• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Is being evasive RAS?

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

I don't remember who it was that told me this, but I remember being told that being evasive during a stop is RAS for more searches.

I have also, during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification to run my ID which they illegally took from my wallet. (as a side note, this was what happened when I tried to deploy wash rinse repeat)

I have been doing some research, and can't find case law to support the idea that evasiveness = RAS. Is this the truth, or is it not? And if it's true, what case or what law dictates this?
 

jeremiahJohnson

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
375
Location
fenton, Michigan, USA
imported post

I would say if you are not being detained, it is not illegal to run, flee, avoid or even ignore a cop. If a cop car was to roll up on a group of people I'd see no reason they could not walk, or run away. I remember that video on the Warren police, who rolled up on a group of kids.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

I don't mean running away.

In my case with the cops, I was disarmed, had my wallet taken, and I was asserting my rights by trying to use wash rinse repeat. They said I was being evasive.

But for a more clear cut example, which is what I was told actually is RAS, is if a cop has someone stopped, and the subject is maybe arguing, and definitely being vague and evasive with what they are saying, but still bringing forth details. A terrible idea to do this, to be sure. But would this be RAS to say, run that persons ID? Or search their car? That was sort of what I gathered from the explanation I got from whoever it was that told me. Is this supported by any law or case, or is this nonsense?

:?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

CrossPistols wrote:
I would say if you are not being detained, it is not illegal to run, flee, avoid or even ignore a cop. If a cop car was to roll up on a group of people I'd see no reason they could not walk, or run away. I remember that video on the Warren police, who rolled up on a group of kids.
I believe that running/fleeing from a Police Officer would then give them the RAS they need to detain you.

If you Shut-Up during a Stop, then the Police Officer could probably claim Evasiveness to justify further searches but it would not pass the smell test. I can find no case law either!

I believe it has been said the Police Officers will do as they please until told by a court that they cannot.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
I don't mean running away.

In my case with the cops, I was disarmed, had my wallet taken, and I was asserting my rights by trying to use wash rinse repeat. They said I was being evasive.

But for a more clear cut example, which is what I was told actually is RAS, is if a cop has someone stopped, and the subject is maybe arguing, and definitely being vague and evasive with what they are saying, but still bringing forth details. A terrible idea to do this, to be sure. But would this be RAS to say, run that persons ID? Or search their car? That was sort of what I gathered from the explanation I got from whoever it was that told me. Is this supported by any law or case, or is this nonsense?

:?
Being evasive is listed under Reids Rules (along with just about everything else). It isn't RAS. RAS is what they use to stop you. Asking to leave and then leaving is not RAS. You are not required to answer their questions, and not answering them is not RAS.

It's an intimidation technique. Regardless, it doesn't matter at the time of the stop.

http://www.mml.org/insurance/shared/publications/leaf_newsletter/2008_12.pdf
 

Savage.Detroit

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
...during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification...

Give this a read: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?56+Duke+L.+J.+1621#F109

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).
...when an officer approaches an individual and seeks voluntary responses to questions, the individual is not obligated to answer those questions.
In fact, the person may ignore the questions and walk away.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991).
...the Court clarified that police need more than a mere [*pg 1636] refusal to cooperate to justify detention.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
I don't remember who it was that told me this, but I remember being told that being evasive during a stop is RAS for more searches.

I have also, during the course of an illegal stop by some officers, been told that I was being evasive, and that this was justification to run my ID which they illegally took from my wallet. (as a side note, this was what happened when I tried to deploy wash rinse repeat)

I have been doing some research, and can't find case law to support the idea that evasiveness = RAS. Is this the truth, or is it not? And if it's true, what case or what law dictates this?
Not by itself. You have every right NOT to speak to an LEO.
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

If you run from the police, they're going to give chase on the reasonable suspicion that you're being 'suspicious'. Yes, it's incredibly stupid, but a guy running away from police with a gun is going to be their justification. That'll be 'reasonable suspicion' for them because why would you EVER flee a police officer unless you were doing something illegal, right?! It seems like a no-win situation to me to be honest. I don't particularly agree that Wash, Rinse, Repeat is the best way to handle LEO's to be honest; I know it works for some people, and clearly not for others. I simply refuse to believe that it's the best way to handle an encounter. What do I know though?
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
It is not RAS to OC. It is not RAS to run from an officer (if no other crime has been committed). Put the 2 together, technically it is not legitimate RAS.

Is it a good idea to run from an LEO? No!!!

