Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Providing I.D. to police in Ohio

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Fremont,Oh
    Posts
    1

    Providing I.D. to police in Ohio

    Hello everyone. I've been visiting this forum for a while now and have learned quite a bit. I have never opened carried before but do conceal carry. My brother is a police officer in a neighboring town and over the holidays we had a debate on if I were to open carry. He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business. I did some slight research on my own and found ORC 2921.29. I guess I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. From the looks of it I would not have to provide any information to a L.E.O. if I'm not committing a crime. Hopefully someone on this forum has run into this issue and can share their experiences. If anyone has anything to share I'd appreciate it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by sindikitjay View Post
    Hello everyone. I've been visiting this forum for a while now and have learned quite a bit. I have never opened carried before but do conceal carry. My brother is a police officer in a neighboring town and over the holidays we had a debate on if I were to open carry. He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business. I did some slight research on my own and found ORC 2921.29. I guess I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. From the looks of it I would not have to provide any information to a L.E.O. if I'm not committing a crime. Hopefully someone on this forum has run into this issue and can share their experiences. If anyone has anything to share I'd appreciate it.
    You are correct. In Ohio, police must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed to demand I.D.

    Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

    As OC is legal, there is no basis for a crime.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    None of that, though, is a guarantee that an unlawful detention won't happen. I have twice been unlawfully detained merely for OC.

    If you OC, you risk running into an ignorant cop like (I hate to say it, but it's true) your brother. Such events can be painful, profitable, or both.

    Send your brother here, we will be happy to give him a few lessons in the law.

    Oh, and never ask a cop what the law says. Many (if not most) do not know it, and they have little motivation to get it right. Don't even take our word for the law. Read the code and the court decisions for yourself. When you ask us for the law, use our answers as a starting point to educate yourself.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Taclead View Post
    You are correct. In Ohio, police must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed to demand I.D.
    Not really. There is no Ohio statute that requires anyone csarry IOD, nor could there be per US S. Ct. opinion in Kolender v. Lawsen.

    Ohio might have a statute complient with the Hiibel case which requires a person to state their name provided the police have reasonable articulable suspicion that crime is afoot (same standard to seize a person briefly for investigative purposes).

    If you don;t carry ID, there is no way for the police to get it. i think that stating your name during police encoutners is a good idea for 2 reasons. 1. Makes you seem reasonable. 2. Provides a way for your name to get into police records so that you can successfully demand recods about your seizure under state open records laws and in subsequent litigation.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Mike, I am not seeing any way in which you are disagreeing with the post you quoted. Am I missing some subtlety?

    Interesting take on providing your name--that raises a question: If I give them an alias, like eye95, and they put it in the record, does that mean I now have a right to those records?

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    When any of us are carrying concealed we understand that we must inform an officer of our conceal carry status and also have identification on our persons and supply that identification if requested.

    When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons. Knowing that the Ohio legislature passed ORC 2921.29.

    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 and also limited by Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. ORC §2921.29 is unconstitutional as written. ORC §2921.29(A) states in part “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:...” ORC §2921.29 goes well beyond the holding of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

    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 his name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

    ORC §2921.29 states “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth.” The term “or” in Websters dictionary is a conjunction introducing an alternative. Thus, in plain English ORC §2921.29 allows a person to give one of the three alternatives. But, what if an arresting officer charges an Accused with not supplying all three because the officer treated the term “or” as if it meant “and.” According to ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.) the officer is permitted to make such interpretation. The officer's interpretation, however, would be in direct violation of ORC §1.42 which states in part “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Accordingly, the application of term “and” in ORC §2921.29(A) would then be in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”, would be beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment and therefore, ORC §2921.29 would be unconstitutional.

    If an Accused gave their name, but was arrested and jailed for not giving his address and date of birth, the arrest and jailing would be under the color of law and in violation of the Accused's constitutional right under the U.S. and Ohio Constitution.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is a "not...or." "Not...ors" in English are ambiguous, even though, in mathematics, through syntax, they can be rendered unambiguous.

