Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Michigan Laws regarding Identifying to Law Enformcement

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Michigan Laws regarding Identifying to Law Enformcement

    Ok, I have been curious about stop and identification issues in Michigan. I have done some research, let me if my conclusion below is wrong:

    Michigan is not a Stop & ID state and thus, even if detained or arrested, there is no legal obligation to provide either verbal or paper identification.

    Exceptions - operating a motor vehicle and concealed carry (duty to inform).

    Is my understanding correct?
    Last edited by OC4me; 08-21-2015 at 10:35 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Clinton Twp
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Ok, I have been curious about stop and identification issues in Michigan. I have done some research, let me if my conclusion below is wrong:

    Michigan is not a Stop & ID state and thus, even if detained or arrested, there is no legal obligation to provide either verbal or paper identification.

    Exceptions - operating a motor vehicle and concealed carry (duty to inform).

    Is my understanding correct?
    Sounds about right to me. Your drivers license us a contract with the state. Stating you will show it upon request WHEN DRIVING a motor vehicle. If your not driving it's your choice to show it to an officer.

    If you CC and an officer discovers this then you must show your CPL. If you OC in a conceal free zone (school, hospital etc.) you would be required to prove you have a CPL to exempt yourself for that particular area.

    If you OC in your normal daily activity and you are stopped and asked for ID simply because you a carrying a firearm and you are not in a vehicle nor in a conceal free zone, then there is NO obligation to provide any type of ID. You can say "No thanks, have a nice day.' Then calmly walk in the opposite direction.
    "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    If you are CC and are being detained you must disclose.
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544
    Hunting also requires ID upon demand.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Ok, I have been curious about stop and identification issues in Michigan. I have done some research, let me if my conclusion below is wrong:

    Michigan is not a Stop & ID state and thus, even if detained or arrested, there is no legal obligation to provide either verbal or paper identification.

    Exceptions - operating a motor vehicle and concealed carry (duty to inform).

    Is my understanding correct?
    I'm pretty positive every state requires one to identify themselves when lawfully detained (RS of criminal activity) or arrested.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    I'm pretty positive every state requires one to identify themselves when lawfully detained (RS of criminal activity) or arrested.
    Not quite so - apparently only 24 states do.
    http://www.copblock.org/28042/let-me-see-your-i-d/

    I don't care too much for that site, but there is information to be gleaned there.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Clinton Twp
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Hunting also requires ID upon demand.
    Is it ID or simply provide a valid license for whatever you may be hunting?
    "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    I'm pretty positive every state requires one to identify themselves when lawfully detained (RS of criminal activity) or arrested.
    Verbally identify oneself or produce identification document?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a...on_to_identify with link to the state's statute. E. g.,
    Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24 While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state. Case law cited in Wisconsin's Stop and Identify statute does, however, state "The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so".
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Ok, thanks for the replies...what is the absolute legal minimum verbal 'identification' required? I.e. First & Last only? Middle name too? What about address and other personal tidbits such as birth date? As for address, it seems I heard somewhere that just one's city or township met the legal minimum but I can't recall for sure.

    I suspect think this would be a tough one because the answer probably involves case rather than statutory law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Wisc. Stats. § 968.24  Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...tatutes/968/24

    Annotations of case law

    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).

    A defendant's flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989).

    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).

    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).

    When a person's activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).

    A "showup" where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification, often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0168.

    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0695.

    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2588.

    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.

    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect's pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99-1686.

    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. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821.

    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when: 1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98-3541.

    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop. Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information, risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00-2614.

    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01-0549.

    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer's seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01-0904.

    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer's belief that his, her, or another's safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant's hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02-1540.

    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    When the defendant's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person's name when the police officer reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self-incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05-2778.

    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.

    When a person who is temporarily detained for investigation pursuant to a Terry stop is then moved to another location, courts conduct a two-part inquiry: First, was the person moved within the vicinity of the stop? Second, was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable? Ten miles is too distant a transportation to be within the vicinity so long as the temporary detention is supported by no more than a reasonable suspicion. In order for the transporting of a defendant to a hospital that was not in the vicinity of the stop to have been lawful, it must have been supported by probable cause to arrest or by a reasonable exercise of the community caretaker function. State v. Blatterman, 2015 WI 46, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 13-2107.

