Question regarding ID

amlevin said:

On the Credit Cards, anyone go in for a drink during happy hour? Notice how they keep your card all the time you're drinking? Ever wonder what "security" they are providing for it?

Click to expand...

I don't wonder any more, I've seen it. They go into a pile near the register.

Edited to add: My credit card and debit card both have my photo on them. BofA offers this service. Problem (and discussion of Visa/MC contracts) averted.

I should have been more specific. Am I required to state my name and address if I am NOT being issued a citation?

Joe~

Aaron1124 said:

Others may disagree with me on this one, but I'd much rather carry my ID on me at all times, when out in public. If, God Forbid, anything were to happen to me that rendered me unconscious, I'd like emergency responders to know who I am. On another note, if I were ever put in a situation where I needed to use deadly force, I'd much rather have my ID on me so the police can take my information.

Click to expand...

I wear a dogtag on a necklace around my neck with emergency numbers on it. At the top it says "Emergency" then a list of phone numbers in order of priority.

joejoejoe said:

P.S.

I found Vancouver's Municipal Code:

Section 8.99.010 Duty to obey law enforcement officer - Authority of officer.

(1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a civil infraction has a duty to stop.

(2) Whenever any person is stopped for a civil infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, and complete and issue a notice of civil infraction.

(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a civil infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of civil infraction.

So it seems like here it is the same case, I have to be cited for an infraction. Not "suspected," but actually cited.

Joe~

Click to expand...

What you need to remember is that all those codes have the qualifier that it needs to be pursuant to investigation of a civil infraction or for issuance of a citation for a civil infraction. So unless the LEO has RAS he can't just ask you for your ID because he "doesn't know who you are". That doesn't float.

Originally Posted by deanf
Me? I'm a real extremist: I consider it an affront if a cashier asks me for ID when I present a valid credit card with a signature on the back of it. The counter signature on the sales draft matching the signature on the back of the card is the ID, according to merchant credit card agreements.Just advise the cashier that you'd like to speak with their supervisor. Advise the supervisor that you will be registering a complaint with the Credit Card Co and they could be fined if they insist on seeing your ID.

The only valid reasons are if the card is unsigned or you have written "See ID" or the more clever "C. I. D." in the signature space. The fine is progressive, with each "incident" it goes up. If the merchant is a chronic abuser they can see fines in the neighborhood of $15,000 per incident. Now that can just mess up a managers "incentive bonus" real bad.

Don't hesitate to call them on it.


Nice, I did not know that. I will use that.

My ID stays in the car when I OC. I can't offer somthing I do not have

now, see, me, personally...I don't mind getting asked for ID when I use my card. I like knowing that people want to make sure it is ME spending MY money.

YMMV

NavyLT said:

That question I am still confused on myself. I think the answer is in Hiibel, but I can't remember if it is required during a Terry Stop in all states, or only if state law requires it.

Of course the cop can always say, "I am going to write you a ticket for..." and then "change his mind."

If I read Hiibel correctly, identifying oneself during a Terry Stop IS subject to state law. So I would say that you are only required to tell the officer your name, address, and date of birth for the purpose of them to issue a citation... but I might be wrong.

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

Click to expand...

According to Hiibel, the only requirement that was addressed and found valid was this:

The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.

Click to expand...

And this ONLY applies if state law requires it.

Both Kolender and Brown, referenced in Hiibel, show that requiring ID during a stop is generally considered a no-go.

Also, as an advisory to anyone writing "see ID": http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6787955?source=rss

But officials at Visa and MasterCard say unsigned cards are not only invalid, businesses should not accept them for purchases. And a card without the owner's autograph may actually be exposing the cardholder to fraud - and saddling the merchant who accepts it with the liability.

"We cannot control what a consumer chooses to do," MasterCard spokesman Chris Harrall said. "We don't advise them to write 'See ID' on the signature panel, since one of the easiest forms of identification to fabricate are personal IDs."

Visa's rules for merchants are just as clear: "An unsigned card is considered invalid and should not be accepted."

Click to expand...

So in summary of what I've seen so far:

You are never required to display your driver's license to the police unless a) you are driving a motor vehicle and b) they have RAS for a *traffic* stop.

You are required to display your CPL to an officer on demand IF you're carrying it, as the card does not say you have to be carrying a gun for the requirement to apply. It looks like they have to ask for a CPL specifically, not just for ID.
(the wording is a little vague, and depends on whether or not the "when and if legally required to do so" line applies to officers or just "anyone else")

You are not required to give your name, address, date of birth, or any other information to the police unless a) they have RAS of a crime, AND they are issuing you a civil infraction citation. (Terry stops only require you to give your name IF state law requires it, and Washington does not.)

They cannot legally detain or arrest you for not giving them your ID or information, unless they already have RAS of a crime AND are issuing you a citation, and then they can only hold you long enough to verify your identity.

Does this seem accurate so far?

What I have gathered is that they can only "demand" your ID if you are the person driving the vehicle. They can request ID from the passenger, but the passenger does not have to carry an ID card to be a passenger. The passenger must offer their name, address, and date of birth ONLY if they are receiving a citation.

Likewise with the CPL, an officer can demand the CPL when required to do so by law. I.E. it must be concealed. They cannot ask for the CPL just because they feel like asking everyone walking down the street for a CPL. Should he find a weapon hiding on you after legally (or illegally) frisking you, you have to show your CPL upon request.

An officer CANNOT arrest you for NOT showing ID (or even identifying yourself). This is the part I would love for some second opinions on. THE ONLY TIME YOU MUST SAY WHO YOU ARE IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO be FILLING OUT A CITATION FOR A CRIME/CIVIL INFRACTION. If you are arrested, you must identify yourself.

It has already been decided (from what I read) that you cannot be arrested for not identifying yourself. You can be "detained" for not identifying yourself for a reasonable amount of time until you can be identified. However, not identifying yourself is not RAS for an LEO to detain you, so it kinda seems like a moot point.

Soooo.. *deep breath* you are requested to state your name, address, and birth date when you are being detained (you can only be detained with RAS for a crime or civil infraction). NOT doing so will lead to a LOONGER detention until the LEOs can ID you. If you are driving a vehicle, you must produce ID when asked to. If you are riding in a vehicle you don't need to say ANYTHING unless they have RAS (then start from the top of this paragraph). If you are being arrest, you lose! Ask for an attorney!

My ultimate take, if I am being detained, I will offer my name, address, and my birth date. I don't wanna push it any further than that. Though the superior court has stated I cannot be arrested for NOT offering my name, it seems like murky water.

Joe~

But that name, address, and birth date is only required if you're being given a civil infraction citation. They can only detain/arrest you for NOT giving that info IF they're issuing you a citation and IF they already have RAS to detain you.

So, you don't have to give the information if they're just demanding it while you're under "implied / intimidated detention"

antispam540 said:

But that name, address, and birth date is only required if you're being given a civil infraction citation. They can only detain/arrest you for NOT giving that info IF they're issuing you a citation and IF they already have RAS to detain you.

So, you don't have to give the information if they're just demanding it while you're under "implied / intimidated detention"

Click to expand...

An officer approaches you...(on foot)

I will ask "what seems to be the problem, officer?"

My further answers will have to do with what the officer says. If He asks about my firearm I will be silent, or perhaps I will ask him questions.

If he asks about something else unrelated to my, my firearm, etc... I will consider an answer. i.e. He asks about a suspect that may have run by the area.

gogodawgs said:

An officer approaches you...(on foot)

I will ask "what seems to be the problem, officer?"

My further answers will have to do with what the officer says. If He asks about my firearm I will be silent, or perhaps I will ask him questions.

If he asks about something else unrelated to my, my firearm, etc... I will consider an answer. i.e. He asks about a suspect that may have run by the area.

Click to expand...

But that is your personal choice, not a statement of what's required under the law.

antispam540 said:

But that name, address, and birth date is only required if you're being given a civil infraction citation. They can only detain/arrest you for NOT giving that info IF they're issuing you a citation and IF they already have RAS to detain you.

So, you don't have to give the information if they're just demanding it while you're under "implied / intimidated detention"

Click to expand...

Correct, that is how I see it.

Joe~

Slight tilt from topic

Prosecutor
Officer, did you adv ise the defendent of his right to remain silent?
Officer
No Sir.
Prosecutor
Why did you not advise him of that right?
Officer
Well, because he is a MIME

gogodawgs said:

An officer approaches you...(on foot)

I will ask "what seems to be the problem, officer?"

