Case law regarding IDing yourself...

[skidmark]

With all due respect, I disagree.
Detention is to determine whether or not we are involved in criminal activity, not what our name is. We are under no obligation to answer ANY questions, and they cannot penalize us for asserting that right.
In my case I've had a number of detentions arise from the mere fact that I did not identify even when there was no RAS, and that really gives me a reason to whine.

I fear you misunderstood me. There is no question that they must have RAS/PC to detain the body. There arew limits about how far they can go with investigatory holds, such as if there was a BOLO for skidmark and they thought I looked like him but were not sure if I was or was not. During the time I am being held I do not need to tell them who I am, but if I am not skidmark and have not offered to provide ID I cannot whine about how long it took for them to establish that I merely looked like that skidmark fellow they weere looking for. On the same hand they cannot charge me with obstruction of justice for not giving them ID information and making them go through the dog & pony show of sending prints off for comparison.

If there was no RAS to detain you in the first place, such as you looked a lot like that skidmark character they were looking for, then you have retained your reason to whine.

Just to keep the discussion on target, we need to acknowledge that there are a few places that do have Stop&ID laws that the courts say are valid. Most of them to require at least RAS that you are up to some form of no good (are about to, are in the process of, or have already committed a crime - our trio of friends from Terry), but a few localities near where I reside say I must ID if I am in certain areas during the hours of darkness, with no reference to RAS/PC of criminal activity. So far nobody has challenged those laws by refusing to ID and then appealing a conviction - or their appeal was won at the local level as opposed to the state appellate or supreme court levels so does not applly outside that local circuit.

And there's the rub, as my buddy Hamlet would say - winning at the lowest appellate level stops the ruling from applying across the state, and most defendants and defense attorneys work really hard to win as quickly as possible.

stay safe.

 

[PALO]

I fear you misunderstood me. There is no question that they must have RAS/PC to detain the body. There arew limits about how far they can go with investigatory holds, such as if there was a BOLO for skidmark and they thought I looked like him but were not sure if I was or was not. During the time I am being held I do not need to tell them who I am, but if I am not skidmark and have not offered to provide ID I cannot whine about how long it took for them to establish that I merely looked like that skidmark fellow they weere looking for. On the same hand they cannot charge me with obstruction of justice for not giving them ID information and making them go through the dog & pony show of sending prints off for comparison.

If there was no RAS to detain you in the first place, such as you looked a lot like that skidmark character they were looking for, then you have retained your reason to whine.

Just to keep the discussion on target, we need to acknowledge that there are a few places that do have Stop&ID laws that the courts say are valid. Most of them to require at least RAS that you are up to some form of no good (are about to, are in the process of, or have already committed a crime - our trio of friends from Terry), but a few localities near where I reside say I must ID if I am in certain areas during the hours of darkness, with no reference to RAS/PC of criminal activity. So far nobody has challenged those laws by refusing to ID and then appealing a conviction - or their appeal was won at the local level as opposed to the state appellate or supreme court levels so does not applly outside that local circuit.

And there's the rub, as my buddy Hamlet would say - winning at the lowest appellate level stops the ruling from applying across the state, and most defendants and defense attorneys work really hard to win as quickly as possible.

stay safe.

This is a good post, but just remember RAS/PC of a crime (or civil infraction, and RAS or PC of a civil infraction DOES require the person to id themselves. Any civil infraction for example is citable by definition and you can't write a cite without a name, so the courts recognize we can ID anybody we suspect of a civil infraction (like speeding) even if we intend to give a warning), isn't the totality of circs by which we can detain.

Most will be under that schema , but there is also community caretaking function etc. and here in WA where we deal with mentally ill/parasuicidal, etc. we frequently make detentions on CCing function or sometimes a juvenile runaway (which isn't a crime or a civil infraction. It's a status offense) etc.

I'd say that at least 95% of people will id themselves during a terry, but here in WA they don't have to.

I saw one case a ways back where a judge upheld an obstructing charge in a DV order violation case. In that case, the witness who knew the suspect refused to divulge the suspect's name (which would incriminate the suspect) and was charged with obstructing and it held IN MISDEMEANOR court. They very well may have appealed fwiw and won, but at least at the misdemeanor level ,the judge did rule that refusing to divulge that name was an obstruction by the witness. Interrrrrrresting.

The suspect of course, given RAS could not be penalized for not giving his name. What we would do in this case was simply look up a booking photo of the guy in the booking database (chances are - he's in there) and get a photo that way to compare to him. That's assuming nobody would divulge his name.

