Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: show ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    if stopped for OC am i required to show ID? maybe an old question but i like to flex my rights.

    thanks for any replies

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    if its purely for carrying, and they have no RAS (reasonable articulable? suspicion.) then no.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    As you probably read on the other thread, you are under no requirement to provide ID as long as the legal presence of your gun is the only motivation for the stop/police contact. You can provide identification if you wish, invite the officer to sit and chat a bit or simply excuse yourself and continue on your business.

    If there are reports raising questions as to your behavior orstatements which do provide the officers with cause to investigate, then you can be required to show your ID. Making threats, brandishing,etc. are among the actions whichcan givean officer RAS and escalate the situation.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    thanks ed for enlightening this subject more.... my brain is fried.... lol

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Cites, please.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Cites, please.
    What citation are you asking for, one that says a citizen isn't required to show identification?

    How does one cite to a law that does not exist? Any citation would pretty much have to be to a law that requires a citizen to identify themselves, wouldn't it?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    1. Open Carry is a legal activity in Idaho, no crime is in progress.

    2. Read up on the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    3.Google "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion".

    For further understanding read up on Terry Stops andprobable cause.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    It should be noted that while choosing to exercise this right (or any other for that matter) it is wise to determine if you have been asked or COMMANDED to do something. I will always refuse so long as they are asking. If they are commanding, I will comply...always. It's best, as Ecocks mentioned before, to not make scenes and attract negative attention. If at any point the officer gives a command to show your I.D. you shouldn't hesitate or try to argue your rights. This is best left for the courts if you really feel you've been violated that badly.

    When you get a chance, research the forum for "sterile carry". This is how I usually O.C. and showing I.D. becomes a moot point if I have none on me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Co., ,
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    It should be noted that while choosing to exercise this right (or any other for that matter) it is wise to determine if you have been asked or COMMANDED to do something. I will always refuse so long as they are asking. If they are commanding, I will comply...always. It's best, as Ecocks mentioned before, to not make scenes and attract negative attention. If at any point the officer gives a command to show your I.D. you shouldn't hesitate or try to argue your rights. This is best left for the courts if you really feel you've been violated that badly.

    When you get a chance, research the forum for "sterile carry". This is how I usually O.C. and showing I.D. becomes a moot point if I have none on me.
    Where do I find the forum for "sterile carry"?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    There really isn't a forum for "sterile carry", it's more of a concept.
    Carrying "sterile" means to carry only the minimum legally required documents. In other words, the driver's permit is left in the car. Or, if one is required to produce identification while carrying then producing a form of identification (such as a passport or passport card) that doesn't reveal one's address.

    My driving license stays almost permanently in my car, it's the only one I drive so it's always there. For 'walking around' purposes, I have a government issued passport card (good for 10years (i believe) and a bargain at the price).


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Fallschirmjäger wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Cites, please.
    What citation are you asking for, one that says a citizen isn't required to show identification?

    How does one cite to a law that does not exist? Any citation would pretty much have to be to a law that requires a citizen to identify themselves, wouldn't it?
    The cite I would like is what does Idaho law say about the power of a police officer to require (request) identification. My time has been limited but I have not yet found anything in Idaho law authorizing police to request or require identification.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Post imported post

    You won't find anything in Idaho law about the topic because it has not been addressed by the legislature, so it's impossible to cite a specific Idaho statute.

    You'd have to research case law for the principles regarding any "requirement" to produce identification, since "the law" on that topic arises from the courts' interpretations of the U.S. and/or Idaho constitutional protections to individuals, not some specifically enumerated statute.

    BTW, folks, in many ways, state constitutions give MORE protection to individuals than the U.S. Constitution. Think of the U.S. Constitution as the bare minimum level of individual rights that exist, but that states are free to grant even more protection than that bare minimum. Brownie points to those who find Idaho's constitutional provisions regarding firearms and other individual rights that are touched on by this thread....

