhaps initially. My understanding is that the way it is worded, it applies much more broadly.

ORS 165.540(a) said:
Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.

So if you are the participant then it is legal to record the conversation legally.

You quoted

ORS 165.540(c) said:
Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

However please note the following.... definitions are a very important part of understanding law.

165.535 Definitions applicable to obtaining contents of communications. As used in ORS 41.910, 133.723, 133.724, 165.540 and 165.545:

(1) “Conversation” means the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecommunication or a radio communication.
(2) “Person” means any person as defined in ORS 174.100 and includes public officials and law enforcement officers of the state, county, municipal corporation or any other political subdivision of the state.
(4) “Telecommunication” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable or other similar connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, equipment and services (including, among other things, the receipt, forwarding and delivering of communications) incidental to such transmission.

Can police required you to ID yourself while open carry?

Warren Drouin

Regular Member

Warren Drouin

Regular Member

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member

Warren Drouin

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

Historyman1942

Regular Member

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

VW_Factor

Regular Member

Historyman1942

Regular Member