• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

MANDATORY self-identification; refusal is class 1 misdemeanor!

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
IDENTIFY YOURSELF!

puberty1.gif


hhmm, yep, that's me!
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
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?

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:

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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...
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
VERMONT
HTTP://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=059&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.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.02

RHODE ISLAND
HTTP://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE12/12-7/12-7-1.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/criminal-procedure/CPL0140.50_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/codes/2006/nmrc/jd_30-22-3-c999.HTML
30-22-3. Concealing identity.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
HTTP://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/HTML/LIX/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/s29index/s2908029000.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-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do?number=22-2402

INDIANA
HTTP://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.HTML
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self

ILLINOIS
HTTP://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...00&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+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...021&URL=0800-0899/0856/Sections/0856.021.html
856.021Loitering or prowling; penalty.

DELAWARE
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c019/sc01/index.shtml#P27_576
§ 1902. Questioning and detaining suspects.

COLORADO
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
HTTP://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?dockey=8476613@COCODE&alias=COCODE&cite=16-3-103

ARKANSAS
HTTP://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas Code/Title 5.pdf
5-71-213. Loitering.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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".
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
 
Last edited:

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 
Top