Just need a refresh on when you NEED to show your ID

imported post

i have been debating with a few friends on the legality of not having an ID on you. I have some friends that are saying it is illegal to not have proper ID on you. Now i am under the impression that it is illegal to not have a drivers license on you when driving but do not see where it is mandatory that you have one on you at all times.
i guess what i want to get out of this topic is. . .
Is the only time you have to show ID is when you are carrying a concealed pistol?
And are there repercussions for not having ID with you at all times?
I have read the fact that you need not give ID when Open Carrying when in places where CPL is not required and saw Brian exercise that right without repercussions, just wanting a little more insight, thanks much.

Devery

imported post

MI is not a show ID state so you only need it when driving or when transacting business that requires ID.

imported post

autosurgeon wrote:

MI is not a show ID state so you only need it when driving or when transacting business that requires ID.

Click to expand...

or when OCing when in a place that requires CPL right? don't mean to be redundant just trying to get all my confused ducks in a row.

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

Is the only time you have to show ID is when you are carrying a concealed p
And are there repercussions for not having ID with you at all times

Click to expand...

Only if you're carrying concealed with a CPL, or in a car concealed or otherwise.

That reminds me of an amusing and infuriating story. Last year when we had the Boston Market incident, a particularly arrogant, rude and completely wrong Sheriff's deputy lady condescendingly told me you had to show ID when I told her that we were under no obligation to show ID. She told me something like "it's implied consent, you agree to it when you get a drivers license. That's the law. Learn it smart guy. Or maybe you need to go back to traffic school. I've been doing this for 15 years and I know the law better than you. So shut up and show your ID."

So basically, if you're an idiot cop, you might think that Michigan is a stop and ID state. But for us English speakers who can also read, referencing MCL's will find no requirement to show ID in most cases, including while on foot OCing.

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

autosurgeon wrote:

MI is not a show ID state so you only need it when driving or when transacting business that requires ID.

Click to expand...

or when OCing when in a place that requires CPL right? don't mean to be redundant just trying to get all my confused ducks in a row.

Click to expand...

You don't need an IDin Michigan and you don't have to provide one when asked.

You only need a CPL and DL or State ID when carrying concealed and are asked to produce them by an LEO if carrying concealed.

imported post

Just a bit of info in regards to LE running license plates at will. I'm adding this because it was brought up during the Lansing detainment at Ponderosa.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-When-can-cops-run-license-plate-searches/2100-1030_3-6116296.html


In pertinent part:

The U.S. Attorney's office appealed, saying that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their license-plate numbers, and therefore police need no probable cause to conduct computer checks.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit agreed. They said that "a motorist has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment...The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others." (The majority also rejected Ellison's argument that he was racially profiled because he was black.)

In a dissent, however, Judge Karen Nelson Moore said the U.S. Attorney raised the argument at a late stage and it should be rejected. Without more information collected by the trial judge, such as how much information on the general public is available on the LEIN system, Moore said, it's impossible to evaluate how intrusive the computer check is.

Moore said that the key point was not whether police could read someone's license plate but under what circumstances they could perform an extensive search of computer databases. She said the FBI's National Crime Information Center system contains more than 23 million records about people and vehicles--not all accurate or up-to-date--and "allowing the information contained therein to form the basis for a seizure without any other heightened suspicion, let alone probable cause, compounds the risk of privacy intrusions that errors in these databases impose."

imported post

another point i would like to bring up is that it is always a bad idea to lie to leo. If they ask if you have id, and you do actually have it on you, i think a great response is: "I do not consent to any searches, however, i will not resist. if they ask where your id is, i think it's ok to state that "my id is in my left front pocket, but i do not consent to any searches. "

That way, if they feel they have legal authority to search you and take your id, let them. This will only provide more evidence that your 4th amendment rights were violated.

Are you required to give your name to leo when asked?

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

another point i would like to bring up is that it is always a bad idea to lie to leo. If they ask if you have id, and you do actually have it on you, i think a great response is: "I do not consent to any searches, however, i will not resist. if they ask where your id is, i think it's ok to state that "my id is in my left front pocket, but i do not consent to any searches. "

That way, if they feel they have legal authority to search you and take your id, let them. This will only provide more evidence that your 4th amendment rights were violated.

Are you required to give your name to leo when asked?

Click to expand...

I didn't have any ID on me. I didn't lie. But good point.

imported post

On myto do list:Title my vehicles in a trust, partnership, or corporation created to protect my privacy

imported post

Venator wrote:

lapeer20m wrote: I didn't have any ID on me. I didn't lie. But good point.

Click to expand...

I appologize if that came out wrong.....i was not trying to say that YOU lied to leo....just that OC'ers in general should not lie to leo.

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

Venator wrote:

lapeer20m wrote: I didn't have any ID on me.  I didn't lie.  But good point.

Click to expand...

I appologize if that came out wrong.....i was not trying to say that YOU lied to leo....just that OC'ers in general should not lie to leo. 

Click to expand...

You are correct you wont lie if you stop damn talking. Too much talking during encounters provides them evidence to use against you. Nothing good happens while holding a roadside/ponderosa side debate on open carry, rights, etc. If LEO's break the law they will pay the price. No need to help them out trying to convict you something.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

lapeer20m wrote:

Venator wrote:

lapeer20m wrote: I didn't have any ID on me. I didn't lie. But good point.

Click to expand...

I appologize if that came out wrong.....i was not trying to say that YOU lied to leo....just that OC'ers in general should not lie to leo.

Click to expand...

You are correct you wont lie if you stop damn talking. Too much talking during encounters provides them evidence to use against you. Nothing good happens while holding a roadside/ponderosa side debate on open carry, rights, etc. If LEO's break the law they will pay the price. No need to help them out trying to convict you something.

Click to expand...

agreed..... I will say, despite all temptations,(and Mr V. did make it easier for me) I didn't say a word. i should have walked away though.... curious to see what would have happened.

imported post

Kimberguy wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

lapeer20m wrote:

Venator wrote:

lapeer20m wrote: I didn't have any ID on me.  I didn't lie.  But good point.

Click to expand...

I appologize if that came out wrong.....i was not trying to say that YOU lied to leo....just that OC'ers in general should not lie to leo. 

Click to expand...

You are correct you wont lie if you stop damn talking. Too much talking during encounters provides them evidence to use against you. Nothing good happens while holding a roadside/ponderosa side debate on open carry, rights, etc. If LEO's break the law they will pay the price. No need to help them out trying to convict you something.

Click to expand...

agreed..... I will say, despite all temptations,(and Mr V. did make it easier for me) I didn't say a word.  i should have walked away though.... curious to see what would have happened.

Click to expand...

Mr V wasnt too bad either it was frustration that all of us feel in that situation. Just stand there and stare at them considering none of us broke any laws they will look bad and if we have permission from a non-pinhead like that last guy (at a better place) we would be free to go back in. The more we go the better because they will see in the end that they are doing nothing more then wasting their time. That's called acceptance and a victory!

imported post

I see a lot of chit chat that goes on in most encounters. Why?

I have a right to be represented in any integration by police. Am I not being interegated as soon as I am stopped and demanded to provide ID?

If I am not required to provide ID, then any and all questions presented to me will be responded with "I refuse to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. Am I free to go?"

And then leave. If my attempt to lawfully walk away is prevented, then that's a different situation. But a physical act on the police officer's part will be necessary to detain me. I will not stand there and comply with an unlawfully order passively.

imported post

Venator wrote:

manicdevery wrote:

or when OCing when in a place that requires CPL right? don't mean to be redundant just trying to get all my confused ducks in a row.

Click to expand...

You only need a CPL and DL or State ID when carrying concealed and are asked to produce them by an LEO if carrying concealed.

Click to expand...

i thought when carrying concealed you have to imediatly disclose that you have a CPL, or does that only pertain to when being pulled over. I do not have the liturature in front of me so don't quote me but i believe it is worded something like . . .

When stopped my an LEO you are required to imediatly disclose that your CPL and Drivers license.

At work right now or i would do a little more research.

thanks, Devery

imported post

An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lk3ubbvam4xudr45f2i3nd45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425f&query=on&highlight=concealed

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

If I am not required to provide ID, then any and all questions presented to me will be responded with "I refuse to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. Am I free to go?"

Click to expand...

My technique is to have recorders running at the first sign of trouble. And when approached, the first thing I will do is ask if I am getting detained. If yes, 911 is getting called on speaker with my unregistered phone so I can have an official recording of the encounter with me saying I am being unlawfully detained and that I request the assistance of the state police. If I'm told to put my hands in the air or if I get tackled or something, the phone will still be going when it falls on the ground. I haven't had to do this yet, but I've come close a few times.

And by the way, about talking to cops, police are very, very good at trying to weasel stupid statements out of people by making them fearful. When they use intimidation tactics, it can be very hard to resist, particularly if you're new to this crap. That is why I suggest keeping it so simple. Wash rinse repeat is complicated. Am I being detained answered with a no means leave. A yes means say nothing else to the cop(s) and call 911.

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lk3ubbvam4xudr45f2i3nd45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425f&query=on&highlight=concealed

Click to expand...

thank you thank you,

imported post

Michigander wrote:

CV67PAT wrote:

If I am not required to provide ID, then any and all questions presented to me will be responded with "I refuse to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. Am I free to go?"

Click to expand...

My technique is to have recorders running at the first sign of trouble. And when approached, the first thing I will do is ask if I am getting detained. If yes, 911 is getting called on speaker with my unregistered phone so I can have an official recording of the encounter with me saying I am being unlawfully detained and that I request the assistance of the state police. If I'm told to put my hands in the air or if I get tackled or something, the phone will still be going when it falls on the ground. I haven't had to do this yet, but I've come close a few times.

And by the way, about talking to cops, police are very, very good at trying to weasel stupid statements out of people by making them fearful. When they use intimidation tactics, it can be very hard to resist, particularly if you're new to this crap. That is why I suggest keeping it so simple. Wash rinse repeat is complicated. Am I being detained answered with a no means leave. A yes means say nothing else to the cop(s) and call 911.

Click to expand...

Just remember that not all cops are like this. The majority in fact know the law understand open carry and are happy to treat you right. The problem is there are many police and there are bound to be poorly some trained, abuse their powers, and/or commit crimes of their own. Certain areas look to be having more of these types of officers then the ladder.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

Just remember that not all cops are like this.

Click to expand...

Of course not. But as with most things in life, it's the rare 2% things that will get you, and make you 100% ******.