Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: ID law?

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    This weekend while out OC'ing I realized I had left my DL (my only form of ID) at home. That got me thinking...

    On several occasions in the past I have been told by LEOs that you are required by law to carry some official ID anytime you are in a public place.

    I know you're required to show a DL if you're driving. How about if you're just walking down the street? I'm unable to find anything in any of the CA codes about this.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    This weekend while out OC'ing I realized I had left my DL (my only form of ID) at home. That got me thinking...

    On several occasions in the past I have been told by LEOs that you are required by law to carry some official ID anytime you are in a public place.

    I know you're required to show a DL if you're driving. How about if you're just walking down the street? I'm unable to find anything in any of the CA codes about this.
    I believe you havent found any CA code on the subject, because there is no requirement to provide photo ID outside of driving a motor vehicle. You are however, required to provide your full name and address- (But Im uncertain what case law or citation references to post. I accept my penalty on the play.)

    (Review my interaction with Redding Police, August 12. I had intended to decline photo ID- I only mucked it up forgetting to leave my CDL in my vehicle and then unintentionally handed it to the officer. This is what Mike the supermod refers to as "sterile carry".)
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    This one only applies if you are in violation of a Vehicle Code section. Keep in mindsections of VCapply tobeing on foot and bicycle (jay walking - no bike lamp at night, etc....)

    VC 40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this
    code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken
    without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in
    which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who
    has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible
    with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the
    following cases:
    (a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license
    or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
    (b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise
    to appear in court.
    (c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance
    before a magistrate.
    (d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section
    23152.


    This next one is of dubious constitutionality and we have been warned to use it in only extraordinary circumstances (after reading the case law below I won't be using it ever) .

    PC 647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
    of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

    (e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
    without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
    himself or herself
    and to account for his or her presence when
    requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
    circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
    safety demands this identification.


    (the following was plagiarized)

    Kolender vs. Lawson (1983), which I believe is the original SCOTUS ruling on the Must Show ID issue.

    Hibel vs. Humboldt County which went up to the sixth judicial court of Nevada (2004).


    Here are some interesting highlights from Kolender vs. Lawson:




    Quote:



    Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . . ." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]
    Quote:



    We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is so ordered.
    Quote:



    In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4
    Unless an officer has probable cause to believe I committed a crime, they cannot compel an answer, and they must allow me to leave after a reasonably brief period.



  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the case references. Very helpful to have a SCOTUS ruling on that.

    However, I now am left wondering what a "reasonably brief" detention is for the purposes of identifying and questioning. 5 min? 20 min? 2 hours? I'm guessing this is left up to the detaining officer... ironically 'encouraging arbitrary enforcement.'
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I know of detectives that have attempted to question a known suspect for 48 hours in custodyand then 849 PC (release on no charges). Very dangerous tactic as it raises false arrest concerns. So one needs to take into consideration the nature of the crime and evidence available.

    For something simple, as long as you're not answering questions voluntarily and no other leads are being followed up by the officers, 20 min. might be too long. If witnesses and victims are being interviewed and evidence collected andsearch warrants obtainedthen several hours or morecould be a reasonable detention.

    Length of time means nothing if you don't have the means to sue to protect your rights and the DA's office ortheFBI do not investigate you claims.

    But if you're ever held and you think it is unjustified do make a complaint. It may not result in anything the first time. But if the detentions continue, a la open carry legally, it documents a pattern that will help in the future.


  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Something else I find very interesting in Kolender v. Lawson (written in the concurring opinion):

    In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest.
    The court's opinion very clearly states that you don't have to provide even your name or any other identifying information during a "Terry stop," and that refusing to answer such questions cannot be used as grounds for extended detention or arrest.

    Keep in mind that this is the case even if they suspect criminal activity is afoot. It is my understanding that until they have sufficient evidence to make an arrest, LEOs have no power to compel you to identify yourself.

    So, let's say I'm openly carrying my firearm and get stopped. LEO asks for ID, I respond that I am not required to provide an ID. LEO goes on to ask for my name, DOB, SSN, address, etc. I refuse to provide that information. LEO asks what my business is walking down a public street - I refuse to answer. (...and so on.) Unless the officer has some specific, articulable evidence to arrest me on, he has to let me go on about my business.

