So the question of ID.

imported post

So in my mental preparations for my first open carry, being an analyst at heart. I read over the experiences of some of you fine people and much of the information useful..

As I compose my mental checklist and do research, I run across the Orange County Sheriff bulletin as provided on http://www.californiaopencarry.org

The section of this bulletin exalts the deputy to get an ID and do a standard check, specifically for the purpose of determining if the person detained is violating another section of the California Penal Code like 626.

I understand it is not ilegal to not carry ID (yet!). And carrying said ID aids in the cooporative nature of the inevitable stop. As I understand the puroses here, it is as much bout educating the police as it is educating the "We the Sheeple".

What is the rational of not providing ID upon request?

It seems to me that could be interpreted as not "cooperating" and then allowing justification for a real arrest opposed to the fake arrest in the form af a detention.

Thanks
Gregor

imported post

USPSureShot wrote:

So in my mental preparations for my first open carry, being an analyst at heart. I read over the experiences of some of you fine people and much of the information useful..

As I compose my mental checklist and do research, I run across the Orange County Sheriff bulletin as provided on http://www.californiaopencarry.org

The section of this bulletin exalts the deputy to get an ID and do a standard check, specifically for the purpose of determining if the person detained is violating another section of the California Penal Code like 626.

I understand it is not ilegal to not carry ID (yet!). And carrying said ID aids in the cooporative nature of the inevitable stop. As I understand the puroses here, it is as much bout educating the police as it is educating the "We the Sheeple".

What is the rational of not providing ID upon request?

It seems to me that could be interpreted as not "cooperating" and then allowing justification for a real arrest opposed to the fake arrest in the form af a detention.

Thanks
Gregor

Click to expand...

The various police bulletins claiming power to obtain personal info from persons in incorporated areas who detained for load" checks of their openly carried firearms is plainly wrong. They cite ti Hiibel when Hibbel only applies if 2 conditions are met: (1) The state has a stop and ID law, and (2) Terry stop conditions exist. Under your scenario above, presumably neither condition will exist, let alone both (CA has no stop and ID law).

Further, Hiibel read the Nevada statute in question to be satisfied by stating your name even though the case involved a police officers repreated demand for his driver's license.

If you are up to it, I recommend not carrying ID but providing your name if asked, but stop there - and if they ask for SSN without a Section 7(b) Federal Privacy Act warning, and detain your further when you decline to answer, then you will be able to at least try to sue fora settlement, worked for Chet in Virginia to get $15,000, see http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/norfolk-pay-15000-harborfest-gun-arrest-case.

imported post

USPSureShot wrote:

What is the rational [sic] of not providing ID upon request?

Click to expand...

The rationale behind not providing government issued ID upon request lay in the desire to exersize maximum liberty. There is no stop and ID law in California, and the mere posession of a firearm is not a crime. So why would police need to confirm someone's identity absent a crime?

This practice of 'sterile carry' (carry without identification papers) is a 4th amendment performance. How far will police go to search? Does the absence of verifiable photo identification documents have any effect on the duration of detention? Is it any business of the police who you are if you are commiting no crime?

Whether you carry ID or not during your activities really depends on what you hope to learn and accomplish. Most people will likely waive their 4th and 5th amendment rights and fully cooperateduring a field interviewwhile aninvestigation is being done. I did in my police encounter. My feeling on it now though, is that I was doing nothing wrong. The police confirmed this, and now I feel that without a crime, the police really had noreason to examine my documents.

In my circumstances, I believe the outcome was worse because I had surrendered my ID and LTC.

imported post

I'm too lazy to research the case law but there is no requirement for pedestrians in CA to carry or present ID.

Legislated Law: No penal or other code compels it, therefor it is legal to be IDless.

Case Law: (from memory, academy was 13 years ago, don't flame me too hard if I miss a few points) The case originated in San Diego (late '80s early 90's?). Some guy (may have been homeless, may have been nutty, may have been black) took a liking to the La Jolla area of San Diego and started walking all around at all hours of the night and day. The rich white folk in La Jolla don't like pedestrians and called the police repeatedly. Our hero didn't carry ID on him and was repeatedly arrested for not having ID (cops probably used 148PC). CA Supremes eventually said that peds have no obligation to carry or present ID.

Of course from the cops perspective it's a whole lot easier and pleasent to deal with someone who is willing toshow who they are when asked. Folks who are perceived as difficult will invariably be granted special attention. Its your choice, carry an ID and potentially resolve an issue before it becomes one or don't carry an ID and run the risk of having a longer and less pleasant police interaction.

Someone's bound to get up on his libertarian high horse about this but the reality is that we (society in general) hire/train/expect cops to be nosey bastards. We want them to be nosey because most crooks do everything they can to hide that they are crooks. Taking folks at their word and at face value is a surefire way of letting thieving, lyingmopes everywhere carry on about their thieving, lying way.