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    Good video about police encounters/confrontations. It doesn't all apply to open carry specifically, but it has some great advice about your rights. While we will all choose to react a little differently, this will help you make a more informed decision.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the info everybody.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    Just remember the old addage... do unto others..... In other words, be polite, be nice, and whoever you meet, officer or citizen, treat them right and youll be treated right. I say this with lots of experience in having police run ins.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    im always polite and never raise my voice, its usually the police that are disrespectful toward me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    it happens...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    As I recall from talking to Mike S., "Sterile carry" is carrying NO identification on you. I cannot recall anyplace in the USA that requires you to carry any form of identification cards or papers when you are a pedestrian, or even as a passenger in a private vehicle, city bus, subway train, commuter train, etc. I often open carry here in VA while leaving all ID locked in the car, with about $50 cash on me to pay for lunch/dinner. If there's no state law requiring you to carry your Soviet internal passport at all times, then there can't be a law requiring you to show your papers to the police. Obviously, while driving, you need a driver's license. To get into a city recreation center, you need a city rec ID. Etc. And if you are CCing your backup firearm, you need your permit/license to do so.

    Bottom line; you can't be bullied into providing ID papers if you don't have them...

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Fallschirmjäger wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Cites, please.
    1) What citation are you asking for, one that says a citizen isn't required to show identification?

    2) How does one cite to a law that does not exist? Any citation would pretty much have to be to a law that requires a citizen to identify themselves, wouldn't it?
    Yes. Can't really cite a negative. However, there was more than one statement of law in Ecocks post:

    As you probably read 1.on the other thread, you are under no requirement to provide ID 2. as long as the legal presence of your gun is the only motivation for the stop/police contact. You can provide identification if you wish, invite the officer to sit and chat a bit or simply excuse yourself and continue on your business.

    3. If there are reports raising questions as to your behavior orstatements which do provide the officers with cause to investigate, then you can be required to show your ID. Making threats, brandishing,etc. are among the actions whichcan givean officer RAS and escalate the situation.


    Ecocks cleared things up a bit with his next post. Although not really cites, he at least pointed the reader in the direction of beginning to find answers.

    However, one statement of law is still uncited. See my next post.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ecocks wrote:
    SNIP ...If there are reports raising questions as to your behavior orstatements which do provide the officers with cause to investigate, then you can be required to show your ID...
    Cite, please. What is the statute or ordinance that requires an Idahoan to provide ID to a cop upon demand?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    Goodpoint and one worth distinguishing.

    I should not havesaid "required you to show your ID" since that isonly the most common way to establishyour identityinthe course of an investigation, assuming they have RAS either from your behavior or the reports. If you have provided them with reason to investigate and/or detain you, they are going to require identification whether it comes from you via documentation, the NCIS from fingerprintsor some other substantiated source.Perhaps a better choice of wordswould have been "justified in requiring ID" (from whatever source)? These citations are more than likely going to be contained in case law, rather than statutes.

    Someone also raised an interesting question as to if you are not required to carry ID, how can you be required to show it? That is astunningly simplepoint and obviously gives pause to a lot of those who claim you can be arrested or detained for not providing identification when demanded. Many foreignnationals are surprised that we have no national identification requirement since they can be detained and fined for lacking their papers in their possession in their home countries. While I am no lawyer, it would seem that the question really is are the police justified in requesting your identification as the easiest step in establishing your identity in the course of an investigation or where RAS exists? Where can you be arrested for the "crime" of failing to show identification on demand? Obviously, there are some activities which require possession of licenses or permits but pure identification is a different issue.



  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ecocks wrote:
    Goodpoint and one worth distinguishing.

    I should not havesaid "required you to show your ID" since that isonly the most common way to establishyour identityinthe course of an investigation, assuming they have RAS either from your behavior or the reports. If you have provided them with reason to invesitgate and/or detain you, they are going to require identification whether it comes from you via documentation, the NCIS from fingerprintsor some other substantiated source.Perhaps a better choice of wordswould have been "justified in requiring ID" (from whatever source)? These citations are more than likely going to be contained in case law, rather than statutes.

    Someone also raised an interesting question as to if you are not required to carry ID, how can you be required to show it? That is astunningly simplepoint and obviously gives pause to a lot of those who claim you can be arrested or detained for not providing identification when demanded. Many foreignnationals are surprised that we have no national identification requirement since they can be detained and fined for lacking their papers in their possession in their home countries. While I am no lawyer, it would seem that the question really is are the police justified in requesting your identification as the easiest step in establishing your identity in the course of an investigation or where RAS exists? Where can you be arrested for the "crime" of failing to show identification on demand? Obviously, there are some activities which require possession of licenses or permits but pure identification is a different issue.
    I think it will boil down to whether Idaho has a stop-and-identify statute, or perhaps whether there is a state court opinion saying refusal to verbally identify amounts to obstruction. The statutes should be easy to check. Court opinions might be a little harder. Maybe have to check with the local ACLU or privacy group or such to see if they have any information on it. I guess google might turn up something, also.

    Three US Supreme Court cases seem to address the stop-and-identify issue. I've linked them below. They internally cite other opinions worth reading, too.

    Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Courtupheld aNevada statute that required a person to identify himself to a police officer who had RAS.

    Kolender vs Lawson overturned a California statute because it was too vague about what was meant by the suspect being required to supply "credible and reliable" identification. Meaning the type of acceptable identification was too open to interpretation by police.

    Brown v Texassaid that detaining someone to ascertain his identity triggers the 4th Amendment and thus requires at a minimum RAS.

    I have read at least one state's statute that said a cop could demand an ID document (drivers license or state ID card) ifthe cop had RAS andthe person had either of those two documents on him at the time. If I recall, in the absence of those two specified documents, the person had to give his name and maybe his address. A neat little trick to get around Kolender vagueness issue while at the same time getting around the issue that a person might not have ID on him.

    1. Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

    2. Kolender: http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html

    3. Brown: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_0047_ZO.html


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    Sounds believable to me.

    I thinkthe twokey points that cause the most contention among the group are the issues of when you are required to be identified (not necessarily provided by the individual) and the decision to voluntarily identify yourself to anyone who asks. Is it Michigan which has the must identify statute? I cannot remember.

    While the court cases are important in situations where RAS, probable cause and detention decisionsare being approached, it seems pretty clear that in the absence of these you can just continue about your business.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I'm in agreement with you guys. While there is no specific law I can find, I believe the courts (I'm familiar with the Nevada case above) have determined you must identify yourself if they are investigating a crime. It's worth noting that while I choose to not show I.D., I always identify myself to them. Usually as they walk up to me "Hi, I'm ***," and I stick my hand out to shake as I would anyone. "Can I help you with something?" In my opinion, this fulfills any requirement on my part.

    They can of course try to get a "positive ID", but there is no NEED to do this though unless they are going to make an arrest or detain me for something I'm doing. "Who" I am doesn't change the evidence, or lack of evidence, they have before them.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    I'm in agreement with you guys. While there is no specific law I can find, I believe the courts (I'm familiar with the Nevada case above) have determined you must identify yourself if they are investigating a crime.
    You Idaho boys should dig up the opinion to confirm it.

    Hiibel (linked above) even brieflydiscusses police trying to identify the detainee, the implication in my mind being the detainee cannot be compelled without statutory authority. So, I am not convinced it is automatic that a detention = must identify.

    Of course, the presence of statutes tends to support the idea that a detention does not equal "must identify." If a detention did automatically mean "must identify", why have a statute? Not proof positive, but heading in that direction.

    Also, I wouldn't assume anything in this line. In VA police seem to have been demanding an ID document for some time while having no authority to compel it. Almost as though they have been doing it for so long, they forgot there is no law requiring a citizen to comply.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •