Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: Missouri Stop & Identify Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Alright guys, I want to know if anyone can point me to the Statute in MO law about when and/or if you have to identify yourself to a LEO. Anyone know where this statute is? I've googled a whole lot but still am not sure.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    This is in regards to a time when you haven't done anything wrong by the way.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,950

    Post imported post

    Missoury Government webpage

    Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 84
    Police Departments in St. Louis and Kansas City
    Section 84.710

    August 28, 2009


    Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest (Kansas City).
    84.710.
    1. The members of the police force appointed in pursuance hereof are hereby declared to be officers of the state of Missouri and of the city for which such commissioners are appointed.

    2. They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going. When stopping or detaining a suspect, they may search him for a dangerous weapon whenever they have reasonable ground to believe they are in danger from the possession of such dangerous weapon by the suspect. No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest.

    3. Any person who has been arrested without a warrant may be released, without being taken before a judge, by the officer in charge of the police station whenever the officer is satisfied that there is no ground for making complaint against him, or when the person was arrested for a misdemeanor and will sign a satisfactory agreement to appear in court at the time designated.

    (RSMo 1939 § 7674, A.L. 1943 p. 727 § 7673, A.L. 1978 H.B. 1634) Prior revisions: 1929 § 7519; 1919 § 8930; 1909 § 9782
    Effective 1-2-79

    Italics and underlining by me. It would seem that unless the Officer has RAS to believe you have, are or are about to commit a crime then you have no duty under the law to answer any questions.


  4. #4
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,255

    Post imported post

    whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime




    So.......what defines "reasonable"? I don't believe simply carrying a legally posessed object provides any reasonable articulable suspicion that any criminal act is, has, or is about to be committed.

    Therefore, if a cop walks up to me while OC'ing and demands ID, do I legally have to give it to him if I'm simply OC'ing and have not done any of the above?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,950

    Post imported post

    Personally - - -
    If a law enforcement officer stopped me while I was carrying and asked/demanded my license/permit, the first thing out of my mouth would be the question "Am I being detained?" quickly followed by "Do you suspect me of illegal activity?" and most likely "Am I free to go?"

    His answers would determine both my voluntary and required level of cooperation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    I believe that would known as "a Terry stop" as in Terry v. Ohio. If there is no reason for the stop, it's violation of your 4th A rights.

    I am not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

  7. #7
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Fallschirmjager,

    I found that statute too, by googling it and wikipedia. I really want to know if there are any other Missouri statutes that pertain to Stop & ID laws.

    Also, I like your line of questioning.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    Go to Youtube,and look at video's of Dealing with the police by the Antiterrorist,its a good video and he goes over this very thing...
    A man does not stumble upon integrity or accidentally find himself being faithful to God, he does it intentionally.
    Ephesians 6:12- For Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

  9. #9
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    That video doesn't go over MO Stop & Identify Law. I'd just like to know more about if you have to identify yourself to LEO's if you aren't breaking any law(s).

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Yes, in MO if asked, you have to identify yourself.


    There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the power to require people to identify themselves under those conditions.

    As of 2009, the following 24 states have “stop and identify” laws:





    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






  11. #11
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    yelohamr, i've seen that wikipedia article a million times. Nowhere in that statute does it say you must identify yourself at all times under all circumstances.



    I'm hoping someone local knows more about this than I do.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going.
    This is what is used. They can suspect anything. They may be able to cite someone for hindering/interfering an investigation.


    Way back in the last century, when I was a LEO in MO, people were required to show I.D. or identify themselves when asked. I don't recall ever having anyone fail to identify themselves, except when lying about who they were.

    However, here in CA there is no law requiring people to identify themselves, unless it involves a traffic stop. If they are driving, they must show a driver's license when asked.

    There have been instances where anOCer has been stopped and refused to I.D. The police have waited until they got in their car and started driving, then stop themfor some minor or made up reason, just to see their driver's license.



  13. #13
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,624

    Post imported post

    I think must of these laws are written to be roughly Hiibel compliant, just to state your name - so if you reallydon't wantto show ID, don't carry any

    But if you are stopped by police, seems to me it is prudent to state your name so that records of their action can be found by FOIA or subpoena relating to their stop of you by name - see what i mean? Plus, it sure looks reasonble if you state your name to the police to the general public re somebody carrying a gun - you are a good guy right?

    Open carry is a public relations game folks - there are other groups who want to take on anonymous travel etc. - i agree with them, but have other knitting to stick to right now.

  14. #14
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going.
    This is what is used. They can suspect anything. They may be able to cite someone for hindering/interfering an investigation.


    Way back in the last century, when I was a LEO in MO, people were required to show I.D. or identify themselves when asked. I don't recall ever having anyone fail to identify themselves, except when lying about who they were.

    However, here in CA there is no law requiring people to identify themselves, unless it involves a traffic stop. If they are driving, they must show a driver's license when asked.

    There have been instances where anOCer has been stopped and refused to I.D. The police have waited until they got in their car and started driving, then stop themfor some minor or made up reason, just to see their driver's license.

    yelohamr, thanks for your response. When you say they can cite you for interfering with an investigation, how is not giving your name interfering under typical city ordinances? If there is no reasonable ground to suspect a crime, that is. Or is the reasonable ground part thrown out the window by LEO's regularly?

    Also, why do LEO's feel like they need to know everyone's name, address, shoe size, favorite t-shirt, etc??

  15. #15
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    I think must of these laws are written to be roughly Hiibel compliant, just to state your name - so if you reallydon't wantto show ID, don't carry any

    But if you are stopped by police, seems to me it is prudent to state your name so that records of their action can be found by FOIA or subpoena relating to their stop of you by name - see what i mean? Plus, it sure looks reasonble if you state your name to the police to the general public re somebody carrying a gun - you are a good guy right?

    Open carry is a public relations game folks - there are other groups who want to take on anonymous travel etc. - i agree with them, but have other knitting to stick to right now.
    I don't really see what you mean Mike. I don't see why it's prudent, or necessary, for them to know your name when you are just living out your everyday life? Why the fear of guns? Why is there a need to ask my name when you could ask every other person obeying the law his or her name?

    What is reasonable, to me, is to be left alone unless you're breaking the law. I don't buy the it's a PR game. None of this is a game, this our right here.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    cash50 wrote:
    yelohamr, thanks for your response. When you say they can cite you for interfering with an investigation, how is not giving your name interfering under typical city ordinances? If there is no reasonable ground to suspect a crime, that is. Or is the reasonable ground part thrown out the window by LEO's regularly?

    Also, why do LEO's feel like they need to know everyone's name, address, shoe size, favorite t-shirt, etc??
    As an example, if you sort of resemble someone the police are looking for and they have his name, one way to prove you aren't that guy is to show your picture I.D. If they think you are who they are looking for, they may have to wait for fingerprint results or something else. You will probably be detained for a while for hindering their investigation. Your day will be ruined too.

  17. #17
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,624

    Post imported post

    cash50 wrote:
    I don't buy the it's a PR game. None of this is a game, this our right here.
    It is a PR game if you want to win.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going Well....................................As far as I am concerned,if a LEO asks for my ID,I will ask if I am being detained,if so why,have theywitnessed me breaking any STATE,or City laws or ordinances,if they reply no,I am going to reply with,"In that case I reserve my right not to interact with you in any way,I must be on my way.......HAVE A NICE DAY OFFICER"....The problem with most LEO is they think they are the law,and areabove our laws......They have no magical power over us UNTIL we BREAK the LAW......PERIOD.
    A man does not stumble upon integrity or accidentally find himself being faithful to God, he does it intentionally.
    Ephesians 6:12- For Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

  19. #19
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Hiruleshouse, I don't think that is law in MO.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    does this apply to st louis and KC only? what about other cities and counties? IE st charles, jefferson, etc...
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,899
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    does this apply to st louis and KC only? what about other cities and counties? IE st charles, jefferson, etc...
    Yeah, that is a confusing one for sure!

    FYI nearly a record for reviving of a dead thread!
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    1
    So has the question really been answered? To me it seems that you shouldnt need to show ID unless your suspected of wrong doing. But others seem to disagree, saying that in MO they have the authority to demand your name for no reason.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by yelohamr View Post
    cash50 wrote:
    As an example, if you sort of resemble someone the police are looking for and they have his name, one way to prove you aren't that guy is to show your picture I.D. If they think you are who they are looking for, they may have to wait for fingerprint results or something else. You will probably be detained for a while for hindering their investigation. Your day will be ruined too.
    In your example, they are investigating a CRIME where you look like the description of the perp in which case I will be GLAD to ID myself. But I will NOT ID myself because they feel like asking because they don't like the fact that I am LEGALLY armed and going about my business.

    The statute applies to KC and St Louis only, it says so right in the law. Missouri Revised Statutes

    "Chapter 84
    Police Departments in St. Louis and Kansas City
    Section 84.710

    August 28, 2010



    Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest (Kansas City).
    84.710. 1. The members of the police force appointed in pursuance hereof are hereby declared to be officers of the state of Missouri and of the city for which such commissioners are appointed.

    2. They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going. When stopping or detaining a suspect, they may search him for a dangerous weapon whenever they have reasonable ground to believe they are in danger from the possession of such dangerous weapon by the suspect. No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest. 3. Any person who has been arrested without a warrant may be released, without being taken before a judge, by the officer in charge of the police station whenever the officer is satisfied that there is no ground for making complaint against him, or when the person was arrested for a misdemeanor and will sign a satisfactory agreement to appear in court at the time designated.

    (RSMo 1939 § 7674, A.L. 1943 p. 727 § 7673, A.L. 1978 H.B. 1634)
    Prior revisions: 1929 § 7519; 1919 § 8930; 1909 § 9782

    Effective 1-2-79"

    And it states that you must be suspected of a crime. This is one of the plainest statutes I have ever read and I feel ONE HUNDRED PERCENT within my rights to refuse to ID until they can articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime at which point I WANT IT ON RECORD that they stopped me.

    Should be crystal clear now, yes???
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    i would assume st louis refers to city and county.

    is there a MO RS that applies to the whole state?
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    427
    I'm with you kyle. I'm having difficulty finding anything that applies to the entire State. Most everything I've found is specific to STL and KC. SPD had informed me a while back when I inquired for a student that there was a Supreme Court case on the matter and I truly don't recall what the case was.

    That said, I do know that should someone refuse to identify that the Patriot Act gives LEOs the ability to have someone detained for an unspecified period of time to rule them out for terrorism. I wrote a paper on this particular subject and I was very surprised to find that out as it's not exactly clearly written in the act itself.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 07-31-2011 at 10:49 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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