Utah laws regarding a "Stop and ID" and being disarmed.

imported post

I have been doing a little research into this since Travy brought it up.

As far asI can tell, if you are asked by law enforcement to produce identification, and the officer is lacking "reasonable suspicion"you are not legally bound to provide ID. However, an officer may request your name and address as indicated below.

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Click to expand...

And if you fail to provide that info...

76-8-301.5. Failure to disclose identity.
(1) A person is guilty of failure to disclose identity if during the period of time that the person is lawfully subjected to a stop as described in Section 77-7-15:
(a) a peace officer demands that the person disclose the person's name;
(b) the demand described in Subsection (1)(a) is reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop;
(c) the disclosure of the person's name by the person does not present a reasonable danger of self-incrimination in the commission of a crime; and
(d) the person fails to disclose the person's name.
(2) Failure to disclose identity is a class B misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

If the officer has his "reasonable suspicion" the the following law applies.

77-7-16. Authority of peace officer to frisk suspect for dangerous weapon -- Grounds.
A peace officer who has stopped a person temporarily for questioning may frisk the person for a dangerous weapon if he reasonably believes he or any other person is in danger.

Click to expand...

Assuming you meet the critera in the above laws, the next law allows for the officer to disarm you.

77-7-17. Authority of peace officer to take possession of weapons.
A peace officer who finds a dangerous weapon pursuant to a frisk may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.

Click to expand...

Although this has nothing to do with weapons, it is case law on Stop and ID in Utah.

Oliver v. Woods (2000) 10th Circuit Court ofAppeals.ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/04/98-4179.htm

imported post

SWEET!!! so there really is no law telling us we need to give them our ID unless they have reasonable suspicion?

imported post

b1ack5mith wrote:

SWEET!!! so there really is no law telling us we need to give them our ID unless they have reasonable suspicion?

Click to expand...

so who determines REASONABLE SUSPICION? I think we would loose this pissing match.

imported post

fedup wrote:

b1ack5mith wrote:

SWEET!!! so there really is no law telling us we need to give them our ID unless they have reasonable suspicion?

Click to expand...

so who determines REASONABLE SUSPICION? I think we would loose this pissing match.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, Fedup!!!

You are in the ballpark.

I am not a lawyer.

I really, really, really recommend you do not refuse to identify yourself to an LEO. You really have no way of knowing for sure whether he has genuine RAS.

Was there a 911 call that he's not mentioning? What was the message he received from the dispatcher?

You have no way of knowing for sure.If you guess wrong about whether he has genuine RAS during the encounter, you can be charged with a violation. If it is questionable, but he believes he has RAS, he may well give you a citation, anyway.

Also, remember that RAS is something decided by the courts. You would have to know all the little combinations of circumstances the courts have already decided amount to RAS. And you would have to guess whether a court would judge your exact circumstances as amounting to RAS.

Do you really want to be in court defending a refusal-to-identify charge, and have it hinge on whether the court decides the officer had RAS or not?

Best to comply while verbally refusing consent. If it turns out later he did not have RAS, then you can lower the boom on him with a formal complaint or add it to your lawsuit.

"Officer, since you have demanded it in an official tone of voice, I will comply. However, I do not consent to identifying myself. My name is ______ _______."

Better yet, if he has demanded ID, why not give it to him while refusing consent. He is going to find out your name when you file the formal complaint anyway. Since Utah does not seem to have a law requiring someone to hand over their ID, you've got him for exceeding his authority, making a demand he has no power to make.

imported post

ohhh goody, that seems to be the goal here. get around the law and sue the cops!

perhaps I am barking at the wrong member. Sorry for that. Why not be a responsible person and react to the bad things that come your way. I really think its alot less often than it seems by reading these posts. Some here are the very best crap magnets I could imgaine.

imported post

fedup wrote:

SNIP ohhh goody, that seems to be the goal here. get around the law and sue the cops!

Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Comply with the law while maintaining the strongest legal position possible.

Really, I don't know anyone here who wants to sue cops just to make a buck. What we want is to be left alone by police.

Its really very simple. We want to promote 2A. Many of us are also very pro-rights beyond just 2A, but we don't discuss it here because this is a gun forum, not a jury rights forum, for example.

Some police are opponents. Just like Sarah Brady, et al. Except that police can illegally detain us, and arrest us. The gun rights world has tactics to counter Brady & Company. We have tactics to counter police who overstep.

What would be more amazing is if we did NOT develop tactics to counter police who overstep. Knowing 4A and 5A rights backwards and forwards is just part of that.

Maintainingan ever-presentthreat or capabilityof suit or formal complaint is merely a counter to certain police who would violate our 4A and 5A rights while treating the exercise of our 2A rights with suspicion.

Realize that if an LEO does not overstep,everything will be just fine. Well, almost anyway. I have a personal issue with any LEO who even contacts a lawfully armed citizen solely because of the gun because it shows that exercising a rightis worthy of suspicion. But that isa different discussion.

Anytime a police officer is investigating me, I am in legal jeopardy. Turnabout is fair play. Let the LEO's personnel file,future promotion prospects, and financesbe in jeopardy to the exact same degree.

imported post

thoughtful reply.

I guess you assume that a person OC certainly will be obeying all the local laws and that the LEO is clearly the one out of bounds on this issue. I think there is fault on both sides often. Why is it that its only the cops getting bashed here? cops can be 2a supporters as well.

imported post

fedup wrote:

thoughtful reply.

I guess you assume that a person OC certainly will be obeying all the local laws and that the LEO is clearly the one out of bounds on this issue. I think there is fault on both sides often. Why is it that its only the cops getting bashed here? cops can be 2a supporters as well.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that after a second reading you'll notice in my post the words "some cops" and "police who overstep" as opposed to "all cops", "most cops," or "every cop."

So, no generalized cop bashing. Only those exact cops who overstep, stretch, bend, twist rights.

Also, if you stick around a while, you will see OCers criticizing other OCers for missteps.

But, with that said, lets stick to the part about getting around the law and suing cops. Did I address that adequately? Does it provide broader perspective?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

fedup wrote:

thoughtful reply.

I guess you assume that a person OC certainly will be obeying all the local laws and that the LEO is clearly the one out of bounds on this issue. I think there is fault on both sides often. Why is it that its only the cops getting bashed here? cops can be 2a supporters as well.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that after a second reading you'll notice in my post the words "some cops" and "police who overstep" as opposed to "all cops", "most cops," or "every cop."...

Click to expand...

See, just some. not all. i firmly maintain that LEO that do their best to keep a watchful eye for criminals are awesome; nothing but respect for 'em, unfortunately we see too much of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aBm1jI_j7c

imported post

you see, the girl had mind control powers, and FORCED the officer to brutally beat her... those were fake cries... you see, she wanted the officer to be fired, but not the other officer, she thought he was attractive, so she let him slide... sucks for the other dude though!

OR... maybe it was just an a-hoel (yes i meant to spell it like that) officer who just likes beating little girls who have no defense? you be the judge

P.S. i see that kevin is online right now, and yes, it is 2:24 AM here, i dont usually go to bed till 5am... i know, i dont have a life lol!

imported post

b1ack5mith wrote:

you see, the girl had mind control powers, and FORCED the officer to brutally beat her... those were fake cries... you see, she wanted the officer to be fired, but not the other officer, she thought he was attractive, so she let him slide... sucks for the other dude though!

OR... maybe it was just an a-hoel (yes i meant to spell it like that) officer who just likes beating little girls who have no defense? you be the judge

P.S. i see that kevin is online right now, and yes, it is 2:24 AM here, i dont usually go to bed till 5am... i know, i dont have a life lol!

Click to expand...

heheh. Yup. Don't forget the other Kevin who has no life either.

imported post

ah who needs a life when HE (points to YOUR president) is in office? lets all go to newzealand, where full autos are legal!

imported post

b1ack5mith wrote:

ah who needs a life when HE (points to YOUR president) is in office? lets all go to newzealand, where full autos are legal!

Click to expand...

hehe Hey, they are legal here too until you get caught with one. *wink* Just kidding.

imported post

hahaa thats what a cop told me too actually!

in NZ, you can get a license to own military weapons... all you need is someone who will vouch that they have known you for over 18 months (i have an uncle who lives there, heh heh)