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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I'm just lucky but I have never had an interaction with law enforcement that was confrontational. I generally have tried to as much as possible to make life easy for both of us to the extent that I can. The result generally has worked out hugely in my favor - being told "slow down", "get that registration up to date", and once "good thing you forgot your seatbelt or I'd have to give you a speeding ticket that might have cost you your license" I was wearing my seatbelt but had the sense the keep my mouth shut and sign for the ticket.

That said if I ever get the sense that I'm dealing with a LEO who has a chip on his shoulder or is out to make my life difficult. Then I am going to use all of my rights especially the one to keep silent and have a lawyer present for questioning. I feel pretty comfortable for the most part thats pretty unlikely to happen - but thank God I live in a country with the option.
 
"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."

Being polite has always helped me. We obviously live in totally different worlds.

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out what the OP meant about "officer vice".
 
If you don't know how to be polite while holding to your personal boundaries (this would include constitutional rights), then you'd best learn.

Refusing to consent to a search, or refusing to show ID without cause, or otherwise holding to your rights, is not rude. If you are rude, that's YOU. You can be polite, yet assertive.

That's a problem with a lot of people, I think. We don't learn that there's an alternative to either being a nasty poopy head, or being a doormat. There is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I read this right? :confused:

In WI you still have to give your name, address and DOB when asked by an officer with out any R.S. you have done something illegal?

How is that any different from handing over your ID? You can be run by name and DOB just as easily as by ID.
 
Tell them who you are unless you want to invite trouble for yourself.<http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926>
 
Did I read this right?

In WI you still have to give your name, address and DOB when asked by an officer with out any R.S. you have done something illegal?

How is that any different from handing over your ID? You can be run by name and DOB just as easily as by ID.
Click to expand...

In Nevada you do; that's why the farmer got in trouble. In Wisconsin, I don't think so.

The difference is, when you give the officer your driver's license, he has your driver's license! When you just verbally give him your name, you can walk away and he's not holding your property. (I'm avoiding the whole legal can of worms about assumed names -- we don't want to go there)
 
jackpinesavages said:
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...
Click to expand...

Back to a previous point: Am I to understand then that a "normal" traffic stop for speeding or running a stop sign, etc, is then NOT a "Terry Stop?" That was my understanding before, but NavyLT had said this:

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

... and now I'm unsure again.
 
Originally Posted by jackpinesavages
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...
Click to expand...


Back to a previous point: Am I to understand then that a "normal" traffic stop for speeding or running a stop sign, etc, is then NOT a "Terry Stop?" That was my understanding before, but NavyLT had said this:

Quote:
When the officer turns on the lights, it becomes a Terry Stop at that very moment.
... and now I'm unsure again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Quote:
When the officer turns on the lights, it becomes a Terry Stop at that very moment.
... and now I'm unsure again.
Click to expand...



This is in-correct. Otherwise every time an officer pulled someone over they'd make them exit the car and pat "Terry Frisk" them.



"....the Court also held that police may do a limited search for weapons based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person stopped may be "armed and dangerous".



The officer would need to believe that the person they stopped was armed and dangerous.




On another note, in WI I believe you must give your ID/name if asked. In MN it is not that way sadly.
 
Right on US Marine. :) A Terry Stop must include a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is "afoot", and that the individuals are armed AND dangerous. Not just armed, or not just dangerous. All three elements must be present. Additionally, a Terry Stop requires no consent from the person being searched (though admittedly it is much easier to do). A consent search of your person, car or house requires none of these, not even reasonable suspicion.
 
Reasonable articulable suspicion. Of course he's not required to articulate it to *you* and he can theoretically make something up later if he needs to -- using whatever he may find during the pat-down to make the "suspicion" sound plausible.

(can you tell I'm not a big fan of the Terry ruling?)
 
Reasonable articulable suspicion. Of course he's not required to articulate it to *you* and he can theoretically make something up later if he needs to -- using whatever he may find during the pat-down to make the "suspicion" sound plausible.

(can you tell I'm not a big fan of the Terry ruling?)
Click to expand...


So, when was the last time you were arrested?



lol
 
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. All have state law requiring identification be presented when asked. The Supreme Court has already ruled them to be constitutional. Why take the chance?
Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926#ixzz10aj8g0l2
 
Never, but I'll admit it was a good guess
Click to expand...


lol.



Why do you think if it is bad that an officer is allowed to get someone's name?




Unless you have something to hide, it will be over in a few minutes and you'll be on your way.
 
I don't think it's a bad thing. I just don't want to give him my "persons, houses, papers, and effects" (papers in this case, the ID card) without good reason.
 
Sam 1911: " Back to a previous point: Am I to understand then that a "normal" traffic stop for speeding or running a stop sign, etc, is then NOT a "Terry Stop?" That was my understanding before, but NavyLT had said this:


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

... and now I'm unsure again. "

You are correct, normal traffic stops are NOT a Terry stop. In WI you must ID yourself, you do NOT have to turn over ID such as a DL, otherwise our 1 million illegal aliens would be up in arms too. :D

There seems to be some real confusion on Terry stops here per armed and dangerous-the LEO simply has to articulate that they saw the outline of a weapon concealed. That's all. If they find a pot pipe, a can of beer, or a whiskey flask, or a tool for burglary is another matter; what they were initially patting down for was a weapon that could be used against them. It does not have to be articulated that the LEO felt the person to be dangerous.

Now, for another headache on vehicle searches Google "Gant" and tell me what you think! :banghead:
 
Thanks jackpinesavages.

Yes, I misspoke. When the officer turns on the blue lights behind you, it immediately becomes a formal detention; an arrest, if you will. Not a custodial arrest where the officer physically restrains you, but an arrest where the officer temporarily removes your freedom to leave.

The traffic stop can instantly become a "Terry Stop" as soon as the officer has reasonable belief to believe there is a weapon present. I know Terry v. Ohio says "armed and dangerous", but you won't find a court in this country that would be willing to separate those two. Historically, the courts have gone with armed means dangerous until proven otherwise.

So, police officer asks, "Are you carrying any weapons or any weapons in the vehicle?" If the answer is yes, or the officer sees what appears is likely to be a weapon, the traffic stop can immediately become a Terry Stop. Now... the simple knowledge that the person stopped has a license to carry a gun is NOT reasonable belief that the person IS carrying a gun. It merely indicates that any gun in possession is likely to be legal.

jimmyraythomason said:
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. All have state law requiring identification be presented when asked. The Supreme Court has already ruled them to be constitutional. Why take the chance?
Click to expand...

I thought I explained why take the chance. By handing over ID immediately when asked by police, it can be argued that you consented to the encounter with the police. This can play a huge part in a court case such as will arise from the citation of the 5 gun carriers in Madison, WI. IF the prosecution successfully argues that the person(s) consented to the encounter with police, than any claims of rights violations goes out the window. There is no rights violation if consent was given. By refusing to show ID - if the officer continues to demand it - or cites the person for not showing it - now there is proof that the person was detained by the officer and there was no consent given to the encounter. NOW the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was present in order for the detention to be lawful. Otherwise - no RAS = rights violation. No RAS and detained without consent anyway means any and all "evidence" after that point is the fruit of a poison tree and inadmissible.
 
Last edited:
"Why do you think if it is bad that an officer is allowed to get someone's name?

Unless you have something to hide, it will be over in a few minutes and you'll be on your way. "
Click to expand...

I see this logic too often. It seems simple and straightforward.

In fact it's false, bogus, and unconstitutional.

By this goofy reasoning there is no need, ever, for probable cause. Whether or not there is anything to hide has nothing to do with anything. Being secure from unreasonable searches does, which is sort of the point of the U.S. constitution. The goal is not, should never be, to make the lives of LEOs easier. Being LE in a free country is supposed to be hard. (I'm a fan of LEO by the way).

"If you have nothing to hide
.....why shouldn't police have the power to get your name and address whenever wish?
.....why shouldn't police come on your property or walk into your home whenever they want?
.....why not let police search you whenever they feel like it?"

and so on.

Here's why. Because we are free.

That means, among other things, freedom from the whims of those with power. No matter how well intentioned, LEO merely thinking they have good reason is not nearly good enough, articulable probable cause must remain the minimum standard required.
 
By refusing to show ID
Click to expand...

Ok, but I thought that it was now illegal nationwide for people to refuse to give up their Identity. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926

Or does just verbally giving your name satisfy the "ID" purpose. I am assuming that the verbal affirmation of the name would be ok, and also that NOT showing the actual ID card (license, state ID card, etc...) is also OK.

I have only had a very limited interaction with the police but after reading TONS of boards and watching a slew of the "What should I do if..." videos it's amazing the things that could get you caught up in the cops verbal ninja skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramman911 said:
Ok, but I thought that it was now illegal nationwide for people to refuse to give up their Identity. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926

Or does just verbally giving your name satisfy the "ID" purpose. I am assuming that the verbal affirmation of the name would be ok, and also that NOT showing the actual ID card (license, state ID card, etc...) is also OK.

I have only had a very limited interaction with the police but after reading TONS of boards and watching a slew of the "What should I do if..." videos it's amazing the things that could get you caught up in the cops verbal ninja skills.
Click to expand...

You are confusing two separate actions. "Identifying yourself" typically means verbally providing your name, address and date of birth. That action is not to be confused with "producing an identification document." The Supreme Court has ruled that being required to identify oneself verbally is constitutional. The Supreme Court has also ruled that being required to produce an identification document is a matter of state law.

An example of the difference between the two is in the Revised Code of Washington (state):

RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.
Click to expand...

Notice the two separate actions above, one in green, one in red. Also notice that for the request for identification to be legally binding, there must be grounds for the issuance of a citation to begin with. In the case of the Madison 5 there would be no grounds for a citation because they were breaking no laws.

In Washington, and many other states, a misdemeanor must be committed in an officer's presence in order for the officer to issue a citation without first obtaining a warrant from a court. So, let's say you call the cops and say I threatened you with a gun (a gross misdemeanor). Cops show up and see me eating dinner minding my own business with a gun in a holster. They cannot cite me for threatening you based upon your (or anyone else's) testimony without taking the info they obtain to a judge and have the judge issue a warrant. Now, if they show up and SEE me threatening you - they can arrest/issue a citation on the spot, based upon their observation.
 
To those who say, "If you have nothing to hide, why not comply?" I would reply, just because you have nothing to hide does not mean that they won't find something. I am not anti-cop. I am pro-Constitution.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but merely providing ID when detained and stating "Officer, I don't want to answer your question(s) or make any statements." Isn't enough to assert your right to remain silent. Unless you clearly state "I want my attorney present for any further questioning", the police are free to continue any "fishing expedition". By that I mean they can keep asking & asking & asking you questions and/or permission to search because "you might change your mind."
 
By handing over ID immediately when asked by police, it can be argued that you consented to the encounter with the police.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry NavyLT but that makes no sense to me. Do however you feel is proper but I will identify myself if asked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MoscowMike
  • Locked
Carrying Concealed Without ID
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
Jim Watson
J
A
  • Locked
Metro Police policy in Las Vegas: How to deal with Open Carry
Replies
20
Views
1K
thesecond
T
V
  • Locked
A brand new cellular telephone, new atlases, fast food, and energy drinks OH MY
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
SMMAssociates
S
S
  • Locked
Charged with resisting for failure to produce id
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Can You Be Stopped for Carrying?
Replies
6
Views
820
Rockstar
R
Back
Top