Quantcast

Carrying Concealed Without ID

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MoscowMike, Jul 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 4thPointOfContact

    4thPointOfContact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    852
    There are plenty of reasons to not want the police to have access to your address, see Darrow v Kuehnlein
    http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/06/james_kuehnlein_velda_police_assault.php

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-brett-darrow-case-a-hero-our-time

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp
    The police staked out his home, they harassed his neighbors, they encouraged other cops to do the same; all because he dared to stand up for his rights.

    So, no 'legal consequences', but enough 'extra-legal' ones to make me want to remain a very private person. If that's not enough reason, ask the next police officer who's questioning you on some matter what his home address is, where his wife and children are when he's at work.

    If, in the unfortunate circumstance I have to defend myself, then so what? It's not like a self defense shooting becomes a bad shooting based merely upon the absence of a piece of paper. Identification will be made, one way or another.
     
  2. Kenneth

    Kenneth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    North Tonawanda, NY
    So what's the point? Other than to take more time out your, and everyone else's life than is necessary?
     
  3. MoscowMike

    MoscowMike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    Idaho
    Kenneth - you ask -
    I normally carry my wallet with various sorts of ID when I am out and about, but I do not want to live in a society where I am required to do that. The prospect of having to show my papers just to go about my everyday business is repellent.

    Up to this point carrying a firearm in Idaho has required that I must have the proper documents with me. Now it appears that we are in a state of legal flux. Certainly I put myself at risk of harassment if I do not accede to a request for ID, but I don't want the police to assume they have the right to see my ID unless it involves driving a car, getting on a plane, crossing a national border or similar situations.

    Of course it depends on the circumstances. If I am involved in a shooting, God forbid, I would treat it differently than a fishing expedition by a curious cop.

    My original post was intended to find out how the courts have dealt with this in other jurisdictions. Now I know it's up in the air.

    Thank you all!
     
  4. Jackal

    Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Northwest Washington
    Well, technically you dont have to give any law enforcement your name OR ID. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to say a word to them. Please note, I'm not suggesting anything or condoning anything.
     
  5. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    26,066
    People who assert their rights at the fringes of the law tend to spend time in jail waiting for their lawyer to defend their position.

    Call me chicken, but I normally carry ID even when unarmed and afoot. And will show it when demanded.
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And your legal authority for those contentions is...?

    You might be thinking of the Fifth Amendment and/or Miranda, but that's only because you haven't actually read the Fifth Amendment, Miranda, and other cases addressing the issue.

    For example, while you can't necessarily be arrested for refusing to answer a question or refusing to talk with police, under some circumstances inferences may be drawn from a refusal to answer. For example, in Salinas v. Texas (133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013)) the Supreme Court ruled that under some circumstances a person's refusal to answer can be used against him.

    An imperfect or inaccurate understanding of your rights can trip you up.

    They may also find that they had a poor understanding of how things worked at the fringes of the law resulting in some unhappy results.
     
  7. Jackal

    Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Northwest Washington
    I never said you wouldnt be arrested, I just said that you didnt have to speak to them. Thats why I stated:
    You can be arrested for anything at any time, whether right or wrong, with or without reason.
     
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    In other words, you didn't understand what I wrote.

    Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  9. Whiskey11

    Whiskey11 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    York, Nebraska
    Kenneth, I believe he is asking that since Idaho no longer requires a CCW Permit, how does he go about proving he is able to legally carry a concealed firearm.

    In Idaho, the easiest way to do this is to have a driver's license on person. May not be required, but as a LEO, it's very easy for me to a.) visually identify a person and associate it with a name, b.) get all of the pertinent information I need to run a brief check for wants, warrants, or suspended license, and c.) use that same information to do a brief check of the criminal history to determine if they are a prohibited person via statute...

    It certainly is possible in some states to accomplish this without the driver's license, but the license just makes it less time consuming for all involved parties. It saves the "20 questions" aspect of the stop.

    Required? Nope... easier for all involved? Definitely.

    I get in this discussion with maaaaaaaany people about carrying openly in Nebraska (legal via State Constitution). Just because you don't need your driver's license in your day to day activities (if not driving), sometimes it is just far more convenient for all involved parties if you do have it. It is the simplest way to identify someone on the street and saves a bunch of time. A lot of those same people I discuss this issue with also are of the "I'm not providing my name unless I'm required to" camp and it takes some explaining that just because you don't have to, doesn't mean it is the best choice. Sometimes, the waste of time just isn't worth the fight... sometimes it is.

    Now, for out of state carry, I'd really not enjoy not having an actual permit to carry... I know what information Nebraska reports, but sometimes the information reported by other states is kooky as all get out. I've run records checks on people from a number of states and gotten some really puzzling answers when all I wanted to really know is does this person have a felony conviction or not? That permit makes things really simple for me. Again... time vs hassle factor.

    EDIT: Agreeing with Frank here with regards to Jackal's comments... You CANNOT be arrested for "any reason" or without reason. The Constitutional minimum is Probable Cause and Probable Cause is not just "anything". It's a more likely than not that a crime has occurred or is occurring at that time standard. FWIW, that standard is actually very high with regards to criminal matters. I absolutely CANNOT just arrest someone for any made up reason.... that's a violation of the fourth amendment.

    Also get a lot of questions about Miranda... Miranda is triggered by Police Custody AND questioning. While you may refuse to speak to me all you want, I'm not obligated to read your Miranda Warnings until you are under arrest AND I am asking you questions. Questions while during an investigatory stop (Terry Stop) are not subject to Miranda because you are not in custody. You may not be free to leave (because you are being detained) but I'm also not required to provide Miranda Warnings.

