show ID

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound any different than the officers I've had interaction with. I will admit gladly, the cops here in Idaho are better than ANYWHERE else I have lived and I think most of them do an honest job trying to follow the laws and remain respectful of people. A cops training teaches them to be authoritative, even when making a request. Many times, they don't know how to react when their "request" isn't met with the normal sheeple response. It honestly amazes me that so many are so willing to just hand over their I.D. with no reason at all....."They're just doing their jobs man."

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound any different than the officers I've had interaction with. I will admit gladly, the cops here in Idaho are better than ANYWHERE else I have lived and I think most of them do an honest job trying to follow the laws and remain respectful of people. A cops training teaches them to be authoritative, even when making a request. Many times, they don't know how to react when their "request" isn't met with the normal sheeple response. It honestly amazes me that so many are so willing to just hand over their I.D. with no reason at all....."They're just doing their jobs man."

Click to expand...

Just as it honestly amazes many others that people won't...."What have they got to hide I wonder?"

Two sides to every street and perspective.

Don't be surprised at the reaction of your fellow citizens if they perceive you (the collective you, not the individual one) as the one who is escalating the situation and causing trouble.

I remain unconcerned with their knowing who I am.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound any different than the officers I've had interaction with. I will admit gladly, the cops here in Idaho are better than ANYWHERE else I have lived and I think most of them do an honest job trying to follow the laws and remain respectful of people. A cops training teaches them to be authoritative, even when making a request. Many times, they don't know how to react when their "request" isn't met with the normal sheeple response. It honestly amazes me that so many are so willing to just hand over their I.D. with no reason at all....."They're just doing their jobs man."

Click to expand...

Just as it honestly amazes many others that people won't...."What have they got to hide I wonder?"

Two sides to every street and perspective.

Don't be surprised at the reaction of your fellow citizens if they perceive you (the collective you, not the individual one) as the one who is escalating the situation and causing trouble.

I remain unconcerned with their knowing who I am.

Click to expand...

We have to distinguish also between what the law says, and the tactics developed from what the law says.

For myself, I don't care much if they know who I am. They're going to find out my name when the formal complaint or lawsuit lands anyway. Plus, by complying with an ID document demand, while politely verbally refusing consent, I don't have to worry about a patchwork of laws across various jurisdictions where I might travel. Then, if I am stop-and-ID'd and research after the fact shows the cop had no RAS or had no statute authorizing the ID document demand, I just add another point to my lawsuit or complaint.

But, first, it helps to know what the law says so you know where you stand when it comes time to make the complaint or gauge your situation for a lawsuit.

Regarding the perception of others, that is probably not all that hard to handle. Just adjust their perspective with a little education: "Not cooperating is escalation? I was cooperating to the full extent required by law and patriotic citizenship!"(educate further as necessary)

Those who are worth having on your side will come around. Those who don't/won't/can't see it do not have enough strength of character to be in the game.

imported post

i don't got no steenkin passport, but here is a recent driver's license picture officer.

imported post

ecocks wrote

Just as it honestly amazes many others that people won't...."What have they got to hide I wonder?"

Two sides to every street and perspective.

Don't be surprised at the reaction of your fellow citizens if they perceive you (the collective you, not the individual one) as the one who is escalating the situation and causing trouble.

I remain unconcerned with their knowing who I am.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is more than just a difference of opinions. It is evidence of the further decay of our society. Our own supreme court agrees with me.

"One of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth." Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001)

Unfortunately, as you just mentioned yourself, most people these days jump to the question "What have they got to hide?" Me? Nothing, but I'll be damned if I let anyone try to find something. I fear not what others think of me, I only fear that this line of thinking will lead to further restrictions for citizens and greater police powers in our country. And make no mistake...it will be YOUR actions and compliance that will bring them about.

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

ecocks wrote

Just as it honestly amazes many others that people won't...."What have they got to hide I wonder?"

Two sides to every street and perspective.

Don't be surprised at the reaction of your fellow citizens if they perceive you (the collective you, not the individual one) as the one who is escalating the situation and causing trouble.

I remain unconcerned with their knowing who I am.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is more than just a difference of opinions. It is evidence of the further decay of our society. Our own supreme court agrees with me.

"One of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth." Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001)

Unfortunately, as you just mentioned yourself, most people these days jump to the question "What have they got to hide?" Me? Nothing, but I'll be damned if I let anyone try to find something. I fear not what others think of me, I only fear that this line of thinking will lead to further restrictions for citizens and greater police powers in our country. And make no mistake...it will be YOUR actions and compliance that will bring them about.

Click to expand...

I doubt that. Good luck in your endeavors.