THis is an example where if you are innocent, but suspected of being the DV order respondent OF COURSE you should talk to police, since you could identify yourself as NOT the respondent and get the cops off your back and on to the next detail

 

[509rifas]

These are not useful implications for LEO's.

Nor are they supposed to be. I work from the standpoint of the citizen "contacted"/detained by LEOs. Which is my point of view, as I am not an LEO, I am a citizen regularly contacted/detained by LEOs.

The very way you frame this tells me your viewpoint - that cops are "the other".

If you check my previous posts on when I was detained, or the youtube comments when they were briefly public, you may notice that I actually DEFENDED the officer's actions, even against other members of OCDO.
Also note that I have all the radio logs from when they raided my house accidentally, and I did not sue, I did not contact the local paper (which enjoy publishing the drama with the local PD) and didn't even put in online. I am not against my local PD or any other agency.

heck sometimes the average joe holds the bad guy at gunpoint for the police arrival, etc.,

That happens a lot where I live too, on my block actually. Often, it's not called to 911, as citizens have a way with dealing with criminality that transcends the law and can have longer lasting effect.

If you view LEO's as the enemy, then yes anything they do that helps solve crimes is not a victory for you, but for those of us (per polling data, MOST of us) who view crime as EVERYBODY's problem, who view preventing crime as EVERYBODY's problem, who recognize that the firsrt line of defense for the individual is himself (and his gun), etc... those of us in the majority don''t view police as the enemy and every victim catching bad guys and holding them accountable is a victory primarily for the victim of the crime and for society in general

You obviously haven't read anything I wrote. What I said was I have been on several occasions detained or otherwise "in trouble" because I co-operated instead of being a jerk, and in the most recent instance (just a few months ago) I was nearly arrested for burglary BECAUSE I told them where I was coming from. (I assumed it was another BS stop because I'd been stopped by this particular officer before and he claimed was looking for car prowlers who matched our descriptions, and of course I did a PRA and it turned out he was lying- there was no calls... at all. I got it on cell phone cam and haven't put that on youtube either, because I'm not out to slander my local PD.) At the time I had a general rule that I co-operate with LEOs when it's obvious that they are on a real call, and answer any questions and whatnot. Nearly being arrested for a burglary I didn't do changed my mind about that. If the victim didn't know the actual perp then I probably would have been arrested for a crime I did not commit. That's what leaves me cynical.

I have already debunked the "you shouldn't say anything" rubbish giving real world examples,

And I have stated real-world examples as to why "shoudn't say anything" isn't bad advise. I nearly went to jail because I matched the description (am white in a white-minority area) and 'confessed' to being in the area of the crime around the time of the crime. If the victim didn't know who the perp actually was, I have no doubt I would have been arrested for a crime I did not commit. (this is the video, if you are wondering what actually happened http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqPRGgh9a8 )

We just come at these things differently. I believe crime prevention and crime response is a community responsibility and we all benefit when criminals are caught, whether in progress or after the fact. I am happy to live in a community that overall feels the same way and works with the police (block watch etc.).

We may come at things differently, but as someone who lives in a "high-crime area" (to the extent the local PD has stated it's using 'counter-insurgency' tactics, and all the problems that come with using tactics developed for occupying other countries but right here in America) I don't have a problem with crime being solved, especially when it's in my neighborhood.
What bothers me is when just being white while walking to the store at night is considered reason to investigate me. Perhaps here may be where our view diverge. If there is no reason to investigate me, I feel no compulsion, and in fact there is no legal compulsion, to "co-operate." Your "intelligence" be damned, my rights are not subject to LEO intel.

 

[PALO]

Nor are they supposed to be. I work from the standpoint of the citizen "contacted"/detained by LEOs. Which is my point of view, as I am not an LEO, I am a citizen regularly contacted/detained by LEOs.

If you check my previous posts on when I was detained, or the youtube comments when they were briefly public, you may notice that I actually DEFENDED the officer's actions, even against other members of OCDO.
Also note that I have all the radio logs from when they raided my house accidentally, and I did not sue, I did not contact the local paper (which enjoy publishing the drama with the local PD) and didn't even put in online. I am not against my local PD or any other agency.

That happens a lot where I live too, on my block actually. Often, it's not called to 911, as citizens have a way with dealing with criminality that transcends the law and can have longer lasting effect.


