Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 89

Thread: MANDATORY self-identification; refusal is class 1 misdemeanor!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    MANDATORY self-identification; refusal is class 1 misdemeanor!

    Red Alert:

    HB 1574 Mandatory self-identification; failure to identify oneself to law-enforcement officer.

    See the bill text:

    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.
    I wonder if this is part of the GOP's "Get tough on Illegals" they keep promising?
    Last edited by Repeater; 01-05-2011 at 04:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Red Alert:

    HB 1574 Mandatory self-identification; failure to identify oneself to law-enforcement officer.

    See the bill text:

    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.
    I wonder if this is part of the GOP's "Get tough on Illegals" they keep promising?
    It would seem that this could only work against "illegals" if there is a comprehensive list of either "legals" or "illegals" to compare the given name against.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    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.

    stay safe.

  4. #4
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    IDENTIFY YOURSELF!



    hhmm, yep, that's me!
    James Reynolds

    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/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Red Alert:

    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    It would seem that this could only work against "illegals" if there is a comprehensive list of either "legals" or "illegals" to compare the given name against.

    TFred
    This a attempt at a stop and ID law. I see many problems with the wording of this bill and the bill itself.

    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 06:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by ProShooter View Post
    IDENTIFY YOURSELF!



    hhmm, yep, that's me!
    He looks really confused in that picture Reminds me of the Surry DA when he walked in the the Surry House restaurant yesterday

  7. #7
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    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...

  8. #8
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Show 'em a picture ID of my @#$%.

    Ok, first gut reaction. What nuc said.
    Last edited by riverrat10k; 01-05-2011 at 08:33 PM. Reason: grin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    One
    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???)

    Two
    In accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, stating one's true name (and possibly date of birth,) is sufficient to establish identity.

    Three
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    VERMONT
    HTTP://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/...&Section=01983
    § 1983. Identification to law enforcement officers required

    UTAH
    HTTP://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE77/htm/77_07_001500.htm
    77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds

    TEXAS
    Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY
    HTTP://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E.38.htm#38.02

    RHODE ISLAND
    HTTP://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statute...2-7/12-7-1.HTM
    § 12-7-1 Temporary detention of suspects.

    NORTH DAKOTA
    HTTP://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t29c29.pdf
    29-29-21. Temporary questioning of persons in public places

    NEW YORK
    HTTP://law.onecle.com/new-york/crimi...50_140.50.HTML
    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

    NEW MEXICO
    HTTP://law.justia.com/newmexico/code...22-3-c999.HTML
    30-22-3. Concealing identity.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    HTTP://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../594/594-2.htm
    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects.

    NEVADA
    HTTP://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.HTML#NRS171Sec123
    NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation

    NEBRASKA
    HTTP://law.justia.com/Nebraska/codes...908029000.HTML
    Section 29-829
    MONTANA
    HTTP://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
    46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
    ((This one is odd because it authorizes the officer to Request))

    LOUISIANA
    HTTP://legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=112364
    Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons

    KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    Article 24.--ARREST
    22-2402. Stopping of suspect.
    HTTP://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-...number=22-2402

    INDIANA
    HTTP://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar28/ch5.HTML
    IC 34-28-5-3.5
    Refusal to identify self

    ILLINOIS
    HTTP://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...cedure+of+1963 .
    (725 ILCS 5/107 14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107 14)
    Sec. 107 14. Temporary questioning without arrest.

    FLORIDA
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0856.021.html
    856.021Loitering or prowling; penalty.

    DELAWARE
    http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/....shtml#P27_576
    § 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects.

    COLORADO
    16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
    HTTP://www.loislaw.com/livepublish89...&cite=16-3-103

    ARKANSAS
    HTTP://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau.../Title%205.pdf
    5-71-213. Loitering.

  11. #11
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    I'm jumping off this cliff, you comin'?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    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?

  13. #13
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    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 10:26 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member CHILINVLN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    95
    person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime
    OR IS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME? Are we predicting the future?

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    SNIP 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???)
    This is a classic stop-and-identify statute. Stop = Terry Stop = seizure = detention = detainment. Since it requires RAS, as discussed in Terry for a stop, and requires RAS for an ID demand during the encounter as discussed in Brown v Texas and Hiibel, we have the elements necessary to call it a stop-and-identify statute.

    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".

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by CHILINVLN View Post
    OR IS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME? Are we predicting the future?
    Nah that's standard wording. If a guy is standing in front of a store window with a brick in his raised hand... that's "about to commit a crime," IMHO at least.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by CHILINVLN View Post
    OR IS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME? Are we predicting the future?
    So far, only to an extent like Terry v Ohio did, not Minority Report.

    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:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-05-2011 at 10:22 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Thoughtcrime.
    I love this audio. It is from Maine, but could happen in VA today. Great stuff. Kudos fella!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifv5qfuXmKQ

    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    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.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by riverrat10k View Post
    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.
    "Crime about to occur". Crime is the important word. Mere OC is not, without something more, enough to cause suspicion--I'm not stating law. In Florida vs JL, SCOTUS expressly declined to make a gun exception to the standard Terry analysis, meaning the misgovernment wanted the court to make an exception for guns because...well...just because. The court expressly said no. That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote that opinion, by the way. Go figure.

    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Nah that's standard wording. If a guy is standing in front of a store window with a brick in his raised hand... that's "about to commit a crime," IMHO at least.

    TFred
    I must respectfully disagree. Holding a brick near a window in a raised hand is not a crime, nor can you necessarily say the one holding it will or intends to throw it. Is about to commit is overly broad language, it gives the cop way too much discretion. But the US Supremes have allowed such in Terry, and unfortunately we are stuck with it.
    Last edited by Jonesy; 01-05-2011 at 11:14 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by riverrat10k View Post
    I'm jumping off this cliff, you comin'?
    Right after you let me know how the sudden stop is

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
    I must respectfully disagree. Holding a brick near a window in a raised hand is not a crime, nor can you necessarily say the one holding it will or intends to throw it. Is about to commit is overly broad language, it gives the cop way too much discretion. But the US Supremes have allowed such in Terry, and unfortunately we are stuck with it.
    I will agree with TFred and Citizen. Having a brick in a raised hand towards a business window might not be a crime, nor could you be charged with such, but I think it would be REASONABLE enough for an officer to believe you intend on throwing the brick and conduct an investigatory seizure (Terry). How about this... you switch "business window" with your own head. Would you wait until he threw the brick to draw your gun? I surely hope not.

    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 03:43 AM.

  24. #24
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    ... 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....
    I think I must disagree with this, a complaining witness absent the witnessing officer does not a RAS or PC make without the elements of a crime.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •