Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Stop amd ID yourself law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harris County GA, ,
    Posts
    56

    Stop amd ID yourself law

    I have been tld there is NO stop and Identify your self law in this state. The only way a LEO can legally ID you is if you have intent to commit or in the act of commiting a crime. Where can I find this Law to print. I'd like to see it in black and while. Any help would be great.
    Take care,
    V/R
    Chris

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Remember your Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights!

    Here is the statute. Good luck. Identify does not mean surrender your documents, but to say your name. A proper demand Papieren, Bitte! for your papers requires that you be detained with cause. I am not a lawyer. Take legal advice only from your personal attorney that has been bound to the canons by payment.

    GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved.

    *** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***

    TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
    CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
    ARTICLE 2. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-36 (2011)

    § 16-11-36. Loitering or prowling


    (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

    (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.

    (c) A person committing the offense of loitering or prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    (d) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within their respective limits.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a...ntify_statutes

    http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-...what-do-if-you
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 03-20-2012 at 05:25 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Here is the statute...
    This is ONLY when LE suspects you of prowling. Walking through Walmart stocking up on TP does not fit the definition of the statute mentioned.

    To the OP:
    There is no statute that says you don't have to produce ID. There is also no statute that says you do. Find and read up on state vs Jones. There are also a few other threads on this topic...Search is your friend.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harris County GA, ,
    Posts
    56
    Thank you very much guys... I am getting as much information as I can before we have a town hall meeting with our Chief LEO. My ultimate goal is to have a peaceful Town Hall Meeting with him and our off duty officers to inform everyone of their rights as far as OC and CC go's and to bring up issuse in the Comunity in (general). I still dont have a date or time as of yet and as soon as I do I will start a thread for participation or to inform others as to what is happening in other counties. This is strictly peaceful! I have the ut-most respect for our LEO's as they are sworn to uphopld and protect the citizens of our community.~(THANK YOU) for your roll in keeping the peace~
    V/R
    Chris

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harris County GA, ,
    Posts
    56
    This sucks as to see how everything is open to interpretation. So what I understand and please correct me if I am out of my freaking mind. I can not find anywhere the says You have to show your ID, however if you don't they can make thing uncomfortable for you! I believe the only time you must show ID id if the person is under suspicion or in the act of committing, Both of which you MUST show ID. How ever if you are not under suspicion or in the act of committing your are not required to show your ID or Carry permit? Sorry for the late responses. I just got back from the Stan. This was my second deployment in the time from from which I last posted.

    Are there any Lawyers out there that can give any advice and clear up this question. Im looking for something BLACK WHITE...

    Thanks for the help!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by cmr287 View Post
    This sucks as to see how everything is open to interpretation. So what I understand and please correct me if I am out of my freaking mind. I can not find anywhere the says You have to show your ID, however if you don't they can make thing uncomfortable for you! I believe the only time you must show ID id if the person is under suspicion or in the act of committing, Both of which you MUST show ID. How ever if you are not under suspicion or in the act of committing your are not required to show your ID or Carry permit? Sorry for the late responses. I just got back from the Stan. This was my second deployment in the time from from which I last posted.

    Are there any Lawyers out there that can give any advice and clear up this question. Im looking for something BLACK WHITE...
    Thanks for the help!
    No lawyers necessary; there is no section under the Georgia Code that requires you to carry an identification card. The only time you are required to possess a license is when performing a licensed activity (such as driving) and where the code specifies that a license must be displayed. That being the case, how can you be required to produce an item that you are not required to have?


    In regards to carrying a firearm, the code requires that one must possess a license..
    - does not provide that it must be displayed upon demand
    - does not criminalize failure do do so and
    - makes it an element of the crime (the police first suspect and then must prove) that you do not possess one rather than an element of the defense (you must prove your innocence in court).


    Just be sure not do do anything suspicious like walking in a public park.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 03-02-2013 at 07:58 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    No lawyers necessary; there is no section under the Georgia Code that requires you to carry an identification card. The only time you are required to possess a license is when performing a licensed activity (such as driving) and where the code specifies that a license must be displayed. That being the case, how can you be required to produce an item that you are not required to have?


    In regards to carrying a firearm, the code requires that one must possess a license..
    - does not provide that it must be displayed upon demand
    - does not criminalize failure do do so and
    - makes it an element of the crime (the police first suspect and then must prove) that you do not possess one rather than an element of the defense (you must prove your innocence in court).


    Just be sure not do do anything suspicious like walking in a public park.
    You didn't post the sexy picture of yourself
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    You didn't post the sexy picture of yourself
    I didn't want to break the internet. (There's a link on the first page of the 2nd link.)

  9. #9
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I didn't want to break the internet. (There's a link on the first page of the 2nd link.)
    By the way, how is the suit going?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    By the way, how is the suit going?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger
    John Monroe
    Any updates/news regarding the civil lawsuit (1:12-cv-01459-WDS?) and Gary Pirkle Park?
    Yrfthflsrvnt
    Fallschirmjäger
    Quote Originally Posted by John R. Monroe
    Nope, just waiting for the court to rule whether we get to move forward with a trial.
    John
    Just waiting for it to wind its way through the court system. I'm still holding out hope for an amicable solution, but since the attorney for the officers is getting paid by the hour, I don't see any incentive.

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    This is ONLY when LE suspects you of prowling. Walking through Walmart stocking up on TP does not fit the definition of the statute mentioned.

    To the OP:
    There is no statute that says you don't have to produce ID. There is also no statute that says you do. Find and read up on state vs Jones. There are also a few other threads on this topic...Search is your friend.

    If you are walking through WalMart and approached by an Officer who was looking for a person identified as wearing similar clothes, skin color, etc. by an emergency call (prank) I would imagine you are required to state your name. In Georgia anyway.

    Also, you DO have to produce documentation when you are operating a motor vehicle, which should be noted since they love to combine the laws of driver and person traveling on foot in the same paragraph. Read something earlier that in mid-paragraph mentioned motor vehicles and then immediately went back to being on foot.

    The other part is, none of this will prevent your arrest, unlawful arrest due to poor training can't be avoided.

    loi·ter
    ˈloidər/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: loitering
    1)stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
    "she saw Mary loitering near the cloakrooms"
    synonyms: linger, wait, skulk; More
    2)travel indolently and with frequent pauses. (MY WIFE SHOPPING, ARREST HER SO I CAN GO HOME)
    "they loitered along in the sunshine, stopping at the least excuse"

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    necroposting:
    On a message board, posting something irrelevant on a really old topic to bring it to the top of the list topics. name comes from the fact that you are bringing it back from the dead, thus Necro.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=necroposting

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    In regards to carrying a firearm, the code requires that one must possess a license..
    - does not provide that it must be displayed upon demand
    - does not criminalize failure do do so and
    - makes it an element of the crime (the police first suspect and then must prove) that you do not possess one rather than an element of the defense (you must prove your innocence in court).
    As this has changed recently, it behooves me to correct outdated information...

    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-137
    Required possession of weapons carry license or proof of exemption when carrying a weapon; detention for investigation of carrying permit
    (a) Every license holder shall have his or her valid weapons carry license in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, or if such person is exempt from having a weapons carry license pursuant to Code Section 16-11-130 or subsection (c) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, he or she shall have proof of his or her exemption in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, and his or her failure to do so shall be prima-facie evidence of a violation of the applicable provision of Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2.

    (b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.

    (c) A person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be fined not more than $10.00 if he or she produces in court his or her weapons carry license, provided that it was valid at the time of his or her arrest, or produces proof of his or her exemption.


    So, you are now required to carry your weapons license with you when carrying.
    You are not required to display it to any officer to satisfy his inquisitiveness.
    If you have committed some criminal act and don't have your license with you, you face a $10 fine (the same amount as not having your driving license with you when driving).

    Let us now reinter this old thing.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by cmr287 View Post
    I have been tld there is NO stop and Identify your self law in this state. The only way a LEO can legally ID you is if you have intent to commit or in the act of commiting a crime. Where can I find this Law to print. I'd like to see it in black and while. Any help would be great.
    Take care,
    V/R
    Chris
    where to find that law? no where. The courts made it up. See Terry v. Ohio, SCOTUS.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    where to find that law? no where. The courts made it up. See Terry v. Ohio, SCOTUS.
    timely response dave, almost three years have past since the nice poster asked his question...and it has been almost two years since he has signed in...

    guess he got tired of waiting for your timely response....

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Two things for newer readers to keep in mind about "stop and identify":

    1. Even though a state might not have a stop-and-identify statute, plenty of local jurisdictions might have a stop-and-identify ordinance. The few I've read all had serious penalties for refusing to comply. Six months to a year in jail, stiff fines, that sort of thing.

    2. Whether you know you are doing nothing suspicious is not what counts. It is what information the cop has. The crucial point is that you do not get to decide on the scene whether the cop has genuine reason to seize you temporarily and demand your ID. It is the judge at your pre-trial hearing who decides whether the cop had genuine reason to suspect you. Meaning--after you've been arrested, posted bail, hired a lawyer, etc.

    Consider and research thoroughly before deciding your own personal policy about providing ID to a cop.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Two things for newer readers to keep in mind about "stop and identify":

    1. Even though a state might not have a stop-and-identify statute, plenty of local jurisdictions might have a stop-and-identify ordinance. The few I've read all had serious penalties for refusing to comply. Six months to a year in jail, stiff fines, that sort of thing.

    2. Whether you know you are doing nothing suspicious is not what counts. It is what information the cop has. The crucial point is that you do not get to decide on the scene whether the cop has genuine reason to seize you temporarily and demand your ID. It is the judge at your pre-trial hearing who decides whether the cop had genuine reason to suspect you. Meaning--after you've been arrested, posted bail, hired a lawyer, etc.

    Consider and research thoroughly before deciding your own personal policy about providing ID to a cop.
    +1

    Carefully distinguish between verbally identifying oneself and surrendering identification documents. One impinges on the Fifth Amendment and the other on the Fourth Amendment.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    +1

    Carefully distinguish between verbally identifying oneself and surrendering identification documents. One impinges on the Fifth Amendment and the other on the Fourth Amendment.
    Research what a arrest is in your state.

    For example:
    RSMo 544.180. Arrest. - An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
    A Terry stop in Missouri is a arrest...in my view, and as such not a peep will be heard from me. The cop will need to do cop things to get my personal information...I will be recording he doing his cop things.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Research what a arrest is in your state.

    For example:A Terry stop in Missouri is a arrest...in my view, and as such not a peep will be heard from me. The cop will need to do cop things to get my personal information...I will be recording he doing his cop things.
    Had you heard about Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court?*

    (Larry?) Hiibel refused to comply with a Nevada cop's identity demand. The cop arrested him for violating Nevada's stop-and-identify statute. Hiibel appealed all the way to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled--in so many words--that being required to give your name (and address?) does not violate your 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

    If you or anyone else lives in a state with a stop-and-identify statute, or a locality with a stop-and-identify ordinance, you will want to read at least the official syllabus (summary) of that court case.



    *The dashcam video of Hiibel's encounter with Nevada police that led to his arrest and the US Supreme Court decision is on YouTube.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APynGWWqD8Y
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-13-2016 at 07:06 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Two things for newer readers to keep in mind about "stop and identify":

    1. Even though a state might not have a stop-and-identify statute, plenty of local jurisdictions might have a stop-and-identify ordinance. The few I've read all had serious penalties for refusing to comply. Six months to a year in jail, stiff fines, that sort of thing.

    2. Whether you know you are doing nothing suspicious is not what counts. It is what information the cop has. The crucial point is that you do not get to decide on the scene whether the cop has genuine reason to seize you temporarily and demand your ID. It is the judge at your pre-trial hearing who decides whether the cop had genuine reason to suspect you. Meaning--after you've been arrested, posted bail, hired a lawyer, etc.

    Consider and research thoroughly before deciding your own personal policy about providing ID to a cop.
    Good advice. Outside of state/local laws...the 4th amendment allows (so courts have said anyway) them to stop you with RAS and then IDing yourself (not to provide actual ID but just to ID) is required (if RAS is there). Of course, if the cop had RAS or not may be apparent to the citizen but may also not be. Now, if they already know you ... IDing is not required.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Even though a state might not have a stop-and-identify statute, plenty of local jurisdictions might have a stop-and-identify ordinance. The few I've read all had serious penalties for refusing to comply. Six months to a year in jail, stiff fines, that sort of thing.
    Since you've read a few, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing a link to one or two? I'm interested in what communities can mandate that I carry any sort of identification with me when wandering about.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    However, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:
    Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
    The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of a Terry stop. And the Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Since you've read a few, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing a link to one or two? I'm interested in what communities can mandate that I carry any sort of identification with me when wandering about.
    ID = providing your name, address, DOB .. have not seen anyone require you carry a DL or other papers.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Since you've read a few, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing a link to one or two? I'm interested in what communities can mandate that I carry any sort of identification with me when wandering about.
    These were several years ago, when OCers were still working out our legal strategies for dealing with cops. So, I can only guess which localities' websites I was looking at. Probably "Municode" linked through a county or city website.

    I can clarify a couple points, though.

    None of the locality stop-and-identify ordinances required showing an identity document or even carrying an identity document, the implication being that giving identity verbally was the requirement.

    On the other hand, I have read the stop-and-identify statute of at least one state--Midwest?--that required showing an identity document if you had one on you. That is to say, the statute did not compel you to carry an identity document, but if you had a drivers license or state ID card on you, then the statute compelled you to provide it to the cop during a Terry Stop if the cop asked for it.

    I think readers will just have to start checking the ordinances of each locality they visit regularly.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    None of the locality stop-and-identify ordinances required showing an identity document or even carrying an identity document, the implication being that giving identity verbally was the requirement.
    Citizen, please allow me to apologize; I conflated your post with another that mentioned documents and made my reply based upon that. Reading what you posted again makes it plain that you never mentioned any documentation only (at most) a requirement to identify.

    mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Should we ever meet, the first sarsaparilla's on me.


    I seem to recall the same 'going through state laws re: identification' a few years back and even collected as many of the state laws as I could find (at least the ones mentioned in Wikipedia). From it I gleaned the following:

    INDIANA
    http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar28/ch5.html
    IC 34-28-5-3
    Detention
    Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
    (1) inform the person of the allegation;
    (2) obtain the person's:
    (A) name, address, and date of birth; or
    (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
    (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
    IC 34-28-5-3.5
    Refusal to identify self
    Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
    (1) name, address, and date of birth; or
    (2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

    MONTANA
    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
    46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
    ...
    (2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:
    (a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; and
    History: En. 95-719 by Sec. 4, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-719(1) thru (3); amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 343, L. 2003.



    Technically, I guess Montana doesn't really count as it only applies to the driver of a vehicle, who's usually required to have a valid license to drive readily available.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-13-2016 at 11:16 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •