Why it's important to not show ID to police when asked for no reason

Status
Not open for further replies.
Washington's:

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.
 
i think presented with the case in WI i would have presented ID on the way out of the restaurant and gone about my business. reminding the officers open carry is perfectly legal and maybe it is there duty to inform the public my activity is LEGAL in every way shape and form.

open carry has its disadvantages. the general public gets nervous around firearms due to the media pressure and image that is portrayed. people are scared of guns
IT IS OUR DUTY AS RESPONSIBLE OWNER AND CARRIERS OF WEAPONS TO DISPEL THAT MYTH AND HELP THE IGNORANT UNDERSTAND!!!
 
4thPointOfContact said:
What do the STATES say about when Identification must be produced?
Pretty damn much, ... NEVER. Please note INDIANA v. every other state listed.

Because I like you guys, here are just the excerpts. If anyone wishes, I'll be more than happy to produce complete citations :)
[snip]

FLORIDA
856.021 (2) ...requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct..

[snip]


Contrary to a previous post,only One state makes mention of state issued identification and that is IF the identification is being carried
Click to expand...

Ahh, but that is a loitering statute...here is the whole thing, the pertinent part is highlighted:

(1)It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

(2)Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
Click to expand...

Other than this, our 'Stop and frisk" statute is very similar to Wisconsin's. You are only required to ID yourself if the LEO has RS of a crime.
 
AZ full quote, as the snippet is misleading. Emphasis added.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Edit to add, sorry for interrupting, just wanted to be clear, good of that poster to have statute numbers.
 
Last edited:
Since we are getting back to the WI case, has anyone asked the manger of that Culver's if he (she) had any problem with the customers? How about if he has a problem with the police coming in and harassing law-abiding paying customers?

(if I were the manager, I probably would have gotten myself arrested by ordering the cops out of my store)
 
armoredman said:
AZ full quote, as the snippet is misleading. Emphasis added.
Click to expand...
True, but I snipped a Lot of those statues because I wanted to show which states Requested, and which Demanded Identification and the fact that none expressly stated that a State Issued identification must be carried at all times for presentation. Probably 95% say that one must identify Only when lawfully stopped for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
 
Last edited:
ALABAMA
http://law.justia.com/alabama/codes/2006/14214/15-5-30.html15-5-30
A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
(Acts 1966, Ex. Sess., No. 157, p. 183, §1.)

ARIZONA
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

ARKANSAS
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas Code/Title 5.pdf
5-71-213. Loitering.
(a) A person commits the offense of loitering if he or she:
( ... listings of elements of the offense ...)
(1) Takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer;
(2) Refuses to identify himself or herself; or
(3) Manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object.
(c) Unless flight by the actor or another circumstance makes it impracticable, prior to an
arrest for an offense under subdivision (a)(1) of this section a law enforcement officer
shall afford the actor an opportunity to dispel any alarm that would otherwise be
warranted by requesting the actor to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct.
(d) It is a defense to a prosecution under subdivision (a)(1) of this section if:
(1) The law enforcement officer did not afford the defendant an opportunity to
identify himself or herself and explain his or presence and conduct; or
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2914; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2914; Acts 1995, No. 557, § 1;
1995, No. 1107, § 1.

COLORADO
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?dockey=8476613@COCODE&alias=COCODE&cite=16-3-103
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is
committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require
him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an
explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person
who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's
social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to
this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it,
he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 198, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-103. L. 83: (1)
amended, p. 663, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 941, §
9, effective July 1.
Cross references: For the stopping of persons suspected of alcohol or drug-related traffic offenses, see § 42-4-1302


