NavyLCDR
member
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.
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.