Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Required to give what info, if detained?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lexington KY, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    OK. I have OC'd a couple times now, with no issues. My question for more experienced OC'ers is: What info am I required by KY Law to give a LEO?

    I have the info to use to stay on topic: Am I being detained? Am I being arrested? OC is legal in KY., etc.

    If anyone has the statutes that spell out what I'm required to give LEO during an encounter, the info would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    You are not required to give a police officer any info if you are stopped.

    However, giving false info is an additional charge.

    One caveat; if you are stopped while driving, you must present your operator's license, proof of insurance, and registration if it is requested.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lexington KY, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    You are not required to give a police officer any info if you are stopped.

    However, giving false info is an additional charge.

    One caveat; if you are stopped while driving, you must present your operator's license, proof of insurance, and registration if it is requested.

    Thanks superdemon. I'm more interested in a stop while I'm on foot OCing here in Lex. I know the drill if a mangaer/business owner asks me to leave their property (trespassing, etc). Do you have any info on a statute, etc on giving required info? Would that fall under reasonable suspicion/illegal search and seizure? Any info appreciated. Thanks!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I believe you have to give an I.D. card so they can verify who you are and your record.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    OK, I'll try to answer this with my limited information. When not operating a vehicle, you DO NOT need to produce ID. In KY, I believe the officer has to take your word for it. Do you need to identify yourself in the first place? I think not.

    I DO NOT believe KRS has anything to say about a stop-and-identify mandate. And of course, KY only tells us what we cannot do, not what we can do, so I can't cite any statute.

    Forgive me for citing Wikipedia, but I found it helpful. According to them, KY does NOT have the identity clause:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

    I found the Terry v. Ohio case pretty interesting & informative. I believe it simply upholds the constitutionality of the must-identify mandate:

    http://www.policeone.com/writers/col...to-provide-ID/

  6. #6
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    You are not required to give a police officer any info if you are stopped.

    However, giving false info is an additional charge.

    One caveat; if you are stopped while driving, you must present your operator's license, proof of insurance, and registration if it is requested.

    Superdemon is correct. Not required to ID except upon arrest and then only your name and dob.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    hotrod wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    You are not required to give a police officer any info if you are stopped.

    However, giving false info is an additional charge.

    One caveat; if you are stopped while driving, you must present your operator's license, proof of insurance, and registration if it is requested.

    Superdemon is correct. Not required to ID except upon arrest and then only your name and dob.
    Not quite.

    You are not required to ID yourself upon arrest, but you can be lodged asa "John Doe" until you choose to do so. Once you give up your wallet, etc upon booking, they detention center is probably going to know who you are.

    But again, you are not required, as such, to give your identification upon arrest. I have lodged plenty of people as "John Doe" and "Jane Doe".



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Erlanger;Boone county side, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Yeah but if an officer asks you for ID and you say "I'm not required to provide that to you at this time".

    Isn't that just a big red flag for the LEO? I'm kind of suspicious by nature, but for someone who has to deal with dirtbags on a regular basis that kind of refusal to be helpful must seem like an instant win scratch off card.

    Wahoo this guy doesn't want me to know his name. He must have warrants! Score for me!



    You can talk procedure and law all you want. The reality is that people with jobs get into patterns, and usually repeat them. If you get stuck dealing with the worst ends of hummanity on a regular basis, you are going to end up with patterns eventually.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Butterbone wrote:
    Yeah but if an officer asks you for ID and you say "I'm not required to provide that to you at this time".

    Isn't that just a big red flag for the LEO? I'm kind of suspicious by nature, but for someone who has to deal with dirtbags on a regular basis that kind of refusal to be helpful must seem like an instant win scratch off card.

    Wahoo this guy doesn't want me to know his name. He must have warrants! Score for me!



    You can talk procedure and law all you want. The reality is that people with jobs get into patterns, and usually repeat them. If you get stuck dealing with the worst ends of hummanity on a regular basis, you are going to end up with patterns eventually.
    Well, since I am an LEO, I'll answer.

    If someone refuses to ID themselves, then I either think that they are hiding from a warrant, or they are extremely educated about their rights. Generall, if someone has warrants, they don't fit into the "educated" category.

    And even if I thought someone was refusing to ID based on warrants, there is nothing I could do, as I would have to have at least a name to get started. Usually, if I am making contact with someone, it's because of a flagrant violation of the law, and that is reason to take them in anyway.

    But, a neatly dressed, neatly groomed person doing nothing other than OCing is not a violation of the law per se, so I probably wouldn't even bother.

    The thugs with something to hide generally don't strap their gat to their hip and go to Wal-Mart to buy toilet paper. Only those who are lawful tend to do so.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Winchester, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Idon't think you have to identify yourself but, personally i have nothing to hide and the only thing on my record at all is a speeding ticket from 4yrs ago, so i would rather go along and get along by just providing my ID.From my personal experiences with LE, the more cooperative you are, the less hassle they are going to give you. Respect and courtesy warrant respect and courtesy IMO.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    BigBubba wrote:
    Idon't think you have to identify yourself but, personally i have nothing to hide and the only thing on my record at all is a speeding ticket from 4yrs ago, so i would rather go along and get along by just providing my ID.From my personal experiences with LE, the more cooperative you are, the less hassle they are going to give you. Respect and courtesy warrant respect and courtesy IMO.
    Ahhh...Big Bubba there in lies the rub. If you haven't done anything wrong then how about me coming and looking around your house, or, looking around inside your car, or, how about standing still and let me look in your pockets. You see whenever you let someone, leo etc, use tools that they have to look with your permission, if they do find something you didn't think was illegal, you authorized the search, whether bygivingname or property. You have no recourse in court. How about BigBubba in Louisiana wanted for armed robbery. You have a gun. You have the same name. Lets go to jail for six hours until we can clear up just which BigBubba you are.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  12. #12
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Butterbone wrote:
    Yeah but if an officer asks you for ID and you say "I'm not required to provide that to you at this time".

    Isn't that just a big red flag for the LEO? I'm kind of suspicious by nature, but for someone who has to deal with dirtbags on a regular basis that kind of refusal to be helpful must seem like an instant win scratch off card.

    Wahoo this guy doesn't want me to know his name. He must have warrants! Score for me!



    You can talk procedure and law all you want. The reality is that people with jobs get into patterns, and usually repeat them. If you get stuck dealing with the worst ends of hummanity on a regular basis, you are going to end up with patterns eventually.
    Well, since I am an LEO, I'll answer.

    If someone refuses to ID themselves, then I either think that they are hiding from a warrant, or they are extremely educated about their rights. Generall, if someone has warrants, they don't fit into the "educated" category.

    And even if I thought someone was refusing to ID based on warrants, there is nothing I could do, as I would have to have at least a name to get started. Usually, if I am making contact with someone, it's because of a flagrant violation of the law, and that is reason to take them in anyway.

    But, a neatly dressed, neatly groomed person doing nothing other than OCing is not a violation of the law per se, so I probably wouldn't even bother.

    The thugs with something to hide generally don't strap their gat to their hip and go to Wal-Mart to buy toilet paper. Only those who are lawful tend to do so.
    If you are talking to law enforcement, they already believe you maybe in violation of the KRS or they wouldn't be talking to you, unless it's your buddy. Why give information that is not required. When I go to Wal Mart and check out I don't tell the lady at the register what I am doing with this stuff. When a LEO walks up and starts chatter there usually is a reason, why give information that is not required. Say "hello" politely and walk away. No harm no foul.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    8th ID wrote:
    OK. I have OC'd a couple times now, with no issues. My question for more experienced OC'ers is: What info am I required by KY Law to give a LEO?

    I have the info to use to stay on topic: Am I being detained? Am I being arrested? OC is legal in KY., etc.

    If anyone has the statutes that spell out what I'm required to give LEO during an encounter, the info would be appreciated.
    Unless Kentucky has a "stop and identify" statute, or a locality has a local ordinance that requires you to identify yourself--you do not have to show any ID whatsoever if you are on foot. If you are in a car and driving, that is another thing--you are required to produce a drivers license to them once they pull you over.

    Other than being in a car--once you are detained, and they have made it clear that your movement is restricted for purposes of the 4th amendment--without a stop and ID statute or local ordinance, my understanding is that you do not have to produce any ID whatsoever when you are on foot. Once you are detained however, you can be required to give only enough verbal information to identify yourself--name, date of birth and residence of record-but showing ID on foot? Not unless a local city/county or the state of Kentucky has a statute requiring you to produce it on demand.....

    and considering the carrying of a firearm in Kentucky is perfectly legal as long as you are carrying openly and can do so without a permit--I don't see how the mere possession of a firearm could be enough to even warrant a legal stop to begin with.

    Best advice though--spend $25-50 and sit down with a good attorney in private consultation and get a legal opinion on it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Butterbone wrote:
    Yeah but if an officer asks you for ID and you say "I'm not required to provide that to you at this time".

    Isn't that just a big red flag for the LEO? I'm kind of suspicious by nature, but for someone who has to deal with dirtbags on a regular basis that kind of refusal to be helpful must seem like an instant win scratch off card.

    Wahoo this guy doesn't want me to know his name. He must have warrants! Score for me!



    You can talk procedure and law all you want. The reality is that people with jobs get into patterns, and usually repeat them. If you get stuck dealing with the worst ends of hummanity on a regular basis, you are going to end up with patterns eventually.
    "dirtbags" is a poor choice of words...a good number of innocent people are swept up along with the criminals.

    As for simply refusing to provide ID--we have become accustomed to being expected to just BOHICA. We are being trained to believe that anyone who believes that they have rights, and don't have to just "produce your papers" just because we are told to do so--well they absolutely MUST be a criminal low-life.

