HB 1574 Mandatory self-identification; failure to identify oneself to law-enforcement officer.
See the bill text:
I wonder if this is part of the GOP's "Get tough on Illegals" they keep promising?A law-enforcement officer who (i) lawfully detains and questions a person under circumstances that reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and (ii) explains to the person the reason why he is being detained and questioned may require that the person identify himself. Any such person who refuses to identify himself is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Last edited by Repeater; 01-05-2011 at 03:50 PM.
Let's say I have some interest in this.
How is the identification to be made? The bill does not specify, and the current state of the matter seems to be in dispute in certain corners of the Commonwealth.
Failing to specify the manner in which the identification is to be made makes this a bad bill. It has inherent badness from other aspects as well, as it seems to impinge on, existing, legislation. At best it seems to be another bit of "feel-good" legislation. Experience has, or should have, taught us that generally such stuff is bad.
hhmm, yep, that's me!
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/
A law-enforcement officer who (i) lawfully detains and questions a person under circumstances that reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and (ii) explains to the person the reason why he is being detained and questioned may require that the person identify himself. Any such person who refuses to identify himself is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
1.From the wording it sounds like all they need is RAS.
2. Many LEOS will misunderstand this law causing widespread unlawful detainment
3. LEOS will not read or fully understand part 2 and will abuse the the law.
4. As Skidmark said how must one ID himself?
Last edited by All American Nightmare; 01-05-2011 at 05:12 PM.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...
Show 'em a picture ID of my @#$%.
Ok, first gut reaction. What nuc said.
Last edited by riverrat10k; 01-05-2011 at 07:33 PM. Reason: grin
Not a "Stop and Identify" law as the officer must, according to the law, have RAS that a crime "...is committing, or is about to commit a crime..." (hmmm... so they can't stop someone who they suspect had just recently committed a crime???)
In accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, stating one's true name (and possibly date of birth,) is sufficient to establish identity.
There is no requirement for anyone to carry government-issued identification in the text of the law, so you Still cannot be forced to provide physical papers.
This mirrors law in several other states.
§ 1983. Identification to law enforcement officers required
77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds
Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY
§ 12-7-1 Temporary detention of suspects.
29-29-21. Temporary questioning of persons in public places
HTTP://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CPL140.50 $$@TXCPL0140.50+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN= 14298283+&TARGET=VIEW
140 - § 140.50 Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places; Search for Weapons
30-22-3. Concealing identity.
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects.
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation
46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
((This one is odd because it authorizes the officer to Request))
Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
22-2402. Stopping of suspect.
Refusal to identify self
(725 ILCS 5/107 14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107 14)
Sec. 107 14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
856.021Loitering or prowling; penalty.
§ 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects.
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
I'm jumping off this cliff, you comin'?
I will say this ....
I think that requiring someone to identify himself is pretty far down the line towards self incrimination.
Let's take a trip in the Mr. Peabody's wayback machine, all the way back to the Colonial times when the only identification there was was a name written in the family Bible and there were no government issued identification cards, no photographs and no fingerprints.
If you were a Revolutionary Colonist who was wanted by the King's Men ... do you think you would have wanted a few protections written into the Constitution to protect people such as yourself?
I tend to agree with your second sentence. I just found the arguement that "others do it" a poor rationale.
Last edited by riverrat10k; 01-05-2011 at 09:26 PM.
OR IS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME? Are we predicting the future?person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime
The key here is the mish-mash usage of the word "stop". Cops use it all the time instead of the 4th Amendment terminology "seizure" (of the person). Its easy to lose track of what it really means. "Stop" means "seizure".
The actual circumstances behind that case was a cop observing a "crime about to occur. Two or three guys were casing a (jewelry store?) for a robbery. Detective McFadden observed the bad guys doing their "casing the joint" routine. After a good while of observation, he just walked up to the two remaining bad guys, asked them a couple questions, got mumbled responses, grabbed (Terry?), spun him, patted him down, and found a gun.
Terry was charged with illegal CC. The case was appealed all the way to SCOTUS, the main point being whether McFadden was justified in seizing and searching Terry. SCOTUS said McFadden was justified, in relevant part, because according to SCOTUS it is reasonable for a cop to investigate suspicious activity, which in Terry's particular case was a "possible crime about to occur".
You can read about it all here:
Last edited by Citizen; 01-05-2011 at 09:22 PM.
I love this audio. It is from Maine, but could happen in VA today. Great stuff. Kudos fella!
12 minutes. In the comments the guy states that toward the end when the officer would not answer the free to go question, he (the carrier) just walked away.
Citizen said: SCOTUS said McFadden was justified, in relevant part, because according to SCOTUS it is reasonable for a cop to investigate suspicious activity, which in Terry's particular case was a "possible crime about to occur".
Goes back to previous threads (find them Citizen!) debating if carrying a gun constitutes suspicion. Under the law, I say no.
The only time I have ever heard of OC being ruled as even contributing to suspicion was a VA case where cops had set up a drug-buy sting operation near an apartment building. The fuzz command post was in the building laundry room. Guy walks up to his building, handgun in his hand. Cop claimed he was concerned for he and his fellow command post laundry room campers. They seized the guy, searched him, and found drugs and too much money. The court (VA Supreme or Appeals) ruled the intial seizure of his person legal. But, the OC was not the sole element. Safety (gun), drug area, maybe night time, were additional elements. Also, his gun was hand-carried, not holstered, but I don't think the majority mentions that as a point.
The dissent was interesting. Two things stand out in my memory. The dissent pointed out the misgovernment only proved that the defendant walked into his own building where he lived, legally carrying a gun. And, that without a CHP, that was the legal way for the guy to carry the gun.
I cannot recall the name of the case. I'll hunt for it.
The main point is that 1) carry is a fundamental human right 2) is recognized as a right in VA, and 3) it can't possibly give suspicion all by itself if it is a recognized right.
Last edited by Jonesy; 01-05-2011 at 10:14 PM.
This is the first time I got wind about this new law proposal. I would not describe this proposed law as being a "stop and identify" law. I would describe it more as being a "identify after a legal detention" law, which is a huge difference. I think we all know that legally a LEO can't Terry Stop (seizure, arrest, whatever you wanna call it) based on just the mere fact that he or she is open carrying. Therefore, this law (if passed) won't have much of an effect on open carrying. The only time it will come into play is if a complaining witness calls in a MWAG call and exaggerates the facts enough for the officers to "Terry stop" the open carrier and they want to know his identification. It won't affect the outcome of any charges being placed if identification is provided.
XDM, I will disagree that many LEOs will not understand the law and that they will then abuse the law. It's not a very complex law, it merely adds the "identify yourself during Terry" part. The law clearly states that a legal Terry detention must occur first, so I don't see how an officer could not understand and then use it to abuse their power. There are already laws in place to determine what is a legal detention and lawsuits have filled pockets.
I think we need to really look into why this law was created. IMO it is a measure to stop actual guilty persons from remaining silent during a Terry stop then leaving the scene, only to have the officers learn later, that person is perceived as being guilty. Now the LEO has no information on who was stopped and difficult to catch them. This actually occurs a lot, especially with the new age of surveillance cameras. Now the question is, do citizens believe it is important enough to give up the freedom of remaining silent if they are lawfully detained in an effort to hold more criminals accountable?
Last edited by NovaCop10; 01-06-2011 at 02:43 AM.
Most states have similar statutes that allow police to demand someone's name, maybe date of birth, and possibly their address, during a valid "investigatory detention" (AKA, "Terry stop", generally speaking). Authority to "demand identification" doesn't necessarily impose any duty to reply or respond, though.
On the other hand, "failure to identify" is usually only applicable in the case of a full custodial arrest, where the police have cause to seize the person and take him to jail. In that case, court rulings support their authority to both demand and verify actual identity. Even then, there is no authority to demand an identification card, because there is no requirement that any American citizen carry such a card within the country. Laws may require the suspect to provide "identifying information", such as name, address, and date of birth, but that's about it.