• 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.

Giving name/ID card to Police?

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).

My question is do you have the legal requirement to give a photo ID or other ID. My guess is not, but I have read stories of people being arrested for failing to give ID. Someday when I open carry in public (hopefully soon) I wish to know what I legally have to give to an officer when he hassles me. I will not give him my ID unless I am legally required to.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

smithman wrote:
I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).

I don't think so. Here is a report of an account by one of our members in VA and he didn't provide his name to investigating LEOs. Not his last name, anyway.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3671.html

Apparently there were no adverse effects from what he did on that score.
 

Brigdh

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
147
Location
, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
smithman wrote:
I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).

I don't think so. Here is a report of an account by one of our members in VA and he didn't provide his name to investigating LEOs. Not his last name, anyway.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3671.html

Apparently there were no adverse effects from what he did on that score.
Unfortunatally Hank, this is Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a shall identify law. I don't remember the statute number and have yet to really look into it. I doubt it means that you are required to carry and produce ID upon demand, but I am reasonably sure that it means you must identify your self when asked by LEOs, in ANY situation.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

smithman wrote:
I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).
That would be the 5-4 Hiibel case and it applies opnly (1) if your state has a stop/ID law and even then (2) only in a Terry stop scenario where the LEO has reasonable articulable suspician thart you are doing somthing illegal, or about to, and, weirdly (3) the opinion holds out the possibility that a person might have a 5th amendment right to refuse (i.e., maybe you are wanted?). Anyway, I doubt WI has such a statute - if so, please show us.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

I'll do the work if you'll give me a hint at where to start. I searched on "identification" and 465 hits in statutes and a tenth of that in acts but no where a description of the structure to give me an idea of which to read.

It is clear to me that the LRB or whatever is zealously guarding its ricebowl.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Unless something has been inserted somewhere other than the obstruction statute, it appears that in Wisconsin there is no general requirement to identify yourself.

The Hiibel case had no effect in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Courtruled that mere refusal to identify onself to police is not obstruction of justice.

Wisconsin statutes contain the following annotation to Ch. 946.41 (the obstruction statute):

No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person's refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

A more detailed discussion is contained in this Madison Police Department "Legal Update":

http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/PDF_Files/Summer%202004.pdf
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

smithman wrote:
Shotgun, and all, thanks much. I searched and here is the PDF that refers to this statute 946.41---Page 5.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0946.pdf

Is there a specific annotation dealing with photo ID that I am missing? This would depend if wisconsinites are required by law to have a state issued ID?

Obstruction is a class A...same level as carrying concealed.
Thanks for the pointer. How in Hades would one know to look here for a hypothetical exception to an Act or Statute on Identification?
 

Brigdh

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
147
Location
, ,
imported post

I will try to find my source that Wisconsin has a shall identify law. If I cannot, I must be mistaken that one exists, and rather quite happier for it. I would love to be disproved.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

After perusing, contra studying, 968.24, it may be that the Wiki 'statement' may be a conclusion rather than a fact. That is a lot of law from which to conclude that there is a 'stop and identify' requirement.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

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.

History: 1993 a. 486.

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, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 05−2778.

Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
2005.
NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

In the Madison training bulliten it would appear on its face that the duty to identify on applies if you are a subject of a lawful Terry stop.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Wisconsin does not have a stop identify statute!

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf:
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.
But then neither is open carry mentioned as prohibited.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

This is curious.... does anybody have thoughts about this as well? If I read this right, a police officer can disarm you for questioning, while open carrying. Then you have to prove that you lawfully obtained your firearm to get it back on the spot, or risk being arrested??


968.25 Search during temporary questioning. When a
law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning
pursuant to s. 968.24 and reasonably suspects that he or
she or another is in danger of physical injury
, the law enforcement
officer may search such person for weapons or any instrument or
article or substance readily capable of causing physical injury and
of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons.
If the law enforcement officer finds such a weapon or instrument,
or any other property possession of which the law enforcement
officer reasonably believes may constitute the commission
of a crime, or which may constitute a threat to his or her safety, the
law enforcement officer may take it and keep it until the completion
of the questioning
, at which time the law enforcement officer
shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so
questioned.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

smithman wrote:
This is curious.... does anybody have thoughts about this as well? If I read this right, a police officer can disarm you for questioning, while open carrying. Then you have to prove that you lawfully obtained your firearm to get it back on the spot, or risk being arrested??


968.25 Search during temporary questioning. When a
law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning
pursuant to s. 968.24 and reasonably suspects that he or
she or another is in danger of physical injury
, the law enforcement
officer may search such person for weapons or any instrument or
article or substance readily capable of causing physical injury and
of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons.
If the law enforcement officer finds such a weapon or instrument,
or any other property possession of which the law enforcement
officer reasonably believes may constitute the commission
of a crime, or which may constitute a threat to his or her safety, the
law enforcement officer may take it and keep it until the completion
of the questioning
, at which time the law enforcement officer
shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so
questioned.
Two comments IANAL

'Reasonably' probably has a test and the word is 'possessed' and not 'obtained.'

There are about two thousand words of 'annotations', stare decisis, previous decisions, case law that need to be evaluated. Wis Statutes are phucked to the max but they do incorporate case law.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Wisconsin does not have a stop identify statute!

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf:
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.
But then neither is open carry mentioned as prohibited.
What do you think a stop/identify statute is? I suggest reading Hiibel one more time.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Brigdh wrote:
Suprisingly enough it was on wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Wisconsin Statute 968.24 (page 10, right column):
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

So unfortunatally Shotgun, its not obstruction, its violation of another law. If they don't get you with one thing, they get you with another...
Directly from the statues with case law (968.24):

"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."

IANAL But I read this as follows: therefore if a police officer asks for your identification, in order to lawfully decline you must ask him if you are a suspect in a specific crime. If he says no, then you do not violate this statute. But as I read it he can still disarm you pursuant to 968.25 during the encounter.
 
Top