Mandatory to show ID when OC

USNA69 said:

Fellow OCers,

Much good advice has been given regarding identifying oneself while OCing on foot.

However, I am not sure that the OP was asking about that. Recall that he wrote:
"I always inform the officer when I am pulled over that I am carrying, but since OC is perfectly legal you shouldnt have to show ID unless suspected of committing a crime?"


"... when I am pulled over ..." implies that he was asking us what he should do about identifying himself during a vehicle stop while OCing.

Did I misread his question?

Click to expand...

I think this has basically already be accounted for.

Yes, driving does add the requirement that you must present a driver's license when asked. That's it, though. It doesn't mean you have to have, or show, a CHP, for instance. You can OC in your car in Virginia, with no permit, and it's not necessary to say a word about it to an officer.

marshaul said:

I think this has basically already be accounted for.

Yes, driving does add the requirement that you must present a driver's license when asked. That's it, though. It doesn't mean you have to have, or show, a CHP, for instance. You can OC in your car in Virginia, with no permit, and it's not necessary to say a word about it to an officer.

Click to expand...

One thing that hasn't been mentioned and something my wife starts her "Who is this man" backpeddle when someone asks for my drivers license as ID....

A Drivers License is a License to Drive, not ID! DMV does sell an ID but I don't have one. When someone insists I show ID, I give them my General Assembly ID which is issued by THE Government.
That always causes some confusion.

Politely inquire, "Am I being detained? Am I free to leave?"

Repeat as necessary. Absent an affirmative answer to the first question or a negative answer to the second, feel free to walk away.

paramedic70002 said:

Politely inquire, "Am I being detained? Am I free to leave?"

Repeat as necessary. Absent an affirmative answer to the first question or a negative answer to the second, feel free to walk away.

Click to expand...

In a non-consensual encounter, you are being detained, so ask "Why am I being detained?".

2a4all said:

In a non-consensual encounter, you are being detained, so ask "Why am I being detained?".

Click to expand...

Also, we've seen a number of reports of cops dodging that question.

I'm a big fan of throwing the legal onus on them. "Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job; but I do not consent to an encounter with you." From that point forward, they must have legal justification to make you stay.

If they continue the encounter, I plan on repeating, "Officer, I wish to be released from this detention immediately."

There are laws in Virginia that say you must show ID

While Driving

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-104
§ 46.2-104. Possession of registration cards; exhibiting registration card and licenses; failure to carry license or registration card.

The operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer being operated on the highways in the Commonwealth, shall have in his possession: (i) the registration card issued by the Department or the registration card issued by the state or country in which the motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is registered, and (ii) his driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit.

The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity.



While parked in a disabled parking spot

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-1254
§ 46.2-1254. Photo identification.

Any law-enforcement officer or private security guard acting pursuant to § 46.2-1243 may request to examine the driver's license, state identification card, or other form of photo identification of any person using disabled parking privileges afforded by this chapter.



In Arlington county

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CountyBoard/CountyCode/file74515.pdf

Chapter 17, Section 13(c) of the Arlington County Code (“Peace and good order; loitering”): “It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.” Failure to identify is considered a misdemeanor.

Citizen said:

Also, we've seen a number of reports of cops dodging that question.

I'm a big fan of throwing the legal onus on them. "Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job; but I do not consent to an encounter with you." From that point forward, they must have legal justification to make you stay.

If they continue the encounter, I plan on repeating, "Officer, I wish to be released from this detention immediately."

Click to expand...

What do you think would be the likely outcome if after saying this and getting no response, you just started to walk away? After all, you would have given them the opportunity to answer you questions. If they don't, that was their choice.... you should be free to go bases upon their non-response. I'm I totally off base with this?

SouthernBoy said:

What do you think would be the likely outcome if after saying this and getting no response, you just started to walk away? After all, you would have given them the opportunity to answer you questions. If they don't, that was their choice.... you should be free to go bases upon their non-response. I'm I totally off base with this?

Click to expand...

I don't know what the likely response would be; but, I'm not giving them a reason to grab and cuff me. Or, prone me out and cuff me "because he started to leave without our permission." We all know the Blue Wall of Silence is alive and well. And, its covering up something--like bad cops, and cops who bend and twist rights.

Also, a smart cop knows he needs your cooperation in order to get you to talk your way into an arrest i.e., convert RAS into probable cause. So, the smart ones are not going to announce a detention even if they have RAS. Police already ask consent to a search when they have probable cause to search in order to strengthen the legality of their search. No reason at all a few of them won't apply that same reasoning to detentions; that is to say they pose as though its a consensual encounter when they personally believe they already have RAS.

As further support of this, we've already had a few reports of cops responding to the effect that the the OCer was not being detained, but when the OCer asked if he could leave, he was told no, his ID was demanded, etc.

Citizen said:

As further support of this, we've already had a few reports of cops responding to the effect that the the OCer was not being detained, but when the OCer asked if he could leave, he was told no, his ID was demanded, etc.

Click to expand...