Is it legitimate? No. Will they use it anyway? Of course they will. :? That's what I was trying to say. lol.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

malignity wrote:
T Vance wrote:
It is not RAS to OC. It is not RAS to run from an officer (if no other crime has been committed). Put the 2 together, technically it is not legitimate RAS.

Is it a good idea to run from an LEO? No!!!

Is it legitimate? No. Will they use it anyway? Of course they will. :? That's what I was trying to say. lol.


Use what? What are they going to do to you? What charge?

Besides the original post asked about being evasive verbally not running away.

I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea...walk away yes but not run away, besides I'm too old and fat to run anywhere.
 

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

The only way to bullet proof evasiveness RAS is to say nothing, absolutely nothing. Or, just keep repeating the same question: "Am I free to go?" And, go unless officer responds with clear "yes". You know, Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.

And, of course, always carry your recorder. If officer is combative and you feel he is fishing, looking for excuse to detain or arrest, I think it is not a bad idea to inform officer that this encounter is being audio and video recorded (regardless if you are video recording). Now, this is the kicker: Tell the cop that you are not only recording but transmitting live signal to a secure remote location where that signal is being recorded. Make it clear that you are transmitting, not broadcasting (meaning that it is not for anyone to hear or see). Transmitting is perfectly legal. The reason you want to say this is because it will be impossible for the officer to confiscate your recorder without this act of illegal confiscation to be recorded. I do not see how any cop will risk to take recorder from you and be on record committing an illegal act.
 

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

Savage.Detroit wrote:
sasha601 wrote:
Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.

Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.

Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws
 

Savage.Detroit

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
imported post

Oh yeah, I know you meant foot travel but just stating that for that one person who would take it out of context.
Providing a DL is required for a traffic stop due to being required to have a DL on you when driving.
Otherwise you are not required to carry identification with you and you are not required to answer their questions.
 

wolverine1856

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
87
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

sasha601 wrote:
Savage.Detroit wrote:
sasha601 wrote:
Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.

Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.

Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws
Does anybody know of local places in MI that have a stop and identify laws?
 

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

wolverine1856 wrote:
sasha601 wrote:
Savage.Detroit wrote:
sasha601 wrote:
Michigan is not a "stop and identify" state, so you do not even required to provide your name. No name - no chance to run ID, etc.

Please note, if you are pulled over while driving you are obligated to provide your driver's license.

Sure, if operating a motor vehicle and stopped you are required to show DL and immediately disclose CC if carrying. I was talking about a person on foot. You are not required to ID yourself if you are a passenger in the car. Also, keep in mind that there is no state preemption for "stop and identify" laws. This means that locality where you stop must not have any "stop and identify" laws
Does anybody know of local places in MI that have a stop and identify laws?
One of the better ways to search local ordinances is to go to this site: http://law.justia.com/michigan/cities/

They have online ordinances for a lot of cities. See if places you visit most often are on the list. Use search function. I suggest to use word "officer" for your search. Any ordinance that has something to do with requirement to ID will have that word in it. It may take sometime, but bbe thorough.

I live in Rochester Hills. I searched its ordinances, as well as city of Rochester ordinances. It appears that there are no laws in there that require ID upon being legally detained. I feel pretty comfortable in these localities to exercise my right not to provide any personal information while on foot or passenger in a car, including my name.

It is very benificial for a citizen whenofficer can not getyour name during on foot encounter. If you refuse to ID and Wash, Rinse, Repeat after each and every officer's question, the encounter will quickly come to the end and you will be on your way. Officer is handicapped in his/her ability to check anything about you without ID. Officer can not flag you as POI (person of interest) in the database and this will prevent a lot of unwarranted stops when you are driving car.

Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway. You are not legally required to disclose your ID even if you are arrested (if you are carrying ID, ploice will get a hold of it if you are arrested since at this point they are allowed to do deep search). You can always dislose your name later if you feel this is beneficial for you. It becomes beneficial if you are actually arrested. At this point concealing ID is pointless. It is actually detrimental at this point since you will be denied bond without ID even for minor offense.
 

Savage.Detroit

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Southwest Detroit, Michigan, USA
imported post

sasha601 wrote:
...Do not be intimidated when officer issues a threat that you will be arrested in order to pry an ID from you. If officer has a probable cause to arrest you, he/she will anyway...
So very true. They need something to cite you on and you not providing ID does not break a law.
I don't know for sure but I don't think a locality can make a show ID ordinance since the State
does not have a law saying having a State ID is required.
 
Top