Case law regarding IDing yourself...

I've looked over everything I can regarding IDing yourself in MRSC and LEO Digest.
From what I understand as per Terry V Ohio (which I think may have been partially overruled at the federal level but not state) is that when detained, we do not have to show ID:
"[10] Arrest - Detention for Questioning - Refusal To Answer. A person's refusal to disclose his name, address, or other information cannot be the basis of an arrest."
"...a detainee's refusal to disclose his name, address, and other information cannot be the basis of an arrest. Although a person may be briefly detained on the basis of reasonable suspicion "while pertinent questions are directed to him . . . the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest . . ." TERRY v. OHIO, SUPRA at 34 (White, J., concurring). The arrest in the present case was partially based on just that justification condemned in TERRY."

CITE:
97 Wn.2d 92, 640 P.2d 1061
STATE v. WHITE
CAUSE NUMBER: 47543-1
FILE DATE: February 18, 1982
CASE TITLE: The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Allen
White, Respondent.

And also:
State v Williams in LEO Digest clarifies that "Words alone cannot constitute obstruction" Wn 2d 2011 WL 1834259 (2011)

So my question is:

WHEN ARE WE REQUIRED TO SHOW ID???
Is there case law that says we have to if under arrest? Is it a contempt of court issue?
All the case law I can find basically says we are not required to show ID... So when do we have to?

Why not google "do I have to show my ID in" your state or the state of interest? More often than not the ACLU in the state in question will have the info you need.

Is your inquiry limited to the display of government-issued documents bearing a photograph of you? Or does it expand to the times/places/circumstances where you are reqiuried to state at least your name, if not name and place of residence?

stay safe.

Is your inquiry limited to the display of government-issued documents bearing a photograph of you? Or does it expand to the times/places/circumstances where you are reqiuried to state at least your name, if not name and place of residence?

stay safe.

We are not required to carry ID in our state, there is no mandate to show ID, there is in certain activities things the state has decided you must have a license for, this license needs to be shown in activities related to this, of course the state is supposed to have a valid reason for checking the license.

Nightmare said:

When "under arrest" you may be searched incident to arrest and your papers and Fourth Amendment rights seized.

Click to expand...

But I don't carry ID unless I'm driving or otherwise need it.

When would we be compelled to identify ourselves, and by what authority of law? Is there any that states we must identify when arrested? Could we proceed as John Doe.

Nightmare said:

When "under arrest" you may be searched incident to arrest and your papers and Fourth Amendment rights seized.

Click to expand...

WA is not a stop and ID state. There is no requirement for you to carry ID, or present it under the normal course of business. This includes a CPL or a drivers license.

If you are stopped for a violation of a licensed activity, you are required to present the license (as in, stopped for speeding, you need to present you drivers license), but there are no random stops or roadblock stops allowed. If stopped in a random stop, or a roadblock you are not required to present you license.

Therefore: If I am not driving a vehicle, I do not carry a wallet, or any ID.

Receiving a ticket, driving and carrying concealed. Carrying concealed has exceptions and caveats. Washington Constitution Article I, section 7 provides considerable protection of our privacy

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.


RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.


A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.

RCW 46.20.005
Driving without a license — Misdemeanor, when.


Except as expressly exempted by this chapter, it is a misdemeanor for a person to drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. This section does not apply if at the time of the stop the person is not in violation of RCW 46.20.342(1) or *46.20.420 and has in his or her possession an expired driver's license or other valid identifying documentation under RCW 46.20.035. A violation of this section is a lesser included offense within the offenses described in RCW 46.20.342(1) or *46.20.420.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

Logan 5 said:

Why not google "do I have to show my ID in" your state or the state of interest? More often than not the ACLU in the state in question will have the info you need.

Click to expand...

