Terry Stop Questions

[Grim_Night]

Why would judges insert words that aren't in the clear statutory language, when other laws specify "in or on" language? E.g. RCW 46.61.255 and 69.50.435, or WAC 480-30-216 (which specifically deals with transportation "in or on" motor vehicles).

This is especially relevant because it's clear the language deals with being inside a vehicle, e.g. the use of "within the vehicle." It presumably requires a concealed pistol license because a person inside a vehicle has concealed the pistol from outside view or observation, even if open carrying. The same is not true when one is "on" a vehicle, and a judge who interprets the law that way would be torturing the law as well as interpreting it in a way that is not reasonable based on the plain statutory language.

The issue is one of statutory interpretation, and our review is de novo.  State v. Argueta, 107 Wash.App. 532, 536, 27 P.3d 242 (2001).   Courts, when interpreting a statute, should assume the legislature means exactly what it says.   Plain words do not require construction.   The courts do not engage in statutory interpretation of a statute that is not ambiguous.   If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself.  State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001).

LINK

I think this pretty much states it all.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I do not believe there is a requirement to answer a police officer who asks if you are armed.

And THAT was the original question. THAT is what I was asking him to cite. Where is the law saying that I have to answer the question (are you armed/do you have any weapons?) even if I am?

I knew the display upon lawful demand part.

 

[Tawnos]

LINK

I think this pretty much states it all.

Thank you for saving me the effort of looking that up

 

[DCKilla]

Thank you for saving me the effort of looking that up

Be very careful about this. You are operating or riding a motor vehicle on public roads. You're fighting an uphill battle if you think "in a vehicle" doesn't apply to motorcycles.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Simply carrying a gun openly or concealed is not RS enough for the cops to be able to demand to see your CPL.

Laws still have to be in line with the constitution of Washington and U.S.

 

[Schlepnier]

Pretty bad advice, given what the RCW in question really says:



It could very easily be interpreted that there are two seperate and distinct phrases separated by the second "or" in the first sentence. The two separate and distinct phrases are "upon demand to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so." I believe this would be the more common interpretation and "when and if required by law to do so" would ONLY apply "to any other person".

This is further evidenced by the fact that the word "to" is included before each separate and distinct phrase. "to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so."

If the legislature intended for "when and if required by law to do so" was meant to apply to both, they could have indicated their intention by either writing, "upon demand to any police officer or to any other person, when and if required by law to do so" or "upon demant to any police officer or any other person when and if required by law to do so." In the first case, the added comma separates the limitation from the list, making it applicable to all the items in the list. In the second case the absence of the word "to" ties only "any police officer" and "any other person" together by themselves just like "his or her" before that.

I won't bet my defense on the grammatical interpretation of the law and I will assume "when and if required to do so by law" only applies to "any other person". So, if I am in a situation that requires a CPL, and a police officer demands to see my CPL, I will display it to them. If I am not in a situation that requires a CPL - then there can be no punishment for failure to provide a document for which there is no legal requirement for me to have in my possession.

Now your interpreting the law?
It very specificly names who can demand a CPL (a LEO or another person who needs to see it such as a bus driver if you OC on the transit) and then it specifies that there is a legal requirement to even make such a demand.

If the legal requirement is not met, then the demand has no merit under law.

As i have previously- i reject your interpretation, as 1245A defender does, because the text of the law does not jive with your point of view.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Now your interpreting the law?
It very specificly names who can demand a CPL (a LEO or another person who needs to see it such as a bus driver if you OC on the transit) and then it specifies that there is a legal requirement to even make such a demand.

If the legal requirement is not met, then the demand has no merit under law.

As i have previously- i reject your interpretation, as 1245A defender does, because the text of the law does not jive with your point of view.

Florida has a similarly written law, police used this to get a suspect. Their supreme court ruled as I believe ours would. That there is no way a cop can glean by mere observation whether or not someone has a license or not. And that they can't just demand to see the license.

 

[Tawnos]

Be very careful about this. You are operating or riding a motor vehicle on public roads. You're fighting an uphill battle if you think "in a vehicle" doesn't apply to motorcycles.

