Show Me Your Papers Please

[whitney]

For a violation to occur you must have committed an infraction.
So here is the definition for infraction. 

RCW 7.84.020
"Infraction" defined.   
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definition in this section applies throughout this chapter.

     "Infraction" means an offense which, by the terms of Title 76, 77, 79, or 79A RCW or *chapter 43.30 RCW and rules adopted under these titles and chapters, is declared not to be a criminal offense and is subject to the provisions of this chapter.
[2003 c 39 § 3; 1999 c 249 § 503; 1993 c 244 § 3; 1987 c 380 § 2.]
Notes:
     *Reviser's note: Chapter 43.30 RCW was recodified or repealed in its entirety by chapter 334, Laws of 2003. See Comparative Table for chapter 43.30 RCW in the Table of Disposition of Former RCW Sections.
     Severability -- 1999 c 249: See note following RCW 79A.05.010.
     Intent -- 1993 c 244: See note following RCW 79A.60.010.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/dispo.aspx?cite=75
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=76
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=77
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=79
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=79A
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.30
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. and ...........

So ..........as long as your infraction is declared not to be a criminal offense or break any other "rule defined as an infraction" (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.020)

you likely will be issued a notice of infraction.(http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.030)

 If it is found that you have committed an infraction then there will be monetary penalties , not to exceed five hundred dollars per each infraction. (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.84.100)

I don't know about you but I sometimes need to get some other things done before immediately recording my catch. 

How can I possibly know, or better yet how can a law enforcement officer possibly know these are all infractions.  If I am charged and later cleared because of ignorance it is bad for all of us.

Clearly this is a liability for the State of Washington to Unlawfully detain me if I subsequently sue the State for 4th amendment violations.

Simply put how can you enforce the law if you cannot articulate what an infraction is?  My recourse for a mistake is to sue.  This should be improved before passing the bill.

~Whitney

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Yes it WILL make the lawyers happy.

[bigtex]

How can I possibly know, or better yet how can a law enforcement officer possibly know these are all infractions.  If I am charged and later cleared because of ignorance it is bad for all of us.

Clearly this is a liability for the State of Washington to Unlawfully detain me if I subsequently sue the State for 4th amendment violations.

Simply put how can you enforce the law if you cannot articulate what an infraction is?  My recourse for a mistake is to sue.  This should be improved before passing the bill.

All law enforcement officers know what a criminal offense is and what an infraction is. If they don't, then they need a new job.

It is not that hard.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 In my 50 plus years I have met a few that needed a new job! (for more than just that reason)

[bigtex]

I need to clarify further. RCW 7.84 are regulations for natural resource infractions. RCW 7.80 are regulations for essentially non-natural resource infractions (speeding, drinking in public).

The identification requirement that this bill is requesting for natural resource infractions under 7.84, is already a requirement for all other non-natural resource infractions and has been since 1987.

Here is the law requiring you to show ID when being cited for infractions that are not natural resource of nature:

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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

[whitney]

Clearly bigtex and I disagree. 

It is not that hard. When was the last time you bought a hunting license? You had to show your ID when you bought it, now you even have a WILD ID.  If I am in the field and my license is checked what reason is there to provide further ID? (other than to harass or provoke)

The problem here is the law abiding citizen once more has to bear the resultant effect of the scofflaw bunch of people that initiate bills like this.

~Whitney

[bigtex]

If I am in the field and my license is checked what reason is there to provide further ID? (other than to harass or provoke)

The problem here is the law abiding citizen once more has to bear the resultant effect of the scofflaw bunch of people that initiate bills like this.

You are missing the point! If you are out in the woods getting your license checked nobody will ask for your ID! This involves people who have just committed a violation! NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!

[boneaddict]

I haven't shown ID to buy a license for years.   In fact I buy them for my Dad and wife as I know what I am doing on there and its easier for me.   


This law abiding citizen will gladly show his ID whenever asked by ANY law enforcement officer.  Hell, I'd offer them a cup a coffee around my campfire any cold night or blustery day.   They are doing a thankless job, that I am glad they are doing.   

[Knocker of rocks]

You are missing the point!

That seems to be Whitney's strong suite

[Elkaholic daWg]

" NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!"
Maybe Knocker, but these folks make it harder EVERY session to be just that. as they ignore federal and state constitutions at whim!

[Knocker of rocks]

I read it as a clarification of the fact that a LEO who is in the act of issuing a citation for a non-felony can ask for proof of identification.  In lieu of production of said ID, an individual may be reasonably held until identification is made.

This is already on the books, and is the status quo.  As BigTex stated, this is only a clarification.

The police are not authorized to ask for ID without PC.  You are also allowed to ask if ID is required.

Whitney repeatedly claimed that this law would allow the police to demand ID from any individual, for any reason.  He missed the caveat that this law only affects individuals receiving an infraction. 

[bigtex]

I read it as a clarification of the fact that a LEO who is in the act of issuing a citation for a non-felony can ask for proof of identification.  In lieu of production of said ID, an individual may be reasonably held until identification is made.

This is already on the books, and is the status quo.  As BigTex stated, this is only a clarification.

The police are not authorized to ask for ID without PC.  You are also allowed to ask if ID is required.

Whitney repeatedly claimed that this law would allow the police to demand ID from any individual, for any reason.  He missed the caveat that this law only affects individuals receiving an infraction.

100 percent correct however this applies for non-criminal offenses which are classified as infractions, not just non-felonies. Criminal offenses are felonies, gross misd, and misd.

[PlateauNDN]

I haven't shown ID to buy a license for years.   In fact I buy them for my Dad and wife as I know what I am doing on there and its easier for me.   


This law abiding citizen will gladly show his ID whenever asked by ANY law enforcement officer.  Hell, I'd offer them a cup a coffee around my campfire any cold night or blustery day.   They are doing a thankless job, that I am glad they are doing.

   X's 2  If you're not breaking any laws or a Law Abiding Citizen then what do you have to worry about or hide? 

[whitney]

I will concede I may be a little over the top with this, perhaps I have failed to make my point.

If you look at section one of the bill the only thing I have contention with is the line that says “shall produce reasonable identification”.  This is the line I believe should be improved or removed and will ask you to weigh in on. 

I am being cited for taking too many clams from the beach.  I provide my license and articulate may name and address for the officer.  Then I am requested to provide reasonable identification.  There are lots of reasons I may not have ID (I kayaked to the beach).    I have, by the letter of the (proposed) law complied, I have identified myself yet I cannot provide any ID besides my license.   

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

~Whitney

[bigtex]

I will concede I may be a little over the top with this, perhaps I have failed to make my point.

If you look at section one of the bill the only thing I have contention with is the line that says “shall produce reasonable identification”.  This is the line I believe should be improved or removed and will ask you to weigh in on. 

I am being cited for taking too many clams from the beach.  I provide my license and articulate may name and address for the officer.  Then I am requested to provide reasonable identification.  There are lots of reasons I may not have ID (I kayaked to the beach).    I have, by the letter of the (proposed) law complied, I have identified myself yet I cannot provide any ID besides my license.   

1. What constitutes “reasonable identification”?
2. Can I also be charged with misdemeanor because I cannot provide “reasonable identification”?

~Whitney

The act you described of overlimit clams is a criminal offense and in criminal offenses you are already required to show I'd. Once again this legislation aligns natural resource infractions with all other infractions.