SNIP For a LEO to ask for ID in many States, including Alabama, he must have reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a CRIME.
Unless you live in a State that allows an officer to stop any citizen and demand ID (unconstitutional), refuse to show it until he articulates a REASONABLE suspicion or orders you to under color of law.
Huh!?!?! What!!???? Goddam, that second paragraph makes my head hurt.
First, the cop can ask for anything. There are differences between a decline-able request, a demand, and a statute that compels giving identity info while providing a penalty for refusing.
There is nothing automatically unconstitutional about a stop-and-identify statute that compels giving an identity document.
Kolender v Lawson did not say a statutory requirement to give an identity document was unconstitutional.
Kolendar v Lawson said California's identity document requirement was unconstitutionally vague about what kind of identity document would meet the requirement, allowing the cop too much discretion about whether to cite someone for violating the stop-and-identify statute. I have read at least one state stop-and-identify statute that was compliant with
Kolender v Lawson because it specified the exact two types of documents required to be handed over (drivers license or state-issued ID card), and made an allowance for whether the person had one of those documents on his person.
Now, as to that last paragraph. What!? What!?! WHAT!?!?!?! The RAS-at-inception requirement is part of the US Supreme Court analysis on stop-and-identify statutes (
Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson, Hiibel v 6th Judicial Court). If the person being stopped does not live in a stop-and-identify state and there is no stop-and-identify local ordinance, why on earth would the OCer withhold identity until the officer provides an RAS if RAS has no bearing on the question since there is no legal authority compelling the OCer to identify? Without a statute or ordinance compelling identity, or perhaps a court opinion, whether the cop has RAS is beside the point for the identity.
Also, how is an OCer supposed to judge whether the cop has genuine RAS? Are OCers really supposed to have read every appellate decision applicable to the jurisdiction of the encounter, state and federal, to know what sets of circumstances and reasonable inferences in light of a cop's experience have already been ruled as sufficient for RAS? And, for any OCers who have done all that reading, are they really supposed to guess about whether
their circumstances will or won't be ruled by a trial judge as sufficient to give RAS? An appellate court? Even if the cop
truthfully and
completely tells the OCer his RAS, how is the OCer going to judge whether the words he hears from the cop will be viewed later as sufficient for RAS?
Please be a little more careful about giving out advices on these topics. By this I don't mean stop. I mean precision is necessary.
And, please provide cites.
Kolender v Lawson:
We conclude § 647(e) [stop-and-identify statute] is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
Brown v Texas:
The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974) [the stop-and-identify statute], to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html
Hiibel v 6th Judicial Court:
[Basically, this case says the Nevada stop-and-identify statute was constitutional, and it says your identity is not protected by 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