Traffic law deals with "operating a vehicle" in the RCWs. I'm specifically dealing with the statute that has to do with carrying a concealed weapon. And where do you get the idea it's a motor vehicle? There's also bicycles, yet arguably a person bicycling starts to fall into the "outdoor recreational activity" exemption. The law and interpretation tells me that "in a vehicle" means exactly what it says - you are in a vehicle. The plain meaning of that leaves me to believe one is not "in" a motorcycle, and thus wouldn't require a CPL. There's no ambiguity in the language such as the world "operating" or "using".

 

[rapgood]

Now your interpreting the law?

My understanding was that NavyLCDR's interpretation was one of grammar, not one of law.
And I agree with his interpretation (from both grammatical and legal perspectives).
But, as we say in law when we disagree with another's legal conclusions, "Maybe you'll find a sympathetic judge." Because, in law, there exists a "final" correct answer only when the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling on the question... and they might change that in 20 years, or so.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Washington State Patrol stops you during daylight hours on a public highway using a marked patrol car for no other reason than to check your driver's license. Constitutional or not?

What's the difference between that and a police officer demanding to see a CPL because they see you conceal a handgun on your person, or sees a handgun on your passenger seat and finds it to be loaded?

In your first example that would not be Constitutional, at least in Washington State.

In you second scenario the Cop would be about as justified as he could ever be in asking for your CPL.

In a scenario where a Cop could not tell if you were carrying he would not have the right to demand a CPL, you may not have it on you if you are not carrying, you may not even have a CPL, maybe you do not even own a gun. Demanding a CPL would be like demanding a DL when someone is not driving and has not committed a crime.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I have to agree with Rapgood's and NavyLCDR's interpretation.

In fact it's not interpretation, it's the plain language of the law.

As far as constitutionality, that's a separate issue, and unless anyone is willing to be a "test case" I doubt it will ever be ruled upon.

As far as riding a motorcycle, or bicycle, the 9.41.060 exception applying to "outdoor recreation area" says you are covered if "engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"

I think Bill Starks posted in another thread his letter from the AGOs office that stated that the purpose of that exception was not to serve as an "end run around the state's restriction of firearms"

If outdoor recreation area meant anywhere outside then the restrcitions of RCW 9.41.050 would be meaningless because .060 would grant a blanket exception to anyone outside. So outdoor recreation area is probably state forests or national parks and the like, riding your motorcycle or bicycle on the street. While you technically ride "on" and not "in" a motorcycle, the fact is that this goes back to being willing to be a "Test case" So I would mark the law as restricting carry on a motorcycle without a CPL to be on the safe side. motorcycles definitely qualify as a vehicle in RCW.46.04.670

 

[BigDave]

Oh man Oh Man I had to run outside to see if the pigs were flying over! I agree with NavyLCDR take on this and concur with rapgood as well.

When it comes to a police officer demanding to see a CPL is at a time place requiring one to have one or when it becomes known to him you are carrying concealed and this includes riding a motorcycle and if you want your name on the wall (of it should have never happened but it did) next to Josh's then go right ahead.

 

[rlacsamana1989]

The point of a Conceal Pistol License is to legally carry while concealed or carrying a loaded handgun in any type of vehicle as it is considered concealment.

If you are concealing and your weapons imprints or shows for a glance you aren't breaking any laws within WA as we have an Open Carry law but the cop does have the right to demand to see your CPL, as in order to conceal you need the license and you could be breaking the law.

Same goes for a bus, since a bus is vehicle a CPL is required to carry a loaded handgun.

 

[tombrewster421]

I have to agree with Rapgood's and NavyLCDR's interpretation.

In fact it's not interpretation, it's the plain language of the law.

As far as constitutionality, that's a separate issue, and unless anyone is willing to be a "test case" I doubt it will ever be ruled upon.

As far as riding a motorcycle, or bicycle, the 9.41.060 exception applying to "outdoor recreation area" says you are covered if "engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"

I think Bill Starks posted in another thread his letter from the AGOs office that stated that the purpose of that exception was not to serve as an "end run around the state's restriction of firearms"

If outdoor recreation area meant anywhere outside then the restrcitions of RCW 9.41.050 would be meaningless because .060 would grant a blanket exception to anyone outside. So outdoor recreation area is probably state forests or national parks and the like, riding your motorcycle or bicycle on the street. While you technically ride "on" and not "in" a motorcycle, the fact is that this goes back to being willing to be a "Test case" So I would mark the law as restricting carry on a motorcycle without a CPL to be on the safe side. motorcycles definitely qualify as a vehicle in RCW.46.04.670

The exception here is for the activity, not an area. The only time the statute mentions area is referring to traveling to where you are going to do the activity.
Not to mention that the list says "such as", which means other activities could be included. It's citing examples of activities, not what ALL of the lawful outdoor activities are. I don't think that that provides a blanket exception for a person on a motorcycle, but if you're riding a bicycle I would certainly argue that it would be an outdoor recreational activity.

