Photo ID with a CPL to OC on a bus?

[Difdi]

And it would be just as reasonable to assume the person had a CPL and knew the law. The carry itself, even on a bus, is legal, just like driving a car is legal. Even if both normally require a CPL or drivers license. Search and siezure just to check if you have a CPL, or a drivers license, or a stolen firearm, and that firearm is the only reason for the siezure, IS NOT LEGAL.

If you openly carry a loaded gun on a bus, you have committed a crime unless you fit into one of the exemptions to the law. But not all of those exemptions are obvious ones. A uniformed police officer is obviously exempted, but a CPL holder is not (unless the CPL itself is somehow visible). It is the possession of a CPL that exempts you, but the officer does not know you have it unless you display it. Since he does not know you are exempted and he can only act or not act on what he knows, he has probable cause to arrest you. Your CPL will get the charges dropped of course, but once the arrest starts, you might well end up having to post bail and attend court in order to present your CPL. A reasonable officer, knowing there are non-visible exemptions to the law, will ask you if you fit into one of them, the most common when riding a bus being a CPL.

Put simply, which would you rather do? Display a CPL when the officer asks you, or spend a day or two in jail? If the officer cannot ask about a CPL, then the only reasonable action he can undertake after witnessing a crime being committed is to make an arrest.

 

[Vitaeus]

Driving a car without a license is also illegal, does a LEO have the ability to stop every car or some random selection to ensure that the driver has valid papers? I thought random stops were not allowed in Washington? Absent some extra circumstances, the LEO cannot just stop you and demand papers.

Going back to the original encounter , the LEO consensually asked a question, he then had a reasonable need to ensure the CPL, based on the answer. He did not have the ability to ask for a Drivers License, since it it NOT required to provide a picture ID under the RCWs. He also moved into a detainment when he refused to return the CPL as well as a seizure, IMO.

 

[Ajetpilot]

Before disturbing a citizen in his/her private affairs, a LEO must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. He must be able to reasonably articulate why he suspects that you do not have a CPL. Absent that, he can not disturb you to demand that you show it to him. IANAL.

 

[DeltaOps]

Both sides debate a valid point. You as the individual eact in your own manner. This whole topic is way off topic now. The question has already been answered. The story was not fully explained to begin with and now we are here. :lol: Maybe a whole new thread should be created to continue the debate about showing or not showing a CPL when a LEO asks for it.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Both sides debate a valid point. You as the individual eact in your own manner. This whole topic is way off topic now. The question has already been answered. The story was not fully explained to begin with and now we are here. :lol: Maybe a whole new thread should be created to continue the debate about showing or not showing a CPL when a LEO asks for it.

Their is NO requiremnt to provide more ID when a CPL is required to be displayed,,,, period!!!

A CPL can only be Demanded when RAS or PC that a crime is afoot is known by the LEO...

I thought you had taken your ball and gone home.
I know you had not responded to my question about your resolve to shoot Americans!


My 3000 thousnd post!

 

[BigDave]

Their is NO requiremnt to provide more ID when a CPL is required to be displayed,,,, period!!!

A CPL can only be Demanded when RAS or PC that a crime is afoot is known by the LEO...

I thought you had taken your ball and gone home.
I know you had not responded to my question about your resolve to shoot Americans!

No doubt about not having to provide more then a CPL.
Do not Agree as to what is PC or RAS.
I would not answer that stupid question either and rather insulting, take your toys and go home.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,,

No doubt about not having to provide more then a CPL.
Do not Agree as to what is PC or RAS.
I would not answer that stupid question either and rather insulting, take your toys and go home.

for 1,,, your are right.
for 2,,, not asking if RAS,,, just that it is required....
for 3,,, Delta Ops has typed some very wrong headed things about shooting Americans....

follow his posts,,,, and mine,,, I am following him,,, till he takes his ball and goes home!

