Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Show ID: Remix

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    I know this has been brought up before. I am still confused on the issue though.

    Say you are walking down the street and you are stopped by LE. They demand, not request, that you show them ID. Are you required by law to do so?


    If you do not have ID on you are you required to give name, address etc..?

    Add to this scenario that you are openly carrying a firearm. The same questions apply with the addition of are you required to produce your LTCH?

    The only IC I can find on this is:

    IC 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.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

    I understand this to mean that it only applies if an infraction has been committed. If no infraction was committed than the charge of failure to identify would be dropped.

    Now add to it this:


    IC 34-28-5-3
    Detention
    Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
    (1) inform the person of the allegation;
    (2) obtain the person's:
    (A) name, address, and date of birth; or
    (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
    (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

    I understand this to mean that an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If stopped and you do not identify yourself it is still not a crime to refuse to identify unless you have actually committed a crime.
    per
    IC 34-28-5-3.5
    Refusal to identify self

    Now as far as producing your LTCH I can find nothing in IC that states you must do so when asked. The only thing I have found is this statement, "A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit". This statement comes from the ISP website at this link, http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf.
    Unlike everything else in the firearms FAQ it does not have an IC source to go with it.

    So with the information I have found the questions I am left with are these.

    Does openly carrying a firearm provide LE with reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed? In this case the supposed crime being carrying a firearm without a license.

    If the answer is yes would refusing to provide your LTCH be a crime?

    If the answer is yes would refusing to provide another form of ID be a crime?

    My take on it with the information I have found is that openly carrying a firearm does not provide RAS that a crime is being committed. If stopped I do not have to provide either my LTCH or ID to LE.

    So I leave it to the good people of OCDO to provide additional facts. Preferably facts that cite Indiana code. Biased and un-biased personal opinions are also welcome.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    It appears that you are technically correct. However, I'll bet that the typical LEO who gets a refusal to answer basic ID questions will be happy to slap the cuffs on you until he figures it out. As the saying goes, "you get a lot more with honey than vinegar". It may be that nothing will stop an aggessive cop intent on causing you problems, but being non-cooperative on such simple things as providing ID certainly won't further your cause.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    Section32 wrote:
    It appears that you are technically correct. However, I'll bet that the typical LEO who gets a refusal to answer basic ID questions will be happy to slap the cuffs on you until he figures it out. As the saying goes, "you get a lot more with honey than vinegar". It may be that nothing will stop an aggessive cop intent on causing you problems, but being non-cooperative on such simple things as providing ID certainly won't further your cause.
    Go along to get along is that it? :?

    Your traffic stop will take a lot longer if you refuse the search. Why give them reason to hassle you more. You have nothing to hide. Right?
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Beau wrote:
    SNIP Go along to get along is that it? :?

    Your traffic stop will take a lot longer if you refuse the search. Why give them reason to hassle you more. You have nothing to hide. Right?
    Right. Something over a million Americans casualties have defended our freedoms. Just so we could cave to a search request for the sake of a few minutes convenience.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Beau wrote:
    SNIP IC 34-28-5-3
    Detention
    Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
    (1) inform the person of the allegation;
    (2) obtain the person's:
    (A) name, address, and date of birth; or
    (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
    (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

    I understand this to mean that an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If stopped and you do not identify yourself it is still not a crime to refuse to identify unless you have actually committed a crime.
    I don't think this is an ID statute. I think this is a minor offense catch-and-release statute.

    The part about the "officer believes in good faith that a person has committed" is essentially talking about probable cause.

    The last line says "allow the person to execute a notice to appear."Basically sign a citation promising to appear in court.

    Ifthe person did not provide identifying information, the state wouldn't not be able to track down those who didn't appear.

    I'm betting that refusing to giveidentifying info is interpreted as an intention not to appear, and gets you arrested andcarted off to makesure you make your appearance, not unlike refusing to sign a traffic ticket.

    We have a report from a VA police officerthat refusing to provide actualID for the toptwomisdemeanor tiers is interpreted as an intention to not appear, resulting in arrest.

    It sounds like thisIC statute is just telling police they have thestatutory option of writing a ticket during a foot encounter, just get the identity info.

    In a traffic stop, thedriver is handing over his driver's license, so there isless question whether thestateknows against who to issue the warrant for failure to appear.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Beau wrote:
    IC 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.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

    I understand this to mean that it only applies if an infraction has been committed. If no infraction was committed than the charge of failure to identify would be dropped.
    Wouldn't this sort of be like doubling down your bets?

    Meaning, if the cop can't convince a court you did the deed, then you also escape the failure to identify charge; but if the cop is believed, then you get convicted for both the offense that triggered the stop AND the failure to identify.

    And onan "infraction or ordinance violation", to whom do you think the court will give the most credibility? You or the cop?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Beau wrote:
    IC 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.
    As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
    And onan "infraction or ordinance violation", to whom do you think the court will give the most credibility? You or the cop?
    Hopefully the judge believes the audio recording of you stomping down the sidewalk,
    and asking what 'crime' you are suspected of committing?

    I would state that you will comply with Sec 3.5 (2) at start of your encounter
    so the judge can hear you comply with offering to show DL if you had it with you.
    That and the inventory search at the station house showing you had no license
    and so complied with the section should do the trick.

    That or keep the id in the holster, you can't show him he took it from you already.


Posting Permissions

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