DELAWARE
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c019/sc01/index.shtml#P27_576
§ 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects.
(a) A peace officer may stop any person abroad, or in a public place, who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand the person's name, address, business abroad and destination.
(b) Any person so questioned who fails to give identification or explain the person's actions to the satisfaction of the officer may be detained and further questioned and investigated.
(c) The total period of detention provided for by this section shall not exceed 2 hours. The detention is not an arrest and shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention the person so detained shall be released or be arrested and charged with a crime.
Code 1935, § 5343-B; 48 Del. Laws, c. 304; 11 Del. C. 1953, § 1902; 56 Del. Laws, c. 152, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml#P249_16458
§ 1321. Loitering; violation.
...
(6) The person loiters, congregates with others or prowls in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity, especially in light of the crime rate in the relevant area. Unless flight by the accused or other circumstances make it impracticable, a peace officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this subdivision, afford the accused an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting identification and an explanation of the person's presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this subdivision if the peace officer did not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it appears that the explanation given by the accused was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.
11 Del. C. 1953, § 1321; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 113, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;


FLORIDA
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...021&URL=0800-0899/0856/Sections/0856.021.html
856.021Loitering or prowling; penalty.
(2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
History. 1, ch. 72-133; s. 1384, ch. 97-102.


GEORGIA
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/2006/16/16-11-36.html
16-11-36. (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
(b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.


ILLINOIS
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...00&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963.
(725 ILCS 5/107‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑14)
Sec. 107‑14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.
(Source: Laws 1968, p. 218.)


INDIANA
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.html
IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

KANSAS
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do?number=22-2402
22-2402
Chapter 22.--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Article 24.--ARREST
22-2402. Stopping of suspect. (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions.
History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2402; L. 1990, ch. 106, § 1; July 1.

LOUISIANA
http://legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=112364
Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.
Added by Acts 1968, No. 305, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 686, §1; Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 32, §1; Acts 1997, No. 759, §3, eff. July 10, 1997.


MASSACHUSETTS
Not listed as a Stop And Identify State

MONTANA
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
...
(2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:
(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; and
History: En. 95-719 by Sec. 4, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-719(1) thru (3); amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 343, L. 2003.
 
NEBRASKA
http://law.justia.com/nebraska/codes/s29index/s2908029000.html
Section 29-829
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects of committing, who has committed, or who is about to commit a crime and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions. When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects he is in danger of life or limb, he may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If the peace officer finds such a weapon or any other thing the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person. For purposes of this section, peace officer shall include credentialed conservation officers of the Game and Parks Commission.
Source: Laws 1965, c. 132, § 1, p. 471

NEVADA
http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.html#NRS171Sec123
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations
...
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person’s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)


NEW HAMPSHIRE
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-2.htm
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.
Source. 1941, 163:2. RL 423:21. RSA 594:2. 1985, 255:2, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

NEW MEXICO
http://law.justia.com/newmexico/codes/2006/nmrc/jd_30-22-3-c999.html
30-22-3. Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.


NEW YORK
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0140.50_140.50.html
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=14298283+&TARGET=VIEW
140 - § 140.50 Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places; Search for Weapons
§ 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
Section: Previous Article 140 140.05 140.10 140.15 140.20 140.25 140.27 140.30 140.35 140.40 140.45 140.50 140.55 Next
Last modified: April 24, 2010

NORTH DAKOTA
http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t29c29.pdf
29-29-21. Temporary questioning of persons in public places - Search for
weapons. A peace officer may stop any person abroad in a public place whom the officerreasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit:
1. Any felony.
2. A misdemeanor relating to the possession of a concealed or dangerous weapon or weapons.
3. Burglary or unlawful entry.
4. A violation of any provision relating to possession of marijuana or of narcotic,
hallucinogenic, depressant, or stimulant drugs.
The peace officer may demand of such person the person's name, address, and an explanationof the person's actions. When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that the officer is in danger of life or limb, the officer may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If the peace officer finds such a weapon or any
other thing, the possession of which may constitute a crime, the officer may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time the officer shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.
[Author's note: Note that there only specified instances where identification may be demanded; just 'any misdemeanor' is not a qualification]

RHODE ISLAND
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE12/12-7/12-7-1.HTM
§ 12-7-1 Temporary detention of suspects. – A peace officer may detain any person abroad whom he or she has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination; and any person who fails to identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer may be further detained and further questioned and investigated by any peace officer; provided, in no case shall the total period of the detention exceed two (2) hours, and the detention shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention period the person so detained shall be released unless arrested and charged with a crime.