You obviously haven't read anything I wrote. What I said was I have been on several occasions detained or otherwise "in trouble" because I co-operated instead of being a jerk, and in the most recent instance (just a few months ago) I was nearly arrested for burglary BECAUSE I told them where I was coming from. (I assumed it was another BS stop because I'd been stopped by this particular officer before and he claimed was looking for car prowlers who matched our descriptions, and of course I did a PRA and it turned out he was lying- there was no calls... at all. I got it on cell phone cam and haven't put that on youtube either, because I'm not out to slander my local PD.) At the time I had a general rule that I co-operate with LEOs when it's obvious that they are on a real call, and answer any questions and whatnot. Nearly being arrested for a burglary I didn't do changed my mind about that. If the victim didn't know the actual perp then I probably would have been arrested for a crime I did not commit. That's what leaves me cynical.


And I have stated real-world examples as to why "shoudn't say anything" isn't bad advise. I nearly went to jail because I matched the description (am white in a white-minority area) and 'confessed' to being in the area of the crime around the time of the crime. If the victim didn't know who the perp actually was, I have no doubt I would have been arrested for a crime I did not commit. (this is the video, if you are wondering what actually happened http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqPRGgh9a8 )



We may come at things differently, but as someone who lives in a "high-crime area" (to the extent the local PD has stated it's using 'counter-insurgency' tactics, and all the problems that come with using tactics developed for occupying other countries but right here in America) I don't have a problem with crime being solved, especially when it's in my neighborhood.
What bothers me is when just being white while walking to the store at night is considered reason to investigate me. Perhaps here may be where our view diverge. If there is no reason to investigate me, I feel no compulsion, and in fact there is no legal compulsion, to "co-operate." Your "intelligence" be damned, my rights are not subject to LEO intel.

You make some excellent points and forgive me if I jumped the gun. I will say again that after seeing literally scores of examples including when *i* was a suspect, that talking to police helped them (SUSPECTS that i had detained) and me, that it's just rubbish that talking can't help you. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

Otherwise, forgive me if I jumped the gun, so to speak. Your points are beyond reasonable and I did take the time to read them. Unfortunately, I am getting ready for bedtime so can't respond in kind. But take notice, - you were read, grok'd and I apologize if I misstated your position

cheers

 

[TechnoWeenie]

When "under arrest" you may be searched incident to arrest and your papers and Fourth Amendment rights seized.

Arizona V. Gant pretty much gutted SITA.

 

[509rifas]

You make some excellent points and forgive me if I jumped the gun. I will say again that after seeing literally scores of examples including when *i* was a suspect, that talking to police helped them (SUSPECTS that i had detained) and me, that it's just rubbish that talking can't help you. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

Otherwise, forgive me if I jumped the gun, so to speak. Your points are beyond reasonable and I did take the time to read them. Unfortunately, I am getting ready for bedtime so can't respond in kind. But take notice, - you were read, grok'd and I apologize if I misstated your position

cheers

Oh that's fine. I'm sure you'll be available when not so tired. I'll be around.
But to be serious, your last post wasn't so clear about when being a suspect.
I don't have the advantage of having a badge in my pocket, so I don't have much of an "experiencial overlap", but you have somewhat but somewhat not responded to my (documented/recorded) claims that co-operation has caused me more more legal problems than argumentation.
"Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't."
I agree.
I'm not wiling to risk myself against when it will as an effort to assist gov't intel gathering, considering my history of that not working well or me, so I will continue to asert my rights againt search and seizure; anything that happens after that is fruit of the poisonous tree, as I don't have to worry about anything that happens after the initial unlawful detention, since it seems no patrol officer is updated on Search and Seizure procedure by LEO Digest and I can't fathom how many real criminals get away because y'all don't operate by procedure.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

There are real world times when speaking to cops has helped.
There are real world times when it absolutely was disastrous.....

...........................I err on the side of caution.....

 

[rapgood]

<snip>
That happens a lot where I live too, on my block actually. Often, it's not called to 911, as citizens have a way with dealing with criminality that transcends the law and can have longer lasting effect.
<snip>

 

[skidmark]

This is a good post, but just remember RAS/PC of a crime (or civil infraction, and RAS or PC of a civil infraction DOES require the person to id themselves. Any civil infraction for example is citable by definition and you can't write a cite without a name, so the courts recognize we can ID anybody we suspect of a civil infraction (like speeding) even if we intend to give a warning), isn't the totality of circs by which we can detain.
....

