He must just be having a long weekend and not able to get back to work where he can hang out on the forums with us.
I think it's way too early to even suggest he's abandoned us and gone back to Officer.com to complain about how all those rude, nasty, open carriers didn't 'respect his authoritah.'
We can give him a few more days, right?
Oh, we can take some time to review. Lemme see. Hmmmm.
SgtScott31
1. Made an assertion of law that a citizen is obligated by law to identify himself to a cop who has RAS, this obligation existing in every state with or without a stop-and-ID statute.
2. He got bent out of shape when we demanded a cite. Something about him liking how we thought he was pulling this stuff out of his _ _ _.
3. He took numerous evasions rather than just make a cite. Now, this is really telling. He had more than a few requests for a cite, more people than I can ever remember happening in previous threads--ever--asked him for a cite. And, he took numerous dodges. Going off into several posts about TN law, despite the cite requests clearly being about his "all states" assertion. There is no way these evasions weren't knowing and deliberate. Same for all the huffing about his experience with TN law, in lieu of providing cites to TN law.
4. Now, we can get down in the weeds quite a bit. Certainly, he gave us plenty of weeds to mow. But, we should periodically step back and take a more expansive view. Here is what I see:
He clearly wasn't interested in educating OCers as citizens. He expected us to take his word for it; he even criticized us for not taking his word for it.
Think about it for a minute. He didn't say, "Listen fellas, I don't want anybody to get arrested because they misunderstood the law. I can't provide a cite just at the moment, but I'm pretty sure you have to ID yourself if the cop has RAS pretty much no matter where you are. You should check this out more thoroughly." No, he didn't say anything like that. In fact, I think he may have even dared anybody to try their hand with TN law to find out whether he was right.
Also, there is a huge tactics issue regarding identity and RAS that he never even bothered to mention. If he really wanted OCers to keep out of trouble, he would have told us about it.
Especially in a thread for a new guy!!
Here is the tactical issue:
How is an OCer supposed to know for certain,
during the encounter, whether the cop has genuine RAS? The cop can only demand identity if he has genuine RAS and law authorizing the demand. But, how are you going to know whether he has RAS?
It is the courts who decide
after the encounter during the suppression hearing whether the cop had genuine RAS. See the last paragraph or so of
Terry v Ohio where SCOTUS said each case will have to be decided on its own facts. Hint, hint: that means the courts get to decide, not the OCer.
It is not what you are actually doing that counts. It is what the c
op thinks about the circumstances he observes and reports he is given by witnesses and dispatch. Was there a 911 call about a suspicious man with a gun? Was there just enough in that phone call to make RAS? Was the phone call a false report? Embellished? Did dispatch pass along the info to the cop precisely? Did a woman flag down the cop and make a false or embellished report? Or, even a true report. For example, "stranger walking in neighborhood (that recently had a couple burglaries), gun visible, looking at houses, looked very suspicious to me officer."
Care to take a chance as to whether you know all the situations and circumstances that have been ruled are enough for RAS in the last 40+ years since Terry? Do you know whether the cop gets to include his experience as a cop when drawing conclusions about whether something you are doing is suspicious?
And, even if you read every court opinion on RAS, care to roll the dice as to how the judge you face will rule regarding the circumstances in your case? I can't think of two RAS cases that were identical in all circumstances, so even reading every single one still means yours will likely be different, and a judge will have to rule on your exact circumstances. Care to try to guess what your judge will rule?
The cop might lie to you about his RAS, giving you a piece instead of all of it. Also, and even worse, if you defy him, care to take odds on whether he's gonna now really want your a$$? Care to bet whether the RAS gets embellished a bit when told to the judge? In other words, the cop might lie to you during the encounter, and might lie to the judge about what circumstances existed to give him RAS.
I am not a lawyer. But, having studied this subject for the better part of five years, I can tell you that was I in a jurisdiction with a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance, I would identify while refusing consent. That way, if he does have genuine RAS, I'm not violating the identity law. If it turns out later he didn't have genuine RAS, my refused consent means I didn't do it consensually and I have another point for a complaint or lawsuit.