UTAH
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE77/htm/77_07_001500.htm
77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Enacted by Chapter 15, 1980 General Session

VERMONT
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=059&Section=01983
§ 1983. Identification to law enforcement officers required
(a) A law enforcement officer is authorized to detain a person if:
(1) the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has violated a municipal ordinance; and
(2) the person refuses to identify himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer when requested by the officer.
(b) The person may be detained only until the person identifies himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer. If the officer is unable to obtain the identification information, the person shall forthwith be brought before a district court judge for that purpose. A person who refuses to identify himself or herself to the court on request shall immediately and without service of an order on the person be subject to civil contempt proceedings pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 122.
(Added 1997, No. 122 (Adj. Sess.), § 2.)

WISCONSIN
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
 
MattTheHat said:
Would anyone happen to know where the applicable statues are located within Texas law?
Click to expand...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.02

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
 
It is unfortunate that in Ohio, we are legally required to immediately notify any LEO who contacts us for official business that we are carrying a CCW; furthermore the state requires us to carry our CCW license with us and it must be shown to the LEO.

I don't want to re-open the rusty can of rotten worms debate about forced notification VS optional notification, just pointing out that the Wisconsin situation would not be so cut and dried in another state.
 
Deanimator

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment exactly. LEO’s are doing a job. At times they will make mistakes because the situations officers walk into are often very confused and all sorts of shades of grey. The first priority is to be SAFE and that’s where a lot of officers will error on the side of. They will control the situation, in the moment, with safety in mind AND then try to figure out what the heck is going on there and if a crime has been committed. It can be very difficult to wade through all that and try to be safe at the same time.

These things are quick judgment calls and if they get it wrong sometimes and say detain and ID the wrong guy or a guy who didn’t do anything, yes it’s too bad for that person BUT the officer can’t be expected to be 100% in judgment calls.

Yeah if an officer sees you committing a crime, you may get a talking to, cite, or arrested depending on what the crime was. That’s their job. If they screw up their job then YES further education about the job they are doing is in order.
 
Diggers

I think what Deanimator was referring to was when police willfully and knowingly violate the law and citizen's rights in order to promote their own opinions or the opinions of their superiors. This is clearly what happened in this incident in Madison, WI. The police at the scene had no doubt that open carry was legal. None of the citations issued at the scene or later had anything to do with a firearms violation because they knew the firearms were lawfully possessed. Officers in the situation of those in Madison WI don't need education, they need to be criminally prosecuted. In Washington the officers would have committed a gross misdemeanor: Coercion (and the police chief with his policy memo as well).
 
NavyLT said:
I think what Deanimator was referring to was when police willfully and knowingly violate the law and citizen's rights in order to promote their own opinions or the opinions of their superiors. This is clearly what happened in this incident in Madison, WI. The police at the scene had no doubt that open carry was legal. None of the citations issued at the scene or later had anything to do with a firearms violation because they knew the firearms were lawfully possessed. Officers in the situation of those in Madison WI don't need education, they need to be criminally prosecuted. In Washington the officers would have committed a gross misdemeanor: Coercion (and the police chief with his policy memo as well).
Click to expand...
You forget that all it takes in Washington State to counteract that is this:

If you refuse to show identification, the officer can then choose to issue you a citation for whatever crime they think you've committed. Then you are required by law to produce identification.

Didn't that guy who won a $10,000 settlement from Racine, WI and then try it again with Madison?

That right there is not exercising or advancing our rights. That's abusing the system to get paid.
 
NavyLT,

Well OK I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. AND YES absolutely IF that’s what the officers have done. Though I do think the general public has a hard time understanding how law enforcement works and why officers do what they do.

The situation in WI with the 5 OC'ers being detained and IDed, yes in hind sight that was a mistake the officers made...probably.

