[Schlitz]

Are you required to present ID upon demand by a law enforcement officer in the state of delaware?

[fdegree]

Some people drive even though their license is revoked... Maybe they should stop every driver to make sure they have a driver license.

I'm not trying to stir the pot...sorry if that becomes the result of my view point.

The officer was simply responding to a complaint, and doing his job based upon that complaint. He was not patrolling around and looking for a MWAG, nor was he just walking by and happened to see a MWAG. There was a complaint called in, and he had to respond.

As for unlicensed drivers...if there were complaints called in about that, I bet they would stop more drivers to investigate the complaint. If there are no complaints, there is no reason to stop vehicles in order to make sure they are licensed.

[Boots]

Are you required to present ID upon demand by a law enforcement officer in the state of delaware?

Not 'papers', but yes, you must verbally identify yourself and your business abroad.

[Boots]

... There was a complaint called in, and he had to respond.

Why? and what was the 'complaint'? Was the guy doing something wrong, or not? Did someone not 'like' what he was doing and called in a complaint?

If I see someone driving a car and I don't like it, does the cop have to respond to my complaint and investigate? I think not... there must be RAS, reasonable articulable suspicion of wrongdoing for someone to be stopped.

[fdegree]

... There was a complaint called in, and he had to respond.

Why? and what was the 'complaint'? Was the guy doing something wrong, or not? Did someone not 'like' what he was doing and called in a complaint?

If I see someone driving a car and I don't like it, does the cop have to respond to my complaint and investigate? I think not... there must be RAS, reasonable articulable suspicion of wrongdoing for someone to be stopped.

Perhaps my ignorance is clouding my view, but...
A call comes into 911 as a MWAG. The 911 operator should not disregard this call (I'm not sure if you were suggesting this by saying "does the cop have to respond to my complaint and investigate? I think not"). So, the 911 operator dispatches an officer to the location. I suppose the officer could simply look at the MWAG, and the situation, and just leave because there is no indication of any wrongdoing.

If you were that officer, would you just leave? I don't think I would. You can never truly know the situation without some sort of inquisition. Something prompted the individual to make the 911 call to begin with. Perhaps it was just ignorance on the part of the caller, but the officer doesn't know that until he investigates. He may suspect ignorance on the part of the caller because he knows OCing is perfectly legal. But, how can he be sure until he figures out just what is going on?

In my opinion, the bigger problem is the person who made the call...not necessarily the police officer.

[dean]

You only have to identify yourself, that includes verbally, if you're being detained. A MWAG complaint isn't RAS and therefore you can't be detained (LEGALLY). You only have to present a driver's license if you are operating a motor vehicle which requires a driver's license.

edit: I'd invest in a pocket mp3 recorder if I were you. I purchased one months ago when I started OCing. Gotta look out for yourself in more ways than one.

[Boots]

If the person initiating a MWAG call has not witnessed any wrongdoing, that's the first clue that nothing is amiss.

If an officer responds and does not witness any wrongdoing, he has no RAS, and that's another clue.

Therefore, what legal reason does the officer have to stop the citizen and ignore their Fourth Amendment rights?

[fdegree]

If the person initiating a MWAG call has not witnessed any wrongdoing, that's the first clue that nothing is amiss.

Perhaps the 911 operator could ask certain questions to get a clearer picture of the situation. But, what if the caller is frantic and only says "There is a MWAG at XYZ store!!!" and immediately hangs up the phone? The 911 operator doesn't have a chance to get any more information.

If an officer responds and does not witness any wrongdoing, he has no RAS, and that's another clue.

Just because the officer doesn't witness any wrongdoing, doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of wrongdoing that prompted the 911 call originally. All kinds of calls come into the 911 center every day...but the wrongdoing has stopped before the officer shows up at the scene. Should the officer just leave because he didn't see it?

A frantic call that says "There is a MWAG at XYZ store!!!" and ends with an abrupt hang-up, sounds like reasonable suspicion to me.

Therefore, what legal reason does the officer have to stop the citizen and ignore their Fourth Amendment rights?

We don't know what the caller said to the 911 operator, nor what was relayed to the officer by the 911 operator. We know there was no wrongdoing by jslacker, but the officer may not have known that as he was pulling up to the store.

[Mr.Skellington]

A frantic call that says "There is a MWAG at XYZ store!!!" and ends with an abrupt hang-up, sounds like reasonable suspicion to me.

Reasonable articulable suspicion of what exactly? If you know what RAS means then you know that it must always be linked to the suspicion of a particular crime that the officer specifically suspects you have, are in the process of or about to commit and backed up by more than a hunch (ie articulable).

We don't know what the caller said to the 911 operator, nor what was relayed to the officer by the 911 operator. We know there was no wrongdoing by jslacker, but the officer may not have known that as he was pulling up to the store.

The officer is welcome to observe or ask questions however he at this point, having no RAS, has no power to overstep the 4A. The subject can choose to not participate in the officers 'investigation' as he is not obligated to. The officer can not legally detain him (lack of RAS remember) for that.

[fdegree]

A frantic call that says "There is a MWAG at XYZ store!!!" and ends with an abrupt hang-up, sounds like reasonable suspicion to me.

Reasonable articulable suspicion of what exactly? If you know what RAS means then you know that it must always be linked to the suspicion of a particular crime that the officer specifically suspects you have, are in the process of or about to commit and backed up by more than a hunch (ie articulable).

We don't know what the caller said to the 911 operator, nor what was relayed to the officer by the 911 operator. We know there was no wrongdoing by jslacker, but the officer may not have known that as he was pulling up to the store.

The officer is welcome to observe or ask questions however he at this point, having no RAS, has no power to overstep the 4A. The subject can choose to not participate in the officers 'investigation' as he is not obligated to. The officer can not legally detain him (lack of RAS remember) for that.

OK, I think I have a little clearer understanding now...I need to educate myself a little more.