• 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.

Do I have to show ID?

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
There was SCOTUS decision onthis, I can't quote it, but seen the details else ware, you never habve to show ID or say a thing.

Actually you have that backwards, it was "hibiel vs Nevada" I believe, I forget the case header as well.

It was a 5 to 4 decision and basically it said the stop and identify laws are constitutional. In other words, if the state you are in has a stop and ID law, and a cop has RAS he can demand id, this does not mean identification in written format it means you must tell him your name.

SCOTUS said in kind of an odd way, that even giving ID could be possibly incriminating evidence and a violation of the 5th, it was not in the "hibel" case and another case would have to come along for them to reconsider it.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Actually you have that backwards, it was "hibiel vs Nevada" I believe, I forget the case header as well.

It was a 5 to 4 decision and basically it said the stop and identify laws are constitutional. In other words, if the state you are in has a stop and ID law, and a cop has RAS he can demand id, this does not mean identification in written format it means you must tell him your name.

SCOTUS said in kind of an odd way, that even giving ID could be possibly incriminating evidence and a violation of the 5th, it was not in the "hibel" case and another case would have to come along for them to reconsider it.

Yes and yes and no. We are talking about same and different things. YES in Missouri if an officer asks you (with cause) if you have a firearm, you have to show him your ID if you are CCW in a traffic stop, again that is cause. If your walking down the street (any person) and a LEO says "Papers, papers please", No you don't.

As we know in some states (check each one you travel too) you must identify your self as an armed individual if approached by LEOs for traffci violations.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
Yes and yes and no. We are talking about same and different things. YES in Missouri if an officer asks you (with cause) if you have a firearm, you have to show him your ID if you are CCW in a traffic stop, again that is cause. If your walking down the street (any person) and a LEO says "Papers, papers please", No you don't.

As we know in some states (check each one you travel too) you must identify your self as an armed individual if approached by LEOs for traffci violations.

I was asked for my ID the other night in Schnucks. I was breaking no law. The cop asked for my ID, and it is my understanding that I don't have to provide my "name, address, business abroad, whither I am going"...

I've searched long and hard to find something on this in Missouri, and have come up with nothing.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Yes and yes and no. We are talking about same and different things. YES in Missouri if an officer asks you (with cause) if you have a firearm, you have to show him your ID if you are CCW in a traffic stop, again that is cause. If your walking down the street (any person) and a LEO says "Papers, papers please", No you don't.

As we know in some states (check each one you travel too) you must identify your self as an armed individual if approached by LEOs for traffci violations.


Its not about firearms, it is about "stop and identify" firearms would be secondary to any issue as they give neither RAS or PC.

Cops may engage citizens for any reason what so ever, they are free people too. Citizens are not required to engage them at any level.

If a cop engages a citizen on an official level, he may request ID, a citizen is not required to give it unless the officer is indeed detaining them, the citizen should find out fast before it becomes that. "Sir I am not going to be answering any questions, am I free to go?" is your test question for detainment as they are not required to inform you unless you ask. If he says yes, by all means leave without another word, if he says No, then it is official you are being detained and under that SCOTUS ruling, if a law exist within the state it occurs, the law will be upheld if you are charged with it for refusing to identify yourself.

Identify yourself and papers are separate issues, no identification requirement if not engaged in a licensed activity. ID = Name not a state issued identification unless required.

Guns do not enter into it at all, a fact some police forget. They have to get to detainment prior to demanding it and refusal to consent and give it does not give RAS which was part of the problem in Darrow's situation, the cops implied "refused to give identity" was part of their RAS which it specifically can not be unless RAS exist for detainment.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
I was asked for my ID the other night in Schnucks. I was breaking no law. The cop asked for my ID, and it is my understanding that I don't have to provide my "name, address, business abroad, whither I am going"...

I've searched long and hard to find something on this in Missouri, and have come up with nothing.

You are right, I can't find anything either! I was mistaken on the assumption that you must provide ID of CCW permit if stopped by LEOs. Opps.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
CCW is a LICENSED activity, if you are CCW or are OC in an area that requires a CCW license to OC and are OC'ing then you must show the license upon request and are required by statute to have it on your person for that purpose.

If you are OC in an area that has no such restriction, you do not have to identify unless you are being detained and only then under stop and identify statute which does indeed seem to only be a St Louis / KC thing. Identify in such a situation would mean verbally giving your name, NOT your drivers license or state ID card if you have one.

You still need to ask "Am I free to go?" to verify your legal status within the official spectrum, if you are not, shut your mouth and request a lawyer, nothing else you do will help you.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
CCW is a LICENSED activity, if you are CCW or are OC in an area that requires a CCW license to OC and are OC'ing then you must show the license upon request and are required by statute to have it on your person for that purpose.

If you are OC in an area that has no such restriction, you do not have to identify unless you are being detained and only then under stop and identify statute which does indeed seem to only be a St Louis / KC thing. Identify in such a situation would mean verbally giving your name, NOT your drivers license or state ID card if you have one.

You still need to ask "Am I free to go?" to verify your legal status within the official spectrum, if you are not, shut your mouth and request a lawyer, nothing else you do will help you.

In Missouri, you are only required to have the CCW permit on you while concealing, right? So if you're in an area, say St. Peters, that requires a CCW to OC, you don't need to have the permit on you. At least that's what I'm thinking right now.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
CCW is a LICENSED activity, if you are CCW or are OC in an area that requires a CCW license to OC and are OC'ing then you must show the license upon request and are required by statute to have it on your person for that purpose.

If you are OC in an area that has no such restriction, you do not have to identify unless you are being detained and only then under stop and identify statute which does indeed seem to only be a St Louis / KC thing. Identify in such a situation would mean verbally giving your name, NOT your drivers license or state ID card if you have one.

You still need to ask "Am I free to go?" to verify your legal status within the official spectrum, if you are not, shut your mouth and request a lawyer, nothing else you do will help you.

I like that answer.. VERY GOOD.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
In Missouri, you are only required to have the CCW permit on you while concealing, right? So if you're in an area, say St. Peters, that requires a CCW to OC, you don't need to have the permit on you. At least that's what I'm thinking right now.

Well I am not sure that has been tested but:

"D. Subparagraphs (1), (6) and (7) of Subsection (A) of this Section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to Sections 571.101 to 571.121, RSMo., or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another State or political subdivision of another State."

Is what allows OC with a permit. However:

"Duty to carry and display endorsement, penalty for violation--director of revenue immunity from liability, when.

571.121. 1. Any person issued a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall carry the concealed carry endorsement at all times the person is carrying a concealed firearm and shall display the concealed carry endorsement upon the request of any peace officer. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty- five dollars."

So since they list 571.121 as part of the relief from the illegal carry of OC it might be hard to get past "the spirit of the law" in court, however not having it is not criminal and is a 35 dollar fine, not the end of the world I suppose.

Old saying "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" applies to a lot of things, I choose to have my CCW on my person when ccw or OC in an area that requires it to OC. I also have the parts of the ordinances that apply to most of the areas i FREQUENT printed out so as to shorten any misguided detainment I might have to deal with as possible. I am not trying to teach, educate, create trouble for, or bother law enforcement at any level, I seek to be left alone and will take the shortest path to making that happen myself without regard for my "rights" as I have no desire to be the Rosa Parks just to not show them a card.

IMHO polite interaction helps eliminate the possibility of RAS on many levels, if it is as I suspect the spirit of the law that under 121 I carry the card and give it to them to set them at ease that a "good guy" has the gun, I will spend less time with them "investigating" or forming new reasons they can pretend are RAS.

Opinions vary and only a qualified lawyer could answer the "Do I have to have my ccw with me under that ordinance?" but I think it is pretty clear it would not be criminal or a huge dent in your record if you opted not to comply with fairly vague references that could go either way.
 

Tony4310

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
474
Location
Florissant, MO
I did that at a Florissant checkpoint once. The cop asked for my DL and insurance. I asked him if I had did anything illegal. He said NO, they were just making sure everyone was driving legal. I still refused on the basis that I had don't nothing illegal and that they had no reason to suspect I had. I was released from the road block and sent on my way.

MK wrote: Supreme court has already ruled that a suspicionless roadblock or checkpoint violates the 4th amendment. Watch videos by CheckPointUSA. You are required to say NOTHING and give no ID UNLESS they can articulate a specific suspicion that you have committed a crime. Watch the vids and be set free from illegal harassment... but stop your car to avoid being shot... :)
 

usmcbess

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
195
Location
Labadie, Missouri, USA
I was asked for my ID the other night in Schnucks. I was breaking no law. The cop asked for my ID, and it is my understanding that I don't have to provide my "name, address, business abroad, whither I am going"...

