OC confronted by police

[FiremanPaul]

LiveLeak.com - Were The Cops Right or Wrong?

My apologies if this has been posted before. Just recently showed up on LiveLeak.

I'm pretty sure the police are in the wrong here but readily admit I'm no expert on the nuances of the law. The responses on liveleak were disappointing in their obvious lack of understanding of the constitution and their willingness to do whatever the police said, just because they said it. Would love to hear the responses here.

I'm sure the OC'er in the video was looking for a confrontation, but more curious about the actual legal standing of the officers involved. Only wish the OC'er had not consented or asked the officer if he had to allow the officer to disarm him. The officer did ask if he could take it to which the OC'er agreed.

 

[Treo]

If the guy was in FLA the cops were right OC is illegal

After watching the video some points

1. As soon as they said "You are being detained" the OC'r needs to ask for a lawyer and shut up. You can't out argue the cops and if you talk long enough you will say something they can use against you.

2. Don't ask the cops "Am I legally required to do that?" they are not going to give you a straight answer. Know your state's stop and identify laws and comply.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Police are for investigating criminality. They admit a dozen times that he's committed no crimes, Florida or otherwise. As such, they are investigating a case of non-criminality. I agree, as soon as they said that he's detained, demand a a lawyer and refuse to speak further. And as the guy said, he's filed AID reports before. Demand that a member of IAD be there when he's booked into jail.

 

[NavyLCDR]

=The responses on liveleak were disappointing in their obvious lack of understanding of the constitution and their willingness to do whatever the police said, just because they said it. Would love to hear the responses here.

Then you are going to be REALLY disappointed here when some people on this forum will post exactly the same response.

 

[SGB]

That's not in Florida and if open carry is legal wherever it occurred then yes the LEO where wrong.

 

[BC1]

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go.

Here we go again. Please don't make generic statements that are completely 100% erroneous in most of the states in the rest of America.

For example, in Washington, a person is only required to identify themselves to a police officer if they are actually going to receive a citation or upon demand by an officer when operating a motor vehicle. If the person is in possession of a Concealed Pistol License, they are required to present it to an officer if demanded, but not required to produce any identification to go with it. Other than those three times, in Washington a person is free to refuse to identify themselves to police.

Why is it that everyone who stands up for their rights is an a$$hat to you?!? Please keep your New York attitude in New York. Once again you are showing your incredible desire for America to become Amerika, the police state.

Sources:
RCW 7.80.060
RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

RCW 9.41.050
RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

RCW 46.20.017
RCW 46.20.017: Immediate possession and displayed on demand.

There is no lawful authority, in Washington, for a police officer to stop a person and require them to identify themselves without there being probable cause for the officer to write that person a citation.

My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

Mine too.

The responses on liveleak were disappointing in their obvious lack of understanding of the constitution and their willingness to do whatever the police said, just because they said it. Would love to hear the responses here.

Then you are going to be REALLY disappointed here when some people on this forum will post exactly the same response.

Told you so.

 

[Unfettered Might]

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

Incorrect.

The state of Kentucky has no stop and ID law, therefore unless I am committing a crime I do not have to produce ID on demand when on foot and can politely tell the LEO to stick it. Sure he can arrest me on false charges and then I can sue him civilly in a Kentucky court and even file criminal charges against him, in a Kentucky court, for malfeasance of a public official. I can even file charges in Federal court over a violation of 42USC1983.

 

[NavyLCDR]

and even file criminal charges against him, in a Kentucky court, for malfeasance of a public official. I can even file charges in Federal court over a violation of 42USC1983.

In Washington, the officer would be committing a gross misdemeanor, Coercion, violating RCW 9A.36.070:
RCW 9A.36.070: Coercion.

It is really sad that a certain portion of our population, even on this forum, are completely OK and even agreeable, to people violating such laws, so long as they wear a badge and uniform while doing so.