IF looked at from the officers point of view...what exactly were they told when they were dispatched.....I don't know....does anyone? The fact that someone called 911 and expressed concern (wrongly it seems) about men with guns made the officers feel there was enough reason to detain the 5 men to be sure there is no problem (Again there is a in the moment judgment call to be made here and it’s arguable both ways.)

So, once detained the officers required the 5 to be ID and when the two refused we all know what happened. Then the Chief lost his mind and decided to turn to pot up to boil. AND yes I feel he should face legal action for what he did.

The street cops I’m not so sure about. It could be they truly just got caught up in the moment of a MEN WITH GUNS call and acted wrongly. IF its really unusually for people to OC there I can understand how that could happen. They of course should have been disciplined(and educated ;)) for screwing up like that BUT it seems the whole department has a BUNCH of issues so…..we will see what happens.

BTW how’s Whidbey today? My father-inlaw lived on Penn Cove for the last 18 years, sadly he passed last July. I always had a great time up there crabbing and fishing. Beautiful place.
 
Last edited:
You forget that all it takes in Washington State to counteract that is this:

If you refuse to show identification, the officer can then choose to issue you a citation for whatever crime they think you've committed. Then you are required by law to produce identification.
Click to expand...

and then, killchain, like I said at the opening, now the first question in court is answered, beyond any defense, in the favor of the citizen: the citizen was detained without consent. The object is to force the officers into a position of defending the reason for the detainment.

Diggers,
Whidbey is fine. I love it here!

IF looked at from the officers point of view...what exactly were they told when they were dispatched.....I don't know....does anyone? The fact that someone called 911 and expressed concern (wrongly it seems) about men with guns made the officers feel there was enough reason to detain the 5 men to be sure there is no problem (Again there is a in the moment judgment call to be made here and it’s arguable both ways.)
Click to expand...

If the cops had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed which would justify the detainment in the first place, then they would have cited the subjects for that crime. The reason they did not issue the citations was because they knew there was nothing illegal that was occurring and had no reason to believe a crime had occurred. As evidenced by the other 3 persons who did show ID and were not initially cited, if the 2 persons who exerted their rights had allowed the officers to violate their 4th amendment constitutional rights, they would have been released without citation as well.
 
More Law to Read

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.


968.24 - ANNOT.
History: 1993 a. 486.

968.24 - ANNOT.
Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).

968.24 - ANNOT.
A defendant's flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989).

968.24 - ANNOT.
Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).

968.24 - ANNOT.
The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).

968.24 - ANNOT.
When a person's activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).

968.24 - ANNOT.
A "showup" where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification, often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0168.

968.24 - ANNOT.
Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0695.

968.24 - ANNOT.
That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2588.

968.24 - ANNOT.
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.

968.24 - ANNOT.
A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect's pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99-1686.

968.24 - ANNOT.
Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821.

968.24 - ANNOT.
An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when: 1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98-3541.

968.24 - ANNOT.
When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop. Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information, risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00-2614.

968.24 - ANNOT.
It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01-0549.

968.24 - ANNOT.
Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer's seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01-0904.

968.24 - ANNOT.
To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer's belief that his, her, or another's safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant's hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02-1540.

968.24 - ANNOT.
The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

968.24 - ANNOT.
When the defendant's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person's name when the police officer reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self-incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

968.24 - ANNOT.
Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05-2778.

968.24 - ANNOT.
The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.

968.24 - ANNOT.
Cell Phone Tips of Crime and `Reasonable Suspicion.' Andregg. Wis. Law. June 2005.

968.24 - ANNOT.
NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
 
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
Click to expand...

Snubbies' law citation nails it pretty clearly. With no reasonable suspicion of a person committing a crime, being about to commit a crime, or having just committed a crime, an officer can't demand ID -- either verbal OR documentation -- from that person.

The officers in this case, knowing explicitly that no crime was being committed, themselves violated the law.