 

[hermannr]

If you openly carry a loaded gun on a bus, you have committed a crime unless you fit into one of the exemptions to the law. But not all of those exemptions are obvious ones. A uniformed police officer is obviously exempted, but a CPL holder is not (unless the CPL itself is somehow visible). It is the possession of a CPL that exempts you, but the officer does not know you have it unless you display it. Since he does not know you are exempted and he can only act or not act on what he knows, he has probable cause to arrest you. Your CPL will get the charges dropped of course, but once the arrest starts, you might well end up having to post bail and attend court in order to present your CPL. A reasonable officer, knowing there are non-visible exemptions to the law, will ask you if you fit into one of them, the most common when riding a bus being a CPL.

Put simply, which would you rather do? Display a CPL when the officer asks you, or spend a day or two in jail? If the officer cannot ask about a CPL, then the only reasonable action he can undertake after witnessing a crime being committed is to make an arrest.

Blackstone says we are innocent until proven guilty. Article 1 section 7 has been used in case law to ensure that there are no randum stops for license checks or DUI without cause...I cannot see the courts ruling any other way with the carry of a firearm, openly or concealed, in a vehicle, or not.

I do not understand why anyone would presume you are guilty until proven innocent just becasue you are peaceably carrying a sidearm.. If that person that did make that presumption, and acted on it, just happened to be a LEO, I believe he would need a little additional training, and maybe even needs to have his personal pocket picked a bit.

 

[DeltaOps]

Their is NO requiremnt to provide more ID when a CPL is required to be displayed,,,, period!!!

A CPL can only be Demanded when RAS or PC that a crime is afoot is known by the LEO...

I thought you had taken your ball and gone home.
I know you had not responded to my question about your resolve to shoot Americans!

I do not need to answer that question. You have clearly not followed the entire post that I posted in. You are now starting to pass on your parinoia on to others who may not know the entire post. You are starting to push the border of harassment and I am asking you to stop please.

 

[1245A Defender]

Oh Yeah!!!!!!!

I do not need to answer that question. You have clearly not followed the entire post that I posted in. You are now starting to pass on your parinoia on to others who may not know the entire post. You are starting to push the border of harassment and I am asking you to stop please.

I have read EVERY post you have typed...
I have read EVERY thread you have posted in!!
I know exactly what you have typed!
I have asked you in two threads to explain your words about shooting Americans!
You have failed to explain yourself, to me, to us, to yourself....

You have threatened to leave the forum, and take your ball with you.
Why are you still here, yacking at me , saying I dont know what you meant, but you wont say.

I want you to go and study a web site called "OATH KEEPERS",
most Americans dont need to join, but
YOU do need to join, and learn and understand!

 

[DeltaOps]

I have read EVERY post you have typed...
I have read EVERY thread you have posted in!!
I know exactly what you have typed!
I have asked you in two threads to explain your words about shooting Americans!
You have failed to explain yourself, to me, to us, to yourself....

You have threatened to leave the forum, and take your ball with you.
Why are you still here, yacking at me , saying I dont know what you meant, but you wont say.

I want you to go and study a web site called "OATH KEEPERS",
most Americans dont need to join, but
YOU do need to join, and learn and understand!

I have asked you once to quit harassing me, again, please stop the harassment.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,,,,,

i have asked you once to quit harassing me, again, please stop the harassment.

you are free to go!!
Yeah I really mean it....
See ya..

OR,,,,you could stay...
we could be friends..
lets talk about our ways of thinking.
lets study together the amendments to our constitution.
lets just relax,,, lets just take some time,,
I will try to endever to treat you politely.

This seems like a good place to start.... OK I am ready...

 

[Difdi]

Driving a car without a license is also illegal, does a LEO have the ability to stop every car or some random selection to ensure that the driver has valid papers? I thought random stops were not allowed in Washington? Absent some extra circumstances, the LEO cannot just stop you and demand papers.

Going back to the original encounter , the LEO consensually asked a question, he then had a reasonable need to ensure the CPL, based on the answer. He did not have the ability to ask for a Drivers License, since it it NOT required to provide a picture ID under the RCWs. He also moved into a detainment when he refused to return the CPL as well as a seizure, IMO.