(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

 

[gogodawgs]

The exception here is for the activity, not an area. The only time the statute mentions area is referring to traveling to where you are going to do the activity.
Not to mention that the list says "such as", which means other activities could be included. It's citing examples of activities, not what ALL of the lawful outdoor activities are. I don't think that that provides a blanket exception for a person on a motorcycle, but if you're riding a bicycle I would certainly argue that it would be an outdoor recreational activity.

(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

Do you think riding your bike to and from work would be considered? (like mayor McGinn) Is that activity 'recreational'?

 

[gogodawgs]

Letter from AGO

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=80

Rob McKenna
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Licensing & Administrative Law Division
PO Box 40110 ● Olympia, WA 98504-0110 ● (360) 753-2702
August 17, 2011
Bill Starks
M1gunr@gmail.com
RE: concealed / open carry RCW 9.41.060(8)
Dear Mr. Starks:
On behalf of the Department of Licensing, thank you for your email received August 6, 2011. I am responsible for firearm issues so your email was forwarded to me for response. In your request you asked for clarification regarding the definition of RCW 9.41.060(8) which is popularly known as the “hunting and fishing” exception to concealed carry requirements in Washington State. In your letter you ask if the exception in subsection 8 would apply if someone were to leave town to go hiking without a carry permit and carried concealed or had a loaded pistol in his or her vehicle.
The statute allows law enforcement latitude to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. The scenario you portray could very well result in a finding of violation of the law. The case would turn on the credibility of the individual claiming the exception. The individual’s case would of course be stronger if he or she wore hiking gear and had hiking supplies, etc. The purpose of the law is to make personal protection available to outdoor enthusiasts, and not serve as an end run around the state’s regulation of firearms.
The Attorney General’s Office serves as a legal counsel to state agencies and certain elected officials and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens. It is, however, our policy to provide members of the public with information of a general nature whenever possible.
Sincerely,
SUSAN L. PIERINI
Assistant Attorney General

 

[tombrewster421]

Do you think riding your bike to and from work would be considered? (like mayor McGinn) Is that activity 'recreational'?

Personally I would argue that it is. Nobody is FORCED to ride a bike to work. I think people do it for recreation and exercise. If I were to open carry with no permit, once I get off my bike and am no longer recreating I would be breaking no laws. I think an officer would be more likely to cite a person CCing without a permit while riding than a person OC "on" a vehicle.

 

[gogodawgs]

Personally I would argue that it is. Nobody is FORCED to ride a bike to work. I think people do it for recreation and exercise. If I were to open carry with no permit, once I get off my bike and am no longer recreating I would be breaking no laws. I think an officer would be more likely to cite a person CCing without a permit while riding than a person OC "on" a vehicle.

While you and I might want that to be the case, I do not think the courts would agree. Exercise is different from recreation. You must use the plain language of the statute.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Interesting. Considering this RCW:

RCW 46.64.060
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — purpose.

The purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 is to provide for the exercise of the police power of this state to protect the health and safety of its citizens by assuring that only qualified drivers and vehicles which meet minimum equipment standards shall operate upon the highways of this state.

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — authorized — powers additional.

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

The powers conferred by RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 are in addition to all other powers conferred by law upon such officers, including but not limited to powers conferred upon them as police officers pursuant to RCW 46.20.349 and powers conferred by chapter 46.32 RCW.

I did not know that, thankfully it appears to only apply to WSP. The more I learn the more I realize just how unfree we really are.

 

[Freedom1Man]

While you and I might want that to be the case, I do not think the courts would agree. Exercise is different from recreation. You must use the plain language of the statute.

rec·re·a·tion (rkr-shn)
n.
Refreshment of one's mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.