Nowhere did I state he doesn't have RAS for seeing you break the law, that is actually PC. What I am saying again is that assumptions without facts to back up your assumptions are not RAS. He can't just assume you are driving without a license, he can't just assume you don't have a CPL. Understand? That simple.
Your third sentence contradicts your first one. RAS is a lesser standard than PC. If you don't have RAS then you cannot have PC either. If an officer cannot assume you do not have a CPL, and cannot investigate to see whether you are exempted from 9.41.050 then 9.41.050 effectively has been repealed and has no legal force except as an add-on charge when you are arrested for something else. Assuming you can lawfully be arrested for anything, if seeing you commit a misdemeanor does not generate any PC or RAS.
If an officer sees someone engage in behavior that is a misdemeanor but which has numerous exemptions, that is NOT probable cause because there are many people exempted. But it is RAS (boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon is a crime, entering a court room with a loaded weapon is a crime, etc) to inquire as to whether the possible-criminal is exempt. If they are exempt, then no crime was committed and they go on their way. If they are not exempt, the results of the inquiry are probable cause and an arrest occurs. If an officer is legally prohibited from investigation whether an exemption exists, the fact remains that he has still witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. Understand? That simple.
Same principle would apply to situations a CPL is required here......
It is indeed an interesting case.
But it is
IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
We are discussing someone who, during a consensual encounter, stated to a police officer that his weapon was loaded, and that he intended to board a vehicle with it loaded. This is not the same as simply standing on the sidewalk or in a crowd OC or CC. This is the next thing to a confession. Entering a court room with a weapon, or boarding a vehicle with a loaded weapon are crimes in this state. Since numerous exemptions to both crimes do exist, simply seeing someone do so is not probable cause, but it is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, which is sufficient to investigate whether an exemption to the law exists. If it is legally impermissible to carry out such an investigation, the fact remains that a crime was, as far as the officer can see, committed. If seeing a crime committed is impossible to investigate because someone
might be exempt, then all laws that have any exemption whatsoever, in the entire state of Washington, have effectively been repealed or modified into secondary offenses.
Yet it is not required to have one when waiting or riding a bus.
Partially incorrect. You can legally ride on a bus all you want with an unloaded weapon. But doing so with a loaded weapon is a misdemeanor. Exemptions to the law do exists. Just like exemptions to carrying a weapon inside of a court room while court is in session do exist. But it remains a misdemeanor.
Again there are ZERO "facts" for the detention. Only one single observation that the observed behavior "may" be a misdemeanor.
If that were true, 9.41.050 would effectively have been repealed. Has it? If witnessing a crime being committed does not create even RAS of a crime being committed because exemptions exist, then it can't create probable cause either. Which means that violating any of those laws where exemptions exist cannot be a primary offense.
I rather doubt openly carrying a loaded firearm into a courtroom would not generate RAS, but you seem to be arguing that anyway. Because that restriction on carry also has exemptions built into it.
Without a warrant to seize the firearm (to see if it's loaded) and without "facts" and NOT assumptions the officer is seizing the individual illegally in the state of Washington.
If seeing a misdemeanor committed does not generate any facts, then nothing does. You could pull your gun out and go on a shoot spree in front of a police officer, and he would lack RAS to detain you because he lacks facts, only assumptions. You might be defending yourself against weapons he didn't see, after all, since he must assume your behavior is lawful barring observable facts to the contrary. See where your logic goes? I've been arguing all along that your viewpoint is absurd at all extents of it. Just because you may be exempted from a law, the officer does not know that the misdemeanor he just witnessed being committed was not a crime.
Yep, that is the way I see it too. If it CAN be legal, it must be assumed it IS legal. This is "innocent until proven guilty".
Completely, utterly wrong. There are (rare) circumstances where drawing your weapon and firing into a crowd would be legal. There are circumstances where shooting a uniformed police officer would be legal. There are circumstances where smashing in a car window and driving off in the car would be legal.
Innocent until proven guilty is a misquote. The actual phrase is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If our innocence prevents us from ever being investigated, then we will never see the inside of a court room, since it would be impossible to ever prove guilt, in a court of law or anywhere else.
To claim that because we are innocent until proven guilty, that a police officer witnessing any of these things cannot investigate us, is absurd.
Seizure would mean we are guilty until we prove we are innocent...not the way it is supposed to work.
Permanent seizure is a punishment, yes. And punishing someone who has not been proven guilty in court is indeed illegal. But an investigative detention is not a punishment. If investigation is illegal, then no one can ever be proven guilty of anything, which is a legal absurdity.
As GoGodawgs stated, there is more than one reason you may not even need to produce a CPL in a legal detention. However, demanding a CPL, where the reason is just having possession of an openly carried firearm, is NEVER a reason for a legal detention.
There are circumstances where you can legally fire your weapon into a crowd. There are circumstances where loaded open carry inside a courtroom while court is in session is legal. There are circumstances where you could shoot a uniformed police officer legally. But the fact that exceptions exist to the laws making these things normally be criminal acts does not mean that you cannot be investigated for doing them, particularly if you do them in front of a police officer.
Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard of evidence than reasonable articulable suspicion. Both are lesser standards (easier to reach) than probable cause. But your definition of innocent until proven guilty is several levels of evidence beyond even probable cause. If police must first prove you guilty to the extent required for a conviction in court, then they cannot ever gather the evidence required for that level of proof, because you seem to think that RAS is insufficient to investigate. For that matter, by your definition, all arrests are false, because probable cause is not proof of guilt either.