• 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.

required to present ID

SteelyAaron

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
5
Location
Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Hello all, I get so much great info and insperation from this site. I have an off topic question that I know one of you fine citizens will know the answer to.
In the state of KY are we required to show ID anytime a leo asks for it no matter the situation? thanks in advance.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Short answer - No.
Slightly longer answer - Nope
Even longer, more detailed answer - Kentucky is not one of the "Stop and Identify" states as listed in Wikipedia. Kentucky does not require one to obtain a state issued identification card. Kentucky does not require anyone to carry identification on their person (a license is only required when performing a licensed activity).

How can you be required to present what you aren't required to have and not required to carry?
 
Last edited:

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
If they have RAS or PC. They must articulate that they believe that criminal activity is afoot. Other words, they have to articulate that you have, are or are about to commit a crime. Other than that..NO. They may try to trick you with false charges but your 4th admendment rights don't go away. Now if they pull you over...you have to show I.D.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Maybe more than you were looking for but here is some info regarding stops and ID'ing Some is state specific but much is very general.


RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226046509410140751&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

An anonymous tip is not RAS

ID'ing yourself discussion



As well as some vids for entertaining wisdom.

How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

Example how to exercise your Rights

How to refuse a Police Search




.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
If they have RAS or PC. They must articulate that they believe that criminal activity is afoot. Other words, they have to articulate that you have, are or are about to commit a crime.
Not exactly. They have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion to a judge. They don't have to explain jack squat to someone they've stopped.

I agree that they should have to, but they don't under current 4A law.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Not exactly. They have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion to a judge. They don't have to explain jack squat to someone they've stopped.

I agree that they should have to, but they don't under current 4A law.

Thats what I meant. I was looking at it through my eyes as I would make the LEO articlute in a 1983 suit that I would bring against him.
 

Manzanita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
37
Location
Murray, Kentucky, USA
Although I will admit that I would probably show ID without hesitation in an LEO encounter, based on what I've read while lurking in this forum since Truebrit was alive, you can trust what's been posted here.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Although I will admit that I would probably show ID without hesitation in an LEO encounter...


And that's why they will keep on demanding and accosting those who choose not to. It's like Pavlov's Dogs, your continuing the poor\bad behavior by your own actions. Some of them are just wrongfully or poorly trained, others just don't care, many believe the end will justify the means, and they get paid time off if anything happens so what do they care. Wait till your name matches a fugitive or wanted suspect. Or you get a nice lil extra citation cuz the officer decided to be extra generous to you. You might start to care then.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
langzaiguy said:
Regardless, they still need RAS to detain you and ask ID.
When they stop you as you walk away, they are basically saying they have RAS...if correct or not.
Exactly so, and when they do so and in court when it's established that there was No RAS then they open themselves up to a civil suit.
An example might be when Officer Friendly comes up to a someone who is doing nothing other than say, ... talking on a telephone, and tells the person to hang up. The person asks Officer Friendly if he's being detained and Officer Friendly answers in the affirmative, that yes he is detaining that person.

A detention has now occurred and unless Officer Friendly can articulate what caused the detention At That Point, then it is quite possible than an illegal detention has occurred.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
If they have RAS or PC. They must articulate that they believe that criminal activity is afoot. Other words, they have to articulate that you have, are or are about to commit a crime. Other than that..NO. They may try to trick you with false charges but your 4th admendment rights don't go away. Now if they pull you over...you have to show I.D.

Agree but only the driver of the vehicle is required to provide I.D. Not passengers.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Although I will admit that I would probably show ID without hesitation in an LEO encounter, based on what I've read while lurking in this forum since Truebrit was alive, you can trust what's been posted here.

That choice is yours to make. And it probably is "easier" to just show your ID. But understand that you are giving up a right each and every time you do that. It does make the LEO's job easier but I'm not giving up my rights just to make his job easier..Besides, if his job is easy or not really isn't my concern. I fall back to the "a right unexercised is a right lost"

Plus, if LEO gets what they want each and every time with no questions ask, they start to "forget" that you have a right to refuse and start giving those who do chose to exercise their rights a ton of sh!t because they are use to people just giving in. There are only a few situations that I would give up my 4th. I remember seeing on TV years a go (please don't ask me to cite because this was years back and I dont remember the programs name) a case where a young child had been kidnapped. LEO set up road block on all streets leading out of town. When you pulled up to this road block they ask to only look in your trunk for the missing child. They claimed that if you had a pound of crack or a trunk load of stolen items that they would have turned a blind eye and let you be on your way.

One LEO even made the comment that they "probably" violated some constitution rights that night, but if the girl wasn't in a trunk they didn't care what you had. Now they may have charged you if they found something illegal.....or they may have really only been looking for that girl..I don't know. But if I had rolled up on that situation I would have let them look in my trunk. If this were just a standard DUI check point..then no..I would not let them look in my trunk.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
No, unless you are stopped while driving a motor vehicle. To those that say they would show I.d. to make an officer's job easier, why would you do so? If he stops you and asks for I.d. without RAS, he is trying to make his job harder by violating your rights, so why would you want to make his job easier?

My I.d. stays in my vehicle. I do carry my CDWL, but not in my wallet, as I have heard of too many people being detained and illegally searched for I.d.; I keep it where it is accessible but not easily found.
 
Last edited:
Top