Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Are you required to show ID to an officer when asked?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    I've been searching both the state statues and google, and can't find anything that says you must show ID to an officer when asked (when not operating a motor vehicle, obviously you have to when you're driving). Anyone know anything about this?



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Search this forum and you'll find quite a few threads on this subject.

    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice. There may have been no good cause to detain you, and thus any request for information made thereafter is illegal, but you're going to spend some time in cuffs and in a holding cellif you chooseto argue the point. You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

    Some states codify your right to resist unlawful arrest or detention, with force if necessary, while others state that resisting arrest is a crime even if the arrest is found to be unlawful. Either way, telling a cop how to do his job is not a smart move.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    I'm talking specifically about Florida - in other states you do NOT have to show ID, specifically Virginia. I believe there, you have to provide your name, but you do not have to show an officer identification unless you're driving a vehicle.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view - especially when the 'suggestion' is from one who lies as a matter of course in his business.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    The only statute that 'requires' an individual to ID themselves is the loitering statute, but as you can see it only covers certain places/times. So generally the answer to your questions is No.

    856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.--
    (1)It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
    (2)Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
    (3)Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    You can always ask the officer. “Am I required by law to provide you with this information?” If he tries to divert by asking something unrelated like, “Why wouldn’t you want to show me your ID?” then you probably have your answer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    There's a protest thay I may be attending - hence these questions. The protest is against an organization known for harassment and retributive acts. I'm toying with the idea of carrying no identification at all for the event, no credit cards, no ID, nothing. I'm starting to wonder if I should ask a FL attorney this.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    ChronoSphere wrote:
    There's a protest thay I may be attending - hence these questions. The protest is against an organization known for harassment and retributive acts. I'm toying with the idea of carrying no identification at all for the event, no credit cards, no ID, nothing. I'm starting to wonder if I should ask a FL attorney this.
    One would hope the organization would have legal help available for such questions way ahead of time.

    Does identifying one's self actually even require an ID card? Simply stating one's name ought to be sufficient.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    There is no "organization" that is running this protest. Having some sort of entity means the target of the protest would have something to attack or harass. In any case, I was hoping that I could get some answers here, but there isn't anyone who can answer this but an attorney I suspect, so there I will go next. Thanks for everyone's help so far.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    Well, no, it's certainly not cause for arrest if you mean "lawful cause."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    ChronoSphere wrote:
    There's a protest thay I may be attending - hence these questions. The protest is against an organization known for harassment and retributive acts. I'm toying with the idea of carrying no identification at all for the event, no credit cards, no ID, nothing. I'm starting to wonder if I should ask a FL attorney this.
    There is no law that states you have to carry any form of identification. This isn't Nazi Germany. If you're not driving and don't need identification to go about your daily life, then I see no reason why you couldn't go about not having any identification. And if you are detained/arrested your name, DOB, and address can easily be given to obtain your identity.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    This is false... The officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are currently committing or are about to commit a crime. What Liko writes can actually be read as, "My articulable reason is that the suspect is wearing a watch."


    Florida's closest thing to a Stop & Identify statute is 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.--

    (1)It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

    (2)Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.

    ----------------

    Most statutes you'll find simply require you to state your name, address, perhaps date of birth and business/destination. As someone has previously mentioned, you're not required in the US to carry around your papers.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view - especially when the 'suggestion' is from one who lies as a matter of course in his business.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and the truth. NRA *******
    QED

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    From the FL gov't website:


    790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.
    -- (1)The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9). Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court.




    Hope the above helps!

    edit: oops! somehow cut off the 7 in 790!


  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    This is false... The officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are currently committing or are about to commit a crime. What Liko writes can actually be read as, "My articulable reason is that the suspect is wearing a watch."

    Most statutes you'll find simply require you to state your name, address, perhaps date of birth and business/destination. As someone has previously mentioned, you're not required in the US to carry around your papers.
    And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information. In addition, providing false identification to an officer who has lawfully arrested, lawfullydetained, or has cause to believe you are a witness to a crime is also a criminal offense in most states. Thus, it follows logically that the officer can verify identity if possible. The law thusdoes not compel you to carry ID, but if the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion of a false identity and you cannot or will not verify it, you can be arrested for failure to identify and held until your identity is verified.

