ID?

[freeSTATE101]

do i have to show police id if stopped for oc'ing?

[MKEgal]

This would be better to ask in your state forum, since laws vary by state.
In general, the answer is no.
Even if seen committing a heinous crime, you have a right to remain silent.
If you're not committing a crime, how much less power do police have to force you to ID yourself?

[Don't fall for the "we don't know you're not a felon" line, unless they're also stopping everyone with kids to make sure they're not felons prohibited from contact with children, or not kidnapping those children. They have to have RAS that you are a felon; you don't have to prove you're not. Of course, you could try the reasoning that since laws say it's illegal for felons to be in possession of firearms, & laws prevent crime, the mere fact that you do have a firearm proves you're not a felon.]

If your state requires a permit to carry openly, that gives RAS of a crime & the defense is showing them you have a permit. Whether or not that must be accompanied by gov't-issued photo ID depends on the laws of the state.

And of course, if you're visiting someplace stupid that prohibits OC entirely, again that's RAS of a crime so the cops can stop you.

[MKEgal]

You should also check out the references in this thread, especially the case law cites.

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."

THIS is a video you need to watch. Titled "Don't Talk to Cops", it's 48 minutes, half by a law professor (talking at warp speed) & half by a LEO.
Make the time to watch it at least once. One of the most valuble ways to spend an hour.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/ is also very helpful. IIRC, their videos can also be found on YouTube.

[slapmonkay]

THIS is a video you need to watch. Titled "Don't Talk to Cops", it's 48 minutes, half by a law professor (talking at warp speed) & half by a LEO.
Make the time to watch it at least once. One of the most valuble ways to spend an hour.

+1, Agree watch the youtube video. Never talk to the cops unless your required to under your states law.

[PALO]

+1, Agree watch the youtube video. Never talk to the cops unless your required to under your states law.

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

if you are caught red handed after you just murdered somebody, though... i would agree. unless you WANT to take responsibility of course.

however, on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

it is certainly fine to ask what you are being stopped for

i was stopped at gunpoint once for doing nothing wrong (long story) but the cops were justified

IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached

and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

if a cop asks for ID, ask them "are you requesting it or demanding it?"

if they say they are demanding it, the best bet is to COMPLY, but to make sure you follow up to determine why you were stopped etc.

in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

[okiebryan]

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

if you are caught red handed after you just murdered somebody, though... i would agree. unless you WANT to take responsibility of course.

however, on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

it is certainly fine to ask what you are being stopped for

i was stopped at gunpoint once for doing nothing wrong (long story) but the cops were justified

IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached

and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

if a cop asks for ID, ask them "are you requesting it or demanding it?"

if they say they are demanding it, the best bet is to COMPLY, but to make sure you follow up to determine why you were stopped etc.

in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

You have made a lot of assertions in this post, but cited no statutes or any case law. Please do so. Problem is, you can't...everything you have said goes against statutes and case law. Only anecdotes of your own experience.

Oh, and it's very bad advice.

[NavyLCDR]

+1, Agree watch the youtube video. Never talk to the cops unless your required to under your states law.

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

PALO,

Do you know every state statute and county and city ordinance that may be applicable to you at any given moment? Let me give you an example:

Cop stops you for speeding in Seattle, Washington. You present your driver's license, registration and insurance to the officer. Even though not required by law to do so, you also give him your Concealed Pistol License and let him know, "Officer, I would like to inform you that I am legally carrying a firearm in a holster on my belt, how would you like me to proceed?" Some people like to do that, I don't know why.

Officer Friendly says, "Thank you for telling me, would you mind stepping out of the vehicle, so that I can retrieve your firearm so everyone stays safe." (Again, B.S., but that is the claim.) Officer Friendly then asks, do you have any other weapons on you or in the car? You answer, "Well, I have a pocket knife that my son gave me for Christmas in my pocket. Officer Friendly asks, "May I please hold on to that, too, for safety sake?" You hand over the pocket knife. Officer Friendly asks, "Anything else?" You reply, "No sir." Officer Friendly says, "Ok, I'll check these out, you can wait in your vehicle."

