imported post
I have read online that the US Supreme Court ruled that Stop and Identify laws are constitutional, i.e., if a state makes a law that citizens must identify themselves to police (such as during a Terry Stop), then they may be arrested and charged for breaking that law. There are pages online listing "Stop and Identify" states, such as the Wikipedia article [1] on the topic.
Can someone confirm Washington's status? Am I under any obligation under Washington law to identify myself to an officer if I have been detained, such as in a Terry Stop?
Are police under any burden to arrest you immediately if they do have probable cause? Example:
Imagine walking down the street peacefully OCing and a policeman confronts you and begins asking questions, "What's your name? Do you have a permit for that?". Imagine that the citizen refuses to speak or doesn't answer the questions. Perhaps he stands silently for a moment observing the officer, or perhaps he counters with statements like "No permit is required for unconcealed firearms, officer."
Say that the citizen goes to leave and is then arrested by the police officer. Courts value expediency, so it is imaginable that the court might be suspicious of the officer's story as to why he chose to arrest then instead of earlier, since he gained no new information to support probable cause. I imagine that perhaps it could be evidence on the defense's side, the fact that the officer does not arrest immediately. What I am wondering is: is this actually the case? Does it strengthen your defense if police do not immediately arrest or detain you?
I could imagine suddenly being arrested for no reason -- the police might say that you were acting threateningly with the weapon or brandishing it; true or not, a court might accept that as a reasonable. Especially in the case of firearms it seems very, very unlikely that police would be on scene watching someone brandish a weapon without initiating immediate takedown and arrest. Thus if the cop walks up and starts talking to you, it seems unreasonable for him to say later on that he already had probable cause to arrest you -- that you were brandishing the weapon or some such. He might say that you started doing so after your interaction, when you made to leave, but that would be serious invention of evidence.
What protections does a citizen have who wishes not to identify himself during a Terry stop (on foot)? In today's world it seems likely that refusal to identify one's self would precipitate an arrest, even if no probable cause supports it. What do other members think is likely to happen, and what is the best defense against it?
As a citizen of the US and Washington, it's useful to know what my rights are in such situations. Just as I have a right to carry a handgun, I (may) also have the right not to identify myself during a Terry Stop, which we all know is a brief stop for officer protection, so surely they don't need my name. As is the case with any and all rights, it's hard to know if you have the right without exercising it. Accordingly, one might consider choosing not to identify or provide any information, or even speak, to an officer during such a Terry Stop. One should probably do this expecting to be arrested -- so I am asking what one should consider in defense of any such charges.
I would like to consider the information regarding this issue so as to make an informed decision about whether to exercise such rights. Thanks for your time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
I have read online that the US Supreme Court ruled that Stop and Identify laws are constitutional, i.e., if a state makes a law that citizens must identify themselves to police (such as during a Terry Stop), then they may be arrested and charged for breaking that law. There are pages online listing "Stop and Identify" states, such as the Wikipedia article [1] on the topic.
Can someone confirm Washington's status? Am I under any obligation under Washington law to identify myself to an officer if I have been detained, such as in a Terry Stop?
Are police under any burden to arrest you immediately if they do have probable cause? Example:
Imagine walking down the street peacefully OCing and a policeman confronts you and begins asking questions, "What's your name? Do you have a permit for that?". Imagine that the citizen refuses to speak or doesn't answer the questions. Perhaps he stands silently for a moment observing the officer, or perhaps he counters with statements like "No permit is required for unconcealed firearms, officer."
Say that the citizen goes to leave and is then arrested by the police officer. Courts value expediency, so it is imaginable that the court might be suspicious of the officer's story as to why he chose to arrest then instead of earlier, since he gained no new information to support probable cause. I imagine that perhaps it could be evidence on the defense's side, the fact that the officer does not arrest immediately. What I am wondering is: is this actually the case? Does it strengthen your defense if police do not immediately arrest or detain you?
I could imagine suddenly being arrested for no reason -- the police might say that you were acting threateningly with the weapon or brandishing it; true or not, a court might accept that as a reasonable. Especially in the case of firearms it seems very, very unlikely that police would be on scene watching someone brandish a weapon without initiating immediate takedown and arrest. Thus if the cop walks up and starts talking to you, it seems unreasonable for him to say later on that he already had probable cause to arrest you -- that you were brandishing the weapon or some such. He might say that you started doing so after your interaction, when you made to leave, but that would be serious invention of evidence.
What protections does a citizen have who wishes not to identify himself during a Terry stop (on foot)? In today's world it seems likely that refusal to identify one's self would precipitate an arrest, even if no probable cause supports it. What do other members think is likely to happen, and what is the best defense against it?
As a citizen of the US and Washington, it's useful to know what my rights are in such situations. Just as I have a right to carry a handgun, I (may) also have the right not to identify myself during a Terry Stop, which we all know is a brief stop for officer protection, so surely they don't need my name. As is the case with any and all rights, it's hard to know if you have the right without exercising it. Accordingly, one might consider choosing not to identify or provide any information, or even speak, to an officer during such a Terry Stop. One should probably do this expecting to be arrested -- so I am asking what one should consider in defense of any such charges.
I would like to consider the information regarding this issue so as to make an informed decision about whether to exercise such rights. Thanks for your time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes