• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Missouri Stop & Identify Laws

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
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!
 

Thomur23

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
1
Location
missouri
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.
 

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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??? :D
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
i would assume st louis refers to city and county.

is there a MO RS that applies to the whole state?
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
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:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.

Let them try.
 

NG19

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
113
Location
Warrensburg, Missouri
I agree. If a LEO wants to ask me for ID if I am doing nothing wrong, I will ask if I am being detained and if so why and if not then I will politely be about my way.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
I agree. If a LEO wants to ask me for ID if I am doing nothing wrong, I will ask if I am being detained and if so why and if not then I will politely be about my way.


Wishful thinking...

As for the stop and ID, I've said it before in other threads, MO courts are clear that if the police demand ID, you must give it up. It's not really a battle you can win. If you get arrested, all you can expect is to spend money and have the charges dropped. No big lawsuit, no sending a message; just a night in jail and money to an attorney.
 

xdmcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
289
Location
St Louis City
Wishful thinking...

As for the stop and ID, I've said it before in other threads, MO courts are clear that if the police demand ID, you must give it up. It's not really a battle you can win. If you get arrested, all you can expect is to spend money and have the charges dropped. No big lawsuit, no sending a message; just a night in jail and money to an attorney.

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.Just because you were arrested does not make it law, just shows that LEO'S can and will not follow the laws they themselves are supposed to uphold.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

If the cited statute is relevant to MO, you NEVER need to show ID. Depending upon RAS, you might be required to identify yourself. That does not mean "show ID."
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Wishful thinking...

As for the stop and ID, I've said it before in other threads, MO courts are clear that if the police demand ID, you must give it up. It's not really a battle you can win. If you get arrested, all you can expect is to spend money and have the charges dropped. No big lawsuit, no sending a message; just a night in jail and money to an attorney.

"Cite to authority."

Got court case links?
Got statute links?

Terry and Hiibel are the court cases I refer to for Stop and ID subjects. Do you have other cases that deny those?

The only statute mentioned for MO so far only applies to Kansas City, MO, and not to the state.
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

So, MO does not appear to be a "Stop and ID" state. Thus, unless under the authority of the City of Kansas City, the state has not granted the power to compel identification. Do you have any contradictory information other than your opinion?
 
Last edited:

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Actually wrightme, Lancers has significant experience with it.

When he is speaking of ID he is talking in general terms, and you are correct, we are not required to have any form of state issued identification with us unless we are participating in an activity that requires it.

I believe the quoted RSMO statute covers KC and St Louis unless it has changed fairly recently.

What Lancers is referencing is officers violating a persons rights anyway and demanding it. If one goes into custody for it, while a clear violation, a great many phone calls seeking an atty to take the case and press the issue is an exercise in near futility and cost significantly up front to get it pursued.

This will likely remain a never ending debate, but as a general rule, while wrong, a vast majority of law enforcement are under the impression that anyone and everyone MUST comply with whatever they say and dramatically over react when someone does not. That situation has played itself out enough here that it holds merit and lawyers do not seem to be chomping at the bit to take on city hall so to speak.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The difficulty is when such as he present it as if it were actual fact that ID is required. THAT is part of the problem perpetuation.

Had Lancers stated that there is no requirement, BUT that LE frequently violate it and cause citizens to fight in court, that is one thing. But, if they fight in court and LOSE, then the courts are legislating from the bench, and the LE are violating rights. If that is the case, that is what he should state.


Actually wrightme, Lancers has significant experience with it.

When he is speaking of ID he is talking in general terms, and you are correct, we are not required to have any form of state issued identification with us unless we are participating in an activity that requires it.

I believe the quoted RSMO statute covers KC and St Louis unless it has changed fairly recently.

What Lancers is referencing is officers violating a persons rights anyway and demanding it. If one goes into custody for it, while a clear violation, a great many phone calls seeking an atty to take the case and press the issue is an exercise in near futility and cost significantly up front to get it pursued.

This will likely remain a never ending debate, but as a general rule, while wrong, a vast majority of law enforcement are under the impression that anyone and everyone MUST comply with whatever they say and dramatically over react when someone does not. That situation has played itself out enough here that it holds merit and lawyers do not seem to be chomping at the bit to take on city hall so to speak.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Actually wrightme, Lancers has significant experience with it.

When he is speaking of ID he is talking in general terms, and you are correct, we are not required to have any form of state issued identification with us unless we are participating in an activity that requires it.

I believe the quoted RSMO statute covers KC and St Louis unless it has changed fairly recently.

What Lancers is referencing is officers violating a persons rights anyway and demanding it. If one goes into custody for it, while a clear violation, a great many phone calls seeking an atty to take the case and press the issue is an exercise in near futility and cost significantly up front to get it pursued.

This will likely remain a never ending debate, but as a general rule, while wrong, a vast majority of law enforcement are under the impression that anyone and everyone MUST comply with whatever they say and dramatically over react when someone does not. That situation has played itself out enough here that it holds merit and lawyers do not seem to be chomping at the bit to take on city hall so to speak.