 

[Oldgrunt]

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

BC1: I am one of those people NavyLT was talking about but we have been around this racetrack before. I believe this individual acted like a horse's rear end when he didn't have to. I have looked up requirements to ID yourself to the police and, contrary to what others have said, EVERY state has penalties for failing to identify yourself to a LEO. From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify. This may or may not apply when carrying. Another item said the offender can refuse to identify himself if he feels he is violating his rights under the 5th Amendment.That would indicate he may be guilty of some other offense and you know where that would lead. In this instance, the police gave the person every opportunity to ID himself and everything would have stopped. He chose not to do that. A person like that can cause others that OC to possibly have a hard time with LEOs. To me, being confrontational is unnecessary but there are those (many) who disagree. Anyway, grab a steel helmet and flak jacket and hunker down. There will be lots of incoming fire!

 

[Treo]

That's not in Florida and if open carry is legal wherever it occurred then yes the LEO where wrong.

That's what I thought but all the comments say it's in Dade County which is about as deep into FLA as you can get. But those don't look like FLA Sheriff's Dept. uniforms

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

Clearly, you're already getting the spanking you so richly deserve but I'll just add you might want to google Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

 

[NavyLCDR]

From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify.

Post the RCW! Here, let me post it for you just to so easily show how, ummmm.... erroneous your information is:

RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice

RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.


A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.

Now, just where is the jail sentence and fine?

 

[SGB]

The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.

Complete and total BS. It's very irresponsible of you to be spreading such misinformation around.

 

[NavyLCDR]

This is what we, the people, need to start doing:

 

[Kasper]

This is what we, the people, need to start doing:

LOL, NavyLT now only if I had the balls to do that. Some of the police in Washington drive in the carpool lane without any passengers in the car with them but since they are the police they get a free pass to break the law.

 

[disneyr]

That's what I thought but all the comments say it's in Dade County which is about as deep into FLA as you can get. But those don't look like FLA Sheriff's Dept. uniforms



Clearly, you're already getting the spanking you so richly deserve but I'll just add you might want to google Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

I was just going to mention Hiibel v Sixth Judicial. The final decision was that in Nevada one is not required to present ID unless there is reasonable suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime (the requirement for being detained Terry stop). Even when detained a person in Nevada is only required to verbally give his name and not required to give ID to verify it. I'm no lawyer but that's what I remember from the case.

 

[BC1]

Here we go again. Please don't make generic statements that are completely 100% erroneous in most of the states in the rest of America.

For example, in Washington, a person is only required to identify themselves to a police officer if they are actually going to receive a citation or upon demand by an officer when operating a motor vehicle. If the person is in possession of a Concealed Pistol License, they are required to present it to an officer if demanded, but not required to produce any identification to go with it. Other than those three times, in Washington a person is free to refuse to identify themselves to police.

Why is it that everyone who stands up for their rights is an a$$hat to you?!? Please keep your New York attitude in New York. Once again you are showing your incredible desire for America to become Amerika, the police state.

Sources:
RCW 7.80.060
RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

RCW 9.41.050
RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

RCW 46.20.017
RCW 46.20.017: Immediate possession and displayed on demand.

There is no lawful authority, in Washington, for a police officer to stop a person and require them to identify themselves without there being probable cause for the officer to write that person a citation.



Mine too.



Told you so.

Why so insulting? Read your statute closely.

"A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction. Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions." Check your case law on this one.

This statute allows a police oficer to request identification for any civil infraction or during the course of an investigation to determine if a civil infraction has occured. If the guy is possibly intoxicated in public, mentally disturbed, matches the description of a perp or any number of other reasons he may be required to produce ID. Check your state's case law on the enforcement of this statute. The issue has been reviewed in state appellate and federal courts by persons claiming they were harassed due to race or profiling. The rulings were upheld even when no citation was issued. Written law is not absolute. It is interpreted based on the specifics and merits of each case. At PPA we have an attorney on staff. I asked him to check this earlier today. He contacted the Washington State Attorney General's Office and was just now given the information I posted above. Take up the argument with them.

BTW, OldGrunt has it correct. This applies in every state in one form or another and appeals all the way to the federal level have stood. Don't get mad at me over these facts.

As far as the NYS comment? It shows you have a clear prejudice and bias against certain classes of people. Never confuse NYS with NYC. Two completely different countries.

 

[BC1]

BC1: I am one of those people NavyLT was talking about but we have been around this racetrack before. I believe this individual acted like a horse's rear end when he didn't have to. I have looked up requirements to ID yourself to the police and, contrary to what others have said, EVERY state has penalties for failing to identify yourself to a LEO. From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify. This may or may not apply when carrying. Another item said the offender can refuse to identify himself if he feels he is violating his rights under the 5th Amendment.That would indicate he may be guilty of some other offense and you know where that would lead. In this instance, the police gave the person every opportunity to ID himself and everything would have stopped. He chose not to do that. A person like that can cause others that OC to possibly have a hard time with LEOs. To me, being confrontational is unnecessary but there are those (many) who disagree. Anyway, grab a steel helmet and flak jacket and hunker down. There will be lots of incoming fire!

Grunt. You are absolutely corect. Our attorney checked this today and found the exact same information from the state attorney general's office.

I don't get some posters. They don't seem to understand how the law actually works. The statutes are interpreted in light of the facts and merits surrounding an investigation.

Got my helmet on. They can lob all the crap they want. It doesn't change what the attorney general advised this morning. Showed the thread to our attorney. He got a good chuckle.

I'm relatively new here but I'm fast finding out that certain posters are always angry and insulting. They can be more effective getting their point across if they weren't so prejudiced or mean spirited. There's NEVER a reason for such attacks.

Thick skinned as always,
BC

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why so insulting? Read your statute closely.

"A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction. Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions." Check your case law on this one.

This statute allows a police oficer to request identification for any civil infraction or during the course of an investigation to determine if a civil infraction has occured.

You are absolutely correct. Because the statute does not PROHIBIT the officer from REQUESTING anything. However, the portion of the statute that you conveniently left out of your quote clearly defines when a person is REQUIRED to comply with a request:
RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice

RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

You are NOT required, in Washington, to identify yourself to a police for investigative purposes. Do you see the word "investigate" or any form thereof in the above statute? NO. An officer can request anything he wants to. And I will politely deny his requests and ask if I am free to leave. If I am not free to leave, then, "Game On". He better have RAS that he can prove in court for a reason to detain me. Up until the point that the officer is actually going to write me a citation for a law he thinks he can prove that I have broken, I am under no obligation to provide him with any identification, I don't care what he is investigating.

Like I said, keep your New York attitudes in New York. We don't want them in free America.

 

[BC1]

You are absolutely correct. Because the statute does not PROHIBIT the officer from REQUESTING anything. However, the portion of the statute that you conveniently left out of your quote clearly defines when a person is REQUIRED to comply with a request:
RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice



You are NOT required, in Washington, to identify yourself to a police for investigative purposes. Do you see the word "investigate" or any form thereof in the above statute? NO. An officer can request anything he wants to. And I will politely deny his requests and ask if I am free to leave. If I am not free to leave, then, "Game On". He better have RAS that he can prove in court for a reason to detain me. Up until the point that the officer is actually going to write me a citation for a law he thinks he can prove that I have broken, I am under no obligation to provide him with any identification, I don't care what he is investigating.

Like I said, keep your New York attitudes in New York. We don't want them in free America.

Who is "we?" What's your record for insulting other posters? Do you keep count? I'm only curious because other posters seem to warn us about you. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone by explaining a NY attitude. What exactly is a NY attitude? Are you referring to NYC or all 18 million of us in beautiful rural gun-friendly upstate? How is it that a single attitide can apply to nearly 18 million people? I'm waiting for an answer that is hopefully backed up by some facts, a study or other substance. You'll get your message across by being nice, not insulting. BTW, I'm not from NY. It's just where the money is right now. Lighten up Frances, it's only a chat board.

Frances, I'll leave you to have the last word on the subject. Then call the state attorney general and get his response on this issue.