I've searched long and hard to find something on this in Missouri, and have come up with nothing.

There is no statute on the state level that says you must present ID anywhere except STL and KC!!!!!
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
There is no statute on the state level that says you must present ID anywhere except STL and KC!!!!!

You are technically right, but an obstruction charge could easily be brought though for not identifying yourself. I guess the police could take you down to really check to see if you are who you say you are, but with today's technology, they would be able to pull up your picture on their computers.

I posted this in March and I think it's really relevant to how the Missouri courts feel about this issue. They really give the police a great deal of power here and I have not seen any other cases that really disagree. I'm not saying it's right, but if you were to try and fight the charge, I can't seem to find any ammo that you could use to beat it.

"After doing a little research, this is from Missouri Supreme Case #SC90978 that was published March 1st, 2011

The existence of "reasonable suspicion" is determined objectively by asking "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a person of [*9] reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." Pike, 162 S.W.3d at 473 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22). While this standard does not rise to that of the traditionally required probable cause, a proper Terry stop must be supported by "some minimal level of objective justification." State v. Johnson, 316 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. App. 2010) (quoting State v. Lanear, 805 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Mo. App. 1991)). "The [reasonable suspicion] that will justify the minimally intrusive 'Terry' stop is present when 'a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.'" State v. Mack, 66 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Mo. banc 2002) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30) (emphasis added).

A Terry stop is more than just a frisk for weapons. It is an investigation hinged upon an officer's reasonable suspicion and, consequently, a Terry stop detainee may be asked "a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicion." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). [*14] To that end, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that "questions concerning a suspect's identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops." See also section 84.710 (if he possesses reasonable suspicion, an officer may demand a suspect's "name, address, business abroad and whither he is going."). "In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)

Yeah, so be ready to ID yourself when you get stopped. If you read the entire case, the Missouri Supreme Court really has no doubts about how they stand on this. If the cop can show "unusual conduct" you have to give up your identity. Is open carrying unusual conduct? That is sure what the cop will say. He will also probably say he was concerned a robbery or shooting was about to occur."
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
I did that at a Florissant checkpoint once. The cop asked for my DL and insurance. I asked him if I had did anything illegal. He said NO, they were just making sure everyone was driving legal. I still refused on the basis that I had don't nothing illegal and that they had no reason to suspect I had. I was released from the road block and sent on my way.

That is amazing. I give my ID and still get pulled out of the car, cussed at, and threatened for simply not saying where I am going.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
That is amazing. I give my ID and still get pulled out of the car, cussed at, and threatened for simply not saying where I am going.

You aren't quite as old, no offense to Tony. Simple explanation, equal protection under the law is nonexistant.
 

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
You are technically right, but an obstruction charge could easily be brought though for not identifying yourself. I guess the police could take you down to really check to see if you are who you say you are, but with today's technology, they would be able to pull up your picture on their computers.

I posted this in March and I think it's really relevant to how the Missouri courts feel about this issue. They really give the police a great deal of power here and I have not seen any other cases that really disagree. I'm not saying it's right, but if you were to try and fight the charge, I can't seem to find any ammo that you could use to beat it.

Obstruction of what???

Obstruction assumes that there is an ongoing investigation of a CRIME, in which case, if you are a SUSPECT, they can ask for your ID. If you read the statute carefully, however, it never states you must GIVE them ID, only that they may DEMAND it. Read laws carefully. Most are poorly written by the leeches we call legislators.

BUT if an LEO asks for my ID, and I respond, "Am I a suspect?" and he says, "Yes", I will ask, "for what crime". If he can articulate a specific crime, I will not ID and, in fact, I will stop speaking completely as soon as the statement is made that I am "a suspect" after I have affirmed my 5th amendment rights. I might get falsely arrested but that beats accidentally incriminating myself, especially if I am innocent.

They are looking to nail you, and some won't care if you ARE innocent, as long as they can succeed in "catching the perp". You have rights. Exercise them. If you happen to have a bench warrant, that's just bad luck or maybe something else...
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Obstruction of what???

Obstruction assumes that there is an ongoing investigation of a CRIME, in which case, if you are a SUSPECT, they can ask for your ID. If you read the statute carefully, however, it never states you must GIVE them ID, only that they may DEMAND it. Read laws carefully. Most are poorly written by the leeches we call legislators.

BUT if an LEO asks for my ID, and I respond, "Am I a suspect?" and he says, "Yes", I will ask, "for what crime". If he can articulate a specific crime, I will not ID and, in fact, I will stop speaking completely as soon as the statement is made that I am "a suspect" after I have affirmed my 5th amendment rights. I might get falsely arrested but that beats accidentally incriminating myself, especially if I am innocent.

They are looking to nail you, and some won't care if you ARE innocent, as long as they can succeed in "catching the perp". You have rights. Exercise them. If you happen to have a bench warrant, that's just bad luck or maybe something else...

It is well established under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. [**5] Ct. 1868 (1968), that police may make a brief investigatory stop of a person when they have a "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot." See also, State v. Adell, 716 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1986). Where such suspicion is present, the police may "stop the suspected person, identify themselves as police officers, require the suspect to identify himself, and make reasonable inquiries concerning his activities." Id.

Again, the existence of "reasonable suspicion" is determined objectively by asking "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a person of [*9] reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." Pike, 162 S.W.3d at 473

So you are going to hope that a Missouri judge agrees with your stance on open carry and they don't think a police officer exercised reasonable caution by asking for your name. This will be after the officer testifies how he was stopped by citizens that saw "A man with a gun who looked suspicious like he might shoot someone" and when he approached you, you did have a firearm. Until we get more case law, state and federal (in this district) about open carry and what the police can do about it, you are taking a chance. Many cities have ordinances that would give the officer at least reasonable suspicion that you are creating a disturbance or other BS charge. While you might ask them what they are detaining you for, they don't have to tell you. They will sure tell the judge though after they get a good story together with other officers though.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I know how it will go. You will get arrested for some BS charge, they will ID you, you will spend $$$$ on a lawyer for court, you might beat the charge, but you have still lost. Just look at what happened in Maplewood, the police chief got on TV about me refusing to identify myself and they had to protect the public because a man with a gun who refuses to cooperate with police is scary.
 
Last edited:

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It is well established under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. [**5] Ct. 1868 (1968), that police may make a brief investigatory stop of a person when they have a "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot." See also, State v. Adell, 716 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1986). Where such suspicion is present, the police may "stop the suspected person, identify themselves as police officers, require the suspect to identify himself, and make reasonable inquiries concerning his activities." Id.

Again, the existence of "reasonable suspicion" is determined objectively by asking "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a person of [*9] reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." Pike, 162 S.W.3d at 473

So you are going to hope that a Missouri judge agrees with your stance on open carry and they don't think a police officer exercised reasonable caution by asking for your name. This will be after the officer testifies how he was stopped by citizens that saw "A man with a gun who looked suspicious like he might shoot someone" and when he approached you, you did have a firearm. Until we get more case law, state and federal (in this district) about open carry and what the police can do about it, you are taking a chance. Many cities have ordinances that would give the officer at least reasonable suspicion that you are creating a disturbance or other BS charge. While you might ask them what they are detaining you for, they don't have to tell you. They will sure tell the judge though after they get a good story together with other officers though.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I know how it will go. You will get arrested for some BS charge, they will ID you, you will spend $$$$ on a lawyer for court, you might beat the charge, but you have still lost. Just look at what happened in Maplewood, the police chief got on TV about me refusing to identify myself and they had to protect the public because a man with a gun who refuses to cooperate with police is scary.

You make my point... they must have RAS!!! I have been stopped dozens of times, never shown ID, refuse to answer questions, and have never been threatened with arrest. Maybe because I speak civilly, like a mature adult, and give the officers the same respect I desire. I refuse compliance without being an a-hole. Confident assertion of rights without bluster will likely never get you arrested. The bonehead in Philly recently got severely mistreated, but he had a really crappy attitude that you could hear in his voice.

If I do happen to get arrested someday despite my professional, mature demeanor, at least I will keep my mouth shut when I get to jail... If they actually had RAS (I look like a bank robber), I will chalk it up to bad luck. If they don't actually have RAS, I will sue them into the stone age, if possible. But what I will NOT do is make it worse for myself by running off at the mouth once they arrest me...

If I had a pending court case, I certainly would not be posting on public boards :S

I just hope you learned through it :) Then it might have some value after all in case you get into any REAL trouble!
 
Top