    Am I missing something here, or is this just another one of those things most LEOs don't want you to know?
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    So, let's say I'm openly carrying my firearm and get stopped. LEO asks for ID, I respond that I am not required to provide an ID. LEO goes on to ask for my name, DOB, SSN, address, etc. I refuse to provide that information. LEO asks what my business is walking down a public street - I refuse to answer. (...and so on.) Unless the officer has some specific, articulable evidence to arrest me on, he has to let me go on about my business.
    And having a recording devise will go a long way toward proving your version of events. Absent evidence that your rights were abused you will get nowhere with a complaint. Witnesses can alsohelp protect against a false arrest or false 5150 detention (all it takes is for someone to claim that you told them you wish to harm yourself or another). Once you're in custody a recording may disappear.

    However as the law enforcementwho may monitor this board or laterare stung by a recorded event realize false arrests and reports may endanger their careers and liberty, I think the slim chance that the above could happen (as I do have faith in most LEOs to act lawfully) will greatly diminish. The lawful gun carrier is generally LEs biggest support base IMO. Peace and order with liberty is all we want.


  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I've considered the possibility that my recording could disappear if I ever am arrested. I trust Turlock police more than any other LE I've dealt with, so I don't worry too much. Even so, I think it's about a 50/50 chance that there would be some tampering with evidence.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orange, California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Something else I find very interesting in Kolender v. Lawson (written in the concurring opinion):
    In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest.

    Keep in mind that this is the case even if they suspect criminal activity is afoot. It is my understanding that until they have sufficient evidence to make an arrest, LEOs have no power to compel you to identify yourself.

    So, let's say I'm openly carrying my firearm and get stopped. LEO asks for ID, I respond that I am not required to provide an ID. LEO goes on to ask for my name, DOB, SSN, address, etc. I refuse to provide that information. LEO asks what my business is walking down a public street - I refuse to answer. (...and so on.) Unless the officer has some specific, articulable evidence to arrest me on, he has to let me go on about my business.
    Hello to All, I'm a new guy here, and I'm also a new guy on the CaliforniaCCW forum under the same name. I am attempting to educate myself on the various aspects of both CCW (LTC) and OC. My question is if I am OC and am stopped bythe recognized local Law Enforcementagency to identify myself, why would I not do so? As a citizen I should always strive to comply with their request.
    After I provide anything and everything requested of me and they realize that I am legally OC and have no intention of commiting a crime, I would imagine our parting ways as follows. "Thank you Mr. So n So. I apologize for the inconvenience, thank you for your cooperation, have a good day". At which time I would thank the officer and mention that I understand that he was questioning me as a matter of public safety.
    I figure that if I cooperate, they will see that I'm one of the good guys. Or should being prepared for the worst possible scenario be the biggest concern?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orange, California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Hello All again, I guess that I don't know very much about how to reply because my last post doesn't look the way that your posts do. Sorry, what do you expect from a New Guy?:?

  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    plinker wrote:
    Hello to All, I'm a new guy here, and I'm also a new guy on the CaliforniaCCW forum under the same name. I am attempting to educate myself on the various aspects of both CCW (LTC) and OC. My question is if I am OC and am stopped by the recognized local Law Enforcement agency to identify myself, why would I not do so? As a citizen I should always strive to comply with their request.

    After I provide anything and everything requested of me and they realize that I am legally OC and have no intention of commiting a crime, I would imagine our parting ways as follows. "Thank you Mr. So n So. I apologize for the inconvenience, thank you for your cooperation, have a good day". At which time I would thank the officer and mention that I understand that he was questioning me as a matter of public safety.

    I figure that if I cooperate, they will see that I'm one of the good guys. Or should being prepared for the worst possible scenario be the biggest concern?

    I think I sorted out your post. Correct me if Im wrong.

    There are a couple of different thoughts on interaction with police while open carrying. 1) Is to comply with questioning, searches, and requests for ID whether or not probable cause can be articulated. 2) Is to endure detainment, exercise the right to remain silent and offer minimal cooperation in the investigation of a 'non-crime' where the police have not or cannot articulate probable cause.

    If you have reviewed my interaction with the police last month, you can see that it transpired pretty much as you described in your 'Mr. Son So' example. There is nothing wrong with complying with their requests, but there is value in limiting police scrutiny of lawfully armed individuals.

    Either way, the regular excersize of open caryy will eventually acclimate law enforcement to the presence of lawfully armed individuals and police involvementwill eventually subside to an appropriate andreasonable level of attention.

