Providing ID when open carrying

[sudden valley gunner]

Sterile, interesting. Some states require that you have/provide LTC when armed. Obviously, if you can get the initial stop declared unlawful then you won't have a problem...but that might just depend on what the judge had for breakfast. In the 2nd Circuit, OC has been held to be RAS for a stop/question/papers check but those decisions haven't been binding. So, it's a grey area and don't expect to get any sort of remuneration for the violation.

My state doesn't. There is no obligation to ID yourself to officer either.

The city paid me not to take them to federal court after such an unwarranted intrusion by busy body costumed agents for simply OC'ing.

Even concealing without RAS or PC is enough to demand to see permit. You have to be suspected with articulable facts you were engaged in unlawful activity.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I believe that a Terry V Ohio allows an officer to conduct an exterior pat down for concealed weapons "for officer safety" whenever they interact with the public.

RAS and PC are not required for this, only for the contact in the first place... This is one of they ways that surrendering your 5A rights, even to engage in idle chit chat with a cop CAN bite you in the arse.

Tack

RAS was invented by Terry and so it is required.

Am I being detained?

Am I free to go?

I do not consent to any searches.

My carrying a weapon has no bearing on any consensual contact.

Officer to me " I want to see some ID"
Me "NO"
Officer " I need to know who you are"
Me "You'll just have to live without knowing unless I am doing something illegal"
Officer " How do I know you are not a felon?"
Me "How do I know you are not a pedophile?"

Very angry officer led away by his smirking partner.....I have a feeling his partner didn't like his aggressive intrusive unconstitutional tactics.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I've seen a lot of open carry videos where the cops arrive because of a report of a "person with a gun". Almost every single time, the OCer refuses to provide ID when the officer invariably asks. On the one hand, I understand the refusal, as you're only supposed to provide ID when there's suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred. However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

BTW, if I ever get stopped for OCing, I believe I would provide ID if asked. I have no problem with them knowing who I am, and I have no reason to prevent them from running a check on me. I personally feel that it will make things less contentious if you show a little cooperation. This does not mean that I will willingly surrender my weapon to an officer, but I have no problem with them checking to make sure I'm not prohibited from owning/carrying the weapon.

No. They need reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, not reason to know that it's theoretically plausible that a crime might have been committed. They could determine that without you even OCing. What you're describing is a "show me your papers" state. If what you were describing were legal or right then there would be justification for as much as roadblocks on every corner checking IDs of every person, driving or walking, because it would be theoretically plausible that any one of them had committed a crime.

No... There must be good reason to believe that you, you specifically, have committed a specific crime. Unless they have good reason to believe that you are prohibited from carrying a gun, they do not have good reason to check your ID.

If you want to provide ID for the sake of being polite, by all means, go for it. I happen to know a great many reasons that doing so is risky at best, so I will probably not ever do that. I have seen far too many people end up being screwed by a police officer twisting and using information against them that was provided for the sole purpose of trying to be open, helpful, honest, polite and non-confrontational. The fact of the matter is that if you're being detained, the officer is already being confrontational to you. Using a nice tone of voice doesn't change the fact that you're being detained against your will with threat of force. And when he tells me to step out of my truck, and put my hands on my truck, and then that he's going to take my handgun from my holster, "for his safety and mine", the fact that he's saying it in a nice, calm tone of voice does not prevent my blood from boiling. No, it is wrong. It is not justified. Being polite is one thing, but here we are fighting for our rights. When the two conflict, as they often do, protecting rights takes precedence.

Edit: also one thing that I actually do like about Texas is that I'm not legally obligated to provide ID unless I am arrested.[1]


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

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Ohio is an open carry state and OC is not RAS for a stop here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ohio is an open carry state and OC is not RAS for a stop here.

Good. I might have to learn more about Ohio, may be going there this summer for a weekend.

 

[OC for ME]

RAS is something articulated later, in front of a judge. Folks around here seem to think that the cop must explain himself on the side of the road. Some cops may and some cops may not.

If there is no law that mandates that you must provide ID upon "request".....don't provide ID, ever. If a cop wants to know who you are he will need to break the law to find out.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

RAS is something articulated later, in front of a judge. Folks around here seem to think that the cop must explain himself on the side of the road. Some cops may and some cops may not.

If there is no law that mandates that you must provide ID upon "request".....don't provide ID, ever. If a cop wants to know who you are he will need to break the law to find out.

If a cop can't provide his reason for the detention then how does one know whether or not they should exercise their ancient right of resisting unlawful intrusions?

I have seen way to many cops rely on that rationalization for "any suspicions", which means they literally get away with breaking the law.

 

[OC for ME]

If a cop can't provide his reason for the detention then how does one know whether or not they should exercise their ancient right of resisting unlawful intrusions?

I have seen way to many cops rely on that rationalization for "any suspicions", which means they literally get away with breaking the law.

