• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Michigan Laws regarding Identifying to Law Enformcement

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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
 

taxman

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
124
Location
Michigan
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:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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.

That would make options 1) and 4) winners! Cite to Michigan statutory/common law please?
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.

And whyever not? I think much of what they do goes hand in hand with Open Carry. We all know the risk of being harassed by police increases when we OC and we already employ many of the tactics used by Copblock to force accountability. They just go further as they don't expect open carry but rather go out of their way to hold police accountable.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
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.

And whyever not? I think much of what they do goes hand in hand with Open Carry. We all know the risk of being harassed by police increases when we OC and we already employ many of the tactics used by Copblock to force accountability. They just go further as they don't expect open carry but rather go out of their way to hold police accountable.
IMO - giving one sided reports slants the site(s) too heavily to one side.

Previous decisions and OCDO rules make it quite clear that it is most unacceptable to concentrate on providing a litany of alleged abuses.

Personally I have found the risk of harassment to be extremely low. I OC while dining, shopping, buying tires, talking with friends etc basically 24/7. Often time I am seen by LEOs who just nod and/or smile and continue on their way. That is what we work to accomplish.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
IMO - giving one sided reports slants the site(s) too heavily to one side.

Previous decisions and OCDO rules make it quite clear that it is most unacceptable to concentrate on providing a litany of alleged abuses.

Personally I have found the risk of harassment to be extremely low. I OC while dining, shopping, buying tires, talking with friends etc basically 24/7. Often time I am seen by LEOs who just nod and/or smile and continue on their way. That is what we work to accomplish.

It depends on the area. If you were to OC in the middle of Chicago or Boston you'd likely get assaulted daily by police. In the South, it's another matter or in NV, AZ etc. Their OC is common enough and the police are far more sensible. I'm still wondering what will happen when I start to OC here in Seattle. But thats another topic. Point is where there is power there is the risk of abuse of that power. In some areas it's common in others not so much
 

taxman

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
124
Location
Michigan
Personally I have found the risk of harassment to be extremely low. I OC while dining, shopping, buying tires, talking with friends etc basically 24/7. Often time I am seen by LEOs who just nod and/or smile and continue on their way. That is what we work to accomplish.

I'm beginning to think that cops are much more concerned with OCers of video cameras than OCers of firearms. But Heaven help you if you OC a firearm while pointing a camera at a badge toting thug. And you don't really know if he's a thug or a cop until he sees you holding a camera.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
I'm beginning to think that cops are much more concerned with OCers of video cameras than OCers of firearms. But Heaven help you if you OC a firearm while pointing a camera at a badge toting thug. And you don't really know if he's a thug or a cop until he sees you holding a camera.

This is true. Which is why Copblocking should go hand in hand with OCing.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Wisconsin law does not comply with the USSC. One of the cases that Wisconsin cites is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons.

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.

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

The Wisconsin law goes well beyond Hiibel.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
It depends on the area. If you were to OC in the middle of Chicago or Boston you'd likely get assaulted daily by police. In the South, it's another matter or in NV, AZ etc. Their OC is common enough and the police are far more sensible. I'm still wondering what will happen when I start to OC here in Seattle. But thats another topic. Point is where there is power there is the risk of abuse of that power. In some areas it's common in others not so much

Very true. In Iowa I can and have carried just about anywhere (except for the exempted areas) without much issue. Isn't there a guy called Hoss USMC who lives and carries in Seattle?
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
I'm beginning to think that cops are much more concerned with OCers of video cameras than OCers of firearms. But Heaven help you if you OC a firearm while pointing a camera at a badge toting thug. And you don't really know if he's a thug or a cop until he sees you holding a camera.

And given the "high alert" status most of the country's departments are on nowadays, it seems the simple act of standing in one spot watching a certain building can get you assaulted or detained.

We have to be extra vigilant when we are OC'ing now that the police are on red alert.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Very true. In Iowa I can and have carried just about anywhere (except for the exempted areas) without much issue. Isn't there a guy called Hoss USMC who lives and carries in Seattle?

I have no idea but if there is let me know off thread. We don't want to drag this too far off topic
 
Top