He goes back to his car, runs the serial number of your gun to see if it is stolen (which will also return the name of the person who bought it, if purchased from an FFL in Washington state). Then he measures the blade on your pocket knife and he measures it to be 3 5/8 inches. Congratulations! Officer Friendly now confiscates your contraband pocket knife because it is illegal to have a folding knife over 3 1/2" in blade length in Seattle (Seattle City Ordinance), and now your speeding ticket just turned into a citation for possession of an illegal weapon. And, if you did not buy the handgun from an FFL in Washington, but someone else did (maybe whom you purchased it from), the Officer might freak out over that as well, especially since he just cited you for an illegal knife.

The reason we don't talk to police when we aren't required to by law is that we have no idea what state, county or city ordinance they may be looking to bust us for. I will interact with a police officer only the minimum amount required by law, which I have a very good idea what the minimum is, in Washington, and will politely refuse to consent to all other interactions.

[Stanley]

The reason we don't talk to police when we aren't required to by law is that we have no idea what state, county or city ordinance they may be looking to bust us for. I will interact with a police officer only the minimum amount required by law, which I have a very good idea what the minimum is, in Washington, and will politely refuse to consent to all other interactions.

Please understand my legal-fu is weak.

That said...

Is this because, if it turns out the cop had no RAS and you don't consent, but he searches anyways and finds the knife, it is an illegal search and the citation will be thrown out of court?

But if you "offer" the knife and get cited there is no illegal search because you consented and then the charge sticks?





---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919953,-77.153260

[Fallschirmjäger]

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

No, cops aren't the enemy. But the individual cop asking you questions about what you are doing and why, is by definition in an adversarial relationship with you.
It's not the cops that are arresting people, or shooting woodcarvers in Seattle, it's the individual officer.

if you are caught red handed after you just murdered somebody, though... i would agree. unless you WANT to take responsibility of course.

Why is it good advice to NOT talk to the police and risk incriminating yourself if you are guilty of something,
and not good advice to NOT talk to the police and risk incriminating yourself if you aren't guilty of anything?
I don't know what the cops are looking for and admitting that I was walking down MLK Blvd at 1030 at night just might put me in the "person of interest" category because a murder took place at that time even though I had nothing to do with it.

however, on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction.

Nope, sorry. 1) I'm not required to carry ID, but I may be required to possess a license for a licensed activity. 2) I can be required to provide identification, and the Supreme Court has ruled that a true oral statement meets that requirement. 3) Obstruction is not the same as non-cooperation. IF it were, then the police only have to ask every citizen they encounter "have you committed a crime?" and if the person refuses to answer truthfully then they could be arrested.

I'll be perfectly happy to not obstruct Officer Friendly's investigation. As a matter of fact, I'm so interested in not obstructing his investigation that I'll just step w-a-a-a-y-y-y over there and not say even a single word until he's done.

it is certainly fine to ask what you are being stopped for
i was stopped at gunpoint once for doing nothing wrong (long story) but the cops were justified
IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached
and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

See above, you may be required to identify yourself, but since you are under no legal obligation to carry identification you can't be required to provide it.

if a cop asks for ID, ask them "are you requesting it or demanding it?"
if they say they are demanding it, the best bet is to COMPLY, but to make sure you follow up to determine why you were stopped etc.
in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

If Officer Friendly is just "...havin' a friendly-like conversation, I jus' need to identify you for my records" voluntary encounter then I have absolutely no problem with providing him with state issued identification.
....
"Sure think, Officer Friendly, just provide two pieces of picture identification, and I'll hold on to them while you hold on to mine. You don't mine doing that........... do you?"

[NavyLCDR]

Please understand my legal-fu is weak.

That said...

Is this because, if it turns out the cop had no RAS and you don't consent, but he searches anyways and finds the knife, it is an illegal search and the citation will be thrown out of court?

But if you "offer" the knife and get cited there is no illegal search because you consented and then the charge sticks?

That is part of it, yes. Anything that you voluntarily offer to the officer, whether it be an object or verbal information, can be used against you because you voluntarily gave it up, and the only way to get that thrown out is to prove you were coerced into offering it.