As memtioned, you can detain me until you effect the identification in order to issue the citation. However, you may be passing over the portion of the law that allows you to arrest and hold me in incarceration if I refuse to stop committing the crime, or refuse to not commit the crime again until my day in court, or if you cannot develop confidence that I will show up in court on the date set. Those last three pretty much are axiomatic if I refuse to ID myself.

It seems that you are throwing civil infractions into the mix after the starting bell. My response is that there is no legal standard I am aware of that specifies how diligently or rapidly the police must work to establish your ID, meaning they can stand on the "detain until ID is established" rule for as long as you want them to. While they may look like jerks for detaining you for several days over a 5 mph above the limit ticket, I'm pretty sure the court will note that you could have effected your release at any time by providing ID. Additionally, if the police are not reasonably convinced you will show up for court they can refuse to release you. Many states have laws regarding the docketing of a hearing within a specified time limit if you are detained because they are not convinced you will show up at some later date.

stay safe.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Here is a web site that has a page dedicated to answering the question about stop and ID in Washington.

I think that they might just be wrong but I figured I would share anyways.

WASHINGTON LAW AT RCW 46.61.021 DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO GIVE YOU MY DATE OF BIRTH OR TO HAVE OR SHOW ANY FORM OF PICTURE IDENTIFICATION!

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 (3) and the CrRLJ 1.1 decisional law of this state does NOT require me to give you my “Date of Birth,” my “Social Security Number” or to have or show you A “Drivers License,” a “State Identification Card” or any other form of PICTURE ID!

 

[PALO]

Here is a web site that has a page dedicated to answering the question about stop and ID in Washington.

I think that they might just be wrong but I figured I would share anyways.

WASHINGTON LAW AT RCW 46.61.021 DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO GIVE YOU MY DATE OF BIRTH OR TO HAVE OR SHOW ANY FORM OF PICTURE IDENTIFICATION!

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 (3) and the CrRLJ 1.1 decisional law of this state does NOT require me to give you my “Date of Birth,” my “Social Security Number” or to have or show you A “Drivers License,” a “State Identification Card” or any other form of PICTURE ID!

I believe that is correct. I'd say the overwhelming majority, maybe 95%+ of people I terry stop DO give me their name, but they are not required to. I work the same beat pretty much all the time, and any good beat cop has to know and will know the major players, so we already know the frequent flyers, the career criminals pretty much all on sight.

In infraction stops (and WA only requires RAS of an infraction to make a stop. Many states require PC), people ARE required to give their name, etc. and in those also the overwhelming majority of people do comply. A small %age, like in terry stops will either refuse to give their name or give a false name. Usually, I can get their real name when they pull the fake name stuff through a little verbal judo and a little name game.

It's been a really long time since I had to arrest somebody for refusing to give their name when required (either when I had PC of a crime or RAS or PC of an infraction). In almost every incident of that sort, they are in the fingerprint files, so we find out right upon booking. It's stupid to do that, because they risk an extra criminal charge (especially when they are only stopped for an infraction and now have upgraded to a crime by refusing to give their name or by giving a fake name). I'll sometimes cut a break if they give a fake name/refuse if they eventually cop to their real name without too much hoopla, but if they actually persist up and until booking, they are going to get charged. Some people are their own worse enemies, though and will turn what would have been a verbal warning, into a gross misdemeanor by pulling that rubbish

 

[509rifas]

In infraction stops (and WA only requires RAS of an infraction to make a stop. Many states require PC), people ARE required to give their name, etc...

I don't believe this is accurate. I am unable to post the cases right now (someone may beat me to it) but PC is required for infractions.

 

[Vitaeus]

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf

Read through Section I,

10.
Does Terry standard of reasonable suspicion justify a stop for a traffic
infraction or is probable cause required?
Reasonable suspicion will justify a traffic stop. See State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177
(2012) May ’12 LED:25.
11.
Does Terry stop-and-frisk authority extend to non-traffic civil infractions?
No (but, of course, safety first regarding frisk authority). State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166
(2002) June ’02 LED:19 (Washington Supreme Court says “no” as it holds in an “open
container” case that officer must have probable cause to believe that the infraction is
occurring in his or her presence before making a seizure or frisk). State v. Day, 161
Wn.2d 889 (2007) Dec. ’07 LED:18 (Washington Supreme Court also says that there is no
Terry authority in a parking infraction case). Regardless of Duncan and Day, however,
officers obviously will and must take reasonable safety precautions, including frisking non-
traffic civil infraction suspects reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous.

Notice the wording used in 11, I wonder just how far the opinion of the writer will carry, since they are not really citing case law, unlike in most of their other areas?