    As for officers who go "woohoo, this guy must be wanted because he won't produce ID"--well that is the exact type of person who does not need to be in law enforcement, and it is the exact type who is responsible for many of the lawsuits now pending against the police across this country not only for false arrests, but also for civil rights violations.

    We should not have to "produce our papers" just because they want to see them...In theory at least we are not living in Communist China--but in practice we are reaching that point--and reaching it quickly--and the complacency of the people, and their willingness to "mindlessly obey" is part of the problem.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    BigBubba wrote:
    Idon't think you have to identify yourself but, personally i have nothing to hide and the only thing on my record at all is a speeding ticket from 4yrs ago, so i would rather go along and get along by just providing my ID.From my personal experiences with LE, the more cooperative you are, the less hassle they are going to give you. Respect and courtesy warrant respect and courtesy IMO.
    Then you would also be more than willing to let them search your car whenever they ask to--how about allowing them to walk in and search your home without a warrant? Can they tap your telephone too while they are at it?



  16. #16
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    BigBubba wrote:
    Idon't think you have to identify yourself but, personally i have nothing to hide and the only thing on my record at all is a speeding ticket from 4yrs ago, so i would rather go along and get along by just providing my ID.From my personal experiences with LE, the more cooperative you are, the less hassle they are going to give you. Respect and courtesy warrant respect and courtesy IMO.
    Then you would also be more than willing to let them search your car whenever they ask to--how about allowing them to walk in and search your home without a warrant? Can they tap your telephone too while they are at it?

    suntzu,

    While BigBubba didn't make the following claim, for most people who parrot "I have nothing to hide", the answer is going to be yes to everything, because they typically believe their innocence will protect them. While I wish that were true, it is not the case.

    For those individuals who choose to allow unrestricted and unchecked government intrusion into their lives, they invite abuse of power and burdensome regulations that threaten their interests. Here is what author and Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne had to say on the issue, in 'Why Government Doesn't Work"

    source: harrybrowne.org

    Your Innocence Is No Protection

    If you complain that a government plan to fight crime threatens everyone’s freedom, you may hear the age-old retort:

    “If you aren’t guilty, you have nothing to fear.”

    If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection at all against government agencies with the power to do what they think best — or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing to do whatever he can get away with. Tell a businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn’t discriminate. Tell a home owner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken — or contrived — drug raid. Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a “taxpayer compliance” audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties.

    It is the innocent who suffer most from government’s intrusions. How many times have we seen the following pattern?

    1. The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern of the Month.

    2. A tough, new, take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place.

    3. After the dust settles, the initial “problem” continues unabated, because the guilty continue to slip through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and hazards — more mandatory reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War on ___________ (fill in the blank).

    4. And, needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.

    Being innocent doesn’t allow you to ignore the government’s demands for reports — or to say “No, thanks” when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home — or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you.

    When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. The coercion fails to achieve its stated aims, but it is wondrously effective at harming the innocent. Even worse, every year a few million innocent people suffer special burdens — greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights has allowed the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them — even though they’ve committed no crimes. I hope you never become one of them.
    He then goes on to list a real example of a 75 year old minister that dies of a heart attack from being pinned to the floor and was scared to death, literally. It was a mistaken drug raid on his house (the real perp was next door). The minister was innocent, but that didn't matter in the heat of the moment.

    Not one of the swat team members or the prosecutor who authorized the raid, was prosecuted or suffered any career damage for causing the death.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    I'm a history teacher and I assigned an essay question with the following premise:
    Which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most important & why, and which amendment would you amend & why?

    --Needless to say, half of their responses almost made me cry, haha. I had quite a few saying that they would take out the illegal search & seizure clause because if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide. So a couple days later, I tell my students to get their purses & backpacks out that the principals are having me check everyone's belongings for "contraband"--food, drink, cell phones, etc. They threw such a fit to which I replied, "Hey, if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lexington KY, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    I'm a history teacher and I assigned an essay question with the following premise:
    Which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most important & why, and which amendment would you amend & why?

    --Needless to say, half of their responses almost made me cry, haha. I had quite a few saying that they would take out the illegal search & seizure clause because if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide. So a couple days later, I tell my students to get their purses & backpacks out that the principals are having me check everyone's belongings for "contraband"--food, drink, cell phones, etc. They threw such a fit to which I replied, "Hey, if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"
    NOW THAT WAS A TEACHING MOMENT!!!! BRILLIANT!!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    I'm a history teacher and I assigned an essay question with the following premise:
    Which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most important & why, and which amendment would you amend & why?

    --Needless to say, half of their responses almost made me cry, haha. I had quite a few saying that they would take out the illegal search & seizure clause because if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide. So a couple days later, I tell my students to get their purses & backpacks out that the principals are having me check everyone's belongings for "contraband"--food, drink, cell phones, etc. They threw such a fit to which I replied, "Hey, if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"
    Right. What they were saying, without realizing it, is that it's OK to throw out search & seizure clause for everyone else, but not them.

Posting Permissions

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