But there's more to it than that. First, are you being detained or not? Establish that up front. That is the first question that will come up in court. Unless you are stopped with blue and red lights and it is 100% obvious your are being detained, ASK. "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, then, "Respectfully, officer, but I do not wish to have a voluntary interaction with you, and I will be on my way now." Make it clear that you do not consent to an encounter. The burden of proof, in court, then falls upon the officer to prove they had lawful reason to detain you.

Then, if you are being detained, why in heck would you offer anything up voluntarily? The officer is looking for something to charge you with, or else they would not have detained you. If it is a traffic stop, don't offer anything about weapons, unless you have to by law. If it is for some unkown reason on the street, know your state law in regards to providing things such as ID and firearms licenses and offer nothing that is not required to by law. That way, if the officer searches for it without your consent, they must prove their justification in court.

The minute you admit to carrying a weapon during a detainment, they have the right to frisk you and search the immediate area from which you can obtain a weapon without your consent - UNLESS you can convince a court to actually separate being armed from being dangerous to the officer or others. Good luck with that.

[PALO]

You have made a lot of assertions in this post, but cited no statutes or any case law. Please do so. Problem is, you can't...everything you have said goes against statutes and case law. Only anecdotes of your own experience.

Oh, and it's very bad advice.

it's good advice

case law varies STATE TO STATE

i am not going to cite case law in ever state in the union

the PRIMARY dominant case is terry v. ohio wherein authority to detain pursuant to RS is established.

i can state authoritatively in MY STATE, cops cannot detain merely for OCing, nor can they demand id

cops can "social contact" anybody for any reason, but if done to people for OC'ing, and especially if a "pattern", it makes them liable for the civil tort of harassment

i have been contacted by cops a lot (played in a loud band in college, bla bla). ime, having a respectful and friendly attitude is a benefit.

i was, on a few occasions given verbal warnings for stuff i COULD have been cited for. if i was a ****, i likely would have been

you make your choices. i'll make mine. cops are not the enemy, although SOME, unfortunately can and will violate our rights vis a vis stopping us for open carry. when and if that happens, i will be police, respectful BUT i will assert my rights, and i will use PROPER, LEGAL means of redress if my rights are violated

[PALO]

That is part of it, yes. Anything that you voluntarily offer to the officer, whether it be an object or verbal information, can be used against you because you voluntarily gave it up, and the only way to get that thrown out is to prove you were coerced into offering it.

But there's more to it than that. First, are you being detained or not? Establish that up front. That is the first question that will come up in court. Unless you are stopped with blue and red lights and it is 100% obvious your are being detained, ASK. "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, then, "Respectfully, officer, but I do not wish to have a voluntary interaction with you, and I will be on my way now." Make it clear that you do not consent to an encounter. The burden of proof, in court, then falls upon the officer to prove they had lawful reason to detain you.

Then, if you are being detained, why in heck would you offer anything up voluntarily? The officer is looking for something to charge you with, or else they would not have detained you. If it is a traffic stop, don't offer anything about weapons, unless you have to by law. If it is for some unkown reason on the street, know your state law in regards to providing things such as ID and firearms licenses and offer nothing that is not required to by law. That way, if the officer searches for it without your consent, they must prove their justification in court.

The minute you admit to carrying a weapon during a detainment, they have the right to frisk you and search the immediate area from which you can obtain a weapon without your consent - UNLESS you can convince a court to actually separate being armed from being dangerous to the officer or others. Good luck with that.

the problem with this "logic" is it assumes only inculpatory stuff is offered by the detainee

far from true. quite frequently, people can exculpate themselves at the scene, thus there never IS a CRIMINAL CASE. people who only look AT criminal cases, fall prey to selection bias, because for every person who inculpates themself, used against them IN COURT< there are others who EXCULPATE themselves or they inculpate themselves and are offererd warnings.

i am certainly NOT saying to consent to searches. that's more problematic. i am saying that having a blanket "don't talk to cops" police is stupid and ignores that people routinely exculpate themselves WHEN innocent (and sometimes even when guilty) by talking

example": it's 2 am, and you locked your keys in the car. it's actually your GFs car and you are using a coathanger to try to get in

cops see you and naturally does a terry. do you explain to him WHY you are "breaking into " a car not registered to you?

yes. if you want to NOT go to jail.

otherwise, he'll have PC for vehicle prowl. if you explain to him why you were doing what you were doing , he can simply confirm your "story" and realize you were not committing a crime

it's a facile example, but quite typical.

