Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Eye95 said:
Actually, I believe there is only one state where one must produce identification, and that's only if it's being carried. I'll give a link as soon as I can.
-
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.
-
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.
When I person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D.
- Thread starter jcsftwre
- Start date
Actually, I believe there is only one state where one must produce identification, and that's only if it's being carried. I'll give a link as soon as I can.
wrightme
Regular Member
This provides some links to the state statutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Looks like it might be Colorado. Also, CA used to require ID, but that appears to have been changed.
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
The other two states that even come close to demanding government issued identification are Montana and Indiana.
COLORADO
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
MONTANA
HTTP://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
...
(2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:
(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; ... [remainder not quoted]
History: En. 95-719 by Sec. 4, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-719(1) thru (3); amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 343, L. 2003.
INDIANA
HTTP://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.HTML
Refusal to identify self
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24
Note: All three require either the commission of an infraction or at least a suspicion of a crime.
Colorado says it may be DEMANDED, IF available
Montana says an offer may REQUEST unless one is driving and then it may be DEMANDED.
Indiana says one must provide one OR the other, but only with RAS.
My solution to any of those is to just leave my driving license in the car. In the last three years I've been requested only twice to produce identification (outside of L.E. encounters of which there have been exactly none), and that was to pick up items ordered through WallyWorld. They had no problem accepting my Passport Card which only identifies me as an American citizen without providing any address.
Last edited:
sultan62
Regular Member
In Indiana, Colorado, or Montana you can bet I'd be carrying sterile.
Here, I'd just refuse.
Here, I'd just refuse.
In Virginia the applicable statute reads:
"The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo-identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer." http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-308.HTM
The statutes are silent on OC - Q.E.D. no requirement to produce hard copy ID when OCing.
"The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo-identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer." http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-308.HTM
The statutes are silent on OC - Q.E.D. no requirement to produce hard copy ID when OCing.
eye95
Well-known member
How does that jibe with Terry? Can the officer stop you just because he catches a glimpse of the CCW? Would that (the glimpse) constitute RAS to initiate the stop in the first place?
Of course, if he never stops you in the first place, he can't demand the permit.
boyscout399
Regular Member
If he glimpses a concealed weapon, he could use that glimpse as suspicion that you are committing the crime of "carrying a concealed weapon" and therefore detain you on suspicion of that crime.
I'm a little late to this thread, and what I'm going to post is kinda off-topic (by the tiniest margin), but there's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Listening to Boyscout's audio, I noticed YET AGAIN the officers claiming they 'need' to ID him. I don't think this is simply a semantics error. I believe it is a carefully calculated phraseology intended to ...not so much 'trick as 'lead'...the accosted into concluding on their own that it is required by law.
No... you don't NEED to ID me.. .you WANT to ID me. Words mean things. In your position the only thing you NEED to do is enforce and more importantly abide by the law. If there is no law REQUIRING you to get ID from me (like say...in the instance of an actual arrest) then you have no NEED to do so.
I also note that every time they are asked a question that would harm their position, they ignore the question and revert to making demands or asking an unrelated question themselves. Examples:
Note that the JBT (for that's what he is in this particular instance) states that he stopped BS for the 'gun on [his] hip', yet deflects (ignores actually) the question as to whether or not it's actually illegal to have said gun on his hip.
More:
And it goes on and on from there.
Listening to Boyscout's audio, I noticed YET AGAIN the officers claiming they 'need' to ID him. I don't think this is simply a semantics error. I believe it is a carefully calculated phraseology intended to ...not so much 'trick as 'lead'...the accosted into concluding on their own that it is required by law.
No... you don't NEED to ID me.. .you WANT to ID me. Words mean things. In your position the only thing you NEED to do is enforce and more importantly abide by the law. If there is no law REQUIRING you to get ID from me (like say...in the instance of an actual arrest) then you have no NEED to do so.
I also note that every time they are asked a question that would harm their position, they ignore the question and revert to making demands or asking an unrelated question themselves. Examples:
Note that the JBT (for that's what he is in this particular instance) states that he stopped BS for the 'gun on [his] hip', yet deflects (ignores actually) the question as to whether or not it's actually illegal to have said gun on his hip.
More:
00:46-00:55
JBT We need to get you identified.
BSUM...Why? Am I doing anything illegal?
JBT What's that? (apparently he needs his hearing checked)
BSAm I doing anything illegal?
JBT I need to figure that out, and I need to get you identified in order to figure that out.(Commonly known as a fishing expedition)
And it goes on and on from there.
eye95
Well-known member
How about printing cards with the following information on them and presenting them to an officer who has stepped out of line, like the one who stopped boyscout?
boyscout399
Regular Member
I kind of like this idea. When they ask for the ID, hand them the card instead. Perhaps add a section saying "if you are arresting me or are going to issue me a summons, please do so now so as to save us both time in our busy days"
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
No.
Unless this is in a state where ALL concealed carry is illegal. He only has "RAS" that there is a possible concealed weapon. It is either lawfully concealed, or not. It is not automatically grounds for a stop. Without reason to believe the concealment is actually unlawful, there is no RAS. Asking for a permit at that point sure seems to be a violation of the 5th.
IANAL, this is my opinion
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Well, there was that case in GA where the judge found that walking onto a train with an OCed firearm constituted RAS, since it created the possibility that the citizen was carrying in a location that required a permit. Carrying on a train was the crime, and having the permit was a defense.
Last edited:
boyscout399
Regular Member
remember, RAS is a lower standard than Probable Cause. He just needs a suspicion that a crime is being committed. Seeing a concealed weapon in a state where there is a statute against carrying a concealed weapon would give a suspicion that that statute is being violated... He wouldn't yet have probable cause to make an arrest, but he would definitely have RAS for a stop.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, he needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
As for whether it constitutes RAS, it may depend upon how statute is written. And simply viewing a firearm isn't justification for a stop to see. What case law do you present that supports it?
Is the simple act of driving a car RAS for LE to stop you to see if you have a permit? No. It isn't 'reasonable' to assume there is a law being broken simply because one act is illegal without a permit.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Case cite? Was this a SCOTUS case, Circuit court, district, local?
eye95
Well-known member
I think this was the case I read about.
It comes up a lot here. Maybe we need a repository, so we don't have to keep searching for the same case again and again.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...-carry-is-probable-cause-of-criminal-activity
boyscout399
Regular Member
correct, and viewing a firearm would most likely be viewed as constituting a reasonable suspicion that the law is being broken. The officer merely has to say "due to my experiences where I've seen people carrying firearms and they did not have permits, I developed a suspicion when I saw the firearm that the firearm was being carried without a permit. I subsequently stopped the individual and found the firearm, If the individual could not provide a permit he would be charged with carrying the firearm concealed"
eye95
Well-known member
The way to defeat that idea is to make sure that LEOs see plenty of guns being carried by folks NOT committing crimes.
This sound like a job for SuperOCman! Thousands of them.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, I do not see that as "reasonable." What case law or statute do you present to support that? Mere presence of a firearm is NOT indicative of a law being broken. And LE follow-up is "fishing."
eye95
Well-known member
The ruling I linked said that it was reasonable.