ID Statute WA State

Good evening,

New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.

Turnkeys said:

Good evening,

New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.

Click to expand...

simple. in this state, you are NOT required to provide ID unless you are under arrest, at which point, all they can do is search you and take your ID from you. I have had officers ask me for my name and such and I usually respond "am I required to tell you?" They always tell me "no". cannot provide a cite as I do not believe there is any RCW that requires you to provide ID.

and just for completeness... a simple search of "washington state ID requirement RCW" provided this link LINK

No

Absent any "stop and ID law", "Terry" pretty much covers it all in WA.

FWIW, there's no "weapons exception" in Terry so if a Police Officer just sees you carrying in a lawful manner that isn't proper justification for a stop.

Our state's Article 1 Section 7 is consider to be a strong protection than the U.S. constitutions 4th amendment. So judges have ruled it protects us greater than SCOTUS's Terry ruling.

If it is not expressly prohibited, you are legal. Washington will not tell you if you are legal, but will tell you when it is not.

I have been asked to "show ID" to prove I was "OK" by LEOs. I did not. You do not have to either (unless arrested), but, and this is a biggie, BE CAREFUL when standing up for yourself. Voice your rights, but do not resist.

Here is the only non vehicle, non cpl related Identification statute I can come up with:

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.

A good source for the limits and interpretations of Case law in regards to Washington LEOs is the following:

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80

"The Law Enforcement Digest is prepared by Ms. Shannon Inglis of the Washington State Attorney General's Office as a service to criminal justice practitioners. Each month Ms. Inglis selects court cases she feels are significant to the law enforcement community."

written by an AG for law enforcement

Grim_Night said:

simple. in this state, you are NOT required to provide ID unless you are under arrest, at which point, all they can do is search you and take your ID from you. I have had officers ask me for my name and such and I usually respond "am I required to tell you?" They always tell me "no". cannot provide a cite as I do not believe there is any RCW that requires you to provide ID.

and just for completeness... a simple search of "washington state ID requirement RCW" provided this link LINK

Click to expand...

The only requirement to even HAVE ID is when you're driving a motor vehicle.

Then as for the arrest statement you are only required to produce ID IF you have state issued ID AND it is requested/demanded.
Now if arrested you must ID yourself with; name, address, and birth date. If you're being issued a citation the same applies.
The only other time that I can find is when you are in charge of (maybe it's associate with?) a motor vehicle. It's been awhile since I've looked that one up.

Vitaeus said:

Here is the only non vehicle, non cpl related Identification statute I can come up with:

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.

A good source for the limits and interpretations of Case law in regards to Washington LEOs is the following:

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80

"The Law Enforcement Digest is prepared by Ms. Shannon Inglis of the Washington State Attorney General's Office as a service to criminal justice practitioners. Each month Ms. Inglis selects court cases she feels are significant to the law enforcement community."

written by an AG for law enforcement

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Now, that is interesting. I wonder how that part of the statute would hold up against Kolender v Lawson. In Kolender, SCOTUS shot down a California stop-and-identify statute that required some sort of identity document without specifying what sort of document would satisfy the statute, leaving too much latitude for the cop to decide whether the statute was satisfied and whether he could arrest the detainee for violation of the statute.

Oh, I guess I just answered my own question. Part of the issue with the statute in Kolender was that it penalized not showing the vaguely defined identity document. The Washington statute above doesn't seem to penalize the detainee; it just allows the cop to detain longer in order to effect identification.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/352/case.html

Hey fellas,

One of the little hitches we have here in VA is that there is no state stop-and-identify statute; but some localities have stop-and-identify ordinances. One made it a pretty stiff misdemeanor for violation.

Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?

Thanks all for the quick replies and the links to further research. I'm impressed how versed some of you are with case law. (I keep a copy of US Ct. App, 1st Cir. No. 10-1764) on my phone when defending my right to video.


I found this one particularly helpful.

MSG Laigaie said:

If it is not expressly prohibited, you are legal. Washington will not tell you if you are legal, but will tell you when it is not.

Click to expand...

I came across mention of this in a general sense last night, that it's based on British cannon. Sadly, at midnight, the wisdom escaped me.

Citizen: Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?

Click to expand...

That's my next step.

I'm not one to cause trouble simply to buck the system, but after being subjected to civil rights violations by a couple LEO's, (and not knowing how to better assert myself), I decided it was past time I armed myself with some education and facts. We only have a couple bad apples, but as a whole, locals are used to meekly complying. And a simple "I do not consent to searches." Tends to piss off the LEO's. I'm hoping with a bit more research (including the excellent links shared here) to spread the message and help hold those in uniform more accountable.

