Vitaeus
Regular Member
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html Terry v. Ohio
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1329012.html State v. Duncan
http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/uploads/file/828521_opn.pdf State v. Doughty
I decided to start a new thread on this, since, the other thread, has a consensual encounter providing a second fact for the LEO to use for his later actions and the demanding a Drivers License in addition to the CPL has gotten lost, which does deserve it's own thread, but I think no one here agrees the LEO was justified in his second demand.
If the citizen declines a consensual encounter it is my position that the LEO lacks enough facts under our State Constitution to compel an answer or to search or seize you to develop further facts. This would I suppose make the .050 law repealed by case law, since neither the "civil" infraction nor the "misdemeanor" can generate enough RAS or PC in isolation.
Fact he has a firearm.
Fact he gets on a bus, his car, the WSF, or whatever other vehicle you wish to use.
Based on reading the above cases from the US and the State Supreme Courts, the LEO does not have enough articuable facts to proceed.
So how does the LEO make his case that a misdeamenor is in progress in front of him, there are multiple methods that it is not a misdeamenor, just as there are multiple reasons why the activities in Duncan and Doughty were found to be unreasonabe.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html Terry v. Ohio
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1329012.html State v. Duncan
http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/uploads/file/828521_opn.pdf State v. Doughty
I decided to start a new thread on this, since, the other thread, has a consensual encounter providing a second fact for the LEO to use for his later actions and the demanding a Drivers License in addition to the CPL has gotten lost, which does deserve it's own thread, but I think no one here agrees the LEO was justified in his second demand.
If the citizen declines a consensual encounter it is my position that the LEO lacks enough facts under our State Constitution to compel an answer or to search or seize you to develop further facts. This would I suppose make the .050 law repealed by case law, since neither the "civil" infraction nor the "misdemeanor" can generate enough RAS or PC in isolation.
Fact he has a firearm.
Fact he gets on a bus, his car, the WSF, or whatever other vehicle you wish to use.
Based on reading the above cases from the US and the State Supreme Courts, the LEO does not have enough articuable facts to proceed.
So how does the LEO make his case that a misdeamenor is in progress in front of him, there are multiple methods that it is not a misdeamenor, just as there are multiple reasons why the activities in Duncan and Doughty were found to be unreasonabe.