May the impending lawsuit prove very fruitful to the open carriers (maybe they'll buy new cars and stimulate the economy! ;)) -- and may the Officers and Chief experience a significant change of perspective (and policy!) as a result.
 
The fact that someone called 911 and expressed concern (wrongly it seems) about men with guns made the officers feel there was enough reason to detain the 5 men to be sure there is no problem
Click to expand...

Diggers-

You've expressed a lot of sympathy for the subjective emotions of the police as if there were some legal doctrine authorizing such judgement. There isn't. Your assertions regarding the officers' subjectivity being paramount as a matter of fact is not supported by the wording of the law. It may be the conventional wisdom of police doctrine, but it isn't the law.

But you've really stepped in it with the quotation above. The police do not have discretion to detain people based on a 911 caller's expressed 'concern.' Also, the use of the squishy language 'feel there was enough reason' again betrays the subjectivity you advocate. Reason is reason. It's thought, based in fact, in this case defined as Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not have the authority to detain people based on their 'feelings', or the 'feelings' of people who call 911.

Further, the police have no authority to detain people to 'make sure there is no problem.' That's just entirely counter to the way the criminal justice system and common law work in this country.

Too many people have watched too many Hollywood movies and police TV dramas, I guess. We're entirely too willing to believe clichées that the police acting on 'hunches' or 'their gut' are consistent with the law and the Constitution.
 
Well OK I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. AND YES absolutely IF that’s what the officers have done. Though I do think the general public has a hard time understanding how law enforcement works and why officers do what they do.
Click to expand...
I don't need the "benefit of the doubt". I've got the law.

It doesn't matter any more why an LEO does something than why I do. In BOTH cases it had BETTER be in accordance with applicable law.

Can you tell me why the LEOs in the Kathryn Johnston case did what they did? Does that somehow JUSTIFY it? How about the Danziger Bridge case?

If I walk into Chipotle carrying a gun, the cop's not going to care why. It's simply a crime and I'm going to be arrested and likely prosecuted for it. The only "education" I receive will be via the criminal justice system.

If a cop demands something he has no legal authority to demand and falsely arrests me for failing to comply with his illegal demand, or commits any other crime against me, he deserves no more sympathy or leniency than I do for violating Ohio firearms law.

If any LEO can't do his job AND obey the law, he needs to find another job, involuntarily if necessary.
 
Court

SAM
That is a decision that the Courts may get a chance to make. Until that time it is time to get off the officers back. If they erred the courts will determine that not the members on this or any other forum. The entire issue has gone astray. The original posting was asking for donations. I have seen no postings requesting the furherance of that goal. If you want to sue the city that is your right. But to sue the officers is above the line. It is regettable that the members of this forum, even some police officers can't let the courts decide. I have my opinion and you have yours. I disagree with yours and you with mine. If the courts decide in favor of WCI I can accept that. If they decide in favor of the City of Madison CAN YOU??
 
May the impending lawsuit prove very fruitful to the open carriers (maybe they'll buy new cars and stimulate the economy! ) -- and may the Officers and Chief experience a significant change of perspective (and policy!) as a result.
Click to expand...

I am hoping they will take the settlement checks and go buy real gaudy BBQ guns with fancy embossed holsters.

I'd get a nice 1911 and have the slide engraved "Courtesy of the Madison Police Department".

What I don't understand are the people who are anti open carry and OK with the police departments' actions here. Even if you are fervently anti open carry that does not mean you should be in favor of the police making up laws as they go.

Someone who connects those 2 doesn't have their thinking hat on straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MoscowMike
  • Locked
Carrying Concealed Without ID
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
Jim Watson
J
A
  • Locked
Metro Police policy in Las Vegas: How to deal with Open Carry
Replies
20
Views
1K
thesecond
T
V
  • Locked
A brand new cellular telephone, new atlases, fast food, and energy drinks OH MY
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
SMMAssociates
S
S
  • Locked
Charged with resisting for failure to produce id
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Can You Be Stopped for Carrying?
Replies
6
Views
819
Rockstar
R
Back
Top