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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And if you don't, that's failure to heed an officer's request for information.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

swillden wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Simple; you ask the officer. Be polite and respectful, but insist that you know what's going on before you volunteer any information about yourself other than your name You're right; unless there is a warrant for your arrest your name will not incriminate you, but other information might, and therefore it is your right as a citizen to ask the officer his purpose in requesting any further information.In many cases, the law forbidsan officerfromtelling a flat-out lie relating to his duties (there are of course exceptions such asundercover ops and most but not allstings). They can always refuse to answer.

For instance, you're OCing and going about your day. An officer walks up and asks if he can see your identification. Your response should be "well certainly I have it with me, but mayI first ask why you need to see it?" The officer, if not on a power trip, will probably tell you that he just wants to make sure you're carrying lawfully, or may volunteer information that someone phoned in a MWAG call so he needs to verify that no law has been broken to close the call. Further cooperation on your part is dependent on state law (you may or may not be required to carryan ID and/or permitwhen you carry a handgun) and your own judgement.

I personally would provide ID, assuming in this case it was needed forproof of legality, and then ask the officer the same question posed here: why was I singled out when the officer had no cause to believe I was doing anything illegal? Driving without a license is also illegal, but the assumption, based on "innocent until proven guilty",is generally that the driver has one until there is cause to believe otherwise. And if OC without any identification is not illegal, what crime is there to commit in the first place? I don't expect an answer, but it may make the officer think, and maybe next time I won't have to be interviewed; the officer will show up, take a look, find no probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and leave. The desired result is achieved, probably not as fast assome would like, but without any disrespect either way, and no trips in the back of a squad car.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

swillden wrote:

Of course, that raises the question of how you know if you're a suspect, and of what.

Click to expand...

Simple; you ask the officer. [...] In many cases, the law forbidsan officerfromtelling a flat-out lie relating to his duties (there are of course exceptions such asundercover ops and most but not allstings).

Click to expand...

Cite?

I can't find any such statute in Utah law. As far as I can tell, the notion that officers can't lie is a common myth derived from case law related to entrapment.

I personally would provide ID, assuming in this case it was needed forproof of legality

Click to expand...

For legality of what? OC? Are there any states where the law allows for OC but only if you identify yourself?

In Utah, loaded OC is illegal without a concealed firearms permit. So in my state, if I'm carrying loaded the officer has every right to ask for my CFP, and I'd hand it over without question. If I'm carrying unloaded, however, the officer has no need to know who I am, but only that the gun is unloaded (which, for an autoloader in Utah, means nothing in the pipe, the mag can be full).

As I said before, personally, I'd tend to cooperate. But there's a very good argument to be made that cooperation places you at legal risk, and I'm sure many a risk-averse (and fee-hungry) attorney would counsel you not to cooperate.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

swillden wrote:

Of course, that raises the question of how you know if you're a suspect, and of what.

Click to expand...

Simple; you ask the officer. [...] In many cases, the law forbidsan officerfromtelling a flat-out lie relating to his duties (there are of course exceptions such asundercover ops and most but not allstings).

Click to expand...

Cite?

I can't find any such statute in Utah law. As far as I can tell, the notion that officers can't lie is a common myth derived from case law related to entrapment.

I personally would provide ID, assuming in this case it was needed forproof of legality

Click to expand...

For legality of what? OC? Are there any states where the law allows for OC but only if you identify yourself?

In Utah, loaded OC is illegal without a concealed firearms permit. So in my state, if I'm carrying loaded the officer has every right to ask for my CFP, and I'd hand it over without question. If I'm carrying unloaded, however, the officer has no need to know who I am, but only that the gun is unloaded (which, for an autoloader in Utah, means nothing in the pipe, the mag can be full).

As I said before, personally, I'd tend to cooperate. But there's a very good argument to be made that cooperation places you at legal risk, and I'm sure many a risk-averse (and fee-hungry) attorney would counsel you not to cooperate.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the map on OCDO's front page and you'll see a few green states. Those are states where a permit is required to OC (usually the same permit that allows for CC). Georgia, for instance, is one of them. Upon request by a police officer, you must, if you are open carrying, be able to produce your carry permit. I cite thusly:

§ 16-11-128.Carrying pistol without license (a)A person commits the offense of carrying a pistol without a license when he has or carries on or about his person, outside of his home, motor vehicle, or place of business, any pistol or revolver without having on his person a valid license issued by the judge of the probate court of the county in which he resides, provided that no permit shall be required for persons with a valid hunting or fishing license on their person or for persons not required by law to have hunting licenses who are engaged in legal hunting, fishing, or sport shooting when the persons have the permission of the owner of the land on which the activities are being conducted; provided, further, that the pistol or revolver, whenever loaded, shall be carried only in an open and fully exposed manner.

