• 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

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
imported post

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

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
imported post

Missoury Government webpage

Missouri Revised Statutes [size="+2"] Chapter 84
Police Departments in St. Louis and Kansas City
Section 84.710
[/size]

[size="-1"]August 28, 2009[/size]
rd_bar.gif


[size="+1"] Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest (Kansas City).
[/size]
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.

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

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.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

Richieg150

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
432
Location
Show Me State
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...
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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).
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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





 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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??
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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.
 

Richieg150

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
432
Location
Show Me State
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.
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
does this apply to st louis and KC only? what about other cities and counties? IE st charles, jefferson, etc...
 
Top