Does ID have to be produced???

GLENGLOCKER · Nov 10, 2007

imported post

Here's another twist to the VA CHP. The address on the CHP does not have to match the one on the valid ID. As far the original question the post started with. I would show my ID since a crime was commited to help catch the BG before it could escalate into a violent encounter which would lead to more anti gun press.

possumboy · Nov 10, 2007

imported post

ijusam wrote:

Mr. Y wrote:

snip

Click to expand...

Remember, it's perfectly legal for cops to lie to you, but a crime for you to lie to them.

snip

Click to expand...

for my information, do you have a cite? is it always or just under oath, hindering the investigation of another? if it is a blanket "shall not make any false statements" do you have a cite exempting the leo?

What are you asking? What gives a LEO the right to lie, or what makes it a crime for you to lie to LE?

Most codes have something along the lines of "does not apply to Law Enforcement in performance of duties..."

Whatmakes it illegal for you - during an investigation - in Virginia is: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-460+401555

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false [/b]statement[/b] or representation to a law[/b]-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Mike · Nov 10, 2007

imported post

Toad wrote:

One can be a CHP holder from a reciprocal state and not have a Va issued non-resident CHP. do they still need to have the seperate ID even if their state CHP doen't have a picture? I see nothing in the code sections posted in the thread so far that mentions that they must.

No - the VSP CHP IS Commonwealth ID.

roscoe13 · Nov 10, 2007

imported post

Mike wrote:

Toad wrote:

One can be a CHP holder from a reciprocal state and not have a Va issued non-resident CHP. do they still need to have the seperate ID even if their state CHP doen't have a picture? I see nothing in the code sections posted in the thread so far that mentions that they must.

Click to expand...

No - the VSP CHP IS Commonwealth ID.

Read it again. He's talking about someone that has an out of state permit from a state that's recognized in VA...

Mike · Nov 11, 2007

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

Read it again. He's talking about someone that has an out of state permit from a state that's recognized in VA...

OK, got it - the answer is that persons carrying in VA on other states' concealed handgun permits have no duty under VA law per se, 18.2-308(P) to either (1) have a photo on the permit, or (2) carry photo ID with a permit.

"P. A valid concealed handgun or concealed weapon permit or license issued by another state shall authorize the holder of such permit or license who is at least 21 years of age to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth, provided (i) the issuing authority provides the means for instantaneous verification of the validity of all such permits or licenses issued within that state, accessible 24 hours a day, and (ii) except for the age of the permit or license holder and the type of weapon authorized to be carried, the requirements and qualifications of that state's law are adequate to prevent possession of a permit or license by persons who would be denied a permit in the Commonwealth under this section. The Superintendent of State Police shall (a) in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General determine whether states meet the requirements and qualifications of this section, (b) maintain a registry of such states on the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN), and (c) make the registry available to law-enforcement officers for investigative purposes. The Superintendent of the State Police, in consultation with the Attorney General, may also enter into agreements for reciprocal recognition with any state qualifying for recognition under this subsection."

However, if the other state requires a photo ID to be carried with the non-photo permit, then it would be extremely prudent to do so in VA.

Interestingly, Del. Nutter's annual bill to make VA a "shall accept state," which gets killed every year by Senator Stolle (R - VA Beach) on Courts of Justice committee, goes over-bpard the other direction - requiring additional photo ID regardless of whether the out of state permit has a photo on it.

TEX1N · Nov 12, 2007

imported post

Mike wrote:

hinch wrote:

Virginia has no Stop and Identify Laws, however in that case I believe that the cop would have probable cause to detain and search you for an ID.

Click to expand...

probable casue of what crime?

There is no precedent that allows cops to search for ID for the sole purpose of identification. They can only search for weapons (based on reasonable suspicion that you have/are/will commit a crime and are armed and dangerous, or on consent), and for contraband or evidence of a crime (based on probable cause that you have/are/will commit a crime, or on search incident to arrest based on probable cause, or on consent).

If the police can legally detain you, then - in most states, not including VA - they can require you to identify yourself (see Hiibel). However, this ID doesn't have to be a physical ID card and can be a verbal identification.

Think about it, in VA you are not required to carry an ID (unless participating in certain events; driving, CHP, etc.), so how could the police require you to produce ID?!?

Edit: I corrected a misstatement above about VA ID laws.

TEX1N · Nov 12, 2007

imported post

ijusam wrote:

Mr. Y wrote:

Remember, it's perfectly legal for cops to lie to you, but a crime for you to lie to them.

Click to expand...

for my information, do you have a cite? is it always or just under oath, hindering the investigation of another? if it is a blanket "shall not make any false statements" do you have a cite exempting the leo?

There is a U.S. Supreme Court case out there that allows police to lie to suspects during the course of an investigation. They can't lie under oath. I can try to find the case if you really need it. Just PM me.

TEX1N · Nov 12, 2007

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

I am thinking this person did not have to produce ID but would like to hear more expert opinions than my own. This not a 'scenario', this was a real police investigation. No, not me or anyone I know.:shock:

A cop is investigating a non-violent crime. Investigating officer know's the BG's name,clues lead him to an address which happens to be a retail store. Cop walks into store, see's an employee and ask, "Are you Joe Smith" BG: yes, Cop: Show me some ID.