Click to expand...

In addition, a GFL is not a photo ID as permits in some other states are; the person carrying the GFL must therefore also carry a valid photo ID to tie the GFL to the person carrying it. If you cannot produce either or both, you are breaking the law in that state. Notice I did say I would provide identification IF NECESSARY TO VERIFY LEGALITY; if carrying without a permit is legal in a state you are under no legal obligation to be able to provide ID (you still avoid a lot of hassle by being able to do so). On a related note, Georgia law does not differentiate between loaded and unloaded except when hunting, somost public OCers in Georgiamust have a GFL regardless of where the ammo is.

Now, as far as police officers telling the truth, you're right in that entrapment is not a defense; entrapment is encouragement by LEOs to commit a crime that they then charge you with, and giving a self-incriminating statement is not a crime and thus not entrapment. It's also not perjury unless the officer is under oath when the intentionally false statement is made. Itreally isn't even illegal for a police officer to lie when not underoath.It does however torpedo the investigation. Untruthful statements are inadmissible as evidence; that's why there are oaths and the crime of perjury.Any action and any evidence collected as a result of a false statement is also inadmissible for the same reason. In addition, if there is one false statement made there is usually at least one other; the false statement made by the officer, and the statement by the officer that theydid not make a false statement. One of these will be on recordin the reportsupporting the arrest and evidence. If the statement can be proven false (others' testimony, audio recording, a conflicting report) then anything discovered as a result of the original false statement having been made is gone like it never happened and the officer is in deep kim chee.

Based on the same rules of evidence, a warrant or subpoena isssued based on false statements (made under oath)is invalid, and any evidence it provides is inadmissible. By the same token, probable cause, justified after the fact by the officer again under oath, is also invalid and the evidence inadmissible if the officer makes false statements and either repeats them under oath or denies having made them under oath. It is therefore not in the officer's best interest, if he wants the DA to have any case against the defendant, to say anything patently false in order to encourage a person to provide evidence in an investigation. The officer is in no legal trouble if no statement was made under oath or written into the record,but if the statementcan be proven by the defense to have been made and be false,not only is the case dismissed, but the officer, department and DA's office are all open to considerable liability for libel and slander, false arrest/imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. If a false statement IS made under oath, there's all that, PLUS the officer is in really hot water legally. There is simply too much for the entire prosecutorial side to lose by lying.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

Take a look at the map on OCDO's front page and you'll see a few green states. Those are states where a permit is required to OC (usually the same permit that allows for CC). Georgia, for instance, is one of them. Upon request by a police officer, you must, if you are open carrying, be able to produce your carry permit.

Click to expand...

This is an issue of terminology, you said "ID", which I took to be a simple identification document, but you meant "permit", which is an identification document but also a permission-to-carry credential.

Liko81 wrote:

In addition, a GFL is not a photo ID as permits in some other states are; the person carrying the GFL must also carry a valid photo ID to tie the GFL to the person carrying it.

Click to expand...

Except in this case, the permit is not an identification document, so you really should have said "permit" if you meant "permit".

We weren't discussing whether or not you are required to provide your permit in states where a permit is required to OC. If a permit is required, the law almost certainly authorizes the officer to demand it. The discussion is about whether or not you have to provide ID in a situation where you are not required to have a permit.

Liko81 wrote:

Any action and any evidence collected as a result of a false statement is also inadmissible.

Click to expand...

Cite?

My impression is that police are absolutely allowed to lie, and that they do it all the time in order to get information, and that information is perfectly admissable. They can't threaten, or entrap, but deceit is fair game.

Liko81 wrote:

A warrant or subpoena isssued based on false statements made under oathis invalid, and any evidence it provides is inadmissible.

Click to expand...

Clearly, but this is an entirely separate issue.

