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

[NavyLCDR]

I am sure some of you have read this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=545739

There is large argument about whether the subjects should have shown the officers ID when asked. In a situation such as this, where there is no stop and ID law, where there is no reasonable suspicion of any crime being or about to be committed, it is important that you NOT show ID to the officer during the initial encounter. Here is why:

Using the Culver case referenced above as an example, the first determination in court will be whether or not the subjects were actually formally detained by the officers or whether it was a consensual encounter. IF it is determined that the initial encounter was consensual - that the subjects agreed to talk to the officers - their case becomes more difficult. IF it is determined that the initial encounter was a "Terry Stop", then the next question becomes if the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry Stop.

So - on to my title. IF the officer asks you for ID and you immediately show it to him - now it is your word against his whether or not the encounter was consensual. It is up to you to prove that you were being detained. You now have the burden of proof. You will have to show, by a combination of circumstances/actions that the officer detained you and the you (reasonable person) did not feel free to leave. Number of officers, where they were standing, handcuffs, weapons drawn, etc. will all be a basis for determining if they were detaining you or the encounter was consensual.

IF the officer asks you for ID and you refuse to show it, now the officers next actions will demonstrate, with no doubt, whether or not you were detained. The officer can let you go on your way and it's done OR the officer can keep you there - after you have obviously made it clear you do not desire to interact with the officer and, thus, it pretty much removes all doubt that you were detained. Now the burden of proof switches to the officer. The officer must prove he had reasonable suspicion to justify detaining you. If there is no stop and ID statute (and Wisconsin does not have one), refusal to show ID in now way indicates guilt or deception. It is the mere exercise of 4th amendment rights - just like remaining silent is the mere exercise of 5th amendment rights.

Whenever an interaction occurs with a police officer, there is the possibility the situation will end up in court. It is important to realize this and to make sure, right from the beginning, that things are as much in your favor as possible. You need to take the action necessary to place the burden of proof onto the officer vice on yourself.

 

[Sam1911]

Interesting point. I wonder if there are nuances of this involved when driving (when most of us are far more likely to be officially contacted by law enforcement officers) as opposed to a "man-on-the-street" encounter?

Certainly, if you are pulled over you are required (in all states, I believe) to show your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Obviously you've been detained. However, that detention is not (necessarily, usually) a Terry Stop.

I've read that if the officer asks any further questions or requests any further access to your vehicle or person that you should ask directly, "Is this a Terry Stop?" If "No," then something like, "Then am I free to go?" or some other polite but conclusive attempt to break contact. If, "Yes," then "I don't consent to any searches and I don't wish to make any statements without counsel."

I don't know how that plays out in real life as I've never been extensively probed in any of my (admittedly few) traffic stops.

 

[NavyLCDR]

When the officer turns on the lights, it becomes a Terry Stop at that very moment. It becomes a formal detention. You are not free to ignore the lights. The officer has obtained reasonable suspicion that you have broken a traffic law and initiates an action to detain you.

I've read that if the officer asks any further questions or requests any further access to your vehicle or person that you should ask directly, "Is this a Terry Stop?" I don't know how that plays out in real life as I've never been extensively probed in any of my (admittedly few) traffic stops.

About all you can really do is refuse consent to the search. Doing things like locking your car doors when you exit the vehicle strengthen your case that you refused consent to the search.

During a traffic stop, the officer has no legal basis to conduct a vehicle search (unless they see, in plain sight, contraband such as drugs or an illegally carried firearm) for the purpose of gathering evidence because there is no danger that further evidence of your traffic violation, such as speeding, can be obtained or protected by conducting the search. The search must be related to the reason for the stop.

The only legal basis the officer has for a search is to search the area immediately accessible to the subject from which the subject may immediately obtain a weapon.

 

[Sam1911]

When the officer turns on the lights, it becomes a Terry Stop at that very moment.

Are you 100% certain of that? It is a little contrary to my understanding, though I am frequently mistaken!

The only legal basis the officer has for a search is to search the area immediately accessible to the subject from which the subject may immediately obtain a weapon.

This, I was lead to believe was the definition of a Terry frisk/search. And, it was only a Terry stop/frisk if he had some explainable reason to believe you were both armed and were disposed to harm him or others.

If I've got that definition correct, then a speeding or other traffic violation stop surely wouldn't be a Terry stop as the officer has no reasonable expectation that someone he pulls over for 65 in a 50 is either armed nor willing to shoot him over it.

Am I somehow mangling the terms or ideas here?

 

[Sam1911]

Now, change the picture a little:

If the officer pulled you over (somewhat similarly to how the original Terry case happened) because he thought you were "casing" a store for a robbery -- that'd be a Terry stop. He'd have an explainable reason to think you were probably armed and dangerous. He could search you for weapons.

Or, if the officer hit his lights and you started evasive maneuvers or rammed his vehicle -- that'd be a Terry stop because he'd have observed you acting violently.

How does that equate to a missed stop sign citation stop or failure to use proper signals or whatever?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm just not really the kind of guy who gets his jollies being a jerk to police for no reason. But I know that not everyone shares that view.

 

[Sam1911]

Ragnar, are you saying that being mindful of your rights under the law is being rude to an officer?

Neither NavyLT or I meant that you should be rude to him or her. But one can be civil without allowing yourself to be the subject of "fishing." Police officers are often pretty good at using communication style, the aura of authority, and a little verbal judo to get folks they interact with to say a whole lot more than is probably good for them.

It's part of their job. It's part of MY job as a law-abiding citizen who values his rights and freedom to not be so "polite" as to give up those rights just to make the officer's job easier.

I know many folks have said, "If you're really law-abiding, what do you have to hide?" But this is 2010, and I think we've all grown up enough to not fall for that any more.

 

[nalioth]

I'm just not really the kind of guy who gets his jollies being a jerk to police for no reason.

It's not "getting one's jollies", it's exercising one's rights.

If you don't exercise, you atrophy. Same goes for your rights.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think that if you really believe it's your job to make a police officer's work day harder, there is something wrong with you.


If you are not violating the law, yet you still view yourself as in opposition to law enforcement, you have a problem.

 

[ArmedBear]

If a cop wants to make his day easier, then he shouldn't be asking me to waive my rights. Most cops know that.

 

[Cosmoline]

So - on to my title. IF the officer asks you for ID and you immediately show it to him - now it is your word against his whether or not the encounter was consensual.

Do you have any authority for the claim that showing a driver's license to an officer constitutes consent to a search?

 

[Sam1911]

I think that if you really believe it's your job to make a police officer's work day harder, there is something wrong with you.

Ummmm ... o.k. Well I certainly don't want to make anyone's day harder. If an officer sticks to the script and our interaction is limited to the topic he had some reasonable cause to contact me about, I'm sure we will have a very civil time.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to volunteer anything -- at all -- that could be used by him in some "official" capacity against me.

It's like the old joke about the guy who gets stopped and the officer says, "Do you know why I stopped you?"

The dude replies, "Oh, was it because I was speeding? Or because I didn't get that turn signal fixed yet? Oh... or because I didn't see that stop sign three blocks back? Or was it because my registration expired Tuesday? No, wait, does it have anything to do with my insurance -- I keep telling my wife she's got to send that check in so they'll reinstate my policy. Oh, oh, no -- I bet it's because of that item I forgot to pay for at K-Mart -- look, I didn't even know it was in the bag, my daughter must have tossed it in there as we were leaving, I was going to go back this week and pay for it. No that can't be it... Was it the marijuana? Look that was my cousin's and I didn't even smoke any. I told him to get it out of my house. ... No, no, how could you have even known about that? Wait, it had to be the tax thing... I fully intend to pay ... ... ..."

 

[Sam1911]

Um...

If you are not violating the law, yet you still view yourself as in opposition to law enforcement, you have a problem.

As I said:

I know many folks have said, "If you're really law-abiding, what do you have to hide?" But this is 2010, and I think we've all grown up enough to not fall for that any more.

I'm not in opposition to anyone. They have a job to do, I have a job to do.

I'm not in opposition to the car salesman, either. His job is to try to get me to buy a car, for a decent commission. My job is to buy a car without spending any more than I must. We are not in opposition, exactly, but neither of us is doing our job if we're giving the other everything he wants.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Funny thing, I've found that by not being a criminal, I've managed to limit my interactions with police to about zero. Odd.

I'll also add that even though this thread is not firearms related, nor does it pertain to strategies and tactics with firearms; it does involve on of THR's favorite past times (cop bashing), and so even mods let it slide.

 

[jackpinesavages]

There are several nuances and different angles to disect here, and it is hard to do outside of a classroom setting but I'll gve it a go;

Terry vs. Ohio was pertaining to a beat cop patrolling on foot. His experience and knowledge gave him reasonable suspicion that 3 subjects appeared to be casing a property, he approached them and ID'd himself as a cop, and was given identification by the three. The main source of reasonable suspicion in that case was the LEO could see bulges under the coats of the 3 subjects, AND those bulges could have been either tools of burglary and/or weapons. That followed was a "pat down" to determine if the bulges were tools/weapons. A "search" is when you are asked to remove outer garments like coats/hats/gloves/shoes, and your pockets are checked for weapons/sharps. The LEO in Terry vs. Ohio case found tools and a pistol to be on those persons. Now....

Traffic stops are MUCH different; A so-called "Terry Stop" on a vehicle would stereotypically be a scenario such as this: LEO on vehicle patrol spots a car driving around a warehouse at 3 AM, when there is no business going on. Reasonable suspicion that they are up to illegal activity gives the LEO legal grounds to make a stop. Vehicle searches where the owner/driver gives consent are just that, "consent searches". You can allow it IF you want the search to happen at all, you limit the areas to be searched, and can also stop the search at any time you want to.

The Madison WI scenario at Culvers rest. is an example of absolute LEGAL activity by the subjects in question, and that it was actually the Police presence after the fact which caused the disturbance, unfortunately. Some LEOs know how to handle these scenarios and SOME do not. If you as an OC advocate want to handle your own personal scenarios better here is a tip; identify yourself verbally with name, date of birth, and city of residence. That is the midway to meet them on. IF they continue to DEMAND an ID such as Driver's License etc., they are REALLY in for a bad day.

 

[Sam1911]

I'll also add that even though this thread is not firearms related, nor does it pertain to strategies and tactics with firearms; it does involve on of THR's favorite past times (cop bashing), and so even mods let it slide.

This is unfair and disingenuous of you. It IS firearms related as a Terry search SPECIFICALLY a search for weapons carried on or about the person. So your assertion is completely off-base.

We DO NOT ALLOW cop-bashing. Saying that we do is utterly wrong.

We also do not require that all members turn a blind eye to the mis-steps, over-steps, and abuses that CAN be committed by some members of the Law Enforcement community from time to time -- and we do value information that enables and encourages our members to know and defend their rights and freedoms.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I dunno, maybe it' just my upbringing, but I've always thought that when someone walks up to you and just wants to talk, even if it's a cop, immediately responding a "I don't have to talk to you. Am I under arrest? You don't need to know my name" attitude is not the best way to make things go smoothly. My first response to authority is not to adopt a confrontational "what do YOU want??" attitude.

"Hey buddy, mind if I ask you a few questions? Were you in the area when _____ occurred? Did you happen to see anyone do ______?"

Being a generally polite guy, my first thought is not to say

"I don't need to talk to you. Unless you're going to arrest me, I'm leaving, and no you can't have my name."

Where I come from, that's called being a jerk. I don't have to say thanks to the clerk at the gas station, but I do. I don't have to bag my own groceries at the supermarket, but I usually do. I don't have to do a lot of things to or for other people when they're at work. But me being me, I generally do what I can to smooth things out and make their work day go a little better than it was. Being rude to police, just because I can, is not something I see as either productive or becoming of a civilized person.

 

[Sam1911]

Funny thing, I've found that by not being a criminal, I've managed to limit my interactions with police to about zero. Odd.

That is wonderful for you and I hope it continues to work out for you for the rest of your life.

Unfortunately there are plenty of folks who can share that they were not (or at least not knowingly) criminals who ended up majorly inconvenienced, wrongly incarcerated, or dead due to any number of mistakes and abuses by those employed to serve and protect.

If you know your rights and rigidly defend them by sticking to the letter of the law in your interactions with authorities (if and when you ever have any) you help those authorities do a BETTER job of serving and protecting you.

That isn't being impolite. That isn't becoming some fringe criminal.

It is self-defense -- in this case self-defense against abuses of law rather than physical violence -- but self-defense all the same.

 

[GNLaFrance]

Ragnar, you might find this interesting: Don't Talk to the Police

 

[jimmyraythomason]

<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/05/appeals_court_r/> I remeber when a farmer who was working on his own property was approached by police officers (they were searching for someone)and asked for identification. He refused stating that the officers had no right under the circumstances to demand ID of him. It was taken to federal court where the farmer LOST! I don't recall the state they were in but because of the federal court ruling,it applies to all states.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ragnar, you might find this interesting: Don't Talk to the Police

I've already seen it. And I stand by my point. I was brought up to believe you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.


I think the main problem is that most of you see a police officer and think "Police officer". I see one and think "a guy at work". I see cops as people. To me they are not simply task-fulfilling-entities that I can treat however I am legally allowed. I think most of you think that you can be rude to a cop just because you're allowed to and the idea that even though it's legal, maybe it's just not right, doesn't even occur in your mind. I try to treat other people kindly and politely, even goin beyond the bare minimum. If I'm at a restaurant, and my table is missing a specials menu or something, I'll get up and get it myself, not demand the waitress get one for me, even though it is her job. It's my approach to life and dealing with others that seems to be fundamentally different from the rest of you. I give people, especially people at work doing a tough job, the benefit of the doubt and I do actively try to make things a little easier for them if I can. They're people. Not just entities fulfilling a task. That extends to police. Yes, I am legally allowed to be as rude or confrontational as I want. But does that reflect positively on who I am? No, it doesn't. Being nice and cooperative just seems both easier and a better statement about who I am. And so far, it's worked out extremely well. I would hate to think what kind of person I would be inside if I really thought "I don't have to talk to YOU" whenever I see a police officer.

 

[jackpinesavages]

" Yes, I am legally allowed to be as rude or confrontational as I want. But does that reflect positively on who I am? No, it doesn't. Being nice and cooperative just seems both easier and a better statement about who I am. And so far, it's worked out extremely well. I would hate to think what kind of person I would be inside if I really thought "I don't have to talk to YOU" whenever I see a police officer. "

Yes, you are absolutely correct and as a LEO I really appreciate your subjectiveness to my profession. We have to find a mid-ground here between the educated and the un-educated, fighting amongst ourselves only weakens 2A movements and the ability of lawful people to carry in a legally protective fashion. The subjects who were engaged in 2A LEGAL activities were cooperative and unthreatening and acting within the Laws of this state. Some citizens visually see ALL weapons as alarming, BUT need to be educated that it is legal to OC. LEOs need to be educated that OC is on the rise and that there is a constructive manner to approach these scenarios. We are getting there.

 

[Sam1911]

"Hey buddy, mind if I ask you a few questions? Were you in the area when _____ occurred? Did you happen to see anyone do ______?"

Being a generally polite guy, my first thought is not to say

"I don't need to talk to you. Unless you're going to arrest me, I'm leaving, and no you can't have my name."

Now hold on. That's not what ANYONE said to do.

If an officer approaches me and says, "Hey buddy, mind if I ask you a few questions?" I'm going to be as helpful and polite as possible. I'm going to try and help him up to the point that I might be abrogating my rights in some way.

If an officer approaches me and says, "Sir, may I see some Identification?" and I'm not operating a motor vehicle that he's just stopped for some reason, I should probably face the fact that he's NOT just being friendly. I'm a person of interest for one reason or another and I should be careful to determine exactly what's going on before offering a whole lot of friendly conversation.

 

[Sam1911]

I see one and think "a guy at work". I see cops as people. To me they are not simply task-fulfilling-entities that I can treat however I am legally allowed. I think most of you think that you can be rude to a cop just because you're allowed to and the idea that even though it's legal, maybe it's just not right, doesn't even occur in your mind. I try to treat other people kindly and politely, even goin beyond the bare minimum. If I'm at a restaurant, and my table is missing a specials menu or something, I'll get up and get it myself, not demand the waitress get one for me, even though it is her job.

Your waitress or grocery bagger cannot grossly violate your rights, falsely arrest you, etc.

No one is saying to be RUDE to a police officer. Civility is a very important skill to maintain with all people.

You're applying your grocery bagger standard -- as applies to a situation almost utterly devoid of any negative implications larger than a broken carton of eggs -- to a highly charged "official" encounter between a legally armed citizen and police officers with very grave implications for the rights and freedom of those citizens.

If you can't tell when you're in a very touchy situation, your situational awareness needs a tune-up.

I've never been mugged while walking from my car to the grocery store and almost everyone I meet in that situation is honest and friendly -- but I prepare myself to defend against that horrible possibility.

I've never been searched by a police officer, nor had my rights otherwise violated by one, and almost every one I've ever met, worked with, or shot with has been very honest and friendly -- but I try to prepare myself to defend against violations of my rights just as I would violations against my person.

 

[GNLaFrance]

I've already seen it. And I stand by my point. I was brought up to believe you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Apparently you missed an important point, which is that being polite, although it can't hurt you, absolutely does not help you when dealing with the police.

I think most of you think that you can be rude to a cop just because you're allowed to and the idea that even though it's legal, maybe it's just not right, doesn't even occur in your mind.

A cop whose feelings are hurt because a citizen refuses to cooperate with him needs to find another line of work.

But the big point you're either missing or refusing to acknowledge is that exercising your right to not speak to the police is not rudeness. I'm sorry, but to say so is simply nonsense.