redneckdan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 480
Does anyone know if michigan law requires people to show ID to LEOs when requested? thanks.
Quick question
- Thread starter redneckdan
- Start date
- Status
Ridgerunner665
Member
I don't know or care what the law is...but I am a truck driver that goes to Michigan about 2 times a week...I always tell the LEO's that I'm packing...whether they ask me or not. Because some of them may panic if they just happen to see your weapon...and don't think it don't happen...especially since they are probably looking for one anyway. I have NEVER had any trouble doing this...usually they say "where is it?" I tell them...they say "leave it there"...end of story.
redneckdan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 480
I'm not asking about CPL or driving related situations. Say I'm walking down the street and a LEO asks me for my ID, do I have to give it?
iirc, there is a provision of the patriot act that requires you to give your name and correct address if asked... but it does not require you to show id... however, keep in mind that it might be a good idea to just show it if asked... even if you are totally legal in not showing it, theres always the chance that the cop decides that you are resisting without violence or interfering with an investigation...
and again, even if you are totally legal, you still have a case of your word Vs. the cop... and the cop usually wins...
and again, even if you are totally legal, you still have a case of your word Vs. the cop... and the cop usually wins...
NavyLCDR
member
I can't find anything in Michigan laws that force you to show ID just because you are asked to by police. There are two exceptions. One is showing a driver's license upon request by peace officer, IF you are operating a vehicle or just exiting vehicle as driver. I don't know the exact Michigan law, but this is common to all 50 states. The second is if you are carrying a concealed permit, law is quoted below regarding that.
Most states that have had a State Statute requiring stop and ID without casue have also had that statute determined to be unconstitutional. Some states have specific laws which state that if an individual is being detained with probable cause for commission of a crime, that individual must show ID or an arrest may result. But without detainment for probably cause there is no need to show ID. So the simple question to ask is, am I being detained under probable cause for committing a crime? If the answer is no, and you are not operating a vehicle or carrying a concealed weapon, then you do not have to show ID.
28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture.
Sec. 5f.
(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
Most states that have had a State Statute requiring stop and ID without casue have also had that statute determined to be unconstitutional. Some states have specific laws which state that if an individual is being detained with probable cause for commission of a crime, that individual must show ID or an arrest may result. But without detainment for probably cause there is no need to show ID. So the simple question to ask is, am I being detained under probable cause for committing a crime? If the answer is no, and you are not operating a vehicle or carrying a concealed weapon, then you do not have to show ID.
28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture.
Sec. 5f.
(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I don't know much about MI laws, but you may want to review the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hiibel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Also, I've heard debate as to whether or not this ruling pertained to just a name, or the actual ID card (and I haven't read through the decision in a while myself). But, I will say that if you give the officer a fake/false name, you will almost certainly land in jail.
I should also add, before it comes up, that the officer will initially be the one determining what justifies "reasonable suspicion" on the street. A court may later disagree with that assessment, but that won't be the case during the course of the initial contact. So, arguing the fact with the officer may land you in trouble!
If I personally contact someone during the course of my day I always have an articulable reason for doing so... I don't like to look like a fool in court, so I don't play games with people's rights in the first place. So, if I contact you (knowing I have a reason to) and ask for your name, and you refuse to give it, you will eventually end up in jail. And, I'll gladly go to court on the matter if needed.
Case in Point: I turned the corner the other day and saw a guy trying to slim-jim a car lock on a Honda Accord. These cars are very often stolen, and quite often in this particular neighborhood. I contacted the guy, and he stated that it was his car and he had locked the keys inside (keys were also not visible). I asked the guy for ID, and he initially questioned why. I explained to him that I needed to verify that he was not stealing the car, which he claimed was registered in his name. He complied with my request, everything checked out, and I was feeling nice enough to call a city contract tow to help him get in his car.
But, you can surely see where this stop could have gone south had this guy refused to identify himself!
Your situation and results may vary. But, keep in mind that the officer who is talking to you may already have a justifiable reason to do so, even if you aren't aware of it (Ex: "Check a robbery that just occured, White male suspect, fleeing southbound on Maple St, wearing a blue jacket and black baseball cap". You may not be that suspect, but if you are dressed like that, and traveling in the general area, you can be damn-well certain that any officer who is worth his salt will stop and check you out!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Also, I've heard debate as to whether or not this ruling pertained to just a name, or the actual ID card (and I haven't read through the decision in a while myself). But, I will say that if you give the officer a fake/false name, you will almost certainly land in jail.
I should also add, before it comes up, that the officer will initially be the one determining what justifies "reasonable suspicion" on the street. A court may later disagree with that assessment, but that won't be the case during the course of the initial contact. So, arguing the fact with the officer may land you in trouble!
If I personally contact someone during the course of my day I always have an articulable reason for doing so... I don't like to look like a fool in court, so I don't play games with people's rights in the first place. So, if I contact you (knowing I have a reason to) and ask for your name, and you refuse to give it, you will eventually end up in jail. And, I'll gladly go to court on the matter if needed.
Case in Point: I turned the corner the other day and saw a guy trying to slim-jim a car lock on a Honda Accord. These cars are very often stolen, and quite often in this particular neighborhood. I contacted the guy, and he stated that it was his car and he had locked the keys inside (keys were also not visible). I asked the guy for ID, and he initially questioned why. I explained to him that I needed to verify that he was not stealing the car, which he claimed was registered in his name. He complied with my request, everything checked out, and I was feeling nice enough to call a city contract tow to help him get in his car.
But, you can surely see where this stop could have gone south had this guy refused to identify himself!
Your situation and results may vary. But, keep in mind that the officer who is talking to you may already have a justifiable reason to do so, even if you aren't aware of it (Ex: "Check a robbery that just occured, White male suspect, fleeing southbound on Maple St, wearing a blue jacket and black baseball cap". You may not be that suspect, but if you are dressed like that, and traveling in the general area, you can be damn-well certain that any officer who is worth his salt will stop and check you out!)
NavyLCDR
member
A simple question avoids all confusion, either ask "Am I free to go?" or "Am I being detained?" If you are "free to go" or "you are not being detained", in Michigan it appears as if you have no legal requirement to identify yourself in any way to a LEO verbally or otherwise, unless you are actually carrying a concealed weapon, as noted in the statute cited earlier.
- Status
