(01-11-2010 07:12 PM)georgedonnelly Wrote: [ -> ]At
http://paopencarry.org/open-carry-questions-answers#20
readers are advised that they can fail to consent to giving ID to a LEO but shouldn't fail to comply. What does this mean? If a LEO demands your ID you should give it and say you're doing it under duress? I'm confused on this point.
Yes basically you have it. Since you cant lawfully refuse an order from a LEO. You state that you will comply with his demand , but you DO NOT consent to it. This puts the ball back in their court and ups the ante that they better be able to prove RAS at a minimum for their actions.
For instance , in your latest incident when the officer asked for your ID and you refused to provide it, you were correct because ID is not required to have on you while on foot. I dont recall your exact post over on PAFOA regarding how he got your wallet ( whether you eventually gave in and gave it to him , or if he took it once you were cuffed ) I think you said he took once you were cuffed. At that point you would have or at least should have been saying " I will comply , but I DO NOT consent to this ".
Basically your letting the cop know that you are resisting his invasive actions peacefully ( any other form of resistance will get another charge added on ) while categorically DENYING him your permission to proceed with his actions. Once you give permission to an Officer , even inadvertantly , you've just lost one of your best tools to use against him. Anything he finds, even without a warrant, will be used against you, because you gave your permission.
Many people dont even realize that a seemingly innocent invitation to an Officer to come in to your home to discuss something automatically gives him the right to investigate and or seize anything in plain view, which then leads to a search warrant to look even deeper.
Lets say you made a complaint about your neighbor down the street who's dog keeps getting loose and chasing your kids. So Officer Friendly drops by your humble abode to get your version of events . Since its incredibly hot , cold , windy , rainy , etc and your a considerate and generally law abiding person and you want the Officer " on your side " , you invite him/her in out of the weather to discuss the situation. Officer Friendly then notices XYZ contraband or other possibly illegal item in your living room,kitchen,den , etc. Things he could'nt possibly see from the outside of your house. By you inviting him in, you just unconsciously and ignorantly waived your right to privacy and his need to get a warrant. He seizes contraband item X, informs you your under arrest , and then uses the evidence he seized without a warrant ( or a need to get one ) to support his application for an actual search warrant , which a judge will sign , which will give Officer Friendly carte blanche' to come back with his friends and turn your place upside down looking for more things.
Now, take the exact same scenario, and Officer Friendly asks if he may come in and you say no, and Officer Friendly, naturally suspicious , attempts to force his way in. By law you cant lay a finger on him without getting an assualt on a LEO charge. Your only recourse at this point is to tell him you will comply with his demand to enter without a warrant , but you DO NOT CONSENT to his doing so. By doing this , you automatically make anything illegal he finds to be the result of a warrantless search ,absent probable cause and "fruit of the poisonous tree " meaning all the illegally discovered and seized evidence will be tossed out by the Court. No evidence for the Prosecution means no Prosecution period !
Hope this helps