View Poll Results: If the police want to see your ID because you are OCing, should you give it to them?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 12.20%
  • No

    84 68.29%
  • Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

    6 4.88%
  • Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

    18 14.63%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 136

Thread: Produce ID for the police?

  1. #1
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66

    Produce ID for the police?

    This being OCDO, I can imagine what the general sentiment is going to be, but let's see if we get some dissenting opinions (if you do vote yes, please post and say why! Maybe we'll get a good debate going). If the police stop you for carrying and want to see ID, should you go ahead and give it to them, assuming they're being polite and professional? Let's find out!

    -derhammer

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem Oregon
    Posts
    19

    sometimes yes

    my vote is "sometimes yes" because city ordinance requires ID for loaded open carry. Salem, Portland, and a few other Oregon cities.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    86
    my vote was generally no, but sometimes yes. The reason being that I usually carry a BUG, and if it were discovered that I were CCing in the course of an official contact, I would legally have to produce my PA LTCF, at least that is the way I understand the law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    182

    State Law we have to

    Yes, but not necessarily by choice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    The way the law in my state reads I only have to identify myself, not produce documentation, if a LEO has RAS that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime.

    From the Code of Alabama:
    Section 15-5-30

    Authority of peace officer to stop and question.

    A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.


    Do please notice that the wording says he may demand your name, address, and an explanation of your actions. Nowhere in that language does it say "produce an identity document."
    Last edited by SFCRetired; 07-11-2012 at 04:34 PM. Reason: additional comment

  6. #6
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    If you are legally required to produce ID, then it's a non-issue. What I'm saying is, if you have the choice to either consent to ID, or refuse the officer's request on the basis that no RAS exists, should you go ahead and consent to ID, or should you refuse? I apologize for not making that clearer.

    -derhammer

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    56
    In the case of HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL.. (03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004) 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed. [click this link for the PDF file], "Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault." What is otherwise known as a "Terry Stop."

    In Hibel, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one must now "identify oneself" to police officers if they request such identification. They stated in their opinion:

    "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." [Emphasis added.]

    So according to the Supreme Court you must identify yourself to a police officer during a Terry Stop and if you don't you can be arrested and convicted for failing to do so just like poor Hiibel.

    I still believe the officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that one is engaged in, or about to be engaged in, criminal activity for their to be cause for a Terry Stop. I have been stopped more than once where no open carry was involved and harassed by cops for no good reason. Not being criminally minded or engaged in criminal activity I had no problem questioning the officers' actions. They don't like that though and on at least two occasions my standing upon my constitutionally secured Rights led to my arrest. It also led to the firing or dismissal of at least four cops, two each for two of the arrests I've mentioned. I do not go along to get along. You'd better have a damn good reason to stop and harass me because I know better.

    I have yet to be stopped for open carrying but always carry an audio recorder and camera with me. No one should be without one in this day and time whether open carrying or not. I will politely answer an officer's questions within reason if stopped while open carrying, but won't be pushed around. I'm too old for egomaniacs and their games whether they have a badge or not.

    If I'm open carrying I rarely have paper ID on me. I will provide my name if stopped and asked, but I cannot produce what I don't have on my person which is why the ID stays at home. There is no law that I know of that requires one to carry anything including ID when outside of one's domicile. You may or may not decide to carry ID. I only carry ID in certain circumstances, for example while traveling. If I'm riding my bicycle the ID stays at home but my firearm goes with me secured in a holster for the world to see.
    Last edited by Tony_B; 07-10-2012 at 10:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    But it hinges ON the Terry stop itself: A Terry Stop cannot happen without RAS. Yes, if there is suspicion of a crime, they can stop you, and you have to ID, but if there is no suspicion, there is no stop, and if there is no stop, there is no ID. That's how it works.

    -derhammer

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    But it hinges ON the Terry stop itself: A Terry Stop cannot happen without RAS. Yes, if there is suspicion of a crime, they can stop you, and you have to ID, but if there is no suspicion, there is no stop, and if there is no stop, there is no ID. That's how it works.
    I know of no law that requires one to carry any physical form of ID on their person unless they are engaged in some privileged activity for which an ID is required. The law (and Hiibel case) as I understand it requires only that I identify myself to the officer if asked. That is to give my name and possibly address but I'm inclined to give only my name.

    Arguing with a cop as to whether he has RAS or not will get you no where and it may, like it did me on at least two occasions, get you arrested even though like me you may be acquitted of all of his bogus charges by a jury at a later date. I think it best to be reasonable and polite when around cops. Have an audio or video recorder rolling at all times and give only one's name and address as per the Hiible case.

    Hiibel was apparently not engaged in any criminal activity; therefore, the officer had no RAS with which a stop was warranted. Hiibel merely refused to provide his name to the officer. Look where it got him and now we have communist case law that says we must identify ourselves to a police officer if stopped. If the office believes he has RAS I would assume he has RAS. Let him determine that you're not the one he's looking for and then move on. I wouldn't argue RAS with him or her as it won't bode well for you. This I know from experience.

    ALWAYS HAVE AN AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDER ROLLING WHEN INTERACTING WITH POLICE OFFICERS.
    Last edited by Tony_B; 07-10-2012 at 09:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    No, unless required to by law and Georgia has only a few specific instances.

    Why? Because the demand for identifying documents only serves one purpose, to find some reason to put whoever the officer is talking to in jail. You can't prove you didn't commit a crime just because you can produce a state document saying who you are. On the other hand, if you have a name similar to someone who is wanted you can spend several hours or days in jail.

    Cops do NOT like those who refuse to identify themselves, however. You can still take the ride even if you beat the rap later on. Standing up for your rights can be dangerous, are you prepared?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Its important not to overlook the SCOTUS decision's wording. It says provide a name, NOT produce ID.

    This could be affected by your state laws and exactly what activity you are engaged in at the time. If you are doing something that requires permission (a permit) in your jurisdiction, then that could be used to circumvent the Terry requirements. Hunting, fishing, driving, that sort of thing. A game warden can hassle you damn near any time he feels like it. I think some states even require you to have your hunting permit visible while hunting. This means anyone not displaying their permit is RAS a poacher, and justifies investigation. Same for license plates and current registration stickers. If you don't display them, you just have given them silver-platter RAS for a show-me-your-papers stop.

    I'm not saying I agree with any of this Bulls Hit.. cause that's what it is. Just explaining my observation of the status quo.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    No, unless required to by law and Georgia has only a few specific instances.

    Why? Because the demand for identifying documents only serves one purpose, to find some reason to put whoever the officer is talking to in jail. You can't prove you didn't commit a crime just because you can produce a state document saying who you are. On the other hand, if you have a name similar to someone who is wanted you can spend several hours or days in jail.

    Cops do NOT like those who refuse to identify themselves, however. You can still take the ride even if you beat the rap later on. Standing up for your rights can be dangerous, are you prepared?
    It just happens to be in Georgia where I ran into the problems I related above. According to the Supreme Court you must identify yourself to a police officer if asked. Whether the cop has RAS or not. If you refuse to identify yourself the Supreme Court says the cop can arrest you for that refusal. I disagree with it and think it communist but that's the law at this point in time whether in Georgia, Alaska, or New York.

    During my arrest in Georgia I refused to give them anything knowing they were just bullying me and demanded they tell my why they stopped me. This was years before the Hiibel case. Of course, they couldn't provide an answer but just kept on with the bullying. I was arrested for "obstruction," etc. but was later acquitted during a jury trial. Both cops were fired after the trial by the department they worked for at the time. One reason other than my unlawful arrest was that they failed to search me properly allowing me to enter the jail with a fully loaded Glock .40 S&W. :-)) That should give you some idea as to what kind of asshats I was dealing with at the time. And yes, I had a valid concealed carry permit at the time.

    Oh, what was I doing at the time of my arrest? Quietly and peaceably riding a bicycle around Stone Mountain Park.

    Read the Hiibel case for yourself.
    HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA No. 03–5554. Argued March 22, 2004 —Decided June 21, 2004
    Last edited by Tony_B; 07-10-2012 at 10:12 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    Its important not to overlook the SCOTUS decision's wording. It says provide a name, NOT produce ID.
    Yes, exactly. This is what I've been saying my previous posts. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I think I was.

    I know of no law that requires one to carry ID on their person. You can't give a cop what you don't have. You can verbally provide your name though. That should be enough unless he catches you in some criminal act, but I know those here are not criminally minded nor do we engage in criminal activity.
    Last edited by Tony_B; 07-10-2012 at 10:12 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Never. I am under no legal obligation to produce any identification. I do have to provide my true name. That is all.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    No. OC is a legal activity in Colorado, no permit required. We don't even have to provide a name.

    Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    If I understand Hibel correctly, the LEO still must have RAS for the 'provide your name" part to apply. Of course, to even stop you he must have RAS, but that doesn't seem to actually get adhered to in the real world.

    Give me your ID!

    I do not consent to this contact. Am I free to go?

    No. Give me your ID.

    So I am being detained?

    Yes. Give me your ID.

    Per Hibel, I will identify myself, as long as the requirement for RAS has been met. Do you have RAS that I have committed, or am about to commit a crime?

    Give me your ID.

    I will identify myself as soon as you confirm that you in fact have RAS. I do not require you to tell me what your RAS is, just the you have it at this time.

    Fine. I have RAS. ID!

    My Name is x x x. I have nothing further to say without consulting my attorney.

    - Yeah, I know, idealistic. But this is what we should aim for.

  17. #17
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    ARE the police required to tell you what their RAS is? That's an interesting point.

    -derhammer

  18. #18
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger
    Standing up for your rights can be dangerous, are you prepared?
    That is so wrong.
    It should be uncomfortable, possibly even dangerous (to their bank accounts & careers) when public servants infringe our rights, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_B
    According to the Supreme Court you must identify yourself to a police officer if asked. Whether the cop has RAS or not. If you refuse to identify yourself the Supreme Court says the cop can arrest you for that refusal. I disagree with it and think it communist but that's the law at this point in time whether in Georgia, Alaska, or New York.
    Cite, please? If you're relying on Hiibl, I think you've misunderstood it.
    Here in WI, it is not a crime to remain silent, not to give any information to an officer, even if s/he has RAS.
    Most of the time, of course, they don't.

    No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name.
    Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
    Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    No, absolutely not. And the one time I have been asked, I did not. The officer gave up and left.
    Live Free or Die!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    I have two thoughts after reading this thread...

    First, if a citizen isn't informed of what RAS about which the officer is questioning a citizen, how can an individual adequately and realistically protect one's fifth amendment right? Secondly, I'd think that getting the officer to articulate what that reasonable suspicion is before questioning could potentially be useful if the officer tried to change a flimsy story after an arrest.

  21. #21
    Regular Member WhistlingJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    45
    For the most part my answer is No.

    I have only been asked for ID by LEO once in relation to OC'ing, he was very rude and aggressive in doing so, and thus I refused to provide my ID.
    If a LEO approaches me and asks calmly and respectfully I would consider providing my ID. Doesn't mean I will, but I will consider it based on the circumstance at the time. I do not do a whole lot of walking about and if the Officer in question really wants to know my identity he will simply run the tags on my car. And if I do provide my ID that will be all they get from me, verbal or otherwise. If they do so respectfully however, I am slightly inclined to comply simply to encourage respectful attitudes from them with those they deal with in the future.

    But under no circumstance will I provide ID or be cooperative with a LEO who approaches and acts rudely, boorish and or disrespectful. People who act in such ways often do so because no one calls them on their attitude. Refusing ID is the best way to avoid rewarding this attitude when the individual in question is a LEO.
    Last edited by WhistlingJack; 07-12-2012 at 01:04 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
    -George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_B View Post
    I know of no law that requires one to carry any physical form of ID on their person unless they are engaged in some privileged activity for which an ID is required. The law (and Hiibel case) as I understand it requires only that I identify myself to the officer if asked. That is to give my name and possibly address but I'm inclined to give only my name.

    Arguing with a cop as to whether he has RAS or not will get you no where and it may, like it did me on at least two occasions, get you arrested even though like me you may be acquitted of all of his bogus charges by a jury at a later date. I think it best to be reasonable and polite when around cops. Have an audio or video recorder rolling at all times and give only one's name and address as per the Hiible case.

    Hiibel was apparently not engaged in any criminal activity; therefore, the officer had no RAS with which a stop was warranted. Hiibel merely refused to provide his name to the officer. Look where it got him and now we have communist case law that says we must identify ourselves to a police officer if stopped. If the office believes he has RAS I would assume he has RAS. Let him determine that you're not the one he's looking for and then move on. I wouldn't argue RAS with him or her as it won't bode well for you. This I know from experience.

    ALWAYS HAVE AN AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDER ROLLING WHEN INTERACTING WITH POLICE OFFICERS.

    bottom line- if it's not the law, you don't have to show ID if it's NOT a terry stop. cop has no right to ask (though he still may) if it's not a terry stop, since he has no RAS. with RAS, thus being a terry stop, you need to give ID.

  23. #23
    Regular Member derhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66
    But once again, are the police required to tell you what their RAS is, or are they only required to tell you that they have RAS?

    -derhammer

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by derhammer View Post
    But once again, are the police required to tell you what their RAS is, or are they only required to tell you that they have RAS?

    -derhammer
    I have no statutory support here, just spitballin'..

    Let's assume they don't have to tell you...

    You can still ask. You can advise them that unless they assert RAS, your have a very defensible reason to believe that they don't. Therefore, if they refuse to assert RAS, you will refuse to treat it as a Terry stop. If, however, they are willing to assert RAS, then you will cooperate (only) as required by Hibel.

    So, even if they are not required to state RAS, you can essentially roadblock until they do. Once they do assert (on recording..you DID remember your spyware, right?), now they are stuck with it, right or wrong. They are stuck with the fact that it was NOT consensual. If, later, they cannot RA their S, then they are in real trouble and they risk ANYTHING after that moment of assertion being thrown out. That's why it is worth your while to corner them on that.

    So, there you go, even if they are not required by any statute to tell you, you should still be able to extract it.

    If it helps persuade them, you can even tell them as much. "If you can assert RAS, then I will comply, albeit under protest, with any lawful orders. With that said, you'd better be sure..."

    I just used a similar tactic yesterday involving a dispute over whether public streets become private property during a special event permit. I refused to leave until the permittee's representative would commit to asserting private property rights over 6th street. (in this case the head of securi-thugs). I told him "Listen, I'll throw you a bone here. If you assert private property rights over this space, I will leave. Long enough for us to call LEO and straighten this out."

    It's so easy to corral them sometimes.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

  25. #25
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    I'm one of the Generally yes, votes.

    For me its simply a personal choice more than a rights issue.

    This is a situational thing for me. If the LEO approaches me with a neutral or friendly demeanor and just wants to chat then I have no issues with showing ID or giving my name. I can easily let him/her know that I know I don't have to, but will to keep the door open for communication. As I've posted before, I intend to try to foster more cooperation with local LEO's and I'll do whatever I can, as an ambassador in my town, to get them looking at OCers with a less critical eye. If that means I have to give a little to get them to loosen up, then that's what I'll do and in my mind it will bring us all closer to a win.

    The couple I met in Burlington Coat yesterday had a great example. Ask if there was a hold up or violent crime nearby. If yes then absolutely show ID and deescalate the situation.

    I was criticized for my stance on this in another thread recently, but I want to be clear this is my choice and don't intend to promote this as THE WAY. There's more than one way to skin a cat here. There's no ONE right way to get through an encounter.

    I spend a few hours everyday reading posts here and elsewhere so I'm fairly up to date. I don't know it all (who really does?), but I think I know enough to handle most LEO encounters and come out of it both parties smiling.

    I've also said before that if you're OCing with the "I'm gonna "school" some LEO's" kind of attitude then you should sell your gun and go to back to your video games. You're OCing for the wrong reasons and making it harder for the rest of of us.
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 07-16-2012 at 07:37 AM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •