• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Does a LEO have to give you his RAS if you ask for it?

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A great deal of discussion on the various types of stops has been had on the "First stop Canton" thread here in the Ohio forum:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106490-First-stop-Canton

This thread is not for the discussion of stops (consensual, detention, arrest), but rather about RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion), the thing that separates a consensual encounter from a detention/detainment.

So, an officer gives you an order to "Stop right there!", you ask "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?", and the officer responds "NO!"

In order to legally detain you the officer must have (at least) RAS.

The question is "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?" (a related question is "Does he have to be truthful about it?")

As is customary with this sort of discussion, cites to authority are most valuable.Ladies? Gentlemen?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge.

That said, the conversation isn't going much further until I at least know what crime I'm suspected of. It's kinda hard to cooperate in his investigation if I don't know what information about what suspected crime I'm suspected of.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge.

That said, the conversation isn't going much further until I at least know what crime I'm suspected of. It's kinda hard to cooperate in his investigation if I don't know what information about what suspected crime I'm suspected of.

Ha! Cooperation? Foolish human....:D


Keep the faith!
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
"Am I free to leave?"
"No."
"I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel."

At that moment, I don't CARE what his RAS is, or even whether he HAS any.

I care if I'm free to leave. If NOT, apart from STATUTORILY REQUIRED notifications (carrying concealed under an Ohio CHL, verbal ID, or showing of CHL and secondary ID IF CARRYING) We're not going to talk AT ALL.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cite to what?

If you are free to leave who cares what his motivation for the contact is, leave.

If you are not free to leave clam up, comply only as required by law. Who cares what his claimed RAS is.

Some folks always try to educate on the side of the road. Not me, I leave or let my lawyer do my talking for me beyond any statutory verbal interactions.

Example:

Got "consensually contacted" by one my local finest. The only thing I said was, after I was accosted, "Good morning Officer Friendly I am very busy, may I be on my way?" He asked if he could have a word with me and I said "no, thank you" and repeated the previous. He said I could be on my way. I gave him a warm "thank you" and "have a good day please stay safe." I then went about my business. What, 30 seconds tops?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I'm sure BB62 was asking for a citation to authority for what I posted. All I can say is that this very question has appeared before in other forums and that the most lawyerly (and officerly, if that's even a real word) reply was that the officer owes you nothing by way of explanation. However, he does have to be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion to the trial judge.

The officer is free to lie during the course of investigation, "You're homie done gave you up, you might as well admit what you did and I'll ask the prosecutor to go easy on you" or "I saw what you were doing. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it. If you cooperate and tell me about it, it will show the judge that you're sorry and he'll probably go easier on you." I can't remember the exact phrasing that was used, but it was something to the effect of "officers must be allowed to retain the 'arts and crafts' of their profession in order to extract confessions from criminal suspects."
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Yes, that's correct.

I like the notion of clamming up, but am intrigued/bothered by the fact that no one (yet) has cited case law one way or the other.
I don't think there is a law to cite. Short of that an LEO can lie to you about RAS or any other thing. If they can lie, then they can sure NOT tell you why they are detaining you.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Case law for what? RAS? There is plenty of case law that "shows" that the cop either had or did not have RAS. How could there be case law on a cop not providing RAS at the time of a detainment to justify the detainment. But the point remains, how can a citizen sue/appeal that he was not given the cop's RAS when there is no right violated for merely not telling you why the cop is violating your right(s) by detaining you.....I think.

I guess it boils down to a "who cares why you got rear ended at the stop light, all that matters is that you got rear ended at the stop light."

Don't get me wrong I think it would be fantastic that a cop had to provide RAS and would get hit for it later if he did not.
 

JSlack7851

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
291
Location
, Ohio, USA
From what I've read, it comes back to the question, 'am I being detained, or free to go'. I've always been of the mind that they don't / aren't required to tell you anything as far as RAS is concerned, but I can't prove it by case or statute.