Carrying an unloaded gun in your holster in places where the law doesn't require unloaded carry is silly. Loaded carry in a vehicle is a crime. If an officer sees someone waiting for a bus, he has sufficient reason to start a consensual encounter and ask questions. It is reasonable to assume that someone who is walking on the street open carrying is doing so with a loaded weapon. Seeing that person board a vehicle without unloading their weapon absolutely creates reasonable suspicion that they are committing a misdemeanor unless it is obvious to the observer that they are exempt from the law. Unless you have your CPL silk screened onto your t-shirt or duct taped to your forehead, the fact that you have a CPL is not obvious to an observer. Loaded carry on a vehicle without a CPL is a crime. If watching someone act in a way that is a crime does not create at least reasonable suspicion, if not outright probable cause, then NOTHING DOES and all arrests are false.

Before disturbing a citizen in his/her private affairs, a LEO must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. He must be able to reasonably articulate why he suspects that you do not have a CPL. Absent that, he can not disturb you to demand that you show it to him. IANAL.

Loaded carry in a vehicle without a CPL is a crime. Concealed carry without a CPL is also a crime. Displaying the CPL demonstrates an exemption from the law, but it does not repeal the law. A LEO does not need to articulate why he suspects a lack of CPL, since assuming the weapon is loaded is reasonable, and loaded carry in a vehicle or concealed carry are both crimes without a permit. "Washington allows loaded open carry, and it would be silly to walk around with an empty pistol for self-defense purposes." That's both reasonable and articulable.

Blackstone says we are innocent until proven guilty. Article 1 section 7 has been used in case law to ensure that there are no randum stops for license checks or DUI without cause...I cannot see the courts ruling any other way with the carry of a firearm, openly or concealed, in a vehicle, or not.

I do not understand why anyone would presume you are guilty until proven innocent just becasue you are peaceably carrying a sidearm.. If that person that did make that presumption, and acted on it, just happened to be a LEO, I believe he would need a little additional training, and maybe even needs to have his personal pocket picked a bit.

Loaded carry in a vehicle is a misdemeanor. A LEO who sees someone carrying in a vehicle has witnessed a crime being committed, unless the person carrying is exempt from the law. But the LEO does not know that that person is exempt. Aside from a few weirdos who duct tape things like pistols and CPLs to their foreheads, the fact anyone has a CPL in their wallet is not obvious to an observer. It is therefore reasonable for the officer to investigate to see whether such an exemption exists, or whether a crime has in fact been committed. If you refuse to display your CPL when the officer asks, or state that you don't have it on you, you are going to jail.

Committing petty larceny is just going to make the situation worse.

 

[hermannr]

Loaded carry in a vehicle without a CPL is a crime. Concealed carry without a CPL is also a crime.

Loaded carry in a vehicle is a misdemeanor. A LEO who sees someone carrying in a vehicle has witnessed a crime being committed, unless the person carrying is exempt from the law. But the LEO does not know that that person is exempt. Aside from a few weirdos who duct tape things like pistols and CPLs to their foreheads, the fact anyone has a CPL in their wallet is not obvious to an observer. It is therefore reasonable for the officer to investigate to see whether such an exemption exists, or whether a crime has in fact been committed. If you refuse to display your CPL when the officer asks, or state that you don't have it on you, you are going to jail.

.

1: Loaded carry in a vehicle under RCW 9.41.060(8) is NOT a crime. 2: Concealed carry without a CPL is NO a crime under RCW 9.41.060(8)...your problem is you assume guns are illegal and they are not, you assume anyone carrying a gun is committing a crime,,,and they are not. Where do you come from, NY, NJ or MA?

You just do not understand...we are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Article 1 Section 7 (and the 4A) prevent fishing expeditions by LE. LE must have reasonable suspicion, or probable cause (a higher standard) that a crime has been/is being committed to detain you for questioning. Your CARRY is not in and of itself either RS or PC because it is not a crime to be in possession of a firearm without a license in WA.

You cannot legally be detained only because you have a firearm in your possession. The way you write everyone is guilty until proven innocent...that is not how it works. You are presumed inncent...unless there is some extenuating cause.

I see a person walk down the street OC'ing a semi-auto pistol, with mag in place...I watch the person get into the bus...I assume that it is a legal carry (and 99.999999% chance it is, as "those that are up to no good hide their weapons"), and that is also how LE is to observe that same activity also, and if they don't, they need to be trained in WA law.

It is not LE job to infringe on the privacy of the general populous because there is a 1:1,000,000 chance the person is doing something illegal.

 

[Vitaeus]

finally found an RCW to clarify the issue.


RCW 10.31.100
Arrest without warrant.
A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section. (long list none apply, IMO)

Until you step onto the bus you have not committed the misdemeanor, therefore no detention is allowed, if you choose to consent to an encounter, that is your choice, but the officer has no FACT to base a detention on.

Reasonable suspicion is not based on suspicion it is based on specific articuable facts that add up to a suspicion. Fact "he has a gun", all the rest of it is assumptions.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=5548 (1970 AG opinion), long and drawn out discussion but facts are cited as necessary again and again.

If the LEO has to stop and detain you and you miss your bus, he had best hope that you are in a forgiving mood or that you are actually guilty of a crime, since I woul;d be rather irate that he caused me to miss my bus. You can bet that the Sheriff or Chief would be getting an earful from me and mine on wasting both mine and the public's time.

 

[BigDave]

Vitaeus, you do realize that refusing to display your CPL upon demand is a Civil Infraction not a misdemeanor nor an arrestable offense.
I do not see how referencing arrest with out warrant even applies here, there is no threat of arrest.

RCW 9.41.050 (1)
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

RCW 7.80 Civil infractions.

RCW 7.80.140 Costs and attorney fees.
Each party to a civil infraction case is responsible for costs incurred by that party, but the court may assess witness fees against a nonprevailing respondent. Attorney fees may be awarded to either party in a civil infraction case.

 

[Vitaeus]

Dave, the latest stages of the discussion are about when or even if the LEO can "demand" the CPL, the cited RCW deals with the LEOs ability to go beyond a consensual encounter. The RCW deals with LEO ability to interact and to what level he can do so. LEOs are not able to randomly "investigately detain" individuals in Washington state without RAS or PC of a crime and a misdemeanor has to be occurring directly in front of the LEO and be factually based, not based on assumptions or guesses.

 

[BigDave]

Dave, the latest stages of the discussion are about when or even if the LEO can "demand" the CPL, the cited RCW deals with the LEOs ability to go beyond a consensual encounter. The RCW deals with LEO ability to interact and to what level he can do so. LEOs are not able to randomly "investigately detain" individuals in Washington state without RAS or PC of a crime and a misdemeanor has to be occurring directly in front of the LEO and be factually based, not based on assumptions or guesses.

What was it Terry v Ohio that came a Terry Stop 392 U.S. 1 (1968)? the Officer observations of Terry and his friends were enough to detain and do a pat down, the Officer did not actually see them commit a crime and likely applies here as well when it comes to RAS.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What was it Terry v Ohio that came a Terry Stop 392 U.S. 1 (1968)? the Officer observations of Terry and his friends were enough to detain and do a pat down, the Officer did not actually see them commit a crime and likely applies here as well when it comes to RAS.

Uh you left out what the officers observed, that created RAS. A watering down of our constitution I may add.

Our state courts don't grant officers as much intrusion as the Federal court does.


Vitaeus is right, they have to have RAS or PC your are engaged or about to engage in unlawful activity. An assumption you might not have your papers on you isn't good enough.

 

[BigDave]

Uh you left out what the officers observed, that created RAS. A watering down of our constitution I may add.
Our state courts don't grant officers as much intrusion as the Federal court does.
Vitaeus is right, they have to have RAS or PC your are engaged or about to engage in unlawful activity. An assumption you might not have your papers on you isn't good enough.

Hmm, no I did not leave nothing out "Terry V Ohio U.S. 1 (1968) as you suggest.

Just because you do not agree with the RAS surrounding the OP does not mean it did not exist.

Officer observed OP sitting and open carrying a firearm at the transit center, when approached OP he stated the firearm was loaded and that he was waiting to take the bus. Officer asked for CPL since riding in a motor vehicle with a loaded firearm is restricted.

Yes we know there is never enough RAS in your eyes.