    Welcome aboard plinker.... Im pleased we have a new recruit.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the boards! Don't worry about the formatting, these forums aren't very user friendly, so we won't hold it against you.

    My question is if I am OC and am stopped by the recognized local Law Enforcement agency to identify myself, why would I not do so? As a citizen I should always strive to comply with their request...

    ... I would thank the officer and mention that I understand that he was questioning me as a matter of public safety.
    If you feel that it is in your best interest to "always strive to comply" then have at it.

    However, I do not feel this is in my best interest. In fact, I feel the more we comply with violations of our 4th Amendment rights, the more often they will be violated. Just like any other right, use it or lose it.

    Also understand that 'questining you as a matter of public safety' is no excuse for violating a constitutional right.

    The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.
    ~Thomas Jefferson
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orange, California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Welcome to the boards! Don't worry about the formatting, these forums aren't very user friendly, so we won't hold it against you.
    Thank you, just took a little experimenting. Hope this one turns out okay

    ConditionThree wrote:
    I think I sorted out your post. Correct me if Im wrong.
    Welcome aboard plinker.... Im pleased we have a new recruit.
    Yes you did sort it out correctly.

    Thank you for your replies. Guess that I have a lot more reading to do in order to get a better grasp of the subject. But then that's what this Forum is for.





  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    OK, I asked this question on another forum and was directed to Hiibel v. Nevada.

    Basically, the court ruled that during a Terry stop you are required to identify yourself. SCOTUS ruled that this is not a violation of your 4th or 5th amendment rights (although I disagree). While the court focuses only on giving your name, it does not prohibit a statute from requiring more information (such as DOB, SSN, etc).

    Hiibel was charged with "willfully resisting, obstructing, or delaying a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office." Here's a [url=http://papersplease.org/hiibel/]website[url] where you can see the encounter as recorded form the dash camera. All Hiibel did was refuse to show an ID.

    The court failed to address the issue of if a statute could require particular 'papers' for identification. As far as I know, there's no statute saying you have to obtain a CA ID or DL. So, if stopped while walking down the street it is possible someone would not even possess 'papers.' This makes me think it would be hard to create a statutory requirement for such.

    I can only come to the following conclusion: you have to answer questions about your identity during Terry stops. There is no clear case law on what information this includes.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    OK, I asked this question on another forum and was directed to Hiibel v. Nevada.

    Basically, the court ruled that during a Terry stop you are required to identify yourself.
    No! The court ruled that state laws requiring you to identify yourself are not unconstitutional.

    If your state has no such law, the Hiibel ruling does not require you to identify yourself.


  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    On several occasions in the past I have been told by LEOs that you are required by law to carry some official ID anytime you are in a public place.
    OK, that is definitely false - see Kolender v. Lawsen where the Supre Court strick down law requiring people to carry credible identification.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    OK, I asked this question on another forum and was directed to Hiibel v. Nevada.

    Basically, the court ruled that during a Terry stop you are required to identify yourself.
    No! The court ruled that state laws requiring you to identify yourself are not unconstitutional.

    If your state has no such law, the Hiibel ruling does not require you to identify yourself.
    You are right, I did write that incorrectly... what I intended to convey is that a law may require you to ID yourself during a Terry stop.

    If there is no statute, then they can't enforce it. If there is a statute, it has to be worded well to comply with Kolender, et al.

    Thanks for the clarification.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    So, this brings me back to my original question: Does CA have a 'stop & identify' law on the books?

    Did Kolender actually strike down the entire statute, or simply modify how it may be enforced?
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  19. #19
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    So, this brings me back to my original question: Does CA have a 'stop & identify' law on the books?

    Did Kolender actually strike down the entire statute, or simply modify how it may be enforced?
    Not that I have been taught. And not that I have been able to find so I say no, not yet in CA (other then 40302a VC; Must present IDwhile being in violation of the vehicle code - which as I mentioned has sections that govern pedestrians and bicycles, horses, wagonsetc...)

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Did Kolender actually strike down the entire statute, or simply modify how it may be enforced?
    It struck down the ordiance - google the decision.



  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Did Kolender actually strike down the entire statute, or simply modify how it may be enforced?
    It struck down the ordiance - google the decision.
    I actually read the entire decision on FindLaw.com, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what the decision means.

    Maybe I missed something... I'll read through it again this weekend.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •