Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Requirements for Identification

  1. #1
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Requirements for Identification

    Can someone please site a law or rule that gives us the ability to not show identification unless we are being charged with a crime?

    I have a court case pending involving the Michigan DNR, so Ill provide details after it is over. Thanks

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Can someone please site a law or rule that gives us the ability to not show identification unless we are being charged with a crime?

    I have a court case pending involving the Michigan DNR, so Ill provide details after it is over. Thanks
    Laws generally do not define things that are not illegal i.e. there is no law requiring you to take off your hat when talking to an officer.

    Other than as it relates to a stop while driving a vehicle, I do not believe that Michigan has a must identify with papers law.
    257.311 Possession of operator's or chauffeur's license or receipt when operating motor vehicle required; display; identification.


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    in regards to DNR there may be some crazy law, but i need to investigate further.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  4. #4
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikemichigan View Post
    in regards to DNR there may be some crazy law, but i need to investigate further.
    Well, it has to do with being in the vicinity of a closed range when in possession of a firearm/.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Per Michigan state police update #86

    Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

    cant find anything on DNR requirements to show ID
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    California Walkman case United States Supreme Court is where I would start. here is the link to Ed Lawson's site.

    http://edwardlawson.com/SupremeCourt.html

    This was a celebrated case the media tries to forget.


    http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html

    U.S. Supreme Court
    Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

    Kolender v. Lawson

    No. 81-1320

    Argued November 8, 1982

    Decided May 2, 1983

    461 U.S. 352

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

    THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    Syllabus

    A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1. The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as

    "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself."

    Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

    Held: The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. Pp. 461 U. S. 355-361.

    65 F.2d 1362, affirmed and remanded.

    O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 461 U. S. 362. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST J., joined, post, p. 461 U. S. 369.

    Page 461 U. S. 353

    JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This appeal presents a facial challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). [Footnote 1] We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated

    Page 461 U. S. 354

    by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

    I

    Appellee Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March, 1975, and January, 1977, pursuant to Cal.Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). [Footnote 2] Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed.

    Lawson then brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction to restrain enforcement of the statute, and compensatory and punitive damages against the various officers who detained him. The District Court found that 647(e) was overbroad because "a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself." App. to Juris.Statement A-78. The District Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, but held that Lawson could not recover damages because the officers involved acted in the good faith belief that each detention or arrest was lawful.

    Appellant H. A. Porazzo, Deputy Chief Commander of the California Highway Patrol, appealed the District Court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lawson

    Page 461 U. S. 355

    cross-appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of damages against the officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court determination as to the unconstitutionality of 647(e). 658 F.2d 1362 (1981). The appellate court determined that the statute was unconstitutional in that it violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, it contains a vague enforcement standard that is susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, and it fails to give fair and adequate notice of the type of conduct prohibited. Finally, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court as to its holding that Lawson was not entitled to a jury trial to determine the good faith of the officers in his damages action against them, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.

    The officers appealed to this Court from that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which declared 647(e) unconstitutional and which enjoined its enforcement. We noted probable jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1254(2). 455 U.S. 999 (1982).

    see this link for full review.. http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Can someone please site a law or rule that gives us the ability to not show identification unless we are being charged with a crime?

    I have a court case pending involving the Michigan DNR, so Ill provide details after it is over. Thanks
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 05-12-2011 at 12:26 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Onnie View Post
    Per Michigan state police update #86

    Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

    cant find anything on DNR requirements to show ID
    i couldn't find anything either.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Here's a little more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Lawson


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Can someone please site a law or rule that gives us the ability to not show identification unless we are being charged with a crime?

    I have a court case pending involving the Michigan DNR, so Ill provide details after it is over. Thanks
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dearborn Heights MI, ,
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Onnie View Post
    Per Michigan state police update #86

    Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

    cant find anything on DNR requirements to show ID
    The DNR plays by a different set of rules, sometimes they make their own as they go, what one officer says is OK another will give you a ticket. Let me look thru my stuff, see what I can find somewhere I have/had a Damn Near Russia play book no gauntees though. It is my understanding they(MIDNR) can stop and ID you(Yes I know MI in not a stop/id state)while hunting/target shooting. Might take a while sorry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dearborn Heights MI, ,
    Posts
    88
    We need to know more, what the ticket/charge was for. I think there's more to the story than just being in the "area" of a closed shooting range. Sorry not trying to call you out but I spend a lot of time in the woods and have had my fair share of dealings with CO's, dont get me wrong I believe they are some of the most useless taxpayer burduns out there. Just want to know morw thats all.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Were you in the act of hunting, fishing, trapping or boating? Or some other activity that occurs in nature? I don't have the actual law, but I thought that if you are engaging in one of these activities they (DNR) have the authority to see your ID/license. Just my opinion anyway.

  12. #12
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasher View Post
    We need to know more, what the ticket/charge was for. I think there's more to the story than just being in the "area" of a closed shooting range. Sorry not trying to call you out but I spend a lot of time in the woods and have had my fair share of dealings with CO's, dont get me wrong I believe they are some of the most useless taxpayer burduns out there. Just want to know morw thats all.
    http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/stor...cd7f1d1a52%2C1
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    Were you in the act of hunting, fishing, trapping or boating?
    No.
    Or some other activity that occurs in nature? I don't have the actual law, but I thought that if you are engaging in one of these activities they (DNR) have the authority to see your ID/license. Just my opinion anyway.
    Just walking through woods for fun with my kid while OCing.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Just walking through woods for fun with my kid while OCing.
    Probably the most specifically applicable decision:
    http://edwardlawson.com/SupremeCourt.html

    IOM - based on what you have divulged that should be the hammer.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Probably the most specifically applicable decision:
    http://edwardlawson.com/SupremeCourt.html

    IOM - based on what you have divulged that should be the hammer.
    Ill be back in michigan for the hearing once it is scheduled. I will give the whole story once its over.

    Thanks to everyone for providing some clarity to the stop and ID rules. I appreciate it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dearborn Heights MI, ,
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    No.


    Just walking through woods for fun with my kid while OCing.
    Taking you on your story, NO they had no basis to stop and ID, but again its the DNR they play by their own rules, AND THEY CHANGE THEM AT WILL-SOMETIME FOR PURE AMUZEMENT. Do you have a lawyer, we might be able to recommend a few. I'll still look for what i have.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Just walking through woods for fun with my kid while OCing.
    MCL 324.504 might be what you're looking for:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fcpye2553zkkzc45sbwjj145))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-324-504

    324.504 Department of natural resources; rules for protection and preservation of lands and property; duties of department; report; applicability of subsections (2) and (3) to commercial forestland; certain rules prohibited; orders; violation as civil infraction; fine.Sec. 504.
    (1) The department shall promulgate rules to protect and preserve lands and other property under its control from depredation, damage, or destruction or wrongful or improper use or occupancy.

    ... [edited for brevity]

    (6) The department shall not promulgate or enforce a rule that prohibits an individual who is licensed or exempt from licensure under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, from carrying a pistol in compliance with that act, whether concealed or otherwise, on property under the control of the department.
    OC in the woods falls under licensing by the LTP statute, 28.422, and within the range stated for exemption.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...ame=mcl-28-422

    In short, MCL 324.504 prevents the DNR from overriding state firearms statues. There is no MI statute that requires disclosure of presentation of ID for OC under 28.422. Should be a slam-dunk, imo.
    Last edited by CoonDog; 05-12-2011 at 03:41 PM.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasher View Post
    Taking you on your story, NO they had no basis to stop and ID, but again its the DNR they play by their own rules, AND THEY CHANGE THEM AT WILL-SOMETIME FOR PURE AMUZEMENT. Do you have a lawyer, we might be able to recommend a few. I'll still look for what i have.
    you're right rasher, DNR in many states have more power than police. warrant-less searches for illegal game, etc. they are modern day sheriff of nottingham going after those who would dare to take the king's deer.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64
    324.43510 Carrying or transporting firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow or trap; license required; exception; applicability to taking of wild animal.
    Sec. 43510.

    (1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or transport a firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, or a trap while in any area frequented by wild animals unless that person has in his or her possession a license as required under this part.

    (2) This act or a rule promulgated or order issued by the department or the commission under this act shall not be construed to prohibit a person from transporting a pistol or carrying a loaded pistol, whether concealed or not, if either of the following applies:

    (a) The person has in his or her possession a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435.

    (b) The person is authorized under the circumstances to carry a concealed pistol without obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, as provided for under any of the following:

    (i) Section 12a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.432a.

    (ii) Section 227, 227a, 231, or 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227, 750.227a, 750.231, and 750.231a.

    (3) Subsection (2) does not authorize an individual to take or attempt to take a wild animal except as provided by law.

    324.43513 Carrying, transporting, or possessing firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, or crossbow; hunting license not required; carrying or possessing unloaded weapon.
    Sec. 43513.

    (1) A person may carry, transport, or possess a firearm without a hunting license if the firearm is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and either enclosed in a case or carried in a vehicle in a location that is not readily accessible to any occupant of the vehicle. A person may carry, transport, or possess a slingshot, bow and arrow, or crossbow without a hunting license if the slingshot, bow, or crossbow is unstrung, enclosed in a case, or carried in a vehicle in a location that is not readily accessible to any occupant of the vehicle.

    (2) Regardless of whether the person has a license or it is open season for the taking of game, a person may carry, transport, possess or discharge a firearm, a bow and arrow, or a crossbow if all of the following apply:

    (a) The person is not taking or attempting to take game but is engaged in 1 or more of the following activities:

    (i) Target practice using an identifiable, artificially constructed target or targets.

    (ii) Practice with silhouettes, plinking, skeet, or trap.

    (iii) Sighting-in the firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.

    (b) The person is, or is accompanied by or has the permission of, either of the following:

    (i) The owner of the property on which the activity under subdivision (a) is taking place.

    (ii) The lessee of that property for a term of not less than 1 year.

    (c) The owner or lessee of the property does not receive remuneration for the activity under subdivision (a).

    (3) A person may carry or possess an unloaded weapon at any time if the person is traveling to or from or participating in a historical reenactment.
    Last edited by warrior1978; 05-12-2011 at 07:07 PM.

  20. #20

Posting Permissions

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