My further answers will have to do with what the officer says. If He asks about my firearm I will be silent, or perhaps I will ask him questions.

If he asks about something else unrelated to my, my firearm, etc... I will consider an answer. i.e. He asks about a suspect that may have run by the area.

Click to expand...

antispam540 said:

But that is your personal choice, not a statement of what's required under the law.

Click to expand...

Correct, that is my choice. As you note, I have never said I would give him my name or ID. That is left for my decision later on. I certainly know that I do not have to produce ID, nor respond with my name.

You do not have to show identification until such time as the LEO cites you for an infraction.


edit: whoops.

gogodawgs said:

Correct, that is my choice. As you note, I have never said I would give him my name or ID. That is left for my decision later on. I certainly know that I do not have to produce ID, nor respond with my name.

Click to expand...

If he ask's you about your firearm, and ask for ID. In general the consesus is to say "am I being detained or arrested" Usually if not you say thank you and have a good day.

What if he says yes you are being detained, now show me ID?

Just curious how you would handle that. I've seen many youtubes where cops cuff and detain to run ID and gun numbers not giving a crap about our rights, and in some cases making arrest's, as the two in Vancouver. I only hope this is not going to become the norm, while they find guilty verdicts on innocent people.

I know it sound cliche, but it does seem like a conspiracy to me. I only hope if it happens to me, that I can find a better attorney than what I've seen others dealing with. I cant imagine why these cases are even making it to trial, without being thrown out, and counter suits being made.

joejoejoe said:

SNIP

It has already been decided (from what I read) that you cannot be arrested for not identifying yourself. You can be "detained" for not identifying yourself for a reasonable amount of time until you can be identified.

Soooo.. *deep breath* you are requested to state your name, address, and birth date when you are being detained (you can only be detained with RAS for a crime or civil infraction). NOT doing so will lead to a LOONGER detention until the LEOs can ID you.

Joe~

Click to expand...

So if you dont tell them who you are and are being detained, how do they ID you?

amzbrady said:

If he ask's you about your firearm, and ask for ID. In general the consesus is to say "am I being detained or arrested" Usually if not you say thank you and have a good day.

What if he says yes you are being detained, now show me ID?

Just curious how you would handle that. I've seen many youtubes where cops cuff and detain to run ID and gun numbers not giving a crap about our rights, and in some cases making arrest's, as the two in Vancouver. I only hope this is not going to become the norm, while they find guilty verdicts on innocent people.

I know it sound cliche, but it does seem like a conspiracy to me. I only hope if it happens to me, that I can find a better attorney than what I've seen others dealing with. I cant imagine why these cases are even making it to trial, without being thrown out, and counter suits being made.

Click to expand...

Conspiracy? Maybe, but how do you define conspiracy? If it means people getting together and coming up with a plan to overtly violate someones rights I don't think so. If it means sharing "methods" to intimidate one into giving more information than is required, most definitely. These little "tips" are shared on casual conversation and even in those coffee meetings that are always happening in your neighborhood Starbucks.

The fear that one will be handcuffed, detained, and even arrested, for standing up to an officer plays in their favor. The counter to that is information. The more information the public has in regards to their rights the better equipped they will be to handle these contacts. The more information that the non firearm carrying citizens know about the legality of Open Carry, the fewer that will be calling 911 in a panic.

If you want to know how to play out a situation where you are approached and asked for ID, just listen to Tom's tape. I think he handled it well.

Something else to consider. If police officers stop every car they see with either Black or Hispanic drivers, just because they KNOW that there are lots of Black and Hispanic criminals, and run their ID to see if they have warrants, etc., THAT is called "Profiling" and is illegal. Why should Police Officers be allowed to stop people for merely carrying a handgun openly? Isn't that "Profiling" also, and illegal?

Lastly, Washington's law on Coercion (RCW9A.36.070) makes it unlawful to use a threat to keep someone from going about a legal activity.

In RCW 9A.04.110 threats are defined. Among them are:

(c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; (handcuffs? back seat of police car?)

(h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding;

Remember that the above actions are done every day when police officers are doing their job legally. It becomes "Coercion" when they do it to someone who is not breaking the law and just going about a legal activity.

Does anyone feel that the Deputies in Spanaway might have been guilty of violating the above statute?