There's also my point that the officer doesn't have to be lying. He could be telling the truth about not suspecting you, and later change his mind -- perhaps as a result of the information you provided. Further, he could always claim that was what happened; it's pretty hard to prove anything about what went on inside someone's head.

imported post

@Swillden: I see that you like taking things I say out of context. You neglected to mention that I did indeed say thatA FALSE STATEMENTMUST BE PROVEN FALSE. Perjury's got a pretty stiff penalty, but you rarely see someone charged with it even if the statement is found to be false, because the individual must have known it was false when they said it. However,that doesn't make it any lessillegal, and if proven sothe testimony of the individual and/or the statement provided by the individual is thrown out. Depending on the case and judge even a whiff of falsification can be enough for a judge to throw out evidence.

In addition, two statements that contradict each other constitute perjury. It is immaterial WHICH statement was false, and the contradiction, if caught before theindividual officiallyretracts his original statement, is prima facie of perjury. So, an officer who records one thing in their notebook, submits that report as part of the investigation such that it becomes evidence, and then testifies to the contrary is committing perjury. This is all based on TPC Chapter 37. If a statement is retracted, perjury did not occur, butif the statement is the basis for the collection of evidence and that statement is retracted, the evidence no longer has any basis and is suppressed. This is standard rules of evidence; you can'tdecieve someone to getinformation, then say "I'm sorry, that was wrong" and still expect the information to stand up in court. It is thus a risky move, because if caught the case falls apart.

Theexceptions are undercover sting operations, which require a judge's warrant and thus the court knows the players, the deceptionand the crime if not the criminals themselves before the sting is even put into play. Even then there are rules for many stings; the TABC for example when doing underage alcohol sales stingsuses a minor, but that minor is not allowed to drink, not allowed to lie about their age, and not allowed to provide a fake ID. Any of those constitutes some illegal action by the TABC (CDM, perjury or forgery) and the bust won't stand up in court. Similarly, a lie about being a cop is also entrapment; it's common knowledge nobody's dumb enough to commit a crime in front of a cop, making it a situation in which the person would not normally commit a crime and is being encouraged todo so- entrapment. Officers in the sting must therefore avoid that question being asked in the first place.

You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I disagree with you. Let me clarify:if open carry without a permit is legal wherever you happen to be at the time, the officer has no reason to stop you and no reason to ask for ID.The officer can ask for a permit, and if that permit is not also avalidID the officer can demand ID, but neither apply if you don't need a permit in the first place.

My point however is, if the laws of your state are similar to Florida's cited above, where resistance to an officer and refusal to aid does not have to involve a physical action or inaction and does not exempt resistance to unlawful action by an officer, you're going to take the ride if you refuse and youcan be foundguilty of those offensesby the letter of the law. If you say the law is morallywrong then this is me agreeing with you; it allows an officer to abuse his position with impunity in this respect. That does not reduce or eliminate your guilt and possible punishment under that law if you break it.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

I see that you like taking things I say out of context.

Click to expand...

Certainly not intentionally. If you find a case where a quote's removal from its context alters its meaning, please point it out.

Liko81 wrote:

You neglected to mention that I did indeed say thatA FALSE STATEMENTMUST BE PROVEN FALSE. Perjury's got a pretty stiff penalty, but you rarely see someone charged with it even if the statement is found to be false, because the individual must have known it was false when they said it. However,that doesn't make it any lessillegal, and if proven sothe testimony of the individual and/or the statement provided by the individual is thrown out.

Click to expand...

But now you're talking about perjury, which isn't what we were discussing. An officer's statements to you on the street are not under oath and are in no way perjury, even if they're false. Denying under oath that he made those statements would be perjury, but why would he need to deny them?

Your claim is that the officer isn't allowed to lie to you on the street. I still don't see any substantiation of that claim.

Liko81 wrote:

So, an officer who records one thing in their notebook, submits that report as part of the investigation such that it becomes evidence, and then testifies to the contrary is committing perjury.

Click to expand...

But, again, that's not what we're talking about.

To recap, just for clarity, here's the situation I'm claiming may justify your refusal to answer an officer's question:

You're stopped on the street, for OC'ing or whatever other reason. The officer asks you some questions, including your identity. You ask, "Why, am I a suspect?". The officer answers "No, I'm just looking for some information".

The question is: Can you safely answer the questions? Can you safely identify yourself? Or, is anything you say potentially usable against you?

I maintain that anything you say could implicate you in a crime, and you can't know what you can safely say and what you can't. Even just identifying yourself could potentially make you a suspect for a crime that you don't know about and perhaps hasn't even been committed yet.

After thinking about this some more, though, I think you're right. Although giving the cop your identity could result in you being looked up and considered as a suspect, where you might not have been found otherwise, any other information you give the cop should be okay.

