Identifying ourselves to police?

[deepdiver]

SNIP
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 cop 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.

Well thought out analysis as usual, Citizen.

I would like to add another bit of perspective that I think this thread highlights - the psychology of such a situation (that used to be my chosen profession and it does creep into my POV). Many, if not most, of us commit legal violations for various reasons that we aren't seeing as a big deal for various reasons. Ever do 10 or even 15 over the speed limit on a lightly traveled road because you are late? Ever turn around in the "Emergency Vehicles Only" turn around on the interstate because of the traffic jam up ahead? Those are intentional, but I have also read that there are so many laws now that the average person violates some law, statute or gov't regulation daily. We don't usually think it is a big deal and don't get very excited about it and even if caught, we hope for a slap on the wrist warning or a minor fine.

What I'm getting somewhat from sgtscott is that the same way we would be looking at a cop at the traffic stop all like, "I was late for work, it isn't like I was driving 30 over and trafffic is very light and I didn't hurt anyone" he is looking at us like, "I've got other calls, I'm just trying to sort things out and giving me your ID so I can do that more quickly and efficiently isn't a big deal and isn't hurting anyone if you are really a LAC." We say, "But here, look at this court case and the 4th amendement" and LEO says, "But hey, look at that speed limit sign over there." We think Big Brother gov't over reach constitutional violation. They think yeah, but that 15 mph over could be the difference between stopping safely or hitting the guy who pulled out in front of you.

I'm not arguing equivalence of action or importance of underlying tenants, but rather similarities of perspective. I have heard LEOs say re: traffic stops that we don't know if maybe they started their shift by working an accident scene where a 16 year old was mangled in the wreckage because of going just 15 mph over. But the LEO doesn't know that we just watched our friend spend time in jail, having their sidearm seized, go through their savings and over a year of court battles beatinng charges because an LEO didn't know the law and shared an overzealous anti-gun sentiment with the local prosecutor.

I find Citizen's above post directly on point with all this. Know the law if at all possible, but when in doubt or if faced with an overly insistent LEO, comply without consent and sort it out later in a more appropriate venue.

 

[OC for ME]

The obvious is stated. Take the infringement. Hope that a judge will see it your way.

Do not provide anything, force the officer to seize it. Non-violent resistance. Giving your ID, under duress could be seen as volunteering. I respectfully refuse, but will not resist the LEOs unlawful forcible seizure. Do nothing, say nothing within the confines of the law.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Giving your ID, under duress could be seen as volunteering.

I think you and I have talked about this before.

You need to read some case law. There is tons of case law about whether consent to a search was done voluntarily or not. I've read dozens of summaries and a number of cases. Not one--none--ever took a person's express refused consent to be "voluntary."

Nobody, not even cops or the courts are that stupid.

 

[OC for ME]

We have and your case law cite were/are invaluable to me. Unfortunately, I prefer polite passive, resistance IF the LEO chooses to be a Richard Cranium about the encounter. Case by case basis. My two encounters I acted as you have suggested and the LEO in each instance was very polite and apologetic regarding his infringements of my rights. A polite e-mail was sent to the dept. emphasizing his cordial conduct, yet reminding the dept. of state statute.

I play golf with one of the LEOs on occasion, good guy. Better informed....now.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Oh, Scotty, my Scotty, hast thou forsaken us?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I dunno.... is it too soon?

* His sig-line on Officer.com is "Like a Shark in a Sea of Crime"

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I may have just spewed coffee out my nose...:lol:








and you misspelled "January" on the third line. Grammar Gendarme!

 

[BoomerQ]

Someone calls the police about a man with a gun
Police shows up and finds said man with gun
Policeman: "You have a permit for that thing?"
Man: "Sure do"
Police: "Can I see it?"
Man: "Respectfully, no"

I think this is a far cry from someone's house being searched without a warrant or randomly checking people for guns on the streets.

What if the guy with the gun wasn't a law abiding citizen? Policeman leaves the scene and man with gun kills the one who called the cops on him.

I'm all for standing up for what you believe in but I think the Police Officers deserve a little more respect and maybe a little leeway on this particular issue.

These videos that I see on the web about OC'ers and their police encounters come off as a bunch of people looking for trouble.
ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP02Dkp7A
Man seeks out police with a video camera OC'ing while to officer is performing a traffic stop. If I'm that cop, a man with a gun confronts me while I'm trying to do my job, I feel threatened. People like this guy do more harm to the cause than good.

Open carry in peace. Don't seek out police officers just to test them.

Open carry in peace. I agree completely! I've only OC'd for a couple of weeks, but not even a single word so far, just a cautious observation from a hair stylist. When a police officer does speak to me, I will speak nicely back and be cooperative, so that I can speed them on their way.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Please stay on the armed topic. I have a list of cases

If I may speak for Citizen, the thrust of his post was not that of having to show a driver's license. Remember, driving on public highways is not a right.... it's privilege which of course requires one to have on their person an present when requested a license to operate that motor vehicle.

Nor was it meant to address the carrying and showing of a concealed carry permit when requested. Concealed carry permits and carrying a concealed handgun are much like drivers licenses and operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways because they are issued by a government/agency. So the act of carrying concealed with a permit has removed the right of concealed carry and turned it into a government authorized privilege.., again much like a drivers license.

The four states which recognize Constitutional carry have turned the act of concealed carry back into a right again since doing such requires no permit.


Citizen;

If I took license by answering as I have here, please make whatever corrections you deem fit.

It's been ruled time and time again that you have the RIGHT to use your automobile on the public roads.
Since it's a right no license is require. Please find yourself a copy of the book, "Liberty or License, The Right to Travel," and read it.

 

[SouthernBoy]

It's been ruled time and time again that you have the RIGHT to use your automobile on the public roads.
Since it's a right no license is require. Please find yourself a copy of the book, "Liberty or License, The Right to Travel," and read it.

At this time I believe we may have to agree to disagree on this one. However, I am open learning more about what you have suggested so who knows, eh?

 

[cyras21]

At this time I believe we may have to agree to disagree on this one. However, I am open learning more about what you have suggested so who knows, eh?

HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I know this thread is getting old and off-topic, BUT...

Doesn't a Driver's License or Operator's License just permit you to operate a motor vehicle? There is no limitation on travelling if you do not have a license. Ride with a friend, take a bus, hop on a horse, etc.

Travelling within and throughout the USA is a right. Driving a motor vehicle is a regulated activity.

I'm sure I'm just missing the point.

 

[protias]

I know this thread is getting old and off-topic, BUT...

Doesn't a Driver's License or Operator's License just permit you to operate a motor vehicle? There is no limitation on travelling if you do not have a license. Ride with a friend, take a bus, hop on a horse, etc.

Travelling within and throughout the USA is a right. Driving a motor vehicle is a regulated activity.

I'm sure I'm just missing the point.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?88509-OUR-RIGHT-TO-TRAVEL-Defined-Legal-style

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Thanks, protias

Way too off-topic.

 

[Motofixxer]

Way too off-topic.

What do you mean off topic? Thread title is "Identifying ourselves to Police". The link Protias posted is about traveling in an automobile and when your stopped by an officer, you have to identify yourself to him...Right on Topic :banana:

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Amazing, truly amazing. SgtScott, you are the people the second amendment was written for. As a self appointed Shark you seem to be interpreting the "law" as YOU see fit, and not actual law. Intimidation thru color of authority makes my stomach turn. I cannot refer to you as a LEO, I have too much respect for those who UPHOLD THE LAW, not make it up as you go along. I do ID myself to LEOs when needed, but guys like you will get "the Wall".





Oh, have you found that cite yet??

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

As a self appointed Shark you seem to be interpreting the "law" as YOU see fit, and not actual law.

I thought I was the only one who called them that, lol

 

[Animus]

Now I'm glad I didn't move to Nashville. I'd rather not potentially meet that guy.

 

[Motofixxer]

Here is a great video of Officers working on a wrong presumption then calling a LT and getting educated. All captured on video, with an apology while remaining polite and professional.


[video=youtube;n8pkKS66UgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pkKS66UgU&feature=related[/video]