Stop & Identify

langzaiguy · Jul 11, 2010

I know KY is not a "stop & identify" state. Does this mean we have the right not to show ID but still must give a verbal ID or that we're completely free to remain anonymous? If we choose not to identify ourselves could that be considered inhibiting an official investigation?

It would be my opinion that we're free to remain completely anonymous unless we are being officially detained (given RAS) in which we would need to identify ourselves. What say yall?

dtabb · Jul 13, 2010

Hibel

Hibel has already been heard by the US Supreme Court. Yes, you must identify yourself by whatever means.

hotrod · Jul 13, 2010

Nope Incorrect

dtabb said:
Hibel has already been heard by the US Supreme Court. Yes, you must identify yourself by whatever means.

In Hiibel that USSC only said that you are required to identify yourself by name only and that only applies to locales that have a stop and identify law. In the Commonwealth we have no such law.

aegri_mentis · Jul 24, 2010

gutshot said:
My understanding is the same as hotrod.

As an LEO in KY, I can tell you that you do NOT have the responsibility to ID yourself in any way to an LEO. You cannot MISIDENTIFY yourself, as that is a criminal offense, but you do not have to identify youself.
The one caveat is that you are required to give an LEO your operator's license if you are stopped while driving.

langzaiguy · Jul 24, 2010

Excellent--all very good to know!

Undertaker · Jul 24, 2010

I don't mean to wander off course, and aegri_mentis may be able to inject some info here, but it's my understanding that I do not own my (physical) drivers license. It is owned by the Department of Motor Vehicles and that's why it must be handed to an officer when requested, removed from one's wallett or holder. Am I correct?

langzaiguy · Jul 24, 2010

I do think the driver's license is property of the commonwealth. Aside from driving, there is no requirement to carry a driver's license when not driving.

Citizen · Jul 24, 2010

For the those who want to know a bit more, you can read a few court cases. They're not hard to read; very little legalese. I give links at the bottom.

I found out recently that patrol car video of Larry Hiibel's stop is available on YouTube.

Below is the applicable text from Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court. As with all court cases, it helps to read the whole opinion so you get it in full context. Especially so in this particular case because the court is pulling together principles from two earlier cases I have linked below.

"...A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures...

...While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him..."

It makes more sense if you read the linked cases in the order given. The first two are cited in Hiibel.

1. Brown v Texas: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html

2. Kolendar v Lawson: http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html

3. Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

Citizen · Jul 25, 2010

gutshot said:
And no obligation to show it if you are carrying it and not driving.

Not contradicting. Just using the quote as a jumping off point to heave in some info for readers in other states.

I have read at least one stop-and-identify statute from another state that required a person to show his drivers license or state issued ID during a valid Terry Stop if the detainee had the license or ID on him at the time of the stop.

This would satisfy Kolender. Recall that Kolender did not say a person can only be required to verbally identify. Kolender said that California's statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not give enough specificity as to what type of identification documentation would satisfy the statute. A state statute that specifies exactly which documentation and then allows for the possibility that a person might not be carrying those documents (since there is no corresponding law requiring a person to obtain and carry those exact documents) would satisfy what Kolender actually says.

I vaguely recall that the state statute I saw requires a detainee to verbally identify himself if he is not carrying the specified identity documents.

So, the point of this post is that if you are reading this and live in a state with a stop-and-identify statute, check the exact wording of the statute. At least one state, perhaps more, may in fact require you to show a drivers license if you have it on you at the time of the detention.

aegri_mentis · Jul 25, 2010

Undertaker said:
I don't mean to wander off course, and aegri_mentis may be able to inject some info here, but it's my understanding that I do not own my (physical) drivers license. It is owned by the Department of Motor Vehicles and that's why it must be handed to an officer when requested, removed from one's wallett or holder. Am I correct?

Well, I beieve it is actually owned by the KY Department of Transportation, not the DMV.
That is what gives me the ability to confiscate expired, suspended or revoked operator's licenses.

aegri_mentis · Jul 25, 2010

The thing that got Hiibel, and the main crux of why the officer had the right to identify him is the possible DUI issue. I believe Nevada has a probable cause DUI statute.

Citizen · Jul 25, 2010

aegri_mentis said:
The thing that got Hiibel, and the main crux of why the officer had the right to identify him is the possible DUI issue. I believe Nevada has a probable cause DUI statute.

Not according to the text of Hiibel. The second and third paragraphs open:

The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road...

...The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated.

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

Also, Hiibel relies in part on Terry v Ohio. Thus, reasonable suspicion, is the minimum standard for a stop-and-identify statute, not probable cause. The court in Hiibel expressly discussed the reasonable suspicion/Terry angle.

aegri_mentis · Jul 25, 2010

Citizen said:
Not according to the text of Hiibel. The second and third paragraphs open:

The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road...

...The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated.

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

Also, Hiibel relies in part on Terry v Ohio. Thus, reasonable suspicion, is the minimum standard for a stop-and-identify statute, not probable cause. The court in Hiibel expressly discussed the reasonable suspicion/Terry angle.

You don't understand what I am saying.
A probable cause DUI means the officer does not need to see the driver actually operating the vehicle in order to charge with DUI. It means if the officer has probable cause to believe the person operated the vehicle in an intoxicated state, he/she can make a DUI arrest.
For example, and this has happened to me scores of times...I roll up on a parked car, with the driver asleep. The keys are in the ignition. I wake the driver, and decide to perform FSTs. He fails. I take him into custody, and charge with DUI, even though I never saw the vehicle being operated. Happens all the time. KY is also a probable cause DUI state.
When Hiibbel was first contacted, if I read correctly, it was at a different location than originally reported. While he was being looked for because the assault, he also had possibly committed a DUI. This is the basis for the request for ID, not the Terry stop itself.

aegri_mentis · Jul 25, 2010

aegri_mentis said:
You don't understand what I am saying.
A probable cause DUI means the officer does not need to see the driver actually operating the vehicle in order to charge with DUI. It means if the officer has probable cause to believe the person operated the vehicle in an intoxicated state, he/she can make a DUI arrest.
For example, and this has happened to me scores of times...I roll up on a parked car, with the driver asleep. The keys are in the ignition. I wake the driver, and decide to perform FSTs. He fails. I take him into custody, and charge with DUI, even though I never saw the vehicle being operated. Happens all the time. KY is also a probable cause DUI state.
When Hiibbel was first contacted, if I read correctly, it was at a different location than originally reported. While he was being looked for because the assault, he also had possibly committed a DUI. This is the basis for the request for ID, not the Terry stop itself.

So in short, the officer had reasonable suspicion on the assault, but probable cause for the possible DUI.

Citizen · Jul 25, 2010

aegri_mentis said:
SNIP This is the basis for the request for ID, not the Terry stop itself.

No offense, but now you are going in circles a little bit. We started this part of the thread with your comment that "the thing that got Hiibel, and the main crux of why the officer had the right to identify him is the possible DUI issue."

There is nothing in the record we have in front of us to do with DUI, except for the brief comment in the second paragraph of the opinion.

What are you really trying to say? That the cop could have just as easily used PC on DUI to justify an identity demand? Or, that the cop did use PC on DUI for the identity demand? In which case, you must have information we don't have in front of us. Which is OK; just put the information in front of us--link to lower court case, arrest report, whatever.

Edited to Add: OK. I just finished watching the YouTube video of Hiibel's police encounter (just enter Hiibel in the YouTube search function).

The cop walks up and after greeting Hiibel says he heard there was a fight. In the next few moments he asks Hiibel for ID. This goes back and forth for some time. The cop asking, Hiibel wanting to know why but not being told why he is being investigated, except for the first hint that the cop heard there was a fight. At one point the cop goes so far as to say he is investigating because he wants to know what is going on. At another point the cop asks him how he got home yesterday.

What I view as another contradiction against a DUI investigation is that the cop didn't ask to see his drivers license. The cop asked if he had his ID on him, and repeatedly asked him for ID, not a drivers license.

Other than that, no real indications that the cop was pursuing a DUI investigation. Which is contradicted by the fact that the cop asks Hiibel's wife, after Hiibel is cuffed and place in the police car, if she can calm down so the cops can take the cuffs off her and "talk about it." (She had gotten out of the truck yelling when she saw Hiibel cuffed).

So, if you have other information , Aegri, that is fine and OK. Just tell us where to find it.

Citizen · Jul 25, 2010

gutshot said:
From what I have read, Mr. Hibel was out of the truck and at the passenger side window when the officer arrive on scene. I do not know where the keys were. How this could translate to PC for a DUI is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what the courts call PC in this sort of situation. But, the tire skid marks in the gravel shoulder that Aegris mentioned above are visible, one anyway, in the video.

Although Hiibel was at the passenger side bed rail at inception, the woman was in the passenger seat.

I'm with you, gutshot. To me these circumstances, even with stinky alcohol breath as suggested in the SCOTUS opinion, would not amount to PC. I just don't know what a court would say.

Citizen · Jul 26, 2010

gutshot said:
Citizen said:

All true, but how can skid marks tell you who was behind the wheel and when. Hibel could have been in the passenger seat and his daughter? driving. As the disagreement intensified she pulled over, he got out and she slid over to talk to him. Maybe he mentioned he had been driving during the conversation with the cop. He did say "I'm legally parked." I have not read the entire ruling and don't remember this issue being mentioned in what I did read. I guess I'll have to do some reading.

Click to expand...

Hey! I'm on your side, remember.

aegri_mentis · Jul 26, 2010

Citizen said:
No offense, but now you are going in circles a little bit. We started this part of the thread with your comment that "the thing that got Hiibel, and the main crux of why the officer had the right to identify him is the possible DUI issue."

There is nothing in the record we have in front of us to do with DUI, except for the brief comment in the second paragraph of the opinion.

What are you really trying to say? That the cop could have just as easily used PC on DUI to justify an identity demand? Or, that the cop did use PC on DUI for the identity demand? In which case, you must have information we don't have in front of us. Which is OK; just put the information in front of us--link to lower court case, arrest report, whatever.

Edited to Add: OK. I just finished watching the YouTube video of Hiibel's police encounter (just enter Hiibel in the YouTube search function).

The cop walks up and after greeting Hiibel says he heard there was a fight. In the next few moments he asks Hiibel for ID. This goes back and forth for some time. The cop asking, Hiibel wanting to know why but not being told why he is being investigated, except for the first hint that the cop heard there was a fight. At one point the cop goes so far as to say he is investigating because he wants to know what is going on. At another point the cop asks him how he got home yesterday.

What I view as another contradiction against a DUI investigation is that the cop didn't ask to see his drivers license. The cop asked if he had his ID on him, and repeatedly asked him for ID, not a drivers license.

Other than that, no real indications that the cop was pursuing a DUI investigation. Which is contradicted by the fact that the cop asks Hiibel's wife, after Hiibel is cuffed and place in the police car, if she can calm down so the cops can take the cuffs off her and "talk about it." (She had gotten out of the truck yelling when she saw Hiibel cuffed).

So, if you have other information , Aegri, that is fine and OK. Just tell us where to find it.

My other information is nothing but 12 years of police work. You don't approach a field investigations like this with all your cards on the table. You can let the person think you DON'T have all your facts/info together. There were so many ways the officer could have approached this situation, and it would still have resulted in the arrest..
1. The possible DUI.
2. The Stop-and-ID statute.
3. The assault/Disorderly Conduct issue. (Or the state's equivilant)
But one thing you guys have to understand is it doesn't matter how YOU interpret some laws, such as KY's probable cause DUI statute. I have read posts here saying "I don't think this would constitute a PC DUI", and it's statements like that which frustrate me. It simply doesn't matter. The legislature has adopted and written language into the law which would allow the PC DUI, and the courts have upheld it.

Citizen · Jul 26, 2010

aegri_mentis said:
My other information is nothing but 12 years of police work. You don't approach a field investigations like this with all your cards on the table. You can let the person think you DON'T have all your facts/info together. There were so many ways the officer could have approached this situation, and it would still have resulted in the arrest..
1. The possible DUI.
2. The Stop-and-ID statute.
3. The assault/Disorderly Conduct issue. (Or the state's equivilant)
But one thing you guys have to understand is it doesn't matter how YOU interpret some laws, such as KY's probable cause DUI statute. I have read posts here saying "I don't think this would constitute a PC DUI", and it's statements like that which frustrate me. It simply doesn't matter. The legislature has adopted and written language into the law which would allow the PC DUI, and the courts have upheld it.

Thanks for letting us know what additional info you have.

For myself, I never get frustrated anymore about (bold face quoted). Everybody has the right to judge for themselves, for example, what does or doesn't indicate that something is probable. If we did not or could not judge for ourselves, we'd never be able to tell if government was running amok. So, I just recognize that the writer failed to distinguish whether he was giving his own layperson judgement, or a legal declaration. And, then just ask if I need to. Or, warn others if I think it important.

aegri_mentis · Jul 26, 2010

gutshot said:
Yes, we all know our opinions are not law. The courts gets to do that. Once again, you've introduced and then settled a non-issue to obscure the fact that you have presented no facts to support your side of the real issue. Just because the legislature has adopted PC DUI language into the KRS doesn't mean this would qualify. As far as cards on the table, we've seen none of your cards on this DUI thing. It is just a guess who was driving that truck. I reread the Hibel decision again last night and could find no hint of a DUI issue. There could be something in the initial report or lower court rulings, but it's beginning to look like aegri_mentis has entrapped himself fabricating PC. Old habits die hard.
It doesn't matter if there were 50 things Hibel could have been arrested for. He was, in fact, arrested for failure to id and that is all the case is about. The dash cam video even shows the deputy telling Hibel that's the charge. No DUI, no DC. Had he been arrested for something else we wouldn't have this case, because this is the issue he was adamant about. I doubt he would have appealed DC to SCOTUS.

I never said he was arrested for DUI. A DUI investigation does not always mean a DUI arrest. I haven't entrapped myself in anything. I didn't realize I had to be so literal and spell out every possibility that could have been left unsaid.

Stop & Identify

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member