For further discussion, If person in store answer's No, I am not Joe Smith can LEO demand ID?

If the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are Joe Smith and has a reasonable suspicion that Smith committed the crime at hand, then he can detain you until he either collects enough evidence to that of probable cause that you are Smith, at which point he can arrest you (or issue you a summons, depending on the crime); or he can detain you until he receives enough evidence that you are not Smith, which would remove his reasonable suspicion for the detainment, at which point he must let you go (or try to continue a consensual encounter).

So basically if the officer walks up to you because you fit the description of Smith, and asks, "Are you Joe Smith?" And you reply, "No, I'm John Doe!" You don't have to tell them anything else (and in VA you might not even have to give them your name, see Hiibel below), however the officer could still detain you until he can in some way verify that you are Doe and not Smith. So by offering more identifying info it could really help yourself out, but you are not required to if you would rather play it that way.

For more info on ID case law see Hiibel:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) [References omitted]:

...Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement 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. To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and … reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ” For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, or resemble a traditional arrest.

...

Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in cases such as this, where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault...

...

The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The reasonableness of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined “by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests.” The Nevada statute satisfies that standard. The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the Nevada statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself: it does not change its duration, Place, or its location. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You might also want to read Terry concerning case law of the stop itself:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

sjhipple · Nov 12, 2007

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

If the police can legally detain you, then they can require you to identify yourself (I can find the Supreme Court case if anyone needs it). However, this ID doesn't have to be a physical ID card and can be a verbal identification

If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, I'm not sure you're correct. The case you're thinking of is Hilbel v. Sixth Judicial District. The differentiation between what you're saying and what the case actually says is slight and easy to confuse, but you do not have to identify yourself in Virginia.

Hilbel ONLY said that *IF* a state has a stop and identify statute, the Supreme Court won't knock it down on 4th or 5th Amendment grounds. That's DIFFERENT than saying that every citizen must identify themselves.

Virginia does NOT have a stop and identify law so you are never, ever ever required to show ID unless you're behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle (for which you need a license to operate).NOR are you required to verbally identify yourself.

Regardless of whether you're detained...heck, even if you're arrested, you still don't have to show any ID or give verbal identification (they'll probably take it during the post-arrest search anyway, but nonetheless).

--Edit--

Your next post is correct so I must have misunderstood what you were saying here

TEX1N · Nov 13, 2007

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

Your next post is correct so I must have misunderstood what you were saying here

I edited my first post to correct it. I was almost positive that Hiibel allowed the police to require you to ID yourself if you were legally detained. In my later post I ended up rereading Hiibel, and then realized that there must first be a state law in place to require you to ID yourself, which you were correct that VA doesn't have such a law.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes!!! :lol:

Mike · Nov 13, 2007

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

If the police can legally detain you, then - in most states, not including VA - they can require you to identify yourself (see Hiibel). However, this ID doesn't have to be a physical ID card and can be a verbal identification.

As far as i am aware, Nevada is the only state with a generalized stop and ID (er, state your name) statute. There might be 1-2 more, but I have not heard of them

sailer · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

At the October Tidewater OCDO dinner someone asserted there is a Virginia Beach ordinance requiring any citizen to have and produce ID on demand of any LEO.

Can someone point me to more info about this?

ijusam · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Whatmakes it illegal for you - during an investigation - in Virginia is: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-460+401555

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false [/b]statement[/b] or representation to a law[/b]-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

yes, this says that if you lie about an investigation of someone else its a class one misdemeanor. it doesn't say you can't lie to the police.

"I was with her all night, she couldn't have done it." If this is a lie then you are in violation of the above statute.

"No, I'm not John Smith" this is not a violation of the above statute. if the investigation is about YOU.

Don't try this under oath kiddies.

ijusam · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

ijusam wrote:

Mr. Y wrote:

Remember, it's perfectly legal for cops to lie to you, but a crime for you to lie to them.

Click to expand...

for my information, do you have a cite? is it always or just under oath, hindering the investigation of another? if it is a blanket "shall not make any false statements" do you have a cite exempting the leo?

Click to expand...

There is a U.S. Supreme Court case out there that allows police to lie to suspects during the course of an investigation. They can't lie under oath. I can try to find the case if you really need it. Just PM me.

I don't really need a cite, my point is I keep seeing the above statement and it says that it is a crime to lie to police. this is true under certain circumstances. about someone else's investigation, making false reports, perjury. however there seems to be nothing I have found that says that you can't lie to the police. ie. I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'M not John Smith, ect. Why should it be a crime? they won't believe anything you say except a full confession anyway.

so, if it's not against the law for me to lie to them, then why should it be against the law for them to lie to me? the only downside is any lie they catch you in just proves you are a lier, and any lie they tell is just good police work

TheApostle · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

FLAG!!! :exclaim:

Mike wrote:

Huh? An arrest cannot be made absent probable cause; and for misdemanros, state law requires issuance of summons, generally, provided the subject states his name and address.

Actually, state law does not require it: Obviously you cannot arrest someone for a class 3 or 4 misdemeanor since there is no jail time attached. For class 1 and 2 misdemeanors, you can issue a summons, but you can take out a warrant. State Code actually says:

§ 19.2-73. Issuance of summons instead of warrant in certain cases.

A. In any misdemeanor case or in any class of misdemeanor cases, or in any case involving complaints made by any state or local governmental official or employee having responsibility for the enforcement of any statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, the magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction may issue a summons instead of a warrant when there is reason to believe that the person charged will appear in the courts having jurisdiction over the trial of the offense charged.

B. If any person under suspicion for driving while intoxicated has been taken to a medical facility for treatment or evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer at the medical facility may issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons for a violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, 18.2-272 or 46.2-341.24 and for refusal of tests in violation of subsection A of § 18.2-268.3 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.26:3, in lieu of securing a warrant.

C. Any person on whom such summons is served shall appear on the date set forth in same, and if such person fails to appear in such court at such time and on such date then he shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of § 19.2-128, regardless of the disposition of, and in addition to, the charge upon which he was originally arrested.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-146; 1972, c. 461; 1975, c. 495; 1978, c. 500; 1981, c. 382; 2005, c. 425.)

Citizen · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

Cite, please, Mike.

Regarding TheApostle's penalty flag, hopefully it won't apply to the first clause of Mike's post.

Regarding the second clause, there is a VA statute addressing the exact point Mike is making. It has to do with whether and when a police officer can arrest for a misdemeanor.

TheApostle · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

Citizen please cite the code requiring a LEO to release on a summons.

http://virginiacriminallawyers.vatrafficlaw.com/pages/felony-vs-misdemeanor.html

Above is a link explaining misdemeanor classes. Classes 3-4 cannot be punished by jail time, therefore an arrest cannot be made. Jail time can be served for classes 1 and 2, therefore a LEO can arrest (with a warrant) or issue a summons.

I resubmit to you the state code dealing with that:

§ 19.2-73. Issuance of summons instead of warrant in certain cases.

A. In any misdemeanor case or in any class of misdemeanor cases, or in any case involving complaints made by any state or local governmental official or employee having responsibility for the enforcement of any statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, the magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction may issue a summons instead of a warrant when there is reason to believe that the person charged will appear in the courts having jurisdiction over the trial of the offense charged.

vmaxanarchist · Nov 14, 2007

imported post

There seems to be at least one situation where ID can be demanded while not driving. After a LEO has seen you driving, but are now parked and out of the car. This case http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0191p-06.pdfwas in Ohio. It started with a consensual encounter because the guy was losttrying to pickup his girlfriend. After giving him directions the LEO then asked him for ID so he could log the encounter. The guy said he didn't have ID. The officer then turned it into a terry stop where he patted him down and discovered marijuana in his pocket. This lead to an arrest where they searched his car and found a gun.

The appellate court up held the arrest because he had the articulable fact for the terry stop when the guy said he didn't have ID and the LEO had seen him recently driving his car. Thus he suspected he had broken the law of driving without a license.

So, it seems that if an LEO knows or can reasonably suspect that you have been driving a car recently. You should tell him you don't want to show him ID. Don't tell him you don't have any.

[font=Arial,Arial][/font]

Mike · Nov 15, 2007

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

Mike wrote:

Huh? An arrest cannot be made absent probable cause; and for misdemanros, state law requires issuance of summons, generally, provided the subject states his name and address.

Click to expand...

Actually, state law does not require it: Obviously you cannot arrest someone for a class 3 or 4 misdemeanor since there is no jail time attached.

Obviously? Obviously? Obviously? Huh?

Where does this bizzarre urban legend come from linking arrest power to potential jail time of the offense? Talk about penalty flag material!

The controlling statute is V.a Code Section 19.2-74 and it canbe found at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-74

A 1991 formal VA AG Opinion by Mary Sue Terry declared that the plain meaning of § 19.2-74 is that an [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]"Arresting Officer Is Required to Release Person Under § 19.2-74 Unless Officer Determines that Person Qualifies for One or More Specified Exceptions to Summons Procedure." [/font]Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 127, WL 531052 (Va. A.G.). No authority before or after this AG opinion conflicts on this question.

TheApostle · Nov 15, 2007

imported post

You answered into the second section of the code you just quoted. Then you failed to deal with the section of code that compliments the section you quoted. Furthermore, how do YOU stick someone in jail for a non-jailable offense? That doesn't even make good nonsense. :banghead: To do that, you have to meet the criteria as mentioned in the code: cessation of illegal activity. Then you have to bring him before the magistrate and then release him on a summons at that point!

You quoted:

2. Whenever any person is detained by or is in the custody of an arresting officer for a violation of any county, city, or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code, punishable as a Class 3 or Class 4 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he cannot receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or to the offense of public drunkenness as defined in § 18.2-388, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving of such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82.

We can argue semantics all day long. Cop talk, sleazy politician talk, or lawyer talk. Bizzare urban legend? I retire from this argument.

Does ID have to be produced???

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Campaign Veteran

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member