[NavyLCDR]

respectful BUT i will assert my rights, and i will use PROPER, LEGAL means of redress if my rights are violated

Which is it going to be? You are saying two opposite things. Now you say you will assert your rights. But your previous post says:

+1, Agree watch the youtube video. Never talk to the cops unless your required to under your states law.

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

Nobody is saying that cops are the enemy. All we ARE saying is assert your rights, and, if they are not detaining you, walk away. You appear to be trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.

[William Fisher]

PALO. SOME cops behave like the enemy. Have you seen the Canton, Ohio video? Or the one from Penn. Where the cop started with "YO, JUNIOR"? The man in Penn. was simply OCing and even tried to inform the cop of his own departments internal directive stating that OC is legal. The cop wouldn't listen. I assume the the vast majority of cops are good, but not all of them are our friend.

[PALO]

Which is it going to be? You are saying two opposite things. Now you say you will assert your rights. But your previous post says:



Nobody is saying that cops are the enemy. All we ARE saying is assert your rights, and, if they are not detaining you, walk away. You appear to be trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.

this is not mutually inconsistent.
1) i believe that blanket advice to never talk to cops is harmful - to the individual following that advtsice, and to society at large

2) i will assert my rights. do you know what ASSERT means? look it up. iow, if contacted by the cops, and i want to leave, i will ask "am i being detained or am i free to leave?" and IF free to leave, and i want to leave, i will. if stopped for, what i believe, is being stopped for OC. i will assert "i have the legal right to OC in Wa state, and it is unlawful to detain me MERELY for OCing if that is the case". i will , if i believe my rights were violated, followup with either a dept. complaint/inquiry or more serious actions.

i will, OTOh, talk to cops. they are not the enemy. i will also obey (generally speaking) demands, since i know that EVEN IF a stop is later determined unjustified, it does not give me the right to resist, and certainly not to physically resist.

i will seek redress. as somebody who HAS sued somebody (and won), i am well aware of the process.

[PALO]

PALO. SOME cops behave like the enemy. Have you seen the Canton, Ohio video? Or the one from Penn. Where the cop started with "YO, JUNIOR"? The man in Penn. was simply OCing and even tried to inform the cop of his own departments internal directive stating that OC is legal. The cop wouldn't listen. I assume the the vast majority of cops are good, but not all of them are our friend.

i totally agree. and there is no group on earth, that doesn't have bad apples. cops, because of their general authoritah often have substnatial means to be a jerk AND make your life miserable because of their jerkiness.

that being said, i am not a bigot. i don't assume cop X is a bad guy or the enemy, because a tiny %age of cops ARE.

i treat people with respect, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or that they are a cop. ime, even IF somebody is prone to be a jerk, having a respectful friendly attitude often goes a long way towards DEFUSING a situation with such a person.

the ONE time in my life, i had a cop be a jerk towards me, was when i was a jerk towards him FIRST.

should he have been professional and not stooped to my level? yes. but people, cops included, are imperfect

[MKEgal]

he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

As with many things, laws vary by state.
(Laws concerning rights shouldn't vary, but unfortunately they do.)
Here in WI, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled that merely refusing to provide one's name - remaining silent - is not grounds for obstruction (and therefore some form of physical, state-issued ID would certainly be covered).
Some officers still haven't learned this, & will try to write a ticket or arrest someone, but it won't go anywhere... and that gives grounds for a wrongful arrest suit & settlement or punative damages.

people routinely exculpate themselves WHEN innocent (and sometimes even when guilty) by talking

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Miranda says absolutely nothing about something you say being used to your advantage.
If you'd watched that video I referenced you would understand this.

otherwise, he'll have PC for vehicle prowl.

Hmmm... so you're from Kent (which is across the Atlantic) & you speak British.
What are you doing over here trying to teach us about American rights?
Maybe ask Mike & John to set up a forum for the British Empire.

[PALO]

As with many things, laws vary by state.
(Laws concerning rights shouldn't vary, but unfortunately they do.)
Here in WI, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled that merely refusing to provide one's name - remaining silent - is not grounds for obstruction (and therefore some form of physical, state-issued ID would certainly be covered).
Some officers still haven't learned this, & will try to write a ticket or arrest someone, but it won't go anywhere... and that gives grounds for a wrongful arrest suit & settlement or punative damages.


"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Miranda says absolutely nothing about something you say being used to your advantage.
If you'd watched that video I referenced you would understand this.


Hmmm... so you're from Kent (which is across the Atlantic) & you speak British.
What are you doing over here trying to teach us about American rights?
Maybe ask Mike & John to set up a forum for the British Empire.

um i've watched a million videos with the same theme. and i keep explaining to you, they invariably come from the perspective of attorneys who naturally see COURT CASES. they do NOT see "cases" that never get to court, which is what usually happens when a person exculpates themself

furthermore i am well aware what miranda says. however, that's an appeal to authority

are you honestly saying you don't understand that when a person provides (for example) an alibi, that that (generally) helps them, not hurts them

MOST police contacts don't result in arrest, let alone charging. most encounters with citizens are relatively low key. if you cherry pick by ONLY looking at court cases, you wil naturally come to a conclusion that is substantially biased. WHEN a case GOES to court (or even charging), by definition these are cases where the evidence is strong AGAINST somebody

when somebody exculpates themself it never reaches that level (usually)

you can't look at a TINY subset of a group and make conclusions about the whole group, group being police encounters in general

and again, not only can talking to police help exonertate you IN THE FIELD from ever getting arrested i nthe first place, there are TONS of examples where people who WERE guilty managed to avoid arrest or allay suspicion, and sometimes even to finger another person by talking to police

SEVERAL serial killers for example, have done good jobs at this

gary ridgway for example, DECADEs before he was arrested (based on new DNA technology that would have fingered him either way but wasn't available back in the day) WAS a suspect, he agreed to police interviews, and he largely managed to answer questions well enough that he was placed more on the back burner compared to other suspects

again, you can't look at a tiny subset of encounters that BY THEIR NATURE evidence that the person DID NOT help themselves (because they ARE being tried) and conclude that that's what happens when you talk to police

you have to look at ALL the cases.

let me give you another example from my personal experience

in college i played in a very loud band, so had frequent contacts with police

one night, about 2:30 am, i was walking home and was carrying a rather expensive power amp. of course i was terried by a cop and he asked about it. if i had said nothing, he may or may not have had enough to at least seize the power amp suspecting it was stolen until he could verify it, or maybe not

but by giving him some info, he was able to confirm it Was my power amp and i was on my way in a couple of minutes.

that case would never GET TO COURT, since there WAS no case

again, see: selection bias.

or again, address the guy in the parking lot breaking into his girlfriend's car (that he had permission to possess)

that fact is - IF he talks to police, he doesn't go to jail

if he does NOT, he does

granted, in the latter case, he could probably get the defense taken care of at a pretrial hearing, but he saves himself arrest BY talking to cops and giving them the means to determine that he is NOT unlawfully entering the vehicle

you can follow whatever advice you want. but i believe a BLANKET rule not to talk to police is ridiculous

fwiw, i have even had a defense attorney (i work closely with attorneys all the time. i've testified in court as an expert witness on many occasions) say that he tells his clients not to talk to police because he knows that his clients are generally incredibly stupid and USUALLY guilty as hell. that was of course off the record, but i appreciated the honesty

if you are guilty as hell, there is good reason (although it's not ALWAYS the best option) to shut the hell up

[PALO]

As with many things, laws vary by state.
(Laws concerning rights shouldn't vary, but unfortunately they do.)
Here in WI, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled that merely refusing to provide one's name - remaining silent - is not grounds for obstruction (and therefore some form of physical, state-issued ID would certainly be covered).
Some officers still haven't learned this, & will try to write a ticket or arrest someone, but it won't go anywhere... and that gives grounds for a wrongful arrest suit & settlement or punative damages.


