Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Stop and Identify States

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mason Co., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Gents, I am unsure if this has ever been posted, if it has, moderators, please delete.

    I have read many postings about whether or not one has to identify ones-self when contacted by a LEO. I found this information listing the states that do require it as well as each states' law regarding the circumstances. Do note that Michigan is not on this list.

    180

    Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30

    Arizona
    Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)

    Arkansas
    Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)

    Colorado
    Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

    Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
    Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2)

    Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)

    Illinois
    Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14

    Indiana
    Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5

    Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)

    Louisiana
    La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
    Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)

    Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401

    Nebraska
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829

    Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123

    New Hampshire
    N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2

    New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3

    New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL ) §140.50 (1)

    North Dakota
    N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)

    Ohio
    Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)

    Rhode Island
    R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1

    Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15

    Vermont
    Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983

    Wisconsin
    Wis. Stat. §968.24


    --Moderator Edited for formating & clarity--
    10/9/11

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Michigan only requires you to identify under two circumstances (that I know of)

    1) Carrying concealed under authority of a CPL.
    2) Driving under authority of a driver's license.

  3. #3
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Good info. Now I know which states I won't move to. Notice Illinois is on that list, everything about that state sucks. We should move Chicago and put it on top of Benton Harbor.

  4. #4
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Instead lets dump BH on Chicago and get rid of it!! No need to screw up MI any more!!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Do not believe everything you read on the Internet.



    Florida is not a Stop & ID state.

    You are only required to ID yourself if lawfully detained/arrested. IE, the LEO has RS to believe a crime has just been committed, is being committed, or immediately will be committed.

    The law that was quoted is a prowling/loitering statue, the key part of which is:


    It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
    Which would be the aforementioned RS.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mason Co., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Although I do not live, nor have I lived in Florida, my understanding of the law as stated in paragraph 2 of 856.201 is this:

    (1)It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
    (2)Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
    (3)Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


    Notice the comma after "officer" and after "herself". These are separate acts included in the "circumstances" determining such alarm or concern...flight OR refusal of ID OR concealment. It does not mean that all these have to occur at the same time...flight AND refusal to ID AND concealment.

    At least that is how I understand that it is written, I could very well be incorrect, however personally, the way para 2 reads, I consider Florida a stop and identify state.

    OMMV

    180

    edit:

    After further investigation I found this:

    790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.-- (1)The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9). Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court.


    So according to 790.06, if someone is going about their business and an LEO makes contact, ID must be shown.

    180

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    180gr.HP wrote:
    Although I do not live, nor have I lived in Florida, my understanding of the law as stated in paragraph 2 of 856.201 is this:

    (1)It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
    (2)Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
    (3)Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


    Notice the comma after "officer" and after "herself". These are separate acts included in the "circumstances" determining such alarm or concern...flight OR refusal of ID OR concealment. It does not mean that all these have to occur at the same time...flight AND refusal to ID AND concealment.

    At least that is how I understand that it is written, I could very well be incorrect, however personally, the way para 2 reads, I consider Florida a stop and identify state.

    OMMV

    180
    I could very well be incorrect
    You are.
    ...at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
    The bolded part is key here.

    Hanging out at the Stop& Rob on a Friday afternoon drinking a soda with your homies does not warrantreasonable alarm or immediate concern.

    Hanging out at the closed Stop & Rob at 3AM with a hoodie on, looking into the windows and your homies acting like look-outs, maywarrantreasonable alarm or immediate concern.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mason Co., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    I am not completely disagreeing with you, however it has been my belief that unless a crime is actually committed, there has not been a crime. Looking in windows, as far as I know is not illegal, barring of course if it were someones home. Suspicious, yes.

    Scenario: if it were me looking into a store window at 3am and I am not committing a crime, should a LEO approach me? Under various circumstances such as if the area has a high crime rate, I am holding a brick, etc, I would probably expect an officer to. But seeing that I am doing nothing looking in the window, (read as no ill intent), the LEO should just keep me under surveillance until such time further action is necessary. If the fact is that the LEO does approach and ask for ID, according to 856.201 p.2, I am required, by law, to submit and show it. The LEOs reasoning could always be something like 'it looked to me like..', '..fit the description of..' or something else along those similarities. Either way, just because I am looking in a window at 3am, I am considered a suspect because I "might" do something.

    180

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    180gr.HP wrote:
    I am not completely disagreeing with you, however it has been my belief that unless a crime is actually committed, there has not been a crime. Looking in windows, as far as I know is not illegal, barring of course if it were someones home. Suspicious, yes.

    Scenario: if it were me looking into a store window at 3am and I am not committing a crime, should a LEO approach me? Under various circumstances such as if the area has a high crime rate, I am holding a brick, etc, I would probably expect an officer to. But seeing that I am doing nothing looking in the window, (read as no ill intent), the LEO should just keep me under surveillance until such time further action is necessary. If the fact is that the LEO does approach and ask for ID, according to 856.201 p.2, I am required, by law, to submit and show it. The LEOs reasoning could always be something like 'it looked to me like..', '..fit the description of..' or something else along those similarities. Either way, just because I am looking in a window at 3am, I am considered a suspect because I "might" do something.

    180

    You keep missing this:
    . . . at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals. . .

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mason Co., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Sir, I am not missing it, I am ignoring it.

    My reason is, who is to say what "unusual" is? The general consensus?
    Maybe I work nights and I am on my way home from work, maybe I LIKE to go grocery shopping at 3am, maybe I have actinic prurigo. Does any of that make me 'unusual'? Does that not make me a law abiding citizen? Because we live in a free country, I have the right to be out at 3am without papers. However if I am going about my business and just happen to be approached by a LEO at 3am, asked for my ID and refuse, according to the law, I could very well be found guilty of a misdemeanor whether I am of ill intent or not.

    Either way, I still feel that my interpretation is the safest one. On to other topics.

    180

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    180gr.HP wrote:
    Sir, I am not missing it, I am ignoring it.

    My reason is, who is to say what "unusual" is? The general consensus?
    Maybe I work nights and I am on my way home from work, maybe I LIKE to go grocery shopping at 3am, maybe I have actinic prurigo. Does any of that make me 'unusual'? Does that not make me a law abiding citizen? Because we live in a free country, I have the right to be out at 3am without papers. However if I am going about my business and just happen to be approached by a LEO at 3am, asked for my ID and refuse, according to the law, I could very well be found guilty of a misdemeanor whether I am of ill intent or not.

    Either way, I still feel that my interpretation is the safest one. On to other topics.

    180
    RIF but understanding is critical.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    If detained by an officer in michigan, you do not have to give your name if you are not cc or driving?

    That is very interesting.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    If detained by an officer in michigan, you do not have to give your name if you are not cc or driving?

    That is very interesting.*
    If you're not committing a crime, no.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  14. #14
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    Instead lets dump BH on Chicago and get rid of it!! No need to screw up MI any more!!
    +1

  15. #15
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    180gr.HP wrote:
    Sir, I am not missing it, I am ignoring it.

    My reason is, who is to say what "unusual" is? The general consensus?
    Maybe I work nights and I am on my way home from work, maybe I LIKE to go grocery shopping at 3am, maybe I have actinic prurigo. Does any of that make me 'unusual'? Does that not make me a law abiding citizen? Because we live in a free country, I have the right to be out at 3am without papers. However if I am going about my business and just happen to be approached by a LEO at 3am, asked for my ID and refuse, according to the law, I could very well be found guilty of a misdemeanor whether I am of ill intent or not.

    Either way, I still feel that my interpretation is the safest one. On to other topics.

    180
    The Govt. of Fla., a govt. of the people of Fla., for the people of Fla, & by the people of Fla. is who decided what was unusual. Just saying!

Posting Permissions

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