• 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.

Produce ID for the police?

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • No

    Votes: 82 68.3%
  • Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

    Votes: 18 15.0%

  • Total voters
    120

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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
 

willigun

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Salem Oregon
sometimes yes

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

badey

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
86
Location
Pennsylvania
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.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
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:

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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
 

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
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:

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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
 

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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?
 

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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
 

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
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:

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
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:

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Fallschirmjäger said:
Standing up for your rights can be dangerous, are you prepared?
:uhoh: :( 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.

Tony_B said:
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).
 

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top