    The law, to me (and likely to the courts) says that refusal of any one of the three violates the law. The words, “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth," can be logically equated to, "no person shall refuse to disclose the person's name or shall refuse to disclose the person's address, or refuse to disclose the person's date of birth," or to, "no person shall refuse to disclose the person's name or shall refuse to disclose the person's address, or refuse to disclose the person's date of birth," making any one of the actions an offense. Of course for there to be a refusal, there must be a demand. You need only give what the officer lawfully demands.

    Caveat: It is impossible to know for sure that an officer does not have RAS. It may be a lie, but if someone calls and says that you were handling the firearm while arguing loudly with someone, he may well have RAS. So, if you assume he does not, and refuse to identify yourself, you could be committing a crime. I'd consider asking the officer directly, recording his answer, of course: "When you demand that I identify myself, are your making that demand because you are detaining me under the conditions listed ORC §2921.29(A)? If you are, I will comply. If not, I am not required to do so," or something like that. If he refuses to answer, I'll have to assume, for my own legal safety, that the demand is lawful and will answer. However, he will have to answer for his actions too. Both sides of the conversation will have been recorded for posterity.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Mike, I am not seeing any way in which you are disagreeing with the post you quoted. Am I missing some subtlety?

    Interesting take on providing your name--that raises a question: If I give them an alias, like eye95, and they put it in the record, does that mean I now have a right to those records?
    Mike's just distinguishing an identity document from providing identity info verbally.

    Kolender vs Lawson is a SCOTUS opinion where a California statute was shot down because it was too vague as to what counted as credible proof of identity, resulting in a cop having too much discretion to arrest a detainee for not supplying "credible proof". The thing for readers to watch out for is that at least one state worded their statute in a way that satisfies Kolender by specifying which identity documents are required to be supplied if the person has them on him at the time.

    If you use an alias, you'll be right up there with Ron "Tater Salad" White.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-05-2013 at 02:04 AM.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Hello, I see we share something in common; idiot brothers.

    How can you be required to produce something that you're not required to possess or carry?

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Legal definitions:

    Alias - Term used to indicate another name by which a person is known. Short for “Alias dictus”; otherwise known as (a.k.a.). Being known by another name.

    Alias dictus – A fictitious name assumed by a person is colloquially termed an “alias”.

    Assume – To pretend.

    Ohio Revised Code - 4513.361 Furnishing false information to officer issuing traffic ticket.
    (A) No person shall knowingly present, display, or orally communicate a false name, social security number, or date of birth to a law enforcement officer who is in the process of issuing to the person a traffic ticket or complaint.
    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
    Notice the law says "false name" not "Alias".

    Ohio Revised Code - 2941.03 Sufficiency of indictment or information.
    An indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom:
    (C) That the defendant is named, or, if his name cannot be discovered, that he is described by a fictitious name, with a statement that his true name is unknown to the jury or prosecuting attorney, but no name shall be stated in addition to one necessary to identify the accused;
    Your screen name is an "Alias". If not intended to deceive it is not illegal. Hiding your identity is not illegal.

    A maxim of law is you are who you say you are.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by sindikitjay View Post
    He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business.
    In Ohio, other than for SPECIFIED activities (driving, carrying CONCEALED, etc.) you don't have to HAVE ID.

    If he wants to FALSELY arrest me for not having something I have no duty to have in the first place, I say go for it. He'd just better have some way to provide for his family first, because I will be suing him as an individual and NOT settling.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Oh, and never ask a cop what the law says. Many (if not most) do not know it, and they have little motivation to get it right.
    Truer words were never spoken.

    Just about EVERY time I've heard a cop expound on the "law" it was:

    • wrong
    • a lie
    • an outright attempt to extra-legally compel behavior through deception


    Personal experience and observation tells me that you're more likely to find bigfoot eating a romanburger in Cleveland's Public Square at 12:00 noon than to find a cop who knows the law.
    Last edited by Deanimator; 01-05-2013 at 11:39 AM.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Providing I.D. to police in Ohio

    I just this morning listened to a retired police officer give absolutely bum information regarding open carry in Ohio. I gently corrected him (we are in a retail environment; no loud disputes here) and subtly gave the customer the URL for OCDO.

    But the retired officer was bragging on jacking up an OCer in Huber Heights a few years ago and saying the OC was OK in the countryside, but cities could prohibit it.

    We provide a copy of the ORC to our customers, but they often ask us the law. I tell them what I know, but always, always, always say, "Don't take anyone's word--not even mine--for what the law says. Read the code and the relevant court decisions for yourself."

    None of the guys can correctly explain carry in a car, no matter how many times I have quoted the law.

    Over time THAT will change. I won't make them get up to speed on the current law on that matter, since it is changing, but the day it changes, they will be required to correctly explain it or to defer to someone who can.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    SNIP i think that stating your name during police encoutners is a good idea for 2 reasons. 1. Makes you seem reasonable. 2. Provides a way for your name to get into police records so that you can successfully demand recods about your seizure under state open records laws and in subsequent litigation.
    Just because it gives me an opportunity to mention my ideas for the consideration of newer readers;


    I plan on giving the cops my identity info verbally when asked. Several reasons that can be taken additional to Mike's.

    First, my policy is to write a formal complaint for all police investigative encounters about my gun. Even consensual investigative encounters. Such an investigative encounter, even a consensual encounter, says the officer thinks exercising an enumerated human right is somehow suspicious or worthy of investigation. This is intolerable.

    Also, cops seem to have a real knack for screwing up even consensual encounters. Its a good bet that I will have more than the gun suspicion to include in my formal complaint.

    So, since the cop is gonna learn my name anyway when the formal written complaint arrives, I don't particularly mind giving it to him during the encounter.

    And, in my state, although we do not have a state stop-and-identify statute, we do have some localities with stop-and-identify ordinances. I pass through a number of different local jurisdictions frequently and just can't keep up with whether each of them has a stop-and-identify ordinance. And, even if I did know which didn't have such ordinance, the ordinances can change pretty quick with a board of supervisors or council meeting. It would require a good memory and research twice a month to keep up to date on it.
    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.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ....And, in my state, although we do not have a state stop-and-identify statute, we do have some localities with stop-and-identify ordinances......
    And Hiibel only requires your name and only if RAS exists. Anything more would violate the Supreme law of the land.
    Last edited by color of law; 01-06-2013 at 01:15 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    If you don;t carry ID, there is no way for the police to get it.
    I never have I.D. on me when I open carry. (Unless I'm in a vehicle, of course.)

    If an LEO detains me, and asks for my I.D., I will verbally provide my name and address or whatever.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    And Hiibel only requires your name and only if RAS exists. Anything more would violate the Supreme law of the land.
    I understand your opinion is that name OR address OR date of birth is required if asked. I also understand that others have argued that all three are required. Furthermore, there has not been a "test case" if I understand correctly.

    Call me a sell out, but to be safe, I will provide all three if asked.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohio Patriot View Post
    I understand your opinion is that name OR address OR date of birth is required if asked. I also understand that others have argued that all three are required. Furthermore, there has not been a "test case" if I understand correctly.

    Call me a sell out, but to be safe, I will provide all three if asked.
    I'm only resiting the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. They're the ones that said name only, not me.

    I have no say in what you choose to do or not do. You are free to drop your drawers and bend over for the officer if that makes you happy of makes him happy.


    By the way, that argument was made in court. The person was acquitted of not violating ORC 2921.29 when he only gave his name. The state chose not to appeal.
    Last edited by color of law; 01-07-2013 at 10:22 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm only resiting the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. They're the ones that said name only, not me.

    I have no say in what you choose to do or not do. You are free to drop your drawers and bend over for the officer if that makes you happy of makes him happy.


    By the way, that argument was made in court. The person was acquitted of not violating ORC 2921.29 when he only gave his name. The state chose not to appeal.
    You should also realize that Hiibel limited its analysis to the Nevada statute which required only a name. It did not set an upper limit on the information which could be demanded, so long as the person was not required to produce identification documents or other information which would be covered under the vague requirement of "credible and reliable" identification (Kolender). Note that no Ohio court has found unconstitutional the three types of information required under R.C. 2921.29(A). In fact, given the commonality of some names, a court could easily uphold a requirement of name and date of birth under the Fourth Amendment, but if the offense reasonably suspected was underage consumption of alcohol, that court might then need to consider the Fifth Amendment question which the court declined to address in Hiibel.
    Last edited by Werz; 01-08-2013 at 03:13 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hudson, Ohio
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    but if the offense reasonably suspected was underage consumption of alcohol, that court might then need to consider the Fifth Amendment question which the court declined to address in Hiibel.
    For Ohio at least, ORC 2921.29(D) makes a clear exception for exactly that case:
    (D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
    Which is exactly why you need to ask under suspicion of what crime you're being investigated, since it determines what you must provide. This isn't to say you won't be arrested, charged, or humiliated/abused in the process by a frustrated bully LEO if you're unlucky, but it does mean that you won't be punished by the courts as their failure to establish that premise to you, properly argued, creates a very large amount of "fruit of poison tree" which then covers almost the entire encounter, essentially making the case a charge based on the greetings you exchanged, which no one will try.

  21. #21
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2
    Those interested in this subject may be interested in the recent Ohio decision in McKee v. McCann, 2017-Ohio-4072 (8th Dist. June 1, 2017) (linked below), which holds that R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification.

    https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ro...-Ohio-4072.pdf

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    I would argue that Brown V Texas... 443 U.S. 47,99 S.CT 2637 ( 1979)

    The supremes ruled that one cannot be charged with a crime for failing to ID.

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by member View Post
    Those interested in this subject may be interested in the recent Ohio decision in McKee v. McCann, 2017-Ohio-4072 (8th Dist. June 1, 2017) (linked below), which holds that R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification.
    https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ro...-Ohio-4072.pdf
    I'm thinking you might want to actually read R.C. 2921.29(A)
    2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
    There is absolutely noting in 2921.29 requiring anyone to carry any sort of identification, nor to produce it. McKee was arrested because he refused to provide even verbal identification, see {¶1}. One will also note that Plaintiff was never charged with a violation of 2921.29 which officers had PC to do so as soon as he refused to provide any identification he was detained under 2921.29 (A) (1).
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-05-2017 at 06:33 PM.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by member View Post
    Those interested in this subject may be interested in the recent Ohio decision in McKee v. McCann, 2017-Ohio-4072 (8th Dist. June 1, 2017) (linked below), which holds that R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification.

    https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ro...-Ohio-4072.pdf
    As far as R.C. 2921.29 is concerned in regards to just giving your name as Hiibel determined, this case adds nothing.

    As Fallschirmjäger points out, in a round about way, this is another example of Ohio's courts twisting the law and misquoting the law to fit their preconceived outcome.
    R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification, so Shamblin had a qualified immunity from suit for false arrest.
    Yes, it is strict liability, but the statute does not require showing ID. All the statute requires is the disclosure of your name.... not produce a document.

    What I don't understand is why the guy just didn't leave.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    As far as R.C. 2921.29 is concerned in regards to just giving your name as Hiibel determined, this case adds nothing.

    As Fallschirmjäger points out, in a round about way, this is another example of Ohio's courts twisting the law and misquoting the law to fit their preconceived outcome.
    Yes, it is strict liability, but the statute does not require showing ID. All the statute requires is the disclosure of your name.... not produce a document.

    What I don't understand is why the guy just didn't leave.
    +10000000
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

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
  •