I've been interrupted a few times and feel like I'm rambling, so... thanks again, all.

Copy and paste from old post. Cites linked.

slapmonkay said:

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.

Click to expand...

Turnkeys said:

Good evening,

New member here. I've been looking for days on legal sites, google in general, and several hours on the forums here for an answer. Does anyone have an RCW regarding stop & identify and/or duty to obey? I understand conceptual encounters & RAS, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL, but nothing specific to WA State and the "Terry Stop". I also realize there can be local ordinances, but before researching those I'd like to have some handy facts relating to state law.

Thanks for any responses. Please be gentle.

Click to expand...

WA constitution A1S7 and A1S24 are stronger protections than the US 4A and US 2A. WA state supreme court rulings have affirmed that.

Road Blocks to do DUI checks are legal in some states, the US Supreme court has ruled such...random stops for license checks are not (Prouse V Delaware) (that is US wide)

State Supreme Court said Road blocks for DUI/license and insurance checks are not legal, several cases one each for WA, OR and ID> I have cites, but not off the top of my head.

Therefore "papers please" (or stop and ID) is not legal in WA, OR or ID (I know that for a fact).

In all three states, if you have committed, or are suspected of committing, a misdemeaner, or a felon, then you must give your name, but you do not have to present a phyisical "ID". If you are stopped for a traffic violation you must present a drivers license, auto registration and proof of insurance. If you do not, it is not a "crime" but a traffic violation.

Turnkeys said:

, but is there a duty to ID without RAS? I've found several relating to driving as well as CPL,:

Click to expand...

You have to be careful with RCW 9.41.050(1)(b). It does not mean what you may think. There is no specific law the states in this instance you must supply your CPL..that is, WA does not have anything in law that states what OR does in ORS 166.360-380, where OR specifically states if an officer askes for you CHL while in a "public building" (see .360 for a definition of "public building") you must suppy one.

WA does not have such a law, so you must take that into account when you read .050(1)(b). The effect is, though this "must present when required" exists in law, (it is a residual left over from a time when there was a requirement in law, but thrown out later because of WA constitution A1S7) there actually is no time or place that states "in this circumstance you must present your CPL" in WA law.

I do believe this phenomina exists because it is legal to Openly carry without a license, almost everywhere you can openly or concealed carry with a license, and if you meet an execption in RCW 9.41.060, even conceal and/or carry loaded while in a vehicle. How can you have a law that states you MUST present a CPL, where none is required?

Citizen said:

Hey fellas,

One of the little hitches we have here in VA is that there is no state stop-and-identify statute; but some localities have stop-and-identify ordinances. One made it a pretty stiff misdemeanor for violation.

Do you all have any localities with stop-and-identify ordinances?

Click to expand...

.
The short answer is No. WA Constitution Article 1 Section 7 does not allow for any such.

Citizen said:

Hmmmm. Now, that is interesting. I wonder how that part of the statute would hold up against Kolender v Lawson. In Kolender, SCOTUS shot down a California stop-and-identify statute that required some sort of identity document without specifying what sort of document would satisfy the statute, leaving too much latitude for the cop to decide whether the statute was satisfied and whether he could arrest the detainee for violation of the statute.

Oh, I guess I just answered my own question. Part of the issue with the statute in Kolender was that it penalized not showing the vaguely defined identity document. The Washington statute above doesn't seem to penalize the detainee; it just allows the cop to detain longer in order to effect identification.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/352/case.html

Click to expand...

In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.

Big difference.

amlevin said:

In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued. Not a "Stop and ID" situation but more of a "cite for violation".

I've personally witnessed this when I used to ride a lot with a couple of State Troopers. The person they were attempting to cite was either a total butt-hole refusing to provide any ID or had numerous pieces of conflicting ID on his person.

Big difference.

Click to expand...

Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?

amlevin said:

SNIP In Washington this applies to only someone to whom a Civil Infraction is being issued.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I totally missed that earlier.

sudden valley gunner said:

Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?

Click to expand...

I'll ask the same question by quoting SVG.

sudden valley gunner said:

Why would a person be a total butt-hole for refusing to provide ID?

Click to expand...

Good question.

Even SCOTUS, in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court, acknowledged that giving identity info could violate one's 5A right against self-incrimination. In that case, while holding that Nevada's stop-and-identify statute was constitutional, they said in the last paragraph that a situation could arise where such did violate the 5th Amendment.

So, I too am at a loss for why someone is a [bleep] for refusing to provide identity.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&