Here's my reasoning (IANAL): There's a conflict between your obligation to assist the officer and your right to avoid self-incrimination. But there's an easy way to resolve that conflict; the court can simply regard as inadmissable any information you provided between the time you were told you were not a suspect and the time you were later arrested and read your rights. Since you were told you weren't a suspect you had no reason to try to avoid self-incrimination and bowed to the demands of the law that you assist the officer.

If the judge won't exclude the information you provided, I think your lawyer would have a ready-made appeal, because to admit that information as evidence would mean that citizens would have to assume that anything they told an officer could be used against them at any time, even if they didn't know it was incriminating, and that in the interest of avoiding self-incrimination they should never talk to a cop. This would put the fifth amendment in direct conflict with the state statute requiring citizens to aid police officers and essentially invalidate the state statute.

imported post

Bootstrapping ofvague "obstruction" statutes and "assist officer" statutes to make it a crime to refuse to talk to the police is not going to cut it; as the VA AG and other courts have ruled, absent a Hiibel like statute, nobody has a duty to identify themseves, or, under the 4th and 5th amendments, put up with a detention and answer police questions. See, e.g., Terry, Kolender, Hiibel.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Bootstrapping ofvague "obstruction" statutes and "assist officer" statutes to make it a crime to refuse to talk to the police is not going to cut it; as the VA AG and other courts have ruled, absent a Hiibel like statute, nobody has a duty to identify themseves, or, under the 4th and 5th amendments, put up with a detention and answer police questions. See, e.g., Terry, Kolender, Hiibel.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to imply that there was a duty to identify, just saying that if you did cooperate you could probably get any information you provided to be held inadmissable in criminal proceedings against you.

Thanks for the pointer to the Hiibel case. I'm reading up on it.

imported post

swillden wrote:

I wasn't trying to imply that there was a duty to identify, just saying that if you did cooperate you could probably get any information you provided to be held inadmissable in criminal proceedings against you.

Click to expand...

Party admissions, and their fruits,are generally admissible under the rules of evidence, their hearsay nature notwithstanding. And unless the statement was elicited after custodial detension without a Miranda warning, or after the subject invoked right to counsel post Miranda warning, everything should come in.

Back to the original discussion issue, state obstruction statutes cannot be constitutionally read to criminalize the passive conduct of remaining silent, not IDing yourself, etc. See generallyVA AG Opinion 2002-82. See also Fifth Amendment exception to compliance with a Hiibel compliant state stop and ID statute. Moreover, with some exceptions, statutes requiring folks to aid the police are in practice aspirational in nature, encouraging positive conduct.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

You neglected to mention that I did indeed say thatA FALSE STATEMENTMUST BE PROVEN FALSE. Perjury's got a pretty stiff penalty, but you rarely see someone charged with it even if the statement is found to be false, because the individual must have known it was false when they said it. However,that doesn't make it any lessillegal, and if proven sothe testimony of the individual and/or the statement provided by the individual is thrown out.

Click to expand...

But now you're talking about perjury, which isn't what we were discussing. An officer's statements to you on the street are not under oath and are in no way perjury, even if they're false. Denying under oath that he made those statements would be perjury, but why would he need to deny them?

Your claim is that the officer isn't allowed to lie to you on the street. I still don't see any substantiation of that claim.

Click to expand...

It's very simple. All records of an officer's investigation are admissible evidence. In order to establish the chain of evidence and ensure none of the rules of evidence were broken during the investigation, either the original report or a sworn statement by the officer to the same effect is required. Otherwise the questions of where the evidence came from andwhat methods were used to obtain it are unanswerable, and the evidence is inadmissible. Just like you constantly rib me for doing, you have to cite your source. Even if the officer was not under oath during the interview, his testimony as to what he did say during the interview is.

The officer, once he lies in the course of an investigation, isin a Catch-22. A false statement on a report or in a testimonyis a false statement. Thereforethe lie that was told in order to obtain information, truthfully reported,is stillfalse and the information obtained by the deception, because it would not have been obtained otherwise,is inadmissible unless the DA canprove inevitable discovery.On the other hand, a lie omitting or denying that a false statement was made, or editing the statement so that it is truthful, written into the report, is also afalse statement because it is not what the officer said.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

It's very simple. All records of an officer's investigation are admissible evidence. In order to establish the chain of evidence and ensure none of the rules of evidence were broken during the investigation, either the original report or a sworn statement by the officer to the same effect is required.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, under the federal rules of evidence, adopted or substantially assimilated by most states, "[r]ecords, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form [are generally not admissable]in criminal cases [regarding] matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel." FRE 803(8).

imported post

I can't speak for Florida, but as for Washington we don't have to say a DAMN thing...even in a qualified 'TERRY' stop.

imported post

There is no requirement in Florida law to carry any identification unless you are operating a motor vehicle or CC. Therefore, you can't legally be charged for refusing to give something you are not required to posses.

Also F.S.S. 843.06 is not referring to answering Law Enforcements Questions. If that were the case every true criminal that told a lie would have an additional charge. That statute refers to an Officer requesting a citizen to assist him(Officer) to complete his lawful duties;i.e. if the Officer was fighting 2 suspects he might request a bystander to assist, either by joing the fight or calling for assistance.

Police are allowed to lie during an investigation. No crime there.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

(snip) ".....In addition, a GFL is not a photo ID as permits in some other states are; the person carrying the GFL must therefore also carry a valid photo ID to tie the GFL to the person carrying it. If you cannot produce either or both, you are breaking the law in that state. Notice I did say I would provide identification IF NECESSARY TO VERIFY LEGALITY; if carrying without a permit is legal in a state you are under no legal obligation to be able to provide ID (you still avoid a lot of hassle by being able to do so). On a related note, Georgia law does not differentiate between loaded and unloaded except when hunting, somost public OCers in Georgiamust have a GFL regardless of where the ammo is....."




I wouldn't bet cash money on that. The Georgia Code cited only says the Georgia Firearms Liscense must be carried. Period. Full Stop. Aint no 'therefore's about it.

You are reading into the Code something that is not stated in the Code. You are Not required to provide a driver's license, an identity card, or any other document according to the Georgia State Code.

Georgia does require you to carry your GFL, that's in the Code. But unless you can cite Georgia Code specifically stating that Any Other Identification is Required then you just earned another Penalty Flag.

imported post

The following comes courtesy of Wikipedia's entry on Stop and Identify Laws from the various states. Perceptive readers will note which states require ANY sort of governmental identification and which DO NOT. You are specifically invited to contrast Florida State §790.06, [sup]vs[/sup] Georgia Code §16-11-36(b) and Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5.

Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30

Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12
Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained;
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)

Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
§ 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects.
(a) A peace officer may stop any person...who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand the person's name, address, business abroad and destination.
(c) The total period of detention provided for by this section shall not exceed 2 hours...
§ 1321. Loitering; violation.
A person is guilty of loitering when:
(6) , by requesting identification and an explanation of the person's presence and conduct.

Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2)
Loitering or prowling; penalty.--
(2) ...identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct.

Fla. Stat. §790.06
...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.

Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b)
Loitering or prowling
(b) ... a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code 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 and explain his presence and conduct..

Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Temporary questioning without arrest.
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.

Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Stopping of suspect.
(1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions.

Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest
2. ... They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going...

Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Investigative stop and frisk.
(2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:
(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; and...

Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Stop and search of person for dangerous weapon; when authorized; peace officer, defined.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects of committing, who has committed, or who is about to commit a crime and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions...

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2
Questioning and Detaining Suspects.
A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3

New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50(1)

North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21
Temporary questioning of persons in public places - Search for
weapons.
The peace officer may demand ...the person's name, address, and an explanation of the person's actions.

Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29
Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects....
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Temporary detention of suspects
A peace officer may detain any person abroad whom he or she has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination; and any person who fails to identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer may be further detained and further questioned and investigated by any peace officer; provided, in no case shall the total period of the detention exceed two (2) hours, and the detention shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention period the person so detained shall be released unless arrested and charged with a crime.

Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15

Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Identification to law enforcement officers required
(a) A law enforcement officer is authorized to detain a person if:
(1) the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has violated a municipal ordinance; and
(2) the person refuses to identify himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer when requested by the officer.
(b) The person may be detained only until the person identifies himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer. If the officer is unable to obtain the identification information, the person shall forthwith be brought before a district court judge for that purpose. A person who refuses to identify himself or herself to the court on request shall immediately and without service of an order on the person be subject to civil contempt proceedings pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 122.

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §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.


Nevada's "Stop and Identify" Law was tested in the Supreme Court with the following result - -
From WikiPedia (subject to error)
In Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court's opinion implied that a person detained could satisfy the requirement of the Nevada law simply by stating his name. Writing for the Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Justice Kennedy stated: “As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.”