If we're not required to show any ID?

imported post

If we're not required to show any kind of ID to a LEO (assuming we're OC'ing and a LEO is requesting it let's say) then how can we show that we're even of legal age to carry for example? Wouldn't the responsibility be on us to at least confirm legal age to carry in VA to the LEO?

What am I missing?

Thanks,

- Max

imported post

Well if the LEO had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were carrying while underage then he could stop you ask for you ID. The same could be said if he had reasonable suspicion that you were a felon carrying a gun then he could stop you. But just having a hunch that you are underage or might be a felon is not probable cause for a stop. The responsibility is on the LEO to show that we ARE NOT of legal age to carry - not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. IANAL.

imported post

vt357 wrote:

Well if the LEO had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were carrying while underage then he could stop you ask for you ID. The same could be said if he had reasonable suspicion that you were a felon carrying a gun then he could stop you. But just having a hunch that you are underage or might be a felon is not probable cause for a stop. The responsibility is on the LEO to show that we ARE NOT of legal age to carry - not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. IANAL.

Click to expand...

If you do not look 18 or older... it is not a "hunch" but reasonable suspicionyou may be in the progress of committing a crime. Same thing would go for having a pack of smokes or alcohol.

A hunch would be.... "I think that underage kid is hiding agun in his back pack because he is a known gang member."

Just because you do not know the age for sure does not mean you cannot stop someone. Most of the time it is rather obvious that someone is "likely" old enough to have the items above.

So where exactly would we draw the line anyway? You see a kid who is OBVIOUSLY 12 and he has a hand gun. I have NO PROOF he is 12 so I cannot stop him and ask?

Long and short.... if you have reason to believe a crime is being committed... you have the ability to check it out.

Innocence and guilt are terms used in court after you ave been charged with a crime. On the street... the police simply check to see if there is or is not a violation and send you to court for the final decision.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

vt357 wrote:

Well if the LEO had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were carrying while underage then he could stop you ask for you ID. The same could be said if he had reasonable suspicion that you were a felon carrying a gun then he could stop you. But just having a hunch that you are underage or might be a felon is not probable cause for a stop. The responsibility is on the LEO to show that we ARE NOT of legal age to carry - not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. IANAL.

Click to expand...

If you do not look 18 or older... it is not a "hunch" but reasonable suspicionyou may be in the progress of committing a crime. Same thing would go for having a pack of smokes or alcohol.

A hunch would be.... "I think that underage kid is hiding agun in his back pack because he is a known gang member."

Just because you do not know the age for sure does not mean you cannot stop someone. Most of the time it is rather obvious that someone is "likely" old enough to have the items above.

So where exactly would we draw the line anyway? You see a kid who is OBVIOUSLY 12 and he has a hand gun. I have NO PROOF he is 12 so I cannot stop him and ask?

Long and short.... if you have reason to believe a crime is being committed... you have the ability to check it out.

Innocence and guilt are terms used in court after you ave been charged with a crime. On the street... the police simply check to see if there is or is not a violation and send you to court for the final decision.

Click to expand...

So as a cop on the street, what do you do when you cannot verify anything because I have no identification on me?

BTW, Welcome back!

imported post

LEO229, if someone looks like he might be under 18 and is OCing a pistol, or looks like he might be under 21 and has a beer, but it's not a sure thing by any means, is that a hunch or reasonable suspicion?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

vt357 wrote:

Well if the LEO had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were carrying while underage then he could stop you ask for you ID. The same could be said if he had reasonable suspicion that you were a felon carrying a gun then he could stop you. But just having a hunch that you are underage or might be a felon is not probable cause for a stop. The responsibility is on the LEO to show that we ARE NOT of legal age to carry - not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. IANAL.

Click to expand...

If you do not look 18 or older... it is not a "hunch" but reasonable suspicionyou may be in the progress of committing a crime. Same thing would go for having a pack of smokes or alcohol.

A hunch would be.... "I think that underage kid is hiding agun in his back pack because he is a known gang member."

Just because you do not know the age for sure does not mean you cannot stop someone. Most of the time it is rather obvious that someone is "likely" old enough to have the items above.

So where exactly would we draw the line anyway? You see a kid who is OBVIOUSLY 12 and he has a hand gun. I have NO PROOF he is 12 so I cannot stop him and ask?

Long and short.... if you have reason to believe a crime is being committed... you have the ability to check it out.

Innocence and guilt are terms used in court after you ave been charged with a crime. On the street... the police simply check to see if there is or is not a violation and send you to court for the final decision.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It must be articulated with the totality of circumstances. Appearances alone wouldn't justify a detained on me. It must be of a reasonable articulate fact.

imported post

danbus wrote:

I disagree. It must be articulated with the totality of circumstances. Appearances alone wouldn't justify a detained on me. It must be of a reasonable articulate fact.

Click to expand...

So where exactly would we draw the line? You see a kid who is OBVIOUSLY 12 and he has a hand gun.

You cannot stop him and ask?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

danbus wrote:

I disagree. It must be articulated with the totality of circumstances. Appearances alone wouldn't justify a detained on me. It must be of a reasonable articulate fact.

Click to expand...

So where exactly would we draw the line? You see a kid who is OBVIOUSLY 12 and he has a hand gun.

You cannot stop him and ask?

Click to expand...

Isn't that where REASONABLE comes in? You, as the officer would decide on the street what is reasonable. Someone who looks 12 would probably give you reasonable suspicion. Later, if the person who was stopped decides to, they can ask a judge if you were reasonably coloring inside the lines or not. :lol:

imported post

I don't think it is really any different than LEOs walking into a party or restaurant/bar and IDing people who appear underage. Right or wrong, we have numerous status offenses on the books requiring a certain age for certain activities. If an LEO asks for proof of age for someone who looks younger than the prescribed age for the activity, s/he is enforcing those laws with RAS. As long as they only verify age and move on, I don't see a problem legally. The wisdom and necessity of such laws is another discussion which we should not conflate with this one.

imported post

And that is pretty much the extent of it.

Often timesyou need ID to show you can buy the restricted item.

The officer seeing someone that simply does not look old enough can quickly view an ID card to determine if a law is being broken.

Once the officer determines that you are of legal age there is no longer a reason to stop or detain you. No need to ask you questions or run your name for wants or warrants.

Now... for someone who just turned 18 and looks 15 with a gunon his hip is asked for his ID.....

The quick way out would obviously beto show itthinking"Yes!! I turned 18 and am legal!! I love it!"

Ortake the route.... "I do not have to show you $hit!!"

What should be done next in this case?

To refuse when you know you are legal only sets you up for further detention and debate over your age.

Showing your legal will end any possible detention as there is no longer a justification to stop you based on age.


Something to think about.

imported post

W/B Leo.

Danbus: I think I once heard a voice recording of you on the beach. You were sterile OC and were being question by vbpd. They at one point said they wanted ID so they could find out if you were old enough. Not in so many words, you told them to go scratch. They left you alone. Is that pretty much it?

imported post

Excellent discussion and now I understand, even if theultimate answer comes down to something a bit gray (read, not black and white)thanks to everyone.

- Max

I do have a follow-up/related question but I will start a new thread.

imported post

Max, a lot of it comes down to the officer being right. If he asks someone for ID to check age for OC'ing and the kid is a young lookin 18-20 year old i think the benefit of the doubt can be levied for the cop. I remember going to college and having kids literally looking like they were 15 being freshman and sophomores. I actually got a buddy of mine into a movie as his guardian having him pass as a 14 year old when he was 19. I was 25 or so at the time.

BUT, if i have a full graying beard, with gray in my temples and crows feet around my eyes and a cop tries some bull about me being under 18 and needing my ID i'll tell him to go kiss my arse and then explain to the judge about his abuse of powers after he arrests me for no articulable reasonable suspicion.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

And that is pretty much the extent of it.

Often timesyou need ID to show you can buy the restricted item.

Click to expand...

Terrible comparison, purchasing something and exercising a right are totally different. In the former, the responsibility is on the seller to make sure that the person is of legal age. If the person cannot prove their age, the seller makes the decision not to sell the item. In essence the vendor is requiring proof to prevent the potential crime before it happens.

In the latter, a crime is already suspected of being committed. The fact is I am not required to carry any ID unless I CC or am driving. If I try to buy alcohol, the vendor may refuse to sell it to me, but in the case of OC the only choices are to let me go or arrest me.

The law prevents a person under 18 from carrying a pistol, just like other laws require me to pay my taxes every year. But no one is required to prove that they are of age when approached by an officer any more than I am required to carry around my tax returns to prove that I paid my taxes.

Obligation to obey a law does not require a burden of proof of compliance unless that burden is expressly written into the law.