    In addition, it is illegal in Texasto resist an officer's arrest, detentionor search by force, even if the officer's action is unlawful.It is also illegal to flee from an officer who is attempting to arrest or detain. Therefore,if an officer stops you to ask you a question regarding a reported or suspected crime,you are being detained.If you fail to answer and attempt tokeep walking, that is evading detention. If you give false information (including sarcastic answers like "Joe Blow") that is failure to identify. You are now suspected of a crime for which youcan bearrested. Failure to identify yourself at that point is an additionalcriminal offense, and if you start making a scene ("take your hands off me!") and back it up with even a slap or a wrench to the wrist you are in deep water. All of this means that trying to stand up for your rights by treating an officer like he does not exist is a VERY bad decision, and if the officer's having a bad day and you irk him further by blowing him off,he can very plausibly make you cool your heels in a squad car or holding cell, all within the letter of the law, and he will face not one word of censurePROVIDED that he was trying to do his job when you blew him off.

    All that said, that's Texas law and other states may grant officers more or fewer tools under the law to get what they need. I do not know Florida statutes (though statute 90 above looks pretty cut-and-dried if you have your weapon with you), but I imagine if you treat a cop like dirtyou won't getmuch further. They are human, and it is only common courtesy and a few seconds' inconvenience to answer the officer's questionsand then politely excuse yourself, and it's a Pandora's box to do otherwise.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I have a question similar to the original. I live in an apt complex in FL which has just signed a contract with a new security company. Does this company have any right to ask me for identification - or am I correct that only an officer of the law has any right to ask for my identification.

    Thanks,
    Seeking

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    SeekingInfo wrote:
    I have a question similar to the original. I live in an apt complex in FL which has just signed a contract with a new security company. Does this company have any right to ask me for identification - or am I correct that only an officer of the law has any right to ask for my identification.

    Thanks,
    Seeking
    If you're seeking entrance onto their property, you need to adhear to their policies if you wish to actually gain access. You're absolutely not required to show your ID, but then again, you won't be allowed on the premises.


    EDIT: If you're talking about walking around the premises and you're questioned by one of the security officers, once again, they have the right to toss you off of their grounds if you don't undergo their questioning.

    Property rights generally trump your rights (except for the right to live, etc.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Well, the property owner (through the contracted firm) can require some type of identification proving that you actually live there, but cannot force you to show a DL. Some people don't have a DL.

    This identification process must be spelled out in the rental agreement.

    Renters have many protections spelled out in Florida Stautes... INAL, but this one may be relevant:

    83.67 Prohibited practices.--
    . . .


    (2) A landlord of any dwelling unit governed by this part shall not prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to the dwelling unit by any means . . .

    You should really work out the details with the landlord and/or an attorney. (Me, personally am not showing ID to anyone to gain access to my 'Home')

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    In addition, providing false identification to an officer who has lawfully arrested, lawfullydetained, or has cause to believe you are a witness to a crime is also a criminal offense in most states. Thus, it follows logically that the officer can verify identity if possible.
    I don't think that follows at all.

    The officer asks your identity. You reply and give him a name and an address. What gives him probable cause to believe that you lied? Assuming you're not a politician, the mere fact that you opened your mouth doesn't mean you lied.

    Without some reason to believe that you're lying, I can't see how the officer is justified in requiring you to hand over an identification document.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    I have been stopped a total of 3 times by an officer, while I was carrying.



    Two of those times I showed the officer my identification and my carry permit. In those two instances I did not receive a ticket.

    In the third incident I did not show the officer my carry permit, and in that instance I did receive a ticket.

    These are just a recital of incidents in my life, draw your own inferences.



    Tarzan

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    This is false... The officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are currently committing or are about to commit a crime. What Liko writes can actually be read as, "My articulable reason is that the suspect is wearing a watch."

    Most statutes you'll find simply require you to state your name, address, perhaps date of birth and business/destination. As someone has previously mentioned, you're not required in the US to carry around your papers.
    And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.
    Penalty Flag. Announcing rule of law without citation to authority.