LMTD, I'm not sure RSMO Chapter 84.710 covers both KC and St. Louis. That specific chapter seems to be specific to KC. It looks like many statues in Chapter 84 are city specific and use the city's name in parenthesis to denote where it applies. Statues like 84.020 and 84.350 seem to be about the same thing, but each has the city it covers in parenthesis in the title. Statue 84.710 also has KC in parenthesis in it's title, so it would seem that it would only apply to KC. As I have stated before, however, IANAL.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
LMTD, I'm not sure RSMO Chapter 84.710 covers both KC and St. Louis.

I am not sure WHERE I saw it, but I remeber reading on stop and identify and st louis city and kc were listed in some form. I took note of it because it was oddly worded and took a bit to decide if it was stl city only or county which would not include city etc.

More or less just a mess.
 

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Well, I am not surprised that LEO's "violate" Lancer's rights. His comments on the video in jail suggest an inability to control what he says, making me suspect that he creates most of his own trouble. Yes, I know the history, I read all of it in many threads. I don't want to get into all of that again. Same thing I have already said before.

But since I started carrying over 2 years ago, I have been stopped and asked for ID about 20 times. I complied once, the first time I was asked, and was then treated as a criminal until I was run though the system. After watching dozens of videos by sovereign citizens like CheckPointUSA that know their rights and refuse to ID, I have never ID'd since. I tell them NOTHING about who I am, what I am doing, where I am going, etc. I ask THEM questions. They work for US from OUR tax money. They are accountable to US. THEY are public servants. When the LEO's see you standing on your rights in a mature, calm manner, they realize what they are up against and move on. I know that there have been some cases when the police acted inappropriately. That does NOT mean we should start giving up our rights to avoid being handcuffed and screamed at. I will take the abuse if it comes and use it to further my cause. And if the problem ever becomes systemic and we truly begin to lose our rights as a standard matter of course, I will join those who oppose it to whatever extent is required.

No free man should ever do less. You reap what you deserve when you fail to stand against tyranny. And a police state is tyranny. They have no Constitutional authority over us. Only elected officials, ie, the Sheriff have executive authority over citizens, and then ONLY if you are a suspect in a crime.

Something else I have recently learned. A friend of mine has no drivers license. When he gets pulled over, he simply states to the officer that the city that the cop works for is a private corporation (this is legally true) and that since he never signed a contract with the coproration (getting drivers license), he is not bound by their statues or ordinances. He also refuses to sign the ticket because it is a contract. That's why they have you sign, to bind yourself contractually. And is never arrested and never pays a fine. And he knows many lawyers that say legally he is correct... I will be doing more research on this. He drives without a license because he has no contract with the state and has the right to free movement and peaceable journey... but I digress...

Anyway, know your rights and act like a free man.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Well, I am not surprised that LEO's "violate" Lancer's rights. His comments on the video in jail suggest an inability to control what he says, making me suspect that he creates most of his own trouble. Yes, I know the history, I read all of it in many threads. I don't want to get into all of that again. Same thing I have already said before.

But since I started carrying over 2 years ago, I have been stopped and asked for ID about 20 times. I complied once, the first time I was asked, and was then treated as a criminal until I was run though the system. After watching dozens of videos by sovereign citizens like CheckPointUSA that know their rights and refuse to ID, I have never ID'd since. I tell them NOTHING about who I am, what I am doing, where I am going, etc. I ask THEM questions. They work for US from OUR tax money. They are accountable to US. THEY are public servants. When the LEO's see you standing on your rights in a mature, calm manner, they realize what they are up against and move on. I know that there have been some cases when the police acted inappropriately. That does NOT mean we should start giving up our rights to avoid being handcuffed and screamed at. I will take the abuse if it comes and use it to further my cause. And if the problem ever becomes systemic and we truly begin to lose our rights as a standard matter of course, I will join those who oppose it to whatever extent is required.

No free man should ever do less. You reap what you deserve when you fail to stand against tyranny. And a police state is tyranny. They have no Constitutional authority over us. Only elected officials, ie, the Sheriff have executive authority over citizens, and then ONLY if you are a suspect in a crime.

Something else I have recently learned. A friend of mine has no drivers license. When he gets pulled over, he simply states to the officer that the city that the cop works for is a private corporation (this is legally true) and that since he never signed a contract with the coproration (getting drivers license), he is not bound by their statues or ordinances. He also refuses to sign the ticket because it is a contract. That's why they have you sign, to bind yourself contractually. And is never arrested and never pays a fine. And he knows many lawyers that say legally he is correct... I will be doing more research on this. He drives without a license because he has no contract with the state and has the right to free movement and peaceable journey... but I digress...

Anyway, know your rights and act like a free man.


Not to be argumentative(OK, maybe a little :) ) but how can an officer work for a private corporation AND be a public servant that works for you? If they work for a private corporation(which I agree with) how are they answerable to you? Not trying to bust your chops, just pointing out that we can't have it both ways.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Through the civil courts and being held within the operations of that corporation to the guidelines drafted by the constitution.
 
Top