    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and `Reasonable Suspicion.' Andregg. Wis. Law. June 2005.

    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/I/11
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-23-2015 at 06:08 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Thanks Nightmare, but this is a Michigan question. Wisconsin laws are bound to be different.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not quite so - apparently only 24 states do.
    http://www.copblock.org/28042/let-me-see-your-i-d/

    I don't care too much for that site, but there is information to be gleaned there.
    i love the site. nothing wrong with sites that keep everyone honest. and humble.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Ok, thanks for the replies...what is the absolute legal minimum verbal 'identification' required? I.e. First & Last only? Middle name too? What about address and other personal tidbits such as birth date? As for address, it seems I heard somewhere that just one's city or township met the legal minimum but I can't recall for sure.

    I suspect think this would be a tough one because the answer probably involves case rather than statutory law.
    Full name, address, and date of birth are generally the 3 required parts of identification....well, unless you're a cop. I always ask these 3 things of any cop during a witness cross examination (basic background questions). I don't get all three mind you ... but its always fun to ask and watch.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Hunting also requires ID upon demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hevymetal View Post
    Is it ID or simply provide a valid license for whatever you may be hunting?
    For hunting, driving or carrying concealed it's 'provide a license to prove you are licensed to perform a licensed activity', but everyone seems to get that confused with 'provide a license to prove you are licensed to live'.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    130
    Now this man's a hero, helped by the fact that Kolender really, really, liked beating his head against a wall more than he liked admitting defeat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...il_rights_case

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Hevymetal View Post
    Sounds about right to me. Your drivers license us a contract with the state. Stating you will show it upon request WHEN DRIVING a motor vehicle. If your not driving it's your choice to show it to an officer.

    If you CC and an officer discovers this then you must show your CPL. If you OC in a conceal free zone (school, hospital etc.) you would be required to prove you have a CPL to exempt yourself for that particular area.

    If you OC in your normal daily activity and you are stopped and asked for ID simply because you a carrying a firearm and you are not in a vehicle nor in a conceal free zone, then there is NO obligation to provide any type of ID. You can say "No thanks, have a nice day.' Then calmly walk in the opposite direction.
    What if you have never contracted with the state for the privilege to drive however you simply exercised your natural RIGHT TO TRAVEL in your automobile/property without a permission slip from the state?

    The problem is more and more folks/citizens are entering into contracts with the state and its de facto agency's thereby waiving some of their natural rights for a mere privilege, unbeknown to said citizen that the contract and waiving of rights gives the LEO and the courts jurisdiction over said citizen...

    No license is required to exercise a right. Let's wake up and never contract with the G.

    My .02
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Wisc. Stats. § 968.24  Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...tatutes/968/24

    Annotations of case law

    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).

    A defendant's flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989).

    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).

    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).

    When a person's activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).

    A "showup" where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification, often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0168.

    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0695.

    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2588.

    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.

    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect's pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99-1686.

    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. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821.

    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when: 1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98-3541.

    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop. Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information, risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00-2614.

    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01-0549.

    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer's seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01-0904.

    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer's belief that his, her, or another's safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant's hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02-1540.

    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    When the defendant's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person's name when the police officer reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self-incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05-2778.

    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.

    When a person who is temporarily detained for investigation pursuant to a Terry stop is then moved to another location, courts conduct a two-part inquiry: First, was the person moved within the vicinity of the stop? Second, was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable? Ten miles is too distant a transportation to be within the vicinity so long as the temporary detention is supported by no more than a reasonable suspicion. In order for the transporting of a defendant to a hospital that was not in the vicinity of the stop to have been lawful, it must have been supported by probable cause to arrest or by a reasonable exercise of the community caretaker function. State v. Blatterman, 2015 WI 46, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 13-2107.

    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and `Reasonable Suspicion.' Andregg. Wis. Law. June 2005.

    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/I/11
    Since all the case law you posted favors the government entity, I would suggest that a citizen simply exercise their right to remain silent, except to ask for counsel when stopped and detained by a LEO or any agent of the G.
    My .02
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not quite so - apparently only 24 states do.
    http://www.copblock.org/28042/let-me-see-your-i-d/

    I don't care too much for that site, but there is information to be gleaned there.
    That's just regurgitated inaccurate stuff from other sites. For example they all list Florida as a 'Stop & Identify' state, it's not.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Originally Posted by notalawyer

    I'm pretty positive every state requires one to identify themselves when lawfully detained (RS of criminal activity) or arrested.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not quite so - apparently only 24 states do.
    http://www.copblock.org/28042/let-me-see-your-i-d/
    --snipped--
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    That's just regurgitated inaccurate stuff from other sites. For example they all list Florida as a 'Stop & Identify' state, it's not.
    No sir, it was a cite demonstrating that "every state" does not require one to ID themselves.

    Though I do not attest as to the absolute accuracy of the information, IMO it still stands as sufficient to make the point.......of that I am pretty positive
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Ok, well before this thread gets too far off track, in Michigan, assuming there is a valid detention/arrest, what is the minimum identification required under either statutory or case law? Full name or first only, first and last only, etc. Full address or just the political subdivision, i.e. city or township? Date of birth? Yep, splitting hairs but I have always been curious!

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Ok, well before this thread gets too far off track, in Michigan, assuming there is a valid detention/arrest, what is the minimum identification required under either statutory or case law? Full name or first only, first and last only, etc. Full address or just the political subdivision, i.e. city or township? Date of birth? Yep, splitting hairs but I have always been curious!
    Simple, if you are engaged in an activity that requires a licence you must produce that license (Driving/hunting/fishing etc.). If you are not doing those things then in Michigan you do NOT have to give ID, or provide a name. You do NOT have to answer any questions.

    Keep in mind they MAY arrest and take you in to ID you. But legally they can only do that if they have PC of a crime.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Ok, well before this thread gets too far off track, in Michigan, assuming there is a valid detention/arrest, what is the minimum identification required under either statutory or case law? Full name or first only, first and last only, etc. Full address or just the political subdivision, i.e. city or township? Date of birth? Yep, splitting hairs but I have always been curious!
    As warned, I'm splitting hairs but here is the actual question [with enhanced clarification], thanks!

    "...what is the minimum identification [that must be provided to an LEO if legally] required [pursuant to a lawful detention/arrest]...?

    Minimum could be:

    1) I'm Joe.
    2) I'm Joe Smith.
    3) I'm Joseph Douglas Smith, IV.

    4) one of the 1st 3 above + and I live in Kent County
    5) one of the 1st 3 above + and I live in Courtland Township
    6) one of the 1st 3 above + and my street address is .....

    7) one of the 6 above + my date of birth is ....
    8) one of the 7 above + my social security number is ....
    Last edited by OC4me; 08-31-2015 at 11:33 AM.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    As warned, I'm splitting hairs but here is the actual question [with enhanced clarification], thanks!

    "...what is the minimum identification [that must be provided to an LEO if legally] required [pursuant to a lawful detention/arrest]...?

    Minimum could be:

    1) I'm Joe.
    2) I'm Joe Smith.
    3) I'm Joseph Douglas Smith, IV.

    4) one of the 1st 3 above + and I live in Kent County
    5) one of the 1st 3 above + and I live in Courtland Township
    6) one of the 1st 3 above + and my street address is .....

    7) one of the 6 above + my date of birth is ....
    8) one of the 7 above + my social security number is ....
    Revised edition:

    My name is Joe. I live in Kent County. My lawyer's name is...... Please direct all other questions to him.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    What about laws to make the LEO identify him/her SELF as a LEO?

    The cops in Charlottesville can, apparently throw you to the ground or jump on your windshield in plain clothes if they think you bought something beer bottle shaped, or are leaving the doorway of a bar and they're from the A.B.C. board, I mean Booze-SWAT.

    /sarcasm

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    130
    I was VERY SURE that LEOs, when in public in uniform, or when exerting police power upon a peon, are required to produce identification on demand.

    However, I'm having trouble coming up with a statute to cite for that.
    And I could swear I found it in a two minute Yahoo search back in the 1990s when I first got internet access.
    Last edited by taxman; 08-31-2015 at 06:53 PM.

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
  •