    Generally, under, inter alia, the Fifth Amendment, everybody has a right to "refuse to heed an officer's request for informtion."

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    This is false... The officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are currently committing or are about to commit a crime. What Liko writes can actually be read as, "My articulable reason is that the suspect is wearing a watch."

    Most statutes you'll find simply require you to state your name, address, perhaps date of birth and business/destination. As someone has previously mentioned, you're not required in the US to carry around your papers.
    And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.
    Penalty Flag. Announcing rule of law without citation to authority.

    Generally, under, inter alia, the Fifth Amendment, everybody has a right to "refuse to heed an officer's request for informtion."
    When you are formally accused of a crime. The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsion to give self-incriminating testimony; the officers cannot force you to admit you committed a crime. They can however compel you to give information that does not incriminate you, and to do so truthfully. Depending on your surroundings and circumstances, that is obstruction of justice, contempt of court, perjury,etc etc. andattempting to invokethe Fifth Amendment just gets you a jail cell until you're ready to talk or they find out what theywanted to know fromyou through some other means.

    I say it again; treating a cop like scum is a very bad move, regardless of how "right" you are in doing so. Let's make it personally applicable to you; if you back-talk or smart-mouth an officer and are arrested for it, regardless of how frivolous the charge, you now have an arrest on your record. You are therefore under information for a crime; even if they decide not to charge you, the matter is not cleared until you are indicted and the case is resolved. That therefore shows up on every criminal background check, for employment, firearms purchase, or CHL renewal until the statute of limitations for that particular crime passes. If the crime they arrest you for is a felony or a severe misdemeanor, you areat least detainedif not denied whenbuying from an FFL, you are unlikely to be able to change jobs, and every cop who pulls you over for an improper lane change is going to see that arrest, know that you ran your mouth to a cop, and is not going to cut you an ounce of slack. It quite simply is not worth getting in a testosterone contest with a police officer. If you "know" the officer has no power to compel you to provide the information he's requested, you can politely refuse, you're correct that it is your right. What happens then is up to the officer and you're not going to get much further with him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    In general, a police officer can detain you for any articulable reason relating to his duties as an officer. It's called a "Terry stop". During such detention, a failure to heed an officer's request for information, including a request for ID,is causefor arreston charges ofhindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice.
    This is false... The officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are currently committing or are about to commit a crime. What Liko writes can actually be read as, "My articulable reason is that the suspect is wearing a watch."

    Most statutes you'll find simply require you to state your name, address, perhaps date of birth and business/destination. As someone has previously mentioned, you're not required in the US to carry around your papers.
    And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.
    Penalty Flag. Announcing rule of law without citation to authority.

    Generally, under, inter alia, the Fifth Amendment, everybody has a right to "refuse to heed an officer's request for informtion."
    When you are formally accused of a crime. The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsion to give self-incriminating testimony; the officers cannot force you to admit you committed a crime. They can however compel you to give information that does not incriminate you, and to do so truthfully. Depending on your surroundings and circumstances, that is obstruction of justice, contempt of court, perjury,etc etc. andattempting to invokethe Fifth Amendment just gets you a jail cell until you're ready to talk or they find out what theywanted to know fromyou through some other means.

    I say it again; treating a cop like scum is a very bad move, regardless of how "right" you are in doing so. Let's make it personally applicable to you; if you back-talk or smart-mouth an officer and are arrested for it, regardless of how frivolous the charge, you now have an arrest on your record. You are therefore under information for a crime; even if they decide not to charge you, the matter is not cleared until you are indicted and the case is resolved. That therefore shows up on every criminal background check, for employment, firearms purchase, or CHL renewal until the statute of limitations for that particular crime passes. If the crime they arrest you for is a felony or a severe misdemeanor, you areat least detainedif not denied whenbuying from an FFL, you are unlikely to be able to change jobs, and every cop who pulls you over for an improper lane change is going to see that arrest, know that you ran your mouth to a cop, and is not going to cut you an ounce of slack. It quite simply is not worth getting in a testosterone contest with a police officer. If you "know" the officer has no power to compel you to provide the information he's requested, you can politely refuse, you're correct that it is your right. What happens then is up to the officer and you're not going to get much further with him.
    How did we get from having to produce ID, to being formally charged with a crime? Anyway, I'm going to have to throw another Penalty Flag

    You still have not provided a cite to Florida Statute or case law.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    How did we get from having to produce ID, to being formally charged with a crime? Anyway, I'm going to have to throw another Penalty Flag

    You still have not provided a cite to Florida Statute or case law.
    It's relatively easy to follow that progression; Super-Mod claimed that the Fifth Amendment gave us the right to refuse to provide information topolice officers. I countered with the fact that the Fifth Amendment only prevents government compelling you to provide self-incriminating evidence or testimony; otherwise it's usually a violation along the lines of obstruction of justice. If the information requested does not implicate you in a crime, or immunity has been granted, you CAN be compelled to provide it or punished for refusal to do so.

    As far as citations of law, here you go:
    843.06 Neglect or refusal to aid peace officers.--Whoever, being required in the name of the state by any officer of the Florida Highway Patrol, police officer, beverage enforcement agent, or watchman, neglects or refuses to assist him or her in the execution of his or her office in a criminal case, or in the preservation of the peace, or the apprehending or securing of any person for a breach of the peace, or in case of the rescue or escape of a person arrested upon civil process, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    Officer asks you a question related to a suspected or committed crime (said crime can be unlawful carry of a firearm, defined in part as not carrying your permit when you carry your firearm). You ignore him and continue to walk. He stops you to repeat the question. Further physical action on your part contrary to the officer'sattempted interview is now in violation of the letter of 843.02. He directs you to answer the question. You refuse. You are now in violation of 843.06. That's one A misdemeanor and one B misdemeanor, both of which are generally arrestable offenses and can result in totaljail time of up to a year and two months if the judge is also having a bad day or you treat him like HE isn't worthy of respect. At no point ineither statute does it state the officer is required to have arrested you for either to apply.

    Quite simply, it is againstFlorida law to refuse to cooperate with a police officer who is acting in an official capacity. Is a cop LIKELY to toss you for this? I wouldn't think so. Would a cop having a bad day face disciplinary action for arresting you for such a thing? Probably not, ASSUMING the information he needed from you was related to some official duty he isobligated to perform as part of hisspecific assignment (whatever he was called out for) or his job as an LEO in general. If the officer cancome up with areasonfor asking to see your ID that convinces a judge the officer was acting in an official capacity, you're guilty under the letter of the law even if you were acting lawfully when you were approached and thus whether it goes to trial or not you've been in cuffs, and the police officer was totally covered in his actions.

    There is no flag on the play. :P


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    If the information requested does not implicate you in a crime, or immunity has been granted, you CAN be compelled to provide it or punished for refusal to do so.
    How do you know if the information implicates you in a crime?

    It's hard to see how your identity could implicate you, granted. Much beyond that, though, and it may get tricky to know what is subject to 5th amendment protection and what isn't. Keep in mind that it's perfectly possible to say something that implicates you in a crime you didn't commit, so the knowledge that you're innocent of any crime doesn't make you safe.

    It's pretty clear to me that if you are a suspect of something even remotely serious, you should probably refuse to say anything further. That doesn't mean ignoring the officer, it means informing him that you won't provide any information without advice from your attorney. Of course, that raises the question of how you know if you're a suspect, and of what.

    Personally, I'd probably err on the side of being helpful to the LEO, but that may be due to naive and excessive trust of the justice system.

    Just to play devil's advocate, though, suppose you were stopped while OC'ing your .40, and the officer asked your name, checked your ID and recorded your name, then let you go about your business. Then suppose that 30 minutes later someone was shot and killed with a .40-caliber handgun in the vicinity. No witnesses. Because the cop has your identity and knows you were in the area, carrying the right kind of gun, you suddenly become a suspect. Throw in a couple of coincidences and some bad luck, and you could become the prime suspect. It probably wouldn't be enough to convict you, but it might be enough to get a civil judgement against you, and it would at least cost you a lot of time, money and grief. All because you cooperated and offered your identity.

    The odds against such a sequence of events are staggering, of course. Still, it might be better not to have your name in a policeman's notebook.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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