"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Miranda says absolutely nothing about something you say being used to your advantage.
If you'd watched that video I referenced you would understand this.


Hmmm... so you're from Kent (which is across the Atlantic) & you speak British.
What are you doing over here trying to teach us about American rights?
Maybe ask Mike & John to set up a forum for the British Empire.

um, we use the term "vehicle prowl" in the US too

again, get some understanding before you criticize

here's part of the WASHINGTON STATE criminal code

hth

RCW 9A.52.100
Vehicle prowling in the second degree.


(1) A person is guilty of vehicle prowling in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a vehicle other than a motor home, as defined in RCW 46.04.305, or a vessel equipped for propulsion by mechanical means or by sail which has a cabin equipped with permanently installed sleeping quarters or cooking facilities.

(2) Vehicle prowling in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

[William Fisher]

i totally agree. and there is no group on earth, that doesn't have bad apples. cops, because of their general authoritah often have substnatial means to be a jerk AND make your life miserable because of their jerkiness.

that being said, i am not a bigot. i don't assume cop X is a bad guy or the enemy, because a tiny %age of cops ARE.

i treat people with respect, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or that they are a cop. ime, even IF somebody is prone to be a jerk, having a respectful friendly attitude often goes a long way towards DEFUSING a situation with such a person.

the ONE time in my life, i had a cop be a jerk towards me, was when i was a jerk towards him FIRST.

should he have been professional and not stooped to my level? yes. but people, cops included, are imperfect

I did state: "I assume the the vast majority of cops are good". Whether I decide to answer questions or not depends on how I am approached by the officer. They come in at level 6 demanding to know "WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING? Why are you wearing your firearm like that"? Or "You, let me see some I.D. . I'm not going to talk to them. Yes there are imperfect people in all proffessions. But a cop has that badge and a POWER over ME that a plumber, store cashier or whatever does not. Being they are given that POWER, I expect the to be able to control it. The nature of their job should not only require it, it should demand it.

[Fallschirmjäger]

the problem with this "logic" is it assumes only inculpatory stuff is offered by the detainee

The logic is quite solid. Remember the warning "anything you say can and will be used against you ..."? Notice where it doesn't say anything you say to clear yourself will be used on your behalf?
Wonder why?


Look at the Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(a)
It defines what is NOT hearsay, so anything that does not meet the definitions listed is by definition hearsay and inadmissible.

[Venator]

this imo, is dumb advice. cops are not the enemy.

if you are caught red handed after you just murdered somebody, though... i would agree. unless you WANT to take responsibility of course.

however, on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

it is certainly fine to ask what you are being stopped for

i was stopped at gunpoint once for doing nothing wrong (long story) but the cops were justified

IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached

and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

if a cop asks for ID, ask them "are you requesting it or demanding it?"

if they say they are demanding it, the best bet is to COMPLY, but to make sure you follow up to determine why you were stopped etc.

in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

You didn't watch the video did you? Most of your comments are poppycock.

[wrightme]

No, it is NOT 'good advice.' If you would read the responses you received, you should be able to understand why it isn't good advice.

it's good advice
case law varies STATE TO STATE

i am not going to cite case law in ever state in the union

the PRIMARY dominant case is terry v. ohio wherein authority to detain pursuant to RS is established.

i can state authoritatively in MY STATE, cops cannot detain merely for OCing, nor can they demand id

cops can "social contact" anybody for any reason, but if done to people for OC'ing, and especially if a "pattern", it makes them liable for the civil tort of harassment

i have been contacted by cops a lot (played in a loud band in college, bla bla). ime, having a respectful and friendly attitude is a benefit.

i was, on a few occasions given verbal warnings for stuff i COULD have been cited for. if i was a dick, i likely would have been

you make your choices. i'll make mine. cops are not the enemy, although SOME, unfortunately can and will violate our rights vis a vis stopping us for open carry. when and if that happens, i will be police, respectful BUT i will assert my rights, and i will use PROPER, LEGAL means of redress if my rights are violated

[slapmonkay]

You didn't watch the video did you?

This is the first thought that came to my mind once I read his posts.

on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

Correct. For Washington See State Vs Casad

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

This is why the first words out of your mouth should be 'Am I free to go'. If your not free to go, they are detaining you at which point you should ask which RAS or PC they are detaining you for. Only once they have clearly identified the RAS I am only required to identify myself (In WA) when they are arresting, writing a citation or while I am driving. Only under those circumstances would I Identify and only as far as required by law (verbal). No other communication is required and I would opt to exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent.

IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached

No where do I recommend not complying with demands such as 'keep hands up' or physically resisting. Nor do I recommend reaching for a weapon when an officer is present. In fact, if this is the case its not the place to fight the encounter. If this happens to me I can guarantee you all they will get from me is my verbal id information after they have arrested me.

and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

False. In Washington state (where you and I are from), you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.

in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

While it is true that refusing to id in some cases can result in a citation, saying that in many cases is not accurate. Most states only require you identify in specific scenarios. I can count on a hand how many states have the ability to simply ask for Id without conditions being met.

1) i believe that blanket advice to never talk to cops is harmful - to the individual following that advtsice, and to society at large

Harmful how? Do you have evidence that its harmful? I personally, don't want to indicate myself in a crime or violation of law. My first priority is myself.

i don't assume cop X is a bad guy or the enemy, because a tiny %age of cops ARE.

Unfortunately, I have to assume that the officer I am dealing with is one of the bad apples. If I don't then ill find myself in an unprepared situation giving up information and rights to someone that is going to exploit those.

i treat people with respect, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or that they are a cop.

I do as well. However, I am under no obligation to talk to any of them nor be in there presence if I don't feel like it. I am not telling people to go around being a jerk to people.

the ONE time in my life, i had a cop be a jerk towards me, was when i was a jerk towards him FIRST.

I am not saying to be a jerk toward the cop, I don't think anyone is. Exercising a right and only giving information required by law to a cop is not being a jerk. The officer may think your being a jerk or being difficult but that's his problem, he is perceiving me as being a jerk because he thinks people should just roll over for him like they normally do.

are you honestly saying you don't understand that when a person provides (for example) an alibi, that that (generally) helps them, not hurts them

I feel that the time and place for an alibi is not at time of contact with an officer. The correct time is after you have been arrested (if they have enough evidence) and after you have talked with your lawyer and only then provided in a court room under oath. By you giving your alibi, that YOU think is going to help you, the officer finds a single piece of your statement that may be suspect in the incidient and it winds up with you being arrested.

I believe if you provide nothing, they already a) have enough evidence to arrest you and will do so anyway or b) don't have enough information and are fishing for more data that can help arrest you. Don't cave to there requests without a lawyer.

address the guy in the parking lot breaking into his girlfriend's car (that he had permission to possess)

that fact is - IF he talks to police, he doesn't go to jail

if he does NOT, he does

This is not accurate. The police need to have evidence that he is actually violating the law before they arrest him. They have to prove that he does not have the right to be in the car. In every scenario they will call the registered owner (suspected victim), they will ask if this is there vehicle and ask if they know the suspected subject. The lady will say she knows them and that they have the right to be in the car.

Do you seriously think that the police are going to take his word that he is allowed/given permission to be in the car or in legal possession of that car simply because he says so? I hope not. Talking to the police here, helps you in no way shape or form.

The police must have evidence of a crime you have committed. Talking to them will only help find more evidence so they can arrest you.

----------------------------------

You are being naive if you think talking to the police is a good idea. You seem to try and bring up multiple points around talking to them gets you out of issues that you may have otherwise been arrested or cited for. I disagree with that at its face. If the officers have evidence of a crime or citation they will arrest or cite you no matter what you say or how you act. Talking to them can only provide them with additional information they did not know which they can use against you and not for you. The officers have the burden to prove you violated the law, its not your responsibility to help them.

[NavyLCDR]

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

You claim to be from Washington State, yet you have no idea what the law is in Washington State for being required to produce ID, do you? Arrested for obstruction for failure to produce ID.... not in Washington....

Other than producing a driver's license when stopped while operating a motor vehicle, this is the ONLY time you are required to produce ID in Washington State and notice what the penalty is:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.