Because Google is often wrong on issues because they don't have specific case law and are more designed for people who don't look up stuff like this as a hobby, more as a sound bite thing to put on little education cards to hand out.
I've never seen anything that said that we don't have to identify when we are detained... except actual court rulings. Everything else says we have to, which is wrong according to case law.
But I am yet to see something that says we have to identify even when arrested. I knew a guy who went in and didn't give his name until they said he'd be let go on bail if he gave his name, two weeks later.

509rifas said:

Because Google is often wrong on issues because they don't have specific case law and are more designed for people who don't look up stuff like this as a hobby, more as a sound bite thing to put on little education cards to hand out.
I've never seen anything that said that we don't have to identify when we are detained... except actual court rulings. Everything else says we have to, which is wrong according to case law.
But I am yet to see something that says we have to identify even when arrested. I knew a guy who went in and didn't give his name until they said he'd be let go on bail if he gave his name, two weeks later.

Click to expand...

You see there is a difference. If you are "in violation"...that is you are going to get a ticket, or you are going to be legitimately arrested for some criminal activity... then you you need to identify yourself by name, address and DOB. If you do not have any physical ID on you, they can detain you only as long as it takes to verify you are who you say you are. (unless of course you are actually being arrested for a crime)

During the general course of business, if you have not violated any law, they cannot detain you until you ID yourself.

hermannr said:

....or you are going to be legitimately arrested for some criminal activity... then you you need to identify yourself by name, address and DOB....

Click to expand...

This is what I am getting at: SAYS WHO?

What law says you have to?

To further 509's questions, I present this site http://freedom-school.com/travel/wa...-show-any-form-of-picture-identification.html

hermannr said:

You see there is a difference. If you are "in violation"...that is you are going to get a ticket, or you are going to be legitimately arrested for some criminal activity... then you you need to identify yourself by name, address and DOB. If you do not have any physical ID on you, they can detain you only as long as it takes to verify you are who you say you are. (unless of course you are actually being arrested for a crime)

During the general course of business, if you have not violated any law, they cannot detain you until you ID yourself.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I disagree.

A person can be arrested as a John Doe. Which you seem to at least partially agree with.

But if a person is merely suspected of being about to commit a crime, committing a crime, or having committed a crime there is no need to provide personal identification. The police need first to determine if they have RAS/PC sufficient to arrest me, then go ahead and arrest me. The limited circumstance in which the police have information that skidmark specifically, as opposed to any of the other 300 Million residents of the USA, or even of the unknown number of residents of the USA who look somewhat like skidmark, is suspected of being about to commit a crime, committing a crime, or having committed a crime can the police ask me for ID to either establish I am in fact skidmark or am not in fact skidmark. But I am not, in many states, compelled to provide ID. It might be to my advantage if they were looking for skidmark and I was not skidmask but merely looked like him, to help them establish my identity. But I retain the right not to. By not providing ID and making them go through the process of figuring it out by themselves I do lose my right to whine about being detained. Depending on the specific wording of the state/municipal law I may or may not have committed the crime of obstruction of justice - but since they were eventually able to figure it out I do not see that charge sticking. YMMV considerably.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

...By not providing ID and making them go through the process of figuring it out by themselves I do lose my right to whine about being detained...
stay safe.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I disagree.
Detention is to determine whether or not we are involved in criminal activity, not what our name is. We are under no obligation to answer ANY questions, and they cannot penalize us for asserting that right.
In my case I've had a number of detentions arise from the mere fact that I did not identify even when there was no RAS, and that really gives me a reason to whine.

509rifas said:

With all due respect, I disagree.
Detention is to determine whether or not we are involved in criminal activity, not what our name is. We are under no obligation to answer ANY questions, and they cannot penalize us for asserting that right.
In my case I've had a number of detentions arise from the mere fact that I did not identify even when there was no RAS, and that really gives me a reason to whine.

Click to expand...

Did you sue the PD, City, County?

Did you have it on Video or Audio?


If you didn't have a record of it and didn't sue the PD then why? It only enables the bad cops into continued bad behavior.

If they detain you without RAS then they are breaking the law and can be sued.

DocWalker said:

Did you sue the PD, City, County?

Did you have it on Video or Audio?


If you didn't have a record of it and didn't sue the PD then why? It only enables the bad cops into continued bad behavior.

If they detain you without RAS then they are breaking the law and can be sued.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBErrj_VrYo

That's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS7VGE8l4pM

That's two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqPRGgh9a8

That one is being stopped for being the same ethnicity of the suspect. I concede I was excessively co-operative and have since reconsidered my interactions.


The other isn't on youtube yet, having trouble mixing the audio of the police radio logs with the video.

I simply decline to sue them. About two years ago a dispatch hit a wrong button and SPD ended up responding to a burglary call at my house and came in with guns and whatnot... still didn't sue. Sometimes I wonder why, sometimes I dont.

509rifas said:

With all due respect, I disagree.
Detention is to determine whether or not we are involved in criminal activity, not what our name is. We are under no obligation to answer ANY questions, and they cannot penalize us for asserting that right.
In my case I've had a number of detentions arise from the mere fact that I did not identify even when there was no RAS, and that really gives me a reason to whine.

Click to expand...

A nuance many people don't grok is that while remaining silent cannot be used against you IN COURT or even the choice you made mentioned, it most definitely CAN add to PC. The classic example I give is where you have permission to have your gf's car and are caught "breaking into " it at o dark 30. If you don't speak up and explain that you have permission etc. give her name and phone # so the cop can check, he is going to have PC to arrest you. Whereas if you explain away and he checks and determines he doesn't. Then he won't. I've had both scenarios happen (the legitimate tryinng to get into the car that he does have permission and of COURSE he explained that and wasn['tarrested, or the prowler who is in fact breaking in to to a car and was arrested)

DUI's are another example. Your choirce not to perform FST's *can* be used to help develop PC, the operative theory being if you weren't impaired, why wouldn't you perform FST's. I was pulled over for suspicion of DUI and did the FST's and wasn't arrested fwiw. My buddy got arrested for felony DUI on a bicycle for maiming his gf who was riding the handlebars.

Of course FST's aren't testimonial evidence anyway.

Another thing people don't grok is very often cops use questions not for the answer, but to do a "veracity" check. Is this person going to be truthful or not? I get a minor in possession and under influence of liquor and I ask them "have you been drinking?" I know they've been drinking, but I am much more likely to give them a verbal warning vs. a citation if they are truthful and upfront with me. ymmv

You are correct about the purpose of detention (via terry), but as a side effect, terry often leads to not an arrest at the time, but leads to actionable intelligence, especially as to associates etc. that is later useful.

Example, I terried (I actually had PC) a man and a woman for open container in a park. From the stop, for which I had PC so they HAD to give names, I learned the name of the guy's gf.

This was useful on a later case where he (he was a prolific burglar) pawned some stolen property. I suspected he was the culprit, but when I checked my online pawn shop database, he had not pawned the property. However, when I checked under his GF's name - boom, she had pawned similar property. And of course once I checked out the property and confirmed it was the stolen stuff I was lookng for, she confessed and ratted out her bf, getting a sweetheart probation deal by doing so. If I hadn't had her name, I never would have been able to solve the case since there wasn't a serial # on the stolen property to do a more precise search than a name search.

Terry stops also help us with tracking gang activty (like BGD's are moving into a neighborhood) and ime gangbangers are VERY amenable to representing and providing intel if you are polite and respectful of them. They are proud of their activity/membership.

Of course in many terry situations the stoppee can and does provide exculpatory info which is nice because it is the goal of LEO's to clear somebody of suspicion as much as it is to finger them. By being able ot clear them, we are able to better focus in on who actually did the crime.

The most common terry situation where we finger or don't finger is where we stop the person for RAS, because they are in the proximity of a crime just occurred and reported and they match the description. Had one of those a couple of days ago. We bring the victim to the scene where person is detained for a "one on one" suspect identification. THis, especially with multiple witnesses can up the evidence from RAS to PC. Very frequent occurrence. Had one of them a few days ago with an auto prowl and three witnesses all brought to scene seperately were able to positively identify.