This way, depending on the circumstances, IE: open carrying somewhere outside a vehicle, no ID needed to be passed, just a verbal name / dob or address, if you are in fact being detained. And I also believe you only have to pass this once, if it is not written down or remembered, oh well. Kinda like being asked to blow into the machine twice b/c nothing registered the first time.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
OC for ME... ?

I have no clue what you're saying, but a related question would be "Does a LEO have to tell you why you are being detained?"
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226046509410140751&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. 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."


In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

“Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.” St. John v. McColley

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (1993)

“The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

An anonymous tip is not RAS

ID'ing yourself discussion




How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

DUI Refusal

Another DUI refusal

How to refuse a Police Search

How to keep Police from Searching
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Whether the officer has RAS or not is moot, if you do not talk, and invoke your right to remain silent, and do not consent to a search. The officer has two options, take you into custody or release you. And if he takes you into custody, unless it has changed he/she does have to inform you why you have been arrested. I'll have to do some digging to come up with the cite.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
You know... it kinda makes you miss the apocryphal old days when it was less cloudy and you heard things like -

"Stop! in the name of the law" - no question then under what authority you've been seized, or "You're under arrest for the crime of eating a ham sandwich on Sunday to the detriment of public order."
I wonder if we shouldn't go back to such things (assuming such ever happened in the first place.)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,946
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
From what I've read, it comes back to the question, 'am I being detained, or free to go'. I've always been of the mind that they don't / aren't required to tell you anything as far as RAS is concerned, but I can't prove it by case or statute.

This way, depending on the circumstances, IE: open carrying somewhere outside a vehicle, no ID needed to be passed, just a verbal name / dob or address, if you are in fact being detained. And I also believe you only have to pass this once, if it is not written down or remembered, oh well. Kinda like being asked to blow into the machine twice b/c nothing registered the first time.

And the term is "OR" not "AND." The Supreme Court has made it clear in Hiibel, NAME ONLY......
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
So, an officer gives you an order to "Stop right there!", you ask "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?", and the officer responds "NO!"

In order to legally detain you the officer must have (at least) RAS.

The question is "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?" (a related question is "Does he have to be truthful about it?")

No, and no.

Arguing about various "types" of stops is pointless. How many investigative detentions can dance on the head of a pin isn't important. The only question that is important, is whether you reasonably feel you are not free to leave. If your answer is "no", then you have been seized, and should shut up and say nothing without benefit of legal counsel.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,946
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

No, and no.

Arguing about various "types" of stops is pointless. How many investigative detentions can dance on the head of a pin isn't important. The only question that is important, is whether you reasonably feel you are not free to leave. If your answer is "no", then you have been seized, and should shut up and say nothing without benefit of legal counsel.
So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
"Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.

I don't think that KBCraig implied that. If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does. I haven't found anything that states a cop has to explain his RAS to your/my satisfaction to affect a detention. Sounds like focusing on RAS might be a mis-guided direction of time and effort if the objective is to keep your foot out of the detention trap. It might come into play as a diversion or get the cop to question their actions, if you get one inexperienced enough to fall for it. Those intent on dominating you....will.

Personally, I think cops gamble on your ignorance and their own intimidation value. And to some extent, they gamble on your ability and willingness to lay out 5 figures to confront their behavior. Win, lose, or draw, the cop's not out anything. Like children, they know how far they can push before they get a disciplinary time out. With pay.

While we discuss how we can walk upright on our hind legs like free human beings in spite of the opposition, cops stop in here and take what they find back to their own forums, where they work out the matching methods of overcoming our rights.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
"Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.
"Am I free to leave?"
"No" (or refuses to answer)
"I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel."

You COULD try to walk away. If he ORDERS you to stop (by explicit command or tone of voice), or physically restrains you, you're NOT free to leave. SHUT UP.

If he doesn't compel you to stay, verbally or physically, you cannot LEGALLY be charged with fleeing or anything similar.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Carry a voice recorder so nobody has to rely on HIS version of events.
 
Top