I address the requirement to present ID only. If there is no law that says you must ID, then do not ID. We all know the DL thing, while driving, when you get pulled over. Other than that, do not ID unless you must under the law.

If you want to chat it up with a cop, by all means, help yourself. I, personally, will not chat it up with a cop unless I know him personally. Those few cops do not approach me because I OC.

Officer, I know you have a job to do, but I do not consent to this encounter. - Citizen (date not published)

Me likey.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Police look for one thing; bodies. Don't supply yours to them for their satisfaction. I suggest you read Boston T. Party's, "You & The Police". A short, quick read and an excellent little handbook to keep at your disposal for reference.

A number of responses here are very good and you'd do well to take them to heart.

 

[Primus]

RAS is something articulated later, in front of a judge. Folks around here seem to think that the cop must explain himself on the side of the road. Some cops may and some cops may not.

If there is no law that mandates that you must provide ID upon "request".....don't provide ID, ever. If a cop wants to know who you are he will need to break the law to find out.

+1 well said

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

RAS is something articulated later, in front of a judge. Folks around here seem to think that the cop must explain himself on the side of the road. Some cops may and some cops may not.

If there is no law that mandates that you must provide ID upon "request".....don't provide ID, ever. If a cop wants to know who you are he will need to break the law to find out.

Concurred with one tiny stipulation. If Officer Friendly wants anything from me that I'm not required to provide he's going to have to pay for it. Since it seems I have what he wants and he doesn't have much that I want it's what you might call a "seller's market". Ofc. Friendly can either tell me what he suspects I'm doing that is illegal and I'll do my best to allay his suspicions or ... he can go hang himself.
I'm not participating in any fishing expeditions that will provide him with RAS post hoc.

 

[OC for ME]

Concurred with one tiny stipulation. If Officer Friendly wants anything from me that I'm not required to provide he's going to have to pay for it. Since it seems I have what he wants and he doesn't have much that I want it's what you might call a "seller's market". Ofc. Friendly can either tell me what he suspects I'm doing that is illegal and I'll do my best to allay his suspicions or ... he can go hang himself.
I'm not participating in any fishing expeditions that will provide him with RAS post hoc.

I get your point and it is obviously the route you will take.

SVG's premise is sound, if the cop can't "articulate" anything right then and there he likely can't articulate, with any reasonableness, later in front of a judge. The premise is to avoid seeing a judge all together, and I agree, but I will not say one word once I determine I the cops intentions.

If he is asking where the best doughnuts are in town, i'll bend his ear. If he is asking to provide my name, well, "mum's the word."

 

[FTG-05]

Huh!?!?!!

What is the basis for their suspicion that I am not legally permitted to possess?

Your premise results in the idea that citizens must prove they are not breaking the law, rather than government having reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are breaking the law. It turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

In any event, your reference is Brown vs Texas. Short story, the US Supreme Court said that a cop must have reasonable suspicion the person is connected to a crime before he can compel identity.

Ask it this way. Since when is exercising a fundamental human right--in this case possessing the means for defense of self and others--grounds for suspicion? What's next, breathing? Eating? Living in a house?

I can't speak to the OP's state (OR) but that is exactly the situation here in TN: The sighting of a firearm on your person is all the RAS the LEO needs in order to demand ID and/or CWP/permit/license. Whether or not he does it is completely beside the point. Furthermore, it's illegal to carry a handgun in TN; the CWP/permit/license is a defense against the charge.

Completely un-American (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) if you ask me.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I get your point and it is obviously the route you will take.

SVG's premise is sound, if the cop can't "articulate" anything right then and there he likely can't articulate, with any reasonableness, later in front of a judge. The premise is to avoid seeing a judge all together, and I agree, but I will not say one word once I determine I the cops intentions.

If he is asking where the best doughnuts are in town, i'll bend his ear. If he is asking to provide my name, well, "mum's the word."

Oh, I beg to differ... I'm sure he'll have plenty of 1 on 1 coaching time with the DA if they so chose to try and "make an example" of the case... "Right fighting" I think is what they call it. Changed the charges and your story a dozen times pre-trial? Jury won't know it. All that matters is that one good lie.

 

[Freedom1Man]

RAS was invented by Terry and so it is required.
SNIP

Officer to me " I want to see some ID"
Me "NO"
Officer " I need to know who you are"
Me "You'll just have to live without knowing unless I am doing something illegal"
Officer " How do I know you are not a felon?"
Me "How do I know you are not a pedophile?"

Very angry officer led away by his smirking partner.....I have a feeling his partner didn't like his aggressive intrusive unconstitutional tactics.

I'll have to remember that one.

 

[independence]

I've seen a lot of open carry videos where the cops arrive because of a report of a "person with a gun". Almost every single time, the OCer refuses to provide ID when the officer invariably asks. On the one hand, I understand the refusal, as you're only supposed to provide ID when there's suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred. However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

BTW, if I ever get stopped for OCing, I believe I would provide ID if asked. I have no problem with them knowing who I am, and I have no reason to prevent them from running a check on me. I personally feel that it will make things less contentious if you show a little cooperation. This does not mean that I will willingly surrender my weapon to an officer, but I have no problem with them checking to make sure I'm not prohibited from owning/carrying the weapon.

