Why it's important to not show ID to police when asked for no reason

jimmyraythomason said:

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. All have state law requiring identification be presented when asked. The Supreme Court has already ruled them to be constitutional. Why take the chance?
Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/ne...#ixzz10aj8g0l2

Click to expand...

The gentleman is either misinformed or is deliberately attempting to misinform.
The actual quote from the article is "Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926#ixzz10gfJ60MV

In particular regards to Georgia there is no Stop and Identify paragraph in the Georgia Code. The closest Georgia has is http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/2006/16/16-11-36.html OCGA §16-11-36(b), the text of which reads -
16-11-36. (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. (c) A person committing the offense of loitering or prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within their respective limits.

If there is RAS of violating the code, one must identify himself, it is NOT necessary to present identification.

Shameful conduct, just shameful.

deliberately attempting to misinform.

Click to expand...

I posted the link for everyone to read and understand for themselves.

teetertotter, if people exercising thier rights makes you sick, I may suggest you are on the wrong forum. DU is over there, to the left.

Now we are going to have these open carry clowns in Wisconsin, back in my town this week.

Click to expand...

TT, I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes folks fighting for their rights using the only legal means they have can shake folks up a bit.

Having said that -- let's not have this thread on legal police interaction protocols derailed with (yet another) dismaying argument over the propriety of open carry.

TT, you've said your peace. NavyLT, you've made a reasonable response. Let's DROP IT there. If y'all want to argue about Open Carry ... AGAIN ... start (yet another) thread on the subject.

Sitting here in Idaho, I really wonder why some people think OC is such a big deal. It's not a big deal here, or in a number of other places. It's just a matter of what people are used to seeing.

If people aren't used to it, then efforts to get them used to seeing peaceful, law-abiding citizens merely serve to recover a right that people have given up over time without any legal reason to do so. Why is it wrong to claim it back?

I used to be like Ragnar and some others here.
I was "nice" to police during stops.

Then, I found myself in a small town with a couple of bored cops. I was sitting on a curve by my car handcuffed "for my own protection" as an officer tore through my car (with my permission because I was nice and cooperative) and another stood with his hand on the grip of his Glock watching me.
They found my Ruger single action in my car, all legal I might add.

Unfortunately for me, my hair was too long and my car was hot rodded and I owned a gun. So, the remainder of my time in that town was spent being pulled over and provoked every time they had a chance.

I learned my rights. I'm not "nice" to police anymore. It's a professional exchange between us. I've found that being ignorant and unwilling to assert your rights leaves you with one person in the encounter being a pushover and the other willing to lie through his/her teeth to you to get access to whatever they like about you.

Knowing/asserting my rights now as a liberty activist puts the officers on their guard and demands they act in accordance with the law or that they have some assurance that I know how to and will take further steps if necessary.
It's for my protection that the law is written the way it is. I will make use of it.

Probably one of the best things that ever happened to me was being mishandled by a couple of bored small town officers. As a gun owner and liberty activist, I've been spurred into political action by their attitudes and willingness to leverage my ignorance and good will into a ridiculous search and detention.
In fact, I pursued a degree in criminal justice to help myself understand the law and police culture better.
Flip the blue lights on me. You're just doing your job and I'm just asserting my rights. Should be a very easy stop if we're both not just making things up as we go or trying to intimidate one another with chest thumping, lies, and intimidation techniques.

DU is over there, to the left.

Click to expand...

Democratic Underground actually has a fairly strong pro gun / pro civil liberties contingent posting in their guns forum. I even see a few of the same people here.

Making assumptions w/ out checking the facts, the RIGHT thing to do

I don't see why anyone would willingly relinquish their rights.

I don't see why anyone would willingly relinquish their rights.

Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but I grew up around the idea that you have to grovel at the feet of law enforcement.
So, that's why I used to be willing to give up my rights.

Not anymore though.

DU is over there, to the left.

Click to expand...

Democratic Underground actually has a fairly strong pro gun / pro civil liberties contingent

Click to expand...

Oh. I thought he meant "Ducks Unlimited."

Either way, let's keep this On-Topic, please.

Is there any more to be said about identifying yourself -vs.- surrendering identity documents, or about Terry stops -vs.- "casual conversations with law-enforcement officers"?

Maybe one additional point:

All states, and sometimes cities, do not have identical laws concerning what's under discussion here. Right or wrong, you should consider that if you won't show an officer your I.D. he will probably think up some pretext to charge you with. In the end it may or may not float, but in any case be sure you know what the laws are where you are.

Also it would not be a bad idea to have a conference with a local attorney considering what you should or shouldn't do, and thereafter keep his card somewhere on your person. You may have to call him.

Right or wrong, you should consider that if you won't show an officer your I.D. he will probably think up some pretext to charge you with. In the end it may or may not float, but in any case be sure you know what the laws are where you are.

Click to expand...

You should ALWAYS know the relevant laws for not just your location, but your extant situation.

Ohio requires an approved CCW course before you apply for your CHL. It's for the most part, the NRA Basic Pistol class. You're required to MAKE AVAILABLE the Attorney General's pamphlet on CCW and self-defense law. I think that's backwards. I'd make the requirement SOLELY for a class on Ohio CCW, firearms and self-defense law. FAR more people have gotten in trouble here because they didn't know the often arbitrary laws, than because they didn't know how to safely manipulate their firearm. Even moreso, evidence strongly indicates that it is the NORM for police here to know neither the laws applicable to CCW, NOR to open carry. YOU had better know the law, because the police probably DON'T. Some portion of them don't CARE. If your rights are going to be protected, you'd BETTER know the law, regardless of the LEO's ignorance.

You should ALWAYS know the relevant laws for not just your location, but your extant situation.

Click to expand...

Which was the point I was trying to make.

Ohio isn't the same, as say - Wisconsin or Arizona - not to mention New York. Case law from previous court decisions may also play a part. In short, all this is a good reason to have a discussion with a local-to-the-area attorney. His/her fee for a talk will be peanuts compared to what a full-blown court case would cost.

More often then not, a comment like "May I call my attorney?" will result in a cop calling his/her supervisor.

Which could be a good thing. If nothing else, it's more time for everyone to cool down, and de-escalate the situation. Also, there'll be more witnesses.

There seems to be a common thread to these types of discussions. It seems that some people are willing to give up a right “for the common good”. In other words, they will say that they are willing to identify themselves to police (the government) if it’s helpful. There is nothing wrong with this! The problem arises when that same person demands that others do the same; sacrifice a right (or two) for the betterment of a cause or effort. It’s more shameful when they ridicule those who hold all their rights as sacred.

There are groups of citizens who believe with all their hearts that the only people who should own guns are the police and the military. They believe this every bit as much as we believe otherwise. I’ve tried to show them how wrong their thinking is but it just happens to be what they believe and they’re comfortable enough with their belief that logic and reason will not change it. They, and others, believe that Americans should give up their firearms rights “for the common good”.

Some contributors to this forum, as well as many other similar forums, are perfectly comfortable sacrificing their privacy rights. No amount of logic or reason will cause them to change their minds, they believe what they believe and they don’t want to change. They can view the Don’t Talk to the Police videos and their opinion remains the same, despite the fact that the person who created the video is a subject matter expert! You know what? That’s fine! As long as they don’t demand that everyone else sacrifice their privacy rights, I don’t have a problem with it. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink!

The same is true for open carry. You can make all sorts of arguments, merit notwithstanding, against it, but it is a right (in most states anyway) nevertheless. If you prefer not to exercise that right, hey, that’s fine! Where you expose yourself as a hypocrite, whether you’re a citizen or a police officer, is when you demand that others give up a right for “the common good” of others. Are you (a collective you, not anyone in particular) so arrogant, narcissistic, and insular that you believe yourself to be the inerrant standard by which all others should live?

You are endowed by your Creator with certain rights. If you are willing to give some of them up, that is your decision to make; I will never fault you or insult you if you choose to do so. Where you cross the line, however, is when you demand that other citizens give up rights that you have determined to be superfluous. If you demand your firearms rights, while also demanding that others sacrifice their privacy rights, then you are the worse kind of hypocrite. The same holds true for other rights as well, and some people demand the sacrifice of other enumerated and un-enumerated rights in the interest of “the common good”, like religious, governmental redress, or free speech rights. The sacrifice of rights “for the common good” is one of the tenets of communism, and it’s a slippery slope indeed.

There are volumes and volumes of law and nobody can be expected to know it all.

Click to expand...

The police don't need to "know it all". They need to know the relevant elements of any law they're enforcing RIGHT NOW.

I don't need to know EVERY law. If I'm eating lunch at Chipotle, I don't need to know Ohio law regarding certification of scales, permissible window tint of a vehicle, or the ratio of male to female lavatories in public buildings. I need to know that it's unlawful in Ohio to carry, open or concealed, into an establishment which serves liquor by the drink. If I do that and get caught, no cop is going to want to hear or care that I didn't know. I'm SUPPOSED to know. They MUST be held to that same standard, lest we create a two tier society of cops and everyone else.

MY girl friend and her sister carry a copy of the SC gun laws in their cars. I told them to carry it because the Police that I have met do NOT know the gun laws. I have friends that are Police Officers and many times, I have told them to call their Supv, to prove that they were wrong, and they were wrong.

So... I've noticed a few things in the posts that seem to have become a bit muddy.

The use of terms such as reasonable suspicion, probable cause, arrest and been thrown around somewhat loosely. These truly are legal terms and have specific definitions in the law. The exact use of these terms from state to state may vary somewhat BUT in all states they are used as steps to make a legal arrest.

Another thing I’ve noticed is this strange separation between demanding a person to ID them self and demanding a person give the officer their actual ID card. Now I can only speak from perspective of CA law but those two situations are identical. There is no difference.

Again I don’t know about other states but in CA an officer CAN NOT demand a person identify them self IF that person is not legally detained. (another concept that seems to have been brushed over) In order for an officer to detain someone there must be reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person. Once detained that person must identify themselves. ID or name and DOB, again it makes no difference, will be used to run that person to positively identify them in the record systems, and do a warrants check on them. THE POINT of getting the ID or their name and DOB is to run them in the system which, again, is how people are positively identified.

So here is the rub folks. You will have NO IDEA what reasonable suspicion the officer may have to detain and identify you. You could be just walking down the street and happen to have a jacket on that is similar to one a robber had on and that is enough reason for the officer to detain you. Reasonable suspicion is very wide reaching.

So IN REALITY IDing your self is not something you can really argue about with the officer in the moment. What you can do is ask if you are being detained, if told yes then you don’t have a choice any longer and just do what the officer says. If the officer says no, you are free to walk away. (at least in CA) But if you are told you are being detained don’t argue the issue in the moment, it’s something to take up after the fact.

If you feel the officer violated your rights in some way, by all means, make a complaint and follow it up. There are some bad officers but often the issue is the officer needs more education in some areas of the law and its good thing if that is brought to their attention.

If you feel the officer violated your rights in some way, by all means, make a complaint and follow it up. There are some bad officers but often the issue is the officer needs more education in some areas of the law and its good thing if that is brought to their attention.

Click to expand...

If a cop sees me commit a crime, the LAST thing on his mind is going to be "educating" me.

One standard for everybody.

jimmyraythomason said:

Fallschirmjäger said:

"...deliberately attempting to misinform..."

Click to expand...

I posted the link for everyone to read and understand for themselves.

Click to expand...

While I am pleased that you were only misinformed and not deliberately attempting to misinform people, I am less gratified to learn that you were passing on information without even attempting to check it's truthfulness.

The simple and shining truth of the matter is that the news report referenced Hiible v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, wherein it was held that while statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves do not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Court also held that a verbal identification was sufficient.

The states that were mentioned in the news report are, oddly enough, the states mentioned in Wikipedia's "Stop and Identify" article. (Yes, we all know to double-check Wikipedia's veracity; and so I did, following each link to a state's website where it was possible.)

What do the STATES say about when Identification must be produced

What do the STATES say about when Identification must be produced?
Pretty damn much, ... NEVER. Please note INDIANA v. every other state listed.

Because I like you guys, here are just the excerpts. If anyone wishes, I'll be more than happy to produce complete citations


ALABAMA
15-5-30 ...demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

ARIZONA
13-2412 A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name

ARKANSAS
5-71-213.(3) (c)... requesting the actor to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct.

COLORADO
16-3-103 (1)...require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions

DELAWARE
§ 1902 (a) ...demand the person's name, address, business abroad and destination.
§ 1321 (6)...requesting identification and an explanation of the person's presence and conduct.

FLORIDA
856.021 (2) ...requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct..


GEORGIA
16-11-36.(b) ... requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct.

ILLINOIS
Sec. 107‑14. ... may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions.

INDIANA
IC 34-28-5-3
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
IC 34-28-5-3.5...
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;

KANSAS
22-2402 (1) ... may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions.

LOUISIANA
Art. 215.1. A. ...demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

MONTANA
46-5-401 (2) ...(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance

NEBRASKA
Section 29-829... demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

NEVADA
171.123.3... Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
594:2 ... demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

NEW MEXICO
30-22-3.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.

NEW YORK
140 - § 140.50
1....demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. ... demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.

NORTH DAKOTA
29-29-21. ... demand of such person the person's name, address, and an explanation of the person's actions
[Author's note: Note that there only specified instances where identification may be demanded; just 'any misdemeanor' is not a qualification]


RHODE ISLAND
§ 12-7-1 ...demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination;

UTAH
77-7-15. ... demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

VERMONT
§ 1983.(2) the person refuses to identify himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer when requested by the officer.
(b) The person may be detained only until the person identifies himself or herself

WISCONSIN
968.24...demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.


Contrary to a previous post,only One state makes mention of state issued identification and that is IF the identification is being carried

The traffic stop can instantly become a "Terry Stop" as soon as the officer has reasonable belief to believe there is a weapon present.

Click to expand...

Of course, the reasonable belief has to be based on something. There is no exception to the "reasonable articulable" suspicion requirement of Terry merely because the officer thinks a firearm might be present.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZS.html