• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Identifying ourselves to police?

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
I'm sure each person will approach it differently. The law says that you have to give name and date of birth if you're being issued a summons per Title 17-A Sec 15-A. When operating a motor vehicle, you must produce your driver's license on demand of a law enforcement officer per Title 29-A Sec 1408. There's another law about producing ID if you're in a drinking establishment and suspected of being underage that doesn't really apply here.

My personal practice when I am demanded to identify is to ask what crime I'm suspected of committing. If they can't come up with anything criminal I'm suspected of, I'm not giving my ID. "suspicious activity" is not a crime. "you're carrying a gun" is not a crime. "I think you're going to rob that convenience store" is a crime.

There are many applicable Supreme Court decisions to fall back on that are discussed in the other thread you linked.

Terry v Ohio - They need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain you.
Delaware v Prouse - They can't just stop random people to check ID.
Hiibel v Nevada - Laws that require identification are legal as long as they require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
DeBerry v US - The presence of a firearm where it is otherwise legal, is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Kolender v Lawson - Laws requiring identification of loiterers or wanderers absent suspicion of crime are not Constitutional.

My reasoning for not identifying myself to police if the law does not require identification is quite simple. When you identify yourself, your name goes into a report of the incident. That report is a matter of public record. Many newspapers publish complete police logs on their website. Websites are searchable. If I've done nothing illegal, I don't want my name coming back to a police report about a possible weapons incident. Most employers perform background checks on potential employees and this could disqualify you if you're looking at two equally qualified candidates, one who has a clean BG check and one who has a police report about guns.
 
Last edited:

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Thanks for the info boyscout, I hope this will also help other Bro's & Sis's in arms.
 
Last edited:

Flashlight

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Indiana
I will not do it. Unless you are arresting me on summoning me it is none of your business who I am. Partially because of Boyscout's reasons and partially because I hate the police.The two times that it has been demanded and I refused the police went through my pockets to find it. Just more to add to the complaint.
 

hazek

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
88
Location
--
If it's up to me I don't care what will happen to me or what the law says. If I were to open carry and be stopped by a LEO my only words would be: "Sir with all due respect, I do not consent to this encounter, am I free to go?" and I wouldn't say a word more. Not even a pip, or a nod, nothing.
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
My reasoning for not identifying myself to police if the law does not require identification is quite simple. When you identify yourself, your name goes into a report of the incident. That report is a matter of public record.


Every time an officer stops a citizen a report is filed? Even just to talk?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I like the quote which I got from Citizen concerning an appropriate reply to LEO asking for ID,,,

Quote from Citizen, "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."


Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

I did not suggest that as a reply to a cop requesting ID.

Please go back and re-read that thread, Scott58DH.

The quote is not necessarily even a reply. It is the first words out of my mouth for a foot encounter with police where it is possible I am being investigated.

An identity request and/or demand by a cop is a whole different matter, with a whole different set of legal considerations.

Please edit your post in case a new guy misinterprets something and gets cited or arrested. Or, has to go three months before some other post accidentally clears up his confusion.


However, feel free to continue publicly complimenting me. :D
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"Tell ya what, Officer Friendly; since it's obvious you don't suspect me of any criminal activity, I'll be more than happy to show you some ID, as soon as you show me two pieces of photo identification. Not so eager now? Gee, wonder why not?"
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
"Tell ya what, Officer Friendly; since it's obvious you don't suspect me of any criminal activity, I'll be more than happy to show you some ID, as soon as you show me two pieces of photo identification. Not so eager now? Gee, wonder why not?"

OK, People, he's just joking. DO NOT 'sass' the police. Why? Because they are masters at getting you riled up, pushing your buttons, turning innocent comments into resisting arrest. Just be respectful and basically silent. You -might- consider asking if it seems dicey 'Am I required to do that/answer that, officer'. Above all, if you're in a state that allows it, run your recorders.

FWIW
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Every time an officer stops a citizen a report is filed? Even just to talk?

Almost guaranteed.

First, the word stop means an investigative detention, a seizure of the person for Fourth Amendment purposes. It comes from shortening the term Terry Stop from the US Supreme Court case Terry vs Ohio. These terms all have the same meaning: stop, Terry Stop, detention, detainment. So, if a person is being stopped, he is for sure being investigated.

Back to reports being filed. Cops loooove compiling info. Then, later, if there is a burglary or car stolen or whatever, they can review the field contact cards to see [STRIKE]who they want to pin it on[/STRIKE] who they might want to look into a little further.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
OK, People, he's just joking. DO NOT 'sass' the police. Why? Because they are masters at getting you riled up, pushing your buttons, turning innocent comments into resisting arrest. Just be respectful and basically silent. You -might- consider asking if it seems dicey 'Am I required to do that/answer that, officer'. Above all, if you're in a state that allows it, run your recorders.

FWIW
No the law so that you do not have to rely on a LEO, who just might be a rights trampling thug with a badge, who is about to lie to your face when he answers the above question in this fashion...."Yes Sir/Ma'am, and if you don't I will arrest you for failure to ______ (insert bogus law here)."

Only provide the information required by law. This, of course, presumes that you know the applicable laws.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Don't be afraid of being arrested

Don't be afraid of being arrested.

I can say this because my situation is probably more flexible than some. I'm self-employed and my wife is pro-2A. If I take a false arrest vacation, so be it. Others may not have such luxury.

Most of the stories I've read where an OC'er caved and submitted have been due to: 'I didn't want to be...arrested, delayed, harassed, or otherwise inconvenienced'.

Ever been punched by another person? Did you whimper or did you get mad? I would (and have) gotten mad and no longer worried about getting punched because I was fighting back.

If you can get over your fear of being 'inconvenienced', you can more easily stand up for your rights when confronted by a LEO. Walk through a scenario of being jailed for 7 days...what do you need to have prepared to 'survive' this ordeal? I mean on the outside, of course. What do you or your family need to have ready if you are unavailable for a week? Money in the bank? Someone to pay your bills? Watch your kids? Feed your pets? Let your boss know it's a false arrest? Etcetera, so on and so forth.

My wife knows where to find all of my info. She has a list of my passwords, account numbers, duplicate keys and other things I think she would need to carry on without me for a week or more. (Who am I kidding. I have her info so I could survive.)

If you get arrested, call your (gun rights aware) lawyer!

Know the laws surrounding your situation in your state. Openly carry. Be proud.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine

These Missouri statutes are not applicable to the Maine discussion. There are other Maine statutes that are applicable, mainly Title 17 Section 2931
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
These Missouri statutes are not applicable to the Maine discussion. There are other Maine statutes that are applicable, mainly Title 17 Section 2931
I know that RSMo's do not apply to ME. But, do you have similar statutes? the goal is to pile onto the thug cop, criminal charges, as many as you can find. Thug cops pile them on, if they can. Then you seek civil relief after you get injunctive relief, if you get injunctive relief.

This can also place the DA/PA in a awkward position to investigate criminal charges, or out right ignore them. Tough on crime, but not tough on thug cops who commit crimes.

The thug cop may or may not be placed on administrative 'vacation'.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I will not do it. Unless you are arresting me on summoning me it is none of your business who I am. Partially because of Boyscout's reasons and partially because I hate the police.The two times that it has been demanded and I refused the police went through my pockets to find it. Just more to add to the complaint.

I agree...I just tell them I would be happy to answer any of their questions ... in court ! Adios copper
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I have developed My OWN Response to a LEO, hopefully I'll never need to repeat it, but IF I do, I'll let you know the outcome.... :cool: AFTER I Get BAILED OUT :exclaim::question: :shocker: :exclaim::question:

"Excuse me Sir, but what am I being charged for that requires any inquiry necessary of an ID ? Unless I am being Officially Detained, may I Please leave now ? Thank You Sir & Have A Nice Day." :cool:

Police have a proven track record of dodging questions. I am not a lawyer, but I should think declaring your refused consent/unwillingness to have an encounter is a more positive and unmistakeable method of conveying your desire to be left alone. Or, you could just say, "No offense officer, but I want to be released right now." If you ask, "May I please leave?" the cop can just ask another question, probably a typical cop question, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you object to talking to us?"

Also, I've read perhaps dozens of 4th Amendment court cases and summaries. I've never come across one that required the cop to disclose his suspicion or the circumstances that gave rise to his suspicion.

This is the difference between knowing the law, and knowing how to apply it. You gotta watch out for the pitfalls.

Basically, when a cop demands identity, you will have no way to know for sure whether he has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). And, even if he does mention some sort of suspicion circumstances, how are you going to know whether the courts in your jurisdiction will later agree that those circumstances were enough for RAS. Then there is the whole question of whether your jurisdiction has a statute or local ordinance compelling you to identify yourself to a cop. And, whether your courts have ruled that refusing to identify amounts to obstruction of a police officer.

In short, he has to have RAS before making an identity demand, but I've never seen anything that said you are entitled to know the RAS and make your own determination during the encounter itself.

I live in an area where there a numerous local jurisdictions. I cannot keep up with the ordinances of all of them, much less the changes that arise from monthly council meetings for each jurisdiction--meaning even if I learned all their ordinances about identifying to a cop, I can't possibly keep up with whether they added a new one when I wasn't looking. So, for myself, to play it safe, if a cop demands identity, I will give it to him while refusing consent. Then I'm covered against a citation in case the particular locality made a stop-and-identify ordinance when I wasn't looking. And, if I later find out he didn't have RAS, I've got another point for my internal affairs complaint or lawsuit.
 
Top