Officer: "Let me see your papers."

You: "Gladly officer! Sure makes me and the rest of the world feel safer the way you run this Nazi checkpoint where everyone is guilty until proven innocent! Thank you for your service, kind sir!"

smh...

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I can't speak to the OP's state (OR) but that is exactly the situation here in TN: The sighting of a firearm on your person is all the RAS the LEO needs in order to demand ID and/or CWP/permit/license. Whether or not he does it is completely beside the point. Furthermore, it's illegal to carry a handgun in TN; the CWP/permit/license is a defense against the charge.

Completely un-American (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) if you ask me.

Glad we don't have that here in Virginia. Since no permit is needed to OC, one needn't show a CHP. Heck, I can take a walk through my neighborhood and pass by a kindergarden school with my sidearm in full view and no identification of any kind and not worry.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Glad we don't have that here in Virginia. Since no permit is needed to OC, one needn't show a CHP. Heck, I can take a walk through my neighborhood and pass by a kindergarden school with my sidearm in full view and no identification of any kind and not worry.

+1 Same here in Washington. Some were construing RAS wrongly to think you had to present your CPL on demand, yet a recent court case affirmed this is not the case. An officer cannot assume you are not licensed and cannot tell you have a license by mere observation.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I found out the hard way Minnesota has a written in forfeiture of 4A rights in the statutes that benevolently grant the privilege to carry. The state is one of six that has no RTKABA in it's constitution.

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.
(b) A citation issued for violating paragraph (a) must be dismissed if the person demonstrates, in court or in the office of the arresting officer, that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation.
(c) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder must write a sample signature in the officer's presence to aid in verifying the person's identity.

626.84 DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of sections 626.84 to 626.863, the following terms have the meanings given them:
(a) "Board" means the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(b) "Director" means the executive director of the board.
(c) "Peace officer" means:
(1) an employee or an elected or appointed official of a political subdivision or law enforcement agency who is licensed by the board, charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state and who has the full power of arrest, and shall also include the Minnesota State Patrol, agents of the Division of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement, state conservation officers, Metropolitan Transit police officers, Department of Corrections Fugitive Apprehension Unit officers, and Department of Commerce Fraud Bureau Unit officers, and the statewide coordinator of the Violent Crime Coordinating Council; and
(2) a peace officer who is employed by a law enforcement agency of a federally recognized tribe, as defined in United States Code, title 25, section 450b(e), and who is licensed by the board.
(d) "Part-time peace officer" means an individual licensed by the board whose services are utilized by law enforcement agencies no more than an average of 20 hours per week, not including time spent on call when no call to active duty is received, calculated on an annual basis, who has either full powers of arrest or authorization to carry a firearm while on active duty. The term shall apply even though the individual receives no compensation for time spent on active duty, and shall apply irrespective of the title conferred upon the individual by any law enforcement agency.
(e) "Reserve officer" means an individual whose services are utilized by a law enforcement agency to provide supplementary assistance at special events, traffic or crowd control, and administrative or clerical assistance, and shall include reserve deputies, special deputies, mounted or unmounted patrols, and all other employees or volunteers performing reserve officer functions. A reserve officer's duties do not include enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state, and the officer does not have full powers of arrest or authorization to carry a firearm on duty.
(f) "Law enforcement agency" means:
(1) a unit of state or local government that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state; and
(2) subject to the limitations in section 626.93, a law enforcement agency of a federally recognized tribe, as defined in United States Code, title 25, section 450b(e).
(g) "Professional peace officer education" means a postsecondary degree program, or a nondegree program for persons who already have a college degree, that is offered by a college or university in Minnesota, designed for persons seeking licensure as a peace officer, and approved by the board.
(d) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder shall disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.

I hung onto the lawful descriptor, believing RAS must exist for detention / stop / forced submission of "ze papers". My wallet was taken at gun point after my vehicle was stopped just outside the city limits following my refusal to ID in a cafe parking lot. Apparently, the locals compared notes and decided I needed a civics lesson. Three city clown cars and two county. AR's seem prolific among them. Full felony stop routine. It seems that having a badge makes all things the wearer does "lawful".

Out of state tags on the vehicle registered to an LLC, an open carrier with a Virginia DL and a Utah permit confused them to the point I was concerned there might be another "Oxbow Incident" in the midwest.

A common understanding there is one gets all the justice they can afford. If you can't gamble on a rights suit, no justice. Cops seem to play on that.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Fuller Malarkey that is very unfortunate... I am sorry to hear that happened to you. Texas has a similar law about IDing when carrying under authority of a CHL but it seems ambiguous to me, and I'm very uncertain about how it'd be interpreted by a judge.