In many other cases, catching a perp near a scene means we have their name to later use in a photo lineup. Next day we present the photo lineup and boom, the victim picks them out (one out of 6).

By doing the terry, we placed them proximate to the scene, and now with the photo lineup , we develop pc.

We might have fingerprints from the scne and due to the PC of the photo lineup, initaited by the Terry, we now can get their fingerprints, if they weren't on file.

THus, terry's while INTENDED for immediate crimes in progress etc. are useful for intel purposes often used in crimes later committed or long ago committed, giving that extra "piece" of evidence that makes or breaks a case.

I've also seen two instances that I know of in the last 6 months where the fact that somebody was terry'd at a location and time, meant we could cross them off the list as a very likely suspect and it offered them a rock solid alibi.

I understand Terry has useful implications for LEOs, but I am not personally interested in being an intelligence source, particularly about myself.
More importantly, as some argue that you shouldn't say ANYTHING because even (and especially) honest statements that you think should be exculpatory are actually used to formulate RAS or PC.
For example, in the third video I posted, when the officer asked me where I was coming from I told him 12th st, and because of the way the blocks are set up in my town, if I was coming from 12th st I would have had to come down 9th st. The prowling on 9th st by a white male (my part of town is about 90% Mexican) apparently gave the RAS to detain me. (Other technicalities aside, such as he legally had detained me prior to asking and detained me on the sole basis on my whiteness.) Had the victim not reported that it was a blonde guy named James (neither of which describe me) I believe I would have likely been arrested that night.

Another case of mine from when I was 14 years old was I was wearing black clothing at a skate park six blocks from a Safeway where there had been a shoplifting. The officers asked if I had been there, I told them yes, as I went there everyday to get one of those $.25 sodas before coming to the park. Matching the description and admitting to being at the scene of the crime once again got me in handcuffs. (Turned out it was a blonde guy that time too.) Case no. 47168-6-I 107 Wash.App. 1004, 2001.WA0001015 (my case) reads "As it turned out, [509Rifas] had nothing to do with the Safeway incident. Based on his possession of the knife however, [509Rifas] was arrested for and charged with the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon."

I won the case on appeal, but it's a reminder to me that even innocent, truthful statements to LEOs can get you in trouble. I occasionally forget or feel like I'm being a jerk to LEOs, and then I end up reminded again I should stick to minimal statements simply to not jeopardize my freedom as has done in the past, and leaves me rather cynical about the idea of being "co-operative," since co-operating has caused me more trouble than being argumentative.

Also, I remain the only person to make and win an appeal based on the definition of a butterfly knife in Washington State. :banana: Sadly, that may be my greatest accomplishment.

I kinda veered off topic there.
What I meant to get at was in the LEGAL SCOPE of Terry, the purpose, the exception to the 4thAmendment and A1S7 is to investigate crime, neither require (and both specify right to decline) identification. While LEOs will obviously find it useful to know who they are talking to, there is no requirement. The explicit purpose of an investigatory detention is just that, not an intel mission. If the actual purpose is intel-related, it's explicitly unlawful under A1S7 as an unlawful pretextual stop (State v Ladson) EVEN IF there was valid PC or RAS.

509rifas said:

I understand Terry has useful implications for LEOs, but I am not personally interested in being an intelligence source, particularly about myself.
More importantly, as some argue that you shouldn't say ANYTHING because even (and especially) honest statements that you think should be exculpatory are actually used to formulate RAS or PC.
For example, in the third video I posted, when the officer asked me where I was coming from I told him 12th st, and because of the way the blocks are set up in my town, if I was coming from 12th st I would have had to come down 9th st. The prowling on 9th st by a white male (my part of town is about 90% Mexican) apparently gave the RAS to detain me. (Other technicalities aside, such as he legally had detained me prior to asking and detained me on the sole basis on my whiteness.) Had the victim not reported that it was a blonde guy named James (neither of which describe me) I believe I would have likely been arrested that night.

Another case of mine from when I was 14 years old was I was wearing black clothing at a skate park six blocks from a Safeway where there had been a shoplifting. The officers asked if I had been there, I told them yes, as I went there everyday to get one of those $.25 sodas before coming to the park. Matching the description and admitting to being at the scene of the crime once again got me in handcuffs. (Turned out it was a blonde guy that time too.) Case no. 47168-6-I 107 Wash.App. 1004, 2001.WA0001015 (my case) reads "As it turned out, [509Rifas] had nothing to do with the Safeway incident. Based on his possession of the knife however, [509Rifas] was arrested for and charged with the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon."

I won the case on appeal, but it's a reminder to me that even innocent, truthful statements to LEOs can get you in trouble. I occasionally forget or feel like I'm being a jerk to LEOs, and then I end up reminded again I should stick to minimal statements simply to not jeopardize my freedom as has done in the past, and leaves me rather cynical about the idea of being "co-operative," since co-operating has caused me more trouble than being argumentative.

Also, I remain the only person to make and win an appeal based on the definition of a butterfly knife in Washington State. :banana: Sadly, that may be my greatest accomplishment.

Click to expand...

These are not useful implications for LEO's. The very way you frame this tells me your viewpoint - that cops are "the other". Most people in my community, where we work WITH the police to help them solve crimes,. catch criminals in the act, heck sometimes the average joe holds the bad guy at gunpoint for the police arrival, etc., most people in my fine community view it as a victory for the community as a whole.And crime victims

Iow, a victory at catching a bad guy, solving a crime, etc. is not a victory for an LEO. It's a victory for society, and specifically for the victim of that crime. An LEO gets paid the same amount of money if he does the absolute bare minimum, or goes out of the way to help his community etc.

If you view LEO's as the enemy, then yes anything they do that helps solve crimes is not a victory for you, but for those of us (per polling data, MOST of us) who view crime as EVERYBODY's problem, who view preventing crime as EVERYBODY's problem, who recognize that the firsrt line of defense for the individual is himself (and his gun), etc... those of us in the majority don''t view police as the enemy and every victim catching bad guys and holding them accountable is a victory primarily for the victim of the crime and for society in general

A cop, myself included , is an impartial evidence gatherer. I don't "win" cases. It's not my job. When I am privy to exculpatory evidecne I am just as duty bound to testify to it, and write it in my report as with inculpatory evidence. And I do. Even if it means no charges get filed. Groovy. It is not the job of the LEO to make easy cases for the prosecutor. It is our job to investigate fair and unbiased.

I have already debunked the "you shouldn't say anything" rubbish giving real world examples, not theory of where it definitely helped people who were under suspicion and.or arrest. It's case specific of course, but tell the attorney who got to go home instead of jail and who didn't have to fight charges in court that giving a statement of self-defense was the wrong one. He knows better, I know better, and so do the metric buttload of people who help themselves by talking and in many cases help society by acting as good witnesses and taking suspicion OFF themselves and on to the real bad guy. When I got stopped at gunpoint, you are darn skippy I provided information that exculpated myself- proof that I was coming from the opposite direction of the crime (jack in the box receipt) etc.

We just come at these things differently. I believe crime prevention and crime response is a community responsibility and we all benefit when criminals are caught, whether in progress or after the fact. I am happy to live in a community that overall feels the same way and works with the police (block watch etc.).

So, it's all about mindset, framing, and etc. and clearly we are arguing past each other, because you don't view those things as important. Anybody who views crime solving as a benefit just to LEO's is daft. LEO's can go home to their communities (often not the ones they work in) with the same pay and benefits whether or not they solve the crime. It's the people they serve that benefit. I took an oath to serve and I take it seriously. Thank god I work with people who feel similarly and a community that attends citizen academy, block watch meetings, and watches out for their fellow man, because we ALL benefit when bad guys are apprehended

cheers