Stop and Identify States

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

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

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.

Click to expand...

Which would be the aforementioned RS.

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:

[size="-1"](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. [/size]
[size="-1"](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. [/size]
[size="-1"](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.[/size]


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

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:

[size=-1](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. [/size]
[size=-1](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. [/size]
[size=-1](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.[/size]


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

Click to expand...

I could very well be incorrect

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

RIF but understanding is critical.

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.

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. 

Click to expand...

If you're not committing a crime, no.

imported post

autosurgeon wrote:

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

Click to expand...

+1

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

Click to expand...

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!