    Also some states DO require you to provide ID to law enforcement... many do not. Nebraska law says I (being a LEO) can demand your ID, but provides no punishment if you do not... ergo... I can demand, but you are not obligated to provide and do not have to carry it. Some states require, if demanded, identification. There are times when I (as a LEO) can detain someone to identify them but the list of criteria necessary to do so is astronomical. In my career I have yet to do it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2016
  10. Ewcmr2

    Ewcmr2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    SoCal
    BTDT. Wallet in console of car, wife drives away, doesn't answer phone. Extra screening process only added 10-15 minutes to get through security. Return trip was easier when I told the TSA agent what he needed to do to let me through.
     
  11. Kenneth

    Kenneth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    North Tonawanda, NY
    That's pretty much the crux of the biscuit right there. If you spend your time kicking ant hills, you'll never get to the big hill you really need to fight for.
    Besides that, the LEO you aggravate today trying to make a point, may be working the beer tent at the lawn fete you go to tonight. ;)
     
  12. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,209
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA
    ^ Ditto on what Kenneth said and quoted.

    Also, the old saying, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" comes to mind.

    I keep my DL in my wallet all of the time. When I get my CHP in a few weeks it'll go right behind it.


    I'll be following Mass' advice on CHP presentation during a stop- it'll be right behind my DL in my hand before the LEO even gets out of the car, even though it's not required. I've seen too many video's of cops going nuts if they spot your gun when they weren't told to want to deal with that. I'll be upfront and take my chances that they will be much more at ease. Unlike a lot of folks I will go out of my way to make an LEO feel at ease during a stop.
     
  13. kitsapshooter

    kitsapshooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Washington - the wet side
    "Also get a lot of questions about Miranda... Miranda is triggered by Police Custody AND questioning. While you may refuse to speak to me all you want, I'm not obligated to read your Miranda Warnings until you are under arrest AND I am asking you questions. Questions while during an investigatory stop (Terry Stop) are not subject to Miranda because you are not in custody. You may not be free to leave (because you are being detained) but I'm also not required to provide Miranda Warnings."

    Yet if has been found that ANY statement made to police, even before arrest and before Miranda warnings, are admissible against you in court.
    Do not talk to police, nor are you required to at any point.
     
  14. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    However, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Salinas v. Texas (133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013)) your silence can be used against you.
     
  15. Jackal

    Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Northwest Washington
    Because he spoke to police in the first place, if I read the correct article correctly:scrutiny: : https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246.

    If he had not spoken to police in the first place, would his later silence have seemed suspect?
     
  16. 4thPointOfContact

    4thPointOfContact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    852
    Jackal, yeah, it does help when things are presented in perspective, doesn't it?

    He spoke with the police, he answered questions enthusiastically... right up 'till the point that one was somewhat .... embarrassing... for him to answer. It was his sudden and unexpected reticence to answer contrasted with his previous cooperative conduct that was brought up in trial.
     
  17. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What happened happened, and there's no way to know how things would have worked out if things had been different -- except if Salinas had not committed the crime he wouldn't have had the problems that he did.

    But changing facts is just idle speculation. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the opinion of the Court from which one could conclude that Salinas' mere refusal to respond to questions could not have later been commented on to the jury.

    And by the way, if you want to discuss a court decision, you need to read the decision. You really don't know what it says without reading it. Scholarly commentary, like the article you linked to, can be useful, supplementary information; but you still need to read and understand the decision.

    But that doesn't change the underlying legal principle that his silence could be used against him.
     
  18. 4thPointOfContact

    4thPointOfContact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    852
    His 'silence could be used against him' only because of the particular circumstances of the case. Had he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that silence could not be used against him in court.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Whether or non one's silence can effective be used against him depends on the exact circumstance of the case. There might be other circumstances, involving another person, in which that other person's silence could also effectively be used against him.

    How would be do that? Read the case and tell us.
     
  20. Kenneth

    Kenneth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    North Tonawanda, NY
    If Im reading it correctly, the prosecution wanted to demonstrate for the record, consciousness of guilt on Salina's part. Even though they already had the shotgun and the ammunition.
    In normal day to day life, not carrying an ID doesn't necessarily rise to the level of consciousness of guilt or demonstrate signs of deception, it just makes an LEO encounter more of a pain than it needs to be.


    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote;
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And in other cases circumstances could also be such that silence of other conduct could effectively be used as Inculpatory evidence.

    True, but a number of posters gave the usual "don't say anything" advice, so I brought up Salinas to show things weren't necessarily all that simple.
     
  22. MoscowMike

    MoscowMike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    Idaho
    It's been interesting watching this drift. I believe in cooperating with the police, as long as you are smart about it. That includes everyday interactions as well as those involving infractions or criminal offenses.

    While keeping silent and refusing to provide government ID may seem similar in that they involve some level of non-cooperation, I see a real difference. If I tell an officer who I am, but also politely say I don't believe I am required to carry ID (except in the circumstances discussed above), it's not as aggressive as standing mute.

    Of course the officer might disagree, and it will be interesting to see what I actually do if it happens! While I firmly believe the police shouldn't expect everyone to provide documentation when asked, sometimes your philosophical beliefs don't stand up under pressure :(
     
  23. 4thPointOfContact

    4thPointOfContact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    852
    The very last thing I'm ever going to want to do is to cooperate with someone trying to find post hoc 'reasonable suspicion' and establish probable cause. When the police are questioning you, (except as a witness) it's very unlikely you both want the same ends.
     
  24. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,849
    I would imagine thats similar to refusing a Breathalyzer on DWI stop. You don't HAVE to, but it will be used against you.
    Not really on topic, but my federal issued pilots license has no photo. As a result, I must also carry gov photo ID to make it valid.
     
  25. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    26,066
    "When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere."

    Lazarus Long


    Too bad about that last part.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice