quick question

If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?

speedy40165 said:

If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. And the cop really has no business in stopping you. Just walk away.

If you got a recorder, record it.

I'm no lawyer but, no you do not. I'm sure someone will post all the reasons way, but I know that have to have a reason to stop you.

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk

Just to expound further

You may know you're doing nothing wrong, but if Officer Friendly believes or is willing to say he has a 'reasonable articulable suspicion' that you are involved in a crime, he has the authority to stop and detain you.

You are not required to provide ID documents, only documents proving you are legally doing a licensed thing (driving, carrying weapon in some localities, etc)

You may be required to provide identification which the Supreme Court says can be satisfied with a true accounting of your name and date of birth.




Any other questions Officer Friendly asks are intended to provide proof of guilt, not proof of innocence, act accordingly and only give "Name, rank and serial number" so to speak.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Snip
You may be required to provide identification which the Supreme Court says can be satisfied with a true accounting of your name and date of birth.

Click to expand...

Not totally correct. The case is Hiibel.
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.

Click to expand...

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.

speedy40165 said:

If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?

Click to expand...

My 2 cents:

Although there is no legal requirement to do so, **and having nothing to do with your decision to provide/not provide ID, or with any previous posts**, I suggest not being an a$$ in one's encounters with police, regardless.

Exercise your rights politely and forcefully (if needed), but don't be one of "those" OC people.

color of law said:

Not totally correct. The case is Hiibel.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that....

Click to expand...

Counselor, you are correct, in the case of Nevada, but not in general.
- all require more than a mere true name and as far as I know none of them have had the constitutionality of their stater codes challenged.

If I recall Hiibel correctly* NRS §171.123 requires someone stopped with RAS to 'identify' themselves (which is somewhat vague), which Larry Dudley Hiibel completely refused to do.
Hiibel was charged with obstruction by the Sheriff's Office of Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel was convicted, Justice Court for Union Township, Nevada
Hiibel conviction was affirmed, Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal
Hiibel appealed to the US Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.
Hiibel lost.

Summarized:

Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment

Click to expand...

In the Hiible v Sixth case, the NV Code says "identify" without stating any particulars. Hiible... refused to even reveal his name.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Counselor, you are correct, in the case of Nevada, but not in general.

Alabama §15-5-30,
Colorado §16-3-103,
Delaware §1902,
Illinois §107-14,
Indiana §34-28-5-3.5,
Kansas §22-2402,
Louisiana §215.1,
Montana § 46-5-401,
Nebraska §29-829,
New Hampshire §594:2,
New York §140.50,
North Dakota §29-29-21,
Ohio §2921.29,
Rhode Island §12-7-1,
Utah §77-7-15, and
Wisconsin §968.24​

- all require more than a mere true name and as far as I know none of them have had the constitutionality of their stater codes challenged.

If I recall Hiibel correctly* NRS §171.123 requires someone stopped with RAS to 'identify' themselves (which is somewhat vague), which Larry Dudley Hiibel completely refused to do.
Hiibel was charged with obstruction by the Sheriff's Office of Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel was convicted, Justice Court for Union Township, Nevada
Hiibel conviction was affirmed, Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal
Hiibel appealed to the US Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.
Hiibel lost.

Summarized:


In the Hiible v Sixth case, the NV Code says "identify" without stating any particulars. Hiible... refused to even reveal his name.

Click to expand...

What part of the Hiibel quote don't you understand?

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.

Click to expand...

The above bold does not say: The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name [address and date of birth] in the course of a Terry stop. The above quote in bold does not say Navada, it says "a State." A State means all 50 states.

color of law said:

What part of the Hiibel quote don't you understand?

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.

Click to expand...

The above bold does not say: The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name [address and date of birth] in the course of a Terry stop. The above quote in bold does not say Navada, it says "a State." A State means all 50 states.

Click to expand...

I understand it quite well, I understand it well enough to understand that it doesn't say " a State May Only Require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop."

To reiterate:
Hiibel was required by Nevada to identify himself, Hiibel refused on the grounds that he shouldn't have to.

Hiibel was convicted, appealed and had his conviction affirmed.

Hiibel Lost because the court ruled that he had to disclose his identity. The court agreed that in the case of Nevada (which does not specify which information must be disclosed) that his name would have satisfied the NRS.

Other states, other laws, disobey those laws at your own peril.
Unless, that is... you're saying those laws are null and void. ... Are you?

As an aside... If the police can't ask your date of birth, and you refuse to divulge it -
Guess what happens when there are two John Jones' in the state and one is wanted for felony spitting on the sidewalk? Anyone think the cops are going to say "Well, Mr John Jones, there's a warrant for a John Jones, so you have a good day and be careful crossing the street, m'kay? See ya."