Bill Starks
State Researcher
My last conversation with her convinced me that her views had changed....
-
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.
-
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.
Taken down at gun point at Greenlake today.
- Thread starter jsanchez
- Start date
My last conversation with her convinced me that her views had changed....
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
She is no longer pro?
J1MB0B
Regular Member
We-the-People
Regular Member
SNIPPED
Interesting how they have expanded their authority.
Failure to identify is NOT cause for further detention absent a state "stop and ID" statute.
TERRY does not allow pat down simply because an officer believes the detained person "may have a weapon". Terry requires the officer to reasonable believe the suspect is "armed and dangerous". That's BOTH conditions that must be met.
ON ANOTHER NOTE:
Florida v. J.L. does not apply to the situation in this incident. In that case an anonymous caller indicated a crime might be afoot and gave a general description and location. In this case, the caller was not anonymous, was still at the scene, was contacted by police, etc.
Interesting how they have expanded their authority.
Failure to identify is NOT cause for further detention absent a state "stop and ID" statute.
TERRY does not allow pat down simply because an officer believes the detained person "may have a weapon". Terry requires the officer to reasonable believe the suspect is "armed and dangerous". That's BOTH conditions that must be met.
ON ANOTHER NOTE:
Florida v. J.L. does not apply to the situation in this incident. In that case an anonymous caller indicated a crime might be afoot and gave a general description and location. In this case, the caller was not anonymous, was still at the scene, was contacted by police, etc.
I have a couple of observations on this subject. It would appear from the information here that the Lt. relies on the departmental policy on RAS, however, this runs contrary to clearly established law. While, the officers involved may utilize such a policy as an internal review defense for their actions, it does not immunize them from civil liability under Section 1983 for a respective violation. Furthermore, a departmental policy that violates clearly established law exposes the municipality to liability for damages under a Monell claim.
F350
Regular Member
Can a state law violate the 4th amendment and numerous SCOTUS rulings?!?!?!?!
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Hiibel v. Nevada, the state can pass a law requiring IDing to a peace officer, as long as providing ones identity would not tend to incriminate him, and if the officer is conducting a legal investigation and has RS to compel the name..... Problem is, if you're on the receiving end of the detention it is very difficult to tell what RAS the officer has...... And you won't know until going to court....
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
tombrewster421
Regular Member
F350
Regular Member
OK; the bolded precludes LEO from approaching an OCer and demanding ID just because of the OC; must have RAS, can't see any difference with an ID law or without.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
yes, but with a specific stop and ID law as what was ruled constitutional it gives the officer just enough latitude to make your life miserable and you can't fight it until you get to court...
in states that only require ID when actually being cited for a crime, it's a clear violation of your civil rights. in states with a Nevada style law, refusing to ID IS the criminal charge, and the officer only has to support RAS for an ID. as opposed to in my state (WA) where the officer would have to cite you with an actual crime to arrest you for not IDing, and then he has to articulate the RAS for that crime.
it may be the difference between QI and the ability to personally sue the officer.....
The Hiibel decision only articulated the statutory authority of the states to require that a suspect give his/her name (not an actual ID) to an LE officer acting with RAS that comports with a Terry Stop. Nothing in Hiibel provides that you can be compelled to answer any further inquiry by LE. Giving ones name and providing an identification are not one in the same; a misconception often attributed to LEO's. Of course, operating a motor vehicle or other activity requiring a license or permit is typically considered an exception.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Hibbel mentions that too, the judges pretty much said that if it incriminates you it would create a problem but since it didn't in that case it didn't...statist judges playing games.
EMN still waiting for that cite.......
The court is the formal charges.....no where in the law does it say they can arrest you for not ID'ing if they don't give you RAS....
Constutitionally doing so with our common law right to resist unlawful arrests puts your theory on very very shaky grounds.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
It was a bad/unconstitutional ruling.
Epilogue.
So I'm on vacation from work this week, so I finally had some time to go down to Seattle and speak at the OPA city council meeting. Here's the link, and I start at 9:21 minutes into the meeting, you can slide the curser to that point so you don't have to listen to all the people that spoke before me.
http://www.seattlechannel.org/mayor...-safety-civil-rights-and-technology-committee
So I'm on vacation from work this week, so I finally had some time to go down to Seattle and speak at the OPA city council meeting. Here's the link, and I start at 9:21 minutes into the meeting, you can slide the curser to that point so you don't have to listen to all the people that spoke before me.
http://www.seattlechannel.org/mayor...-safety-civil-rights-and-technology-committee
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Yeah. The members of council who actually attended.
That's my experience, too. They're not really listening from the viewpoint of genuinely being willing to change their minds or let the speaker's logic affect their decision. I'm guessing any who do actually listen are more just trying to give the impression of being sincerely interested in order to look good or mollify the electorate. Then they turn around and do whatever they thought politically expedient in the first place.
Maybe in a small town or lightly populated county, a speaker's ideas might get through. But, in more populous jurisdictions, I think the value is in others seeing the video of the comments and perhaps being persuaded. For example, at least one county council I know of has all their public meetings recorded on a cable channel where civic-minded folks can play back the meeting. Or, like here on OCDO, Jsanchez can give everybody a link to view it, pass it along, Facebook it, etc. All of which is to say, the ability to talk to the public via the video recording is more valuable than the effect you'll create on the council in a large jurisdiction. Based on my experience and observations, anyway.
rapgood
Regular Member
Be careful. Not giving your name and giving a false name are two very different things. If you invoke your 5Am rights, you must specifically say that you are doing so. See, e.g., Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013). This is not and cannot be obstructing an officer. However, giving a false name can easily lead to a charge (and likely conviction) of obstructing a police officer.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
Another avenue would be contacting 2a friendly representatives. My local senator and the Republican caucus were very helpful in getting the local city here to admit they screwed up and to correct their laws and how they treat open carriers.