Charged with resisting for failure to produce id

[SMITHWESS]

This statute:

http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/2005/chapter_14/gs_14-223.html

North Carolina has no stop and identify statute like some other states have. For example:

Texas Penal Code, Title 8, §38.02(a), reads
A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

Question:

Could you imagine someone being convicted on this charge for "FAILURE TO PRODUCE ID, FAILURE TO PRODUCE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT"

Facts not up for dispute:

-There is clearly no requirement in NC law to produce a concealed carry permit unless you are carrying a concealed weapon, and in this case the person was not.

-No one was simply asking the subject for a name, the demand made by arresting officers was "Show us your ID or we will arrest you / take you to jail"

It is questionable whether or not this "Terry stop" was legal, but I don't think that's very important in this case. Let's assume it was a legal Terry stop but after the fact it could be PROVEN that no law was ever broken.

I've always been a lurker on this site and now I need the help. Any input or insight received is much appreciated.

Regards,

 

[atlctyslkr]

say what? Papers please comrade?

 

[SMITHWESS]

.....

 

[andrewstorm]

N C cops

Most are law breakers,they say they dont need probobal cause to stop you,and i know of an old lady who was shot to death for driving on the sholder besides a road check,because the car was a deadly weapon,she was only doing 10 mph!and may have been having a diabetic episode,about a week later and a mile down the road the same cop tried to arrest me for breaking a muggers hand with a mosin nagant cleaning rod,i told him i had the right to protect myself,just like he did,and he released me and charged the muggers.ps consult the color of law statues,laws for cops to obey ,they get nervous when faced with someone who is in the know about theese statues.

 

[mongo4567]

Neither the NC statute you link to or the Texas one you quote seem to be related to your question in my mind. The Texas law is for not identifying yourself when under arrest for some other offense. The NC law is for obstructing an officer.

 

[SMITHWESS]

Neither the NC statute you link to or the Texas one you quote seem to be related to your question in my mind. The Texas law is for not identifying yourself when under arrest for some other offense. The NC law is for obstructing an officer.

Do you really mean not related to my question?

The quoted TX statute is just an example of what a "stop and identify" law can look like. That one is specific to arrest but others include requirements during Terry Stops.

But forget about that for a second if it helps, it's not a great example and it is less important than this:

A person was arrested and put in jail under a $1,500 secured bond for the linked statute, with "FAILURE TO PRODUCE ID, FAILURE TO PRODUCE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT" written on the charge sheet.

Basically an officer took a law, interpreted it himself, and enforced it after making his own addendum to suit the situation he wanted to prosecute.

I'm asking if that arresting officer's actions seem justified / legal?

 

[Deanimator]

To paraphrase Joseph Stalin, "Sue, sue and sue some more!"

If you want law enforcement to run wild, don't hold it accountable when it does. I don't live in Chicago or New Orleans for a reason.

 

[Carter]

Most are law breakers,they say they dont need probobal cause to stop you

They don't. They only need reasonable suspicion to stop you. Probable cause is for arrest.

 

[cottswald]

Just show your ID and go your merry way.

 

[Sam1911]

Please read this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=545907

It contains a great deal of wisdom and enlightened debate on your question, I believe.

It also eventually lead to a more heated discussion and got locked. I'd prefer you see if you can find the answers you need there rather than have another run down the same tracks to the same trainwreck.

 

[Deanimator]

Just show your ID and go your merry way.

How far are you going to go in consenting to illegal demands? Fingerprints? DNA? Cavity search?

Where there's no specific law requiring it, that LEO has no more power to compel you to produce ID than he does to compel you to buy him lunch or wash his car. In fact, in Ohio, not only don't I NOT have to SHOW ID when I'm not driving or carrying a concealed firearm, I don't even have to HAVE any.

I can walk down any street in Ohio open carrying, without so much as a library card. And until I either conceal or enter a vehicle, there's NOTHING that cop can do about it... at least nothing that's not five different causes of action for a 1983 Federal civil rights lawsuit.

If you're not going to make the police obey the law, why even HAVE police?

 

[DCR]

The arrest was for the classic "contempt of cop" charge. Prosecution is going to have to prove that the arrestee's conduct was (1) unlawful somehow, and (2) that the officer was truly discharging a duty of his office. Some states with similar statutes also impose a third element: that even though the officer was engaged in a lawful discharge of a "duty." The case usually falters if the state can't demonstrate that the arrestee was legally required to show identification.

Different rules usually apply, though, if the event took place at a bar, if there was alcohol involved, or it involved the operation of a motor vehicle, because virtually all states have a "shall present valid state or government-issued identification/driver's license" requirement in those arenas.

 

[cottswald]

How far are you going to go in consenting to illegal demands? Fingerprints? DNA? Cavity search?

Ah yes, the dreaded "how far are you willing to go" syndrome.

We're not talking about "fingerprints, DNA, cavity search". We're talking about showing ID. A small consent to authority in today's global war on terror.

 

[Deanimator]

Ah yes, the dreaded "how far are you willing to go" syndrome.

We're not talking about "fingerprints, DNA, cavity search". We're talking about showing ID. A small consent to authority in today's global war on terror.

Ah yes, the dreaded "global war on terror" syndrome.

If this is REALLY about "terror", why NOT the cavity search, or waterboarding for that matter?

Just because a cop WANTS to do something, doesn't mean it has ANYTHING to do with the "global war on terror", nevermind whether it's LEGAL or not.

This is a nation of LAWS, not a nation of whims of policemen. If you fail to understand or agree with that, then we're on OPPOSITE sides in the the "global war on terror". But I'm sure the Basij would appreciate your support.

 

[General Geoff]

We're not talking about "fingerprints, DNA, cavity search". We're talking about showing ID. A small consent to authority in today's global war on terror.

Funny, I didn't know you could wage war against an emotion. The very concept is laughable.

Fingerprints and DNA are a form of ID, by the way.

 

[A.H. Fox]

Give up a little liberty for security...neither liberty or security...

 

[Deanimator]

Give up a little liberty for security...neither liberty or security...

Indeed.

It has long been the argument of those opposed to civilian ownership of firearms that everyone should be willing to give up the liberty of owning firearms in exchange for the [imaginary] security of police "protection".

Similarly, there is a minority which believe that we can be "protected" from those who want to violate our rights in the name of Islam, by letting the police violate our rights in the name of pretending to "protect" us.

Both of course are errant nonsense propounded by those with an agenda not favorable to individual liberty as we know it.

 

[DMF]

As is typical of many of these threads, there is definitely a lack of information.

What was the basis of the traffic stop?
Was the person cited for that alleged traffic offense?
Was that offense one in which an officer can give a citation in lieu of arrest?

We could go on and on about what info this post lacks.

Further, unlike debates such as these that are often based on news articles (which often require finding legal citations to glean additional facts), or even lengthy editorials (for which we have to search out real news and legal citations to get some real facts), very little information of any real substance has been provided by this new, three very brief posts, just joined today, member.

 

[lloveless]

Wow, the negativity of supposedly sane people. What ya gonna bet none of the naysayers have been in law enforcement? Probably never been in the military either. What ya gonna bet that if you irritate someone with more power, you can end up in jail. Sounds like some people on this thread need anger management. Good luck with your ATTITUDES. Let us know how it turns out.
ll

 

[Deanimator]

Wow, the negativity of supposedly sane people. What ya gonna bet none of the naysayers have been in law enforcement? Probably never been in the military either. What ya gonna bet that if you irritate someone with more power, you can end up in jail. Sounds like some people on this thread need anger management. Good luck with your ATTITUDES. Let us know how it turns out.

1. Just as I don't need to be a doctor to know that they shouldn't amputate the wrong limb, or unlawfully use or dispense narcotics, I don't need to BE a cop to know that cops need to obey the law when it comes to the 4th and 5th Amendments.
2. I was in the military, probably before you were born.
3. The "irritation" of an LEO is of UTTERLY no importance. It's the LAW that matters. If a cop is "irritated" by my knowledge of my legal rights as a citizen, and unlawfully acts on the basis of that "irritation", I will ensure that there are consequences. Those consequences may not just affect him, but his family when he can't support them. If his "irritation" at having to obey the law overrides his sense of duty, common sense, and concern for the welfare of his family, then what can I say? Actions have consequences, including for LEOs.
4. Lately, improper attitudes regarding obedience to the law have been turning out fairly badly for a number of cops, both in civil and criminal court.

 

[General Geoff]

Law enforcement officers have only the power to enforce laws, not to arrest or even detain those who merely irritate them, absent any violations of law.

 

[A.H. Fox]

Not sure what "not being in LE or the military" has to do with any one LEO breaking the law. While it is a minority of LEOs that do these things I believe there are enough of these instances that sustains the wrongly deserved impression that all of LE is "out to get us".

The responsibility is with the LEOs that are just doing their job, know the laws and gives the same level of respect for the LAC that LE demands from the LAC. LACs can not educate wayward LEOs without peril. The Thin Blue Line perpetuates the "us vs. them" mentality. Prosecutors and judges ain't doing any favors for LE either when it comes to changing the LACs perception of a overbearing government.

 

[JohnBT]

"that's very important in this case."

What case? Where did it happen? What time of day? What were the surroundings and location in terms of people and/or events? Why did the officer ask? Did the officer ask more than one person? Had the police been called to the scene?

In simple words, what precisely are you talking about?

 

[Aaron Baker]

As is typical of many of these threads, there is definitely a lack of information.

What was the basis of the traffic stop?
Was the person cited for that alleged traffic offense?
Was that offense one in which an officer can give a citation in lieu of arrest?

It was clear to me from the original post that this wasn't a traffic stop. Most police contacts of this sort occur during traffic stops, so it's understandable that you'd assume the guy was pulled over. However, if he had been, then failing to produce his ID WOULD be a chargeable offense, because you're required to have a driver's license to drive a car.

However, you're not required to have a driver's license to walk down the street. If a cop stops you in that scenario, you may be required to give him your name, but you don't have to produce any government-issued paperwork to prove it. You may also open carry a weapon in states where that's a fundamental right (and doesn't require a permit) without having any ID or permit on your person.

This definitely SEEMS (without the full story, of course) like a "contempt of cop" charge. If you piss off the police, you will often get charged with SOMETHING, and even the cops know it won't stick. They're charging you because they know that it causes you a hassle, and they want to show you who is boss.

My advice to the OP is to retain a good lawyer (or have his friend retain a good lawyer) or at least make sure that your public defender (many of whom are good lawyers) doesn't plea bargain it out. Fight this charge. It's BS and the cop knows it and the judge will know it. Then, if you're really angry, file a federal lawsuit. Fair's fair. If the cop arrested someone just to ruin his day because the cop didn't like being questioned, then ruin his day by dragging him through a federal lawsuit for violating your rights.

Aaron

 

[2WheelsGood]

How far are you going to go in consenting to illegal demands? Fingerprints? DNA? Cavity search?

In principal I agree, but I think there's a bigger picture. What I mean is that a little bit of respect towards police officers goes a long way to making them realize that law-abiding gun owners are actually on their side. They hate criminals, we hate criminals, and there's no reason for there to be such animosity between them and us.

Me and a few of my neighbors are taking a Community Emergency Response Team course in the spring as well as a Citizens' Police Academy course. A huge part of the reason for me is to rub elbows with the police department. In the end, we are on the same side.