That's the OC'ers fault Citizen. Granted, not everyone is as diplomatic as me:uhoh: but the simple answer to that situation is to put him on the spot. "Wait a minute, either I'm being detained or I'm leaving. Which is it and if I'm being detained, any further discussion needs to be through my lawyer".

We spend an inordinate amount of time perfecting our shooting skills but almost none learning to verbally handle a situation like this.

Cops practice these games all the time. Most of us just blunder through it tongue tied and scared to death.

Mayhem said:

In Arlington county

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CountyBoard/CountyCode/file74515.pdf

Chapter 17, Section 13(c) of the Arlington County Code (“Peace and good order; loitering”): “It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.” Failure to identify is considered a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Arlington is just one of a handful of localities with similar ordinances. As I posted earlier, to the best of my knowledge, every one of them has a similar "public safety" provision.

TFred

ETA: It would be interesting to see the response by the officer if the detainee replied to an ID request with, "Officer, is my Identification a matter of public safety?" I'd bet that the majority of them don't know this is a required component, those in those localities have probably just been trained they are allowed to demand ID...

Let's read what the Virginia Supreme Court had to say about that ordinance in Jones v. Commonwealth:

"Jones argues that § 17-13(c) is unconstitutional because it is '[v]iolative of Fourth Amendment Rights.' The code section 'allows police to stop citizens without any reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity,' Jones asserts, and 'does not require the police officer to have even an articulable suspicion that the individual detained is involved in, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.' [...]

We disagree with Jones. As the Attorney General points out, § 17-13(c) does not purport to authorize a police officer to stop and question an individual on the street. Rather, as the Attorney General indicates further, criminal liability for failure to furnish identification under § 17-13(c) arises only when some independent basis justifies the detention and questioning of an individual in the first place, for example, 'where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.'"

"[W]e interpret § 17-13(c) of the Arlington County Code to permit a detention only upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon objective facts."

Tosta Dojen said:

Let's read what the Virginia Supreme Court had to say about that ordinance in Jones v. Commonwealth:

"Jones argues that § 17-13(c) is unconstitutional because it is '[v]iolative of Fourth Amendment Rights.' The code section 'allows police to stop citizens without any reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity,' Jones asserts, and 'does not require the police officer to have even an articulable suspicion that the individual detained is involved in, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.' [...]

We disagree with Jones. As the Attorney General points out, § 17-13(c) does not purport to authorize a police officer to stop and question an individual on the street. Rather, as the Attorney General indicates further, criminal liability for failure to furnish identification under § 17-13(c) arises only when some independent basis justifies the detention and questioning of an individual in the first place, for example, 'where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.'"

"[W]e interpret § 17-13(c) of the Arlington County Code to permit a detention only upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon objective facts."

Click to expand...

And the utter FAILURE of this opinion is that it completely leaves out the principal involved: the person being detained, is denied the right to know and be assured that the reasons for the detention are valid.

For all practical purposes, this ruling means that any person can be detained for no reason whatsoever.

The problem with court review is that they get to play "god", and view the entire set of circumstances irrespective of the constraints of time. We as mere people, do not have that luxury.

TFred

Tosta Dojen said:

Let's read what the Virginia Supreme Court had to say about that ordinance in Jones v. Commonwealth:

"Jones argues that § 17-13(c) is unconstitutional because it is '[v]iolative of Fourth Amendment Rights.' The code section 'allows police to stop citizens without any reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity,' Jones asserts, and 'does not require the police officer to have even an articulable suspicion that the individual detained is involved in, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.' [...]

We disagree with Jones. As the Attorney General points out, § 17-13(c) does not purport to authorize a police officer to stop and question an individual on the street. Rather, as the Attorney General indicates further, criminal liability for failure to furnish identification under § 17-13(c) arises only when some independent basis justifies the detention and questioning of an individual in the first place, for example, 'where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.'"

"[W]e interpret § 17-13(c) of the Arlington County Code to permit a detention only upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon objective facts."

Click to expand...

As much as we'd like for OC to be not unusual, it is. To reach such a conclusion, a stop & ID may be appropriate.:uhoh:

"Am I being detained?"
"I need to see your ID."
"Am I being detained?"
"No, but I need to see your ID."
"OK, I'll drop by at the station, tomorrow, around 5:30 and show it to you."
"No, I need to see it now."
"Am I free to leave?"
"No, I need to see your ID."
"Do you mind if I call my lawyer?"
"Yes, I do mind. I need to see your ID."
"........."
"I need to see your ID."
"........."

peter nap said:

That's the OC'ers fault Citizen. Granted, not everyone is as diplomatic as me:uhoh: but the simple answer to that situation is to put him on the spot. "Wait a minute, either I'm being detained or I'm leaving. Which is it and if I'm being detained, any further discussion needs to be through my lawyer".

We spend an inordinate amount of time perfecting our shooting skills but almost none learning to verbally handle a situation like this.

Cops practice these games all the time. Most of us just blunder through it tongue tied and scared to death.

Click to expand...

I'd bet this is spot on correct.

Citizen said:

I'm a bit disappointed about the lack of cites in this thread.
I expect that from the Michigan or Wisconsin subforum.

Click to expand...

Waidaminnit, there, Buster...
Some of us are very good about citing to authority.

As for the "since OC is unusual, it gives RAS for the LEO to demand my ID, & I must comply" theory:
:cuss: :banghead:

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.

"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer

"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley (2009, US District Court for NM)
http://www.volokh.com/2009/10/01/po...simply-because-hes-openly-carrying-a-handgun/

The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)

peter nap said:

That's the OC'ers fault Citizen. Granted, not everyone is as diplomatic as me:uhoh: but the simple answer to that situation is to put him on the spot. "Wait a minute, either I'm being detained or I'm leaving. Which is it and if I'm being detained, any further discussion needs to be through my lawyer".

We spend an inordinate amount of time perfecting our shooting skills but almost none learning to verbally handle a situation like this.

Cops practice these games all the time. Most of us just blunder through it tongue tied and scared to death.

Click to expand...

Whether its the OCers fault is arguable. He may have something he can do to take responsibility and somewhat seize the initiative, but that does not take away the cops' fault for playing games.

Be that as it may, my point was a response to an earlier question about just walking away. And, that point still stands. I'm not leaving until I have express permission to do so. We've already had one cop on this forum say an OCer might get grabbed and proned-out. And, we know there are cops who are just itching for a chance to "go hands-on".

There's nothing wrong with pointing out his logic flaw as you mentioned just above; I lean a little more towards just invoking rights and repeated reminders. He'll get the idea.

Citizen said:

Whether its the OCers fault is arguable. He may have something he can do to take responsibility and somewhat seize the initiative, but that does not take away the cops' fault for playing games.

Be that as it may, my point was a response to an earlier question about just walking away. And, that point still stands. I'm not leaving until I have express permission to do so. We've already had one cop on this forum say an OCer might get grabbed and proned-out. And, we know there are cops who are just itching for a chance to "go hands-on".

There's nothing wrong with pointing out his logic flaw as you mentioned just above; I lean a little more towards just invoking rights and repeated reminders. He'll get the idea.

Click to expand...

Yeah... and that one cop said a lot of other things that I'd love the Chief to hear.
To sum it up despite the fact that he's d's buddy, he is now, always has been and always will be...full of crap!

Unless you're talking about Nitrovic. The rugged cop that can't lift weights as part of his body building program because it upsets his digestive tract.:lol:

Mandatory to show ID when Voting

The hypocrisy is enlightening. No doubt many in the G.A. would approve of "Mandatory to show ID when OC" -- yet, when it comes to voting......

Va. Democrats say GOP is trying to make it harder to vote

Democratic leaders this morning criticized what they say are Republican efforts to rig elections by passing legislation that would make it more difficult for Virginians to vote.

On Friday, a House committee backed a Senate proposal that would require voters to present photo ID at the polls. Senate Bill 1256, sponsored by Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, also would require registrar's offices statewide to provide free photo identification to voters who do not have such an ID.

“We’re all concerned about election integrity, but our real threat is politicians who are trying to change the rules to rig the outcome,” said Sen. Mamie E. Locke, D-Hampton.

Click to expand...

Is carrying a right or a privilege?

A House subcommittee on Wednesday backed a Senate proposal that would require Virginia voters to present photo ID at the polls.

Senate Bill 1256, sponsored by Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, now moves to the full House Appropriations Committee. The measure would not take effect until 2014 and it would require registrar’s offices statewide to provide free photo IDs to voters.
Advertisement

“This is a much more elegant solution, it’s simple, it’s free and folks don’t have a burden in order to obtain those photo IDs,” Obenshain said. “You just go down (to the registrar’s office), ask for one, they take your picture and you have free identification, and that’s what’s needed in order to vote,” he said.

Del. Riley E. Ingram, R-Hopewell, said Wednesday that he does not understand why a photo ID law would pose a problem when the same identification is required to open a bank account.

Hope Amezquita with the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said that the right to vote is a fundamental right. “Driving or having a bank account is a privilege,” she said.

Click to expand...

The RKBA is ....

(a) Fundamental
(b) Privilege

But 'Universal Checks' and "Your Papers Please" when carrying is okay I guess.

OC for ME said:

"Am I being detained?"
"I need to see your ID."
"Am I being detained?"
"No, but I need to see your ID."
"OK, I'll drop by at the station, tomorrow, around 5:30 and show it to you."
"No, I need to see it now."
"Am I free to leave?"
"No, I need to see your ID."
"Do you mind if I call my lawyer?"
"Yes, I do mind. I need to see your ID."
"........."
"I need to see your ID."
"........."

Click to expand...

Notice the operative phrase here is, "I need to see..."; That is not a lawful demand or order, it is a statement of personally felt needs. It is not something that anyone has to comply with. Unless and until a law enforcement officer (displaying his badge of authority and operating within the limits of his jurisdiction) gives an order with a simple declarative sentence ("Give me your driver's license."), there is no need to respond at all. Unless you're operating a motor vehicle, it is always sufficient to tell them who you are and where you live. If you're CC'ing, any photo id issued by an agency of the Commonwealth will do, it doesn't have to be a driver's license. A student id card from a state school, for example.