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

[nalioth]

By handing over ID immediately when asked by police, it can be argued that you consented to the encounter with the police.

I'm sorry NavyLT but that makes no sense to me. Do however you feel is proper but I will identify myself if asked.

You're not understanding our good Lt.

Nobody is saying for anyone to NOT IDENTIFY themselves when asked by a LEO.

They are advising you not to surrender your papers until asked.
You can identify yourself by saying: "My name is Jimmy Ray Thomason, and I live at 123 Any Street, SomeTown, officer."

If the LEO has the suspicion that you've committed a crime, he'll ask your for your papers at that point.

 

[luigi]

This is my opinion and I’m formulating it as I write so if I offend anyone it is most certainly not intentional.
I honestly think that some people have a mental block that actually will not allow them to consider that it is in their best interests to be circumspect w/ the police. The erosion of rights occurs when we allow those in authority to take liberties they really aren’t authorized to take. (Yes, citizen I am aware that Open Carry is legal but if you continue to do it I will find a reason to arrest you) Pretty soon it becomes too much of a hassle to OC. (or less of a hassle to simply knuckle under and produce your papers.)
Watch an episode of C.O.P.S. sometime; in certain jurisdictions (they seem partial to South Florida and SO- CAL) it appears to be SOP for the cops to stop someone for walking through a parking lot and begin the interaction by ordering them to place their hands on the hood of the cruiser so the cop can frisk them. (IMO) we got there by tolerating that behavior from the police.
If I interact with the police I don’t know that officer, I don’t know his background I don’t know his stance on Citizen carry (I do know there are a lot of cops in Colorado from California who don’t like it.)
So why shouldn’t I assert my rights? I don’t have to be a jerk about it I’m not going to open the conversation w/ “Why are you detaining me?’ “I don’t have to talk to you.” but if you walk up to my table at Culver’s and demand my ID I’m sure going to want to know why before we go any further.
I would take that as a hostile interaction and I’d take advantage of every legal protection I had.
Last thought, OTOH if I’m sitting there clogging my arteries and the Officer walks up and says’ “ Hey guy we got a MWAG call and I have to clear it can you give me your driver’s license so I can check you for priors before I cut you loose I might actually do it

 

[Russ Jackson]

luigi,

While I like the show COPS one must keep in mind that it is very edited for television. The entire arrest and filiming is not in order. It is spliced out of sequence to promote a directors view point. Make good TV. The show in my opinion has changed societies and the LEO's point of view and has actually changed the way both parties respond....Russ

 

[snubbies]

Wisconsin "Stop and Identify" Law

NAVYLT

You are mistaken in your contention there is no Stop and Identify law in Wisconsin

§ 968.24 - Temporary questioning without arrest

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

Since the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Circuit held that the Stop and Identify laws do not violate the 4th or 5th Amendments to the Constitution "What provisions of the Constitution are violated?"

 

[TexasRifleman]

Since the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Circuit held that the Stop and Identify laws do not violate the 4th or 5th Amendments to the Constitution "What provisions of the Constitution are violated?"

Stop and Identify does not allow LE to demand to see identification, only that the person in question provide their name and address.

Those are 2 very very different things and I think a few folks in this thread are not understanding the differences.

When asked by LE "What's your name and address" you do not have to offer PROOF, you just simply must verbally reply.

If ASKED to produce identification, you may decline and probably should. If DEMANDED to provide identification you are now being compelled by LE to continue the contact involuntarily and that subtle difference is what NavyLT is describing.

They may result in 2 very different endings to many possible scenarios.

Law Enforcement is not your enemy generally but neither is it safe to assume they are your friends. They have rules they must follow and as citizens we need to follow rules as well. The rules we follow as citizens include insisting that our rights be recognized and taken into account.

If we get to the point where it's considered impolite or bad behavior to insist that your rights remain intact then we're already doomed.

 

[jackpinesavages]

OK Snubbies, now I know you were being misleading about having been a paralegal.


1.) What you have pulled from the WI stautes is our adoption of Terry vs. Ohio. Got it? I've told you this several times, it is nothing new. Most states in the Nation have the EXACT same statute, as it was born from Terry v. Ohio.

2.) WI stat. 968.24 has those magic words and phrases in it which HAVE to work together, in congruence, in order for the LEO to be there legally: a crime is/has/is about to take place. EVERYTHING in that staute hinges on THAT articulation by the cop.

3.) If there is ZERO articulation pertaining to a CRIME which is/has/ is about to take place there is NOTHING to demand Identification for. Can you take a few minutes to read this again, and try to understand that these scenarios are SOMETIMES like a math equation: As a LEO I HAVE to have A+B+C in order to LEGALLY arrive at answer D, in some cases such as this Culver's scenario and other OC scenarios. ( If that does not make sense to you Snubbies, as a paralegal, let me know and I'll try to equate it with another analogy.)

4.) OK, here's another analogy for Terry Vs. Ohio: finding Johnson Street is the same as demanding ID from a citizen subject, with temporay detention. If I want to get to Johnson Street I first have to take River Rd. North a mile, take a left on 10th St, and there's Johnson Street on the right. Before getting to the point of demanding ID and making a citizen stop to answer questions in temp. detention I have to see through all the proper avenues to GET there first. I WILL NOT just jump up and run there as the "crow flies" to make an illegal detention and demand ID. Do you know why? You know why as a paralegal, but I'll explain anyway: because if I am not there with the subject legally EVERYTHING I obtain from that point on as evidence is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissable as evidence. All that work disappears. GONE. No matter how many pounds of Heroin I find or children kidnapped it's all inadmissable in WI. ( Our "good faith" exceptions don't exist as they do in other states.) Capiche?

 

[snubbies]

Madison Ordinance

Read the news release where the Chief explained his implementation of the law. I haven't questioned your competence as aa police officer while wondering about some of your statements. Please keep this focused. Being a former paralegal has no bearing on the law as stated and explained in court decisions. You prefer not to believe the findings, that is called a dissenting opinion. They are a part of the SC 's process. The majority decision is still binding. I am not interpreting the law only presenting it for you and others to read.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Here is a bit from a Wisconsin DOJ opinion memo to LE. It seems to me that the Chief's memo flys in the face of his own states DOJ opinion. Hope the City of Madison has its checkbook handy.


http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge.

8.Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop) if he has “reasonable suspicion,” based on articulable facts, of criminal activity.

A nosy woman in a restaurant won't likely meet that requirement.

¶9. And “even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification,” as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991).

Yet 2 people were arrested for precisely that? Lawsuit lottery time.

 

[Deanimator]

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

How'd that work for for Larry Jewell?

Comparing a cop who approaches you demanding information to a barista at Starbucks or the mechanic at the gas station is disingenuous beyond all reason. If Starbucks doesn't have the pastry I want, I can simply walk out. If I don't like the mechanic's quote, I can go some place else. NEITHER has the authority to COMPEL my presence. If they DO, it's a CRIME.

Police are allowed to LIE to you in the course of an investigation. You have NO IDEA why you're REALLY being stopped. Talking to the police without benefit of counsel is as idiotic as performing eye surgery on yourself.

People are wary of the police because of what the police themselves do. Ask the Duke lacross team. You could ask Larry Jewell if he weren't dead.

There's "polite" and there's being a sucker. I can politely refuse to be the latter. I don't commonly do things which attract the attention of the police. I don't commonly associate with people who do. I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police. I especially don't want anything to do with them in an encounter which could violate my legal rights.

You're perfectly free to waive your rights to your heart's content. But when it all goes wrong, don't say nobody warned you.

 

[jackpinesavages]

I have read the releases and listened to the statements made in the 911 call.

You have questioned my competence as a LEO in your PMs to me and refuse to see what you should already KNOW as a paralegal. This is NOT new language to you.



I will not respond to the troll again. We'll discuss this in an adult manner that is respectful and w/o him/her.

Before I can detain someone for questioning I have to be there, with that subject, LEGALLY. To be there legally ANY cop has to have reasonable suspicion in order to demand Identification and temp. detention. Pretty simple concept for a paralegal to understand. Listening to the 911 call the complainant audibly says several times that there was ZERO disturbance from the OC individuals, the Dispatcher tells the caller it is perfectly legal to OC and has been declared as such by Wisconsin's Attorney General.

Snub, this conversation has been focused: keep your circular and non-sensical logic out of my Constitutional Law. Go somewhere else to try and muddy up the waters with your confusion. That confusion is your only motive and is disrespectful to us here. You are done here, as far as I am concerned.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

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

When those folks were OC'ing while at dinner they were doing nothing criminal and found themselves dealing with eight police officers. Odd.

 

[snubbies]

Not So Odd

They were simply responding to 5 armed men report by a citizen. What was said between the parties I haven't seen or heard a transcript.

 

[Deanimator]

They were simply responding to 5 armed men report by a citizen.

In Wisconsin, is being armed a crime or evidence of a crime, absent another overt criminal act?

Criminals sometimes wear hoodies. Is wearing a hoodie a crime? Can the police involuntarily detain you and demand identification because you're wearing a hoodie, absent some other overt criminal act?

 

[snubbies]

A hooded man with a gun may raise some eyebrows

 

[Deanimator]

A hooded man with a gun may raise some eyebrows

A man wearing a yarmulka "raises eyebrows" in some places.

Is wearing a hoodie and carrying a gun a CRIME?

 

[shockwave]

Terry Vs. Ohio

Also, Hiibel vs Nevada is invoked here. Up to that point, it was still possible to tell a cop who was in your face, demanding to see ID, to go buzz off and get lost.

Losing that right was a very terrible thing and the Hiibel case was, in my opinion, a massive, tectonic shift in privacy rights and American freedom.

[A]n officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 817.

Sadly, an officer's intuition, vague suspicion, gut feeling, perception of hinkiness, or just nothing at all is all the justification he requires to make an arrest and process you, including mugshot, fingersprinting, and hard strip-search. If it later turns out that he had insufficient grounds, well, whoops-a-daisy, his bad. "Lack of probable cause" is a standard that no citizen will ever be able to prove in court, because "was acting suspicious" is not a quantifiable description of an activity.

 

[Crusader103]

Jackpinesavages,

You are generally spot on.

Snubbies,

You are confusing terry stops, reasonable suspicion, articulable facts, consensual stop, probable cause, and just about every other legal term in the book. You need a bit of brushing up on your law.

Just speaking from my experience.... 10 years law enforcement, field training officer, police/military/security/private firearms instructor, and court recognized use of force expert. Admittedly, I am not a paralegal.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I posted this question to snubbies on the other thread and he never answered it. He keeps using this report of 5 men being armed as a basis for "when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime" because felons can't carry guns and how are the cops supposed to know these guys aren't felons. That's his argument, not mine. So the question he never has answered is this:

It is a crime to kidnap children. If a lady calls 911 and reports a man eating dinner at McDonald's with one or more kids, according to the logic expressed by snubbies above, the cops can show up, detain the man at McDonald's and demand to see identification and proof that the kids with him are actually his. RIGHT? After all, the cops don't know if the man is a father or a kidnapper.

That is the question to snubbies, that he has never answered.

Now, to those that say they have nothing to hide, just comply... what if the McDonald's situation happened to you? Would you just hand over your ID and somehow try to prove the kids with you were yours? Believe it or not there is no difference sitting in McDonald's eating lunch with two kids and sitting in McDonald's eating lunch with a gun in a holster on your belt. (Heck, some people's kids "disturb my peace" a whole lot more than anyone's gun ever has!)

Admittedly, I am not a paralegal.

 

[snubbies]

Thankful

Thankfully that is only your opinion. case law interpretation is best left to the experts, which I am not one nor is any paralegal. In my reading of Hiibel they did not overturn Terry v. Ohio they expanded it. I noticed that the the Moderator removed the Thread soliciting money for legal action. I think this is wrong. My intention from the begining was to voice my oposition to including the street officer in a legal action. If the suit goes forward the next encounter a WCI member has with law enforcement may not be as cordial as it could have been. The first thing a lawyer learns is, If you can settle out of court, DO IT.

 

[ArmedBear]

To be there legally ANY cop has to have reasonable suspicion in order to demand Identification and temp. detention.

The significance of this is something that seems lost on a lot of people here, too.

If a cop is asking you for ID, that means you are a step away from being arrested. The cop's job is to apprehend criminals, and there might be legitimate reason to suspect that you are one.

It's entirely possible that, say, you match the general description of a guy who robbed a store down the street or something. It's in your interest to be polite, but you can't assume that, because you are innocent of any crime, you are not suspected of one, for reasons outside of your control, or the cop's control.

You may have to show a court that you are innocent. That's why this isn't a great time to be waiving your rights willy-nilly. The problem with case law is that it's very easy for you to waive your rights, and nobody has to tell you that you are, apart from a Miranda reading when you're arrested. That's your responsibility.

I know and like a lot of cops. I tend to be polite to people. However, I know of various incidents that show me that cops (and prosecutors) are not all good guys. Most incidents never make the news like the Duke Lacrosse Team did.

That's the point, really. I also avoid negative interactions with the police by not being a criminal in the first place. Duh. But in a given situation, it would be foolish for me to throw away my rights when I might really need them, because I really don't know what's going on at that point.

 

[Deanimator]

My intention from the begining was to voice my oposition to including the street officer in a legal action.

Why should he NOT be accountable for his own tortious actions?

If you want to deter police misconduct, you need for there to be negative consequences for that misconduct, especially when the leadership of that agency endorses that misconduct. The city settling or paying a judgment to the victims has ZERO effect on the actual perpetrator, ESPECIALLY when the misconduct is OFFICIAL "policy". If you want to deter individual LEOs from engaging in misconduct, make that misconduct painful to those who engage in it, as well as those who either ordered it or failed to prevent it.

If the suit goes forward the next encounter a WCI member has with law enforcement may not be as cordial as it could have been.

Are you implying that the police will UNLAWFULLY retaliate against law abiding citizens? You're definitely making the case of those of us who advise against EVER speaking to the police without benefit of counsel or consenting to ANYTHING. You're also clinching the argument that you ALWAYS record police interactions where lawful to do so.

The first thing a lawyer learns is, If you can settle out of court, DO IT.

Settling out of court allows the perpetrators to deny responsibility and continue the behavior. Where intentional police misconduct takes place, it is imperative that that conduct be recognized, documented, and properly attributed to the actual perpetrators and those who either ordered, tolerated or negligently allowed the behavior.

In addition, settlements typically include nondisclosure clauses. You think that already having had their 4th and 5th Amendment rights violated, the victims should VOLUNTARILY have their 1st Amendment rights violated as well?

 

[NavyLCDR]

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."

What we are talking about is winning a court case against police officers who have unlawfully detained a person. The first question in that court case would be if the officer actually detained a person, or if that person consented to the encounter.

My only point was, that in such a court case, the first question can be swayed much easier towards the answer of the officer actually detaining the subject without consent IF the subject refuses to show ID when first asked. Then there is no doubt the subject was not consenting to the officer's questions.

IF you choose to show ID immediately when asked - the side for the police can argue, "The kind police officer simply asked the subject if they would be willing to show him ID. The subject then consented to the encounter and produced the ID card." That may or may not be what happened in reality, but it is certainly what they are going to argue. If you refuse to show ID, you take that particular argument away from them.

If it cannot be established that the interaction with the officer was non-consensual, the rest of the court case is done and over with. No rights violation can occur once consent is given. Once it is established that a non-consensual detention has occurred, the next question to answer will be whether or not the officer had any legal basis upon which to detain the subject.

 

[luigi]

Originaly posted by Russ Jackson While I like the show COPS one must keep in mind that it is very edited for television.

You are missing the point entirely

 

[Zak Smith]

There is a difference between being asked to provide your identity (ie "my name is Zak Smith and my address is 213 XYZ Rd."), and being asked to provide a government-issued ID card. In addition, state law differs as to whether or not you need to provide the former or the latter.

 

[teetertotter]

Sorry, this post was to go on another thread.
Jon

Now we are going to have these open carry clowns in Wisconsin, back in my town this week. I forgot what day. They are inviting others to join in on a small plot of land. I found out today these original gun slingers are members of one of our indoor clubs that I also belong to. Gees, I wish they would go away. Pretty sick people IMO. Just go away.