• 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.

Requirements for Identification

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.


 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
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

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:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA

Rasher

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
88
Location
Dearborn Heights MI, ,
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/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_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.
 

Rasher

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
88
Location
Dearborn Heights MI, ,
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.
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
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/story.aspx?id=597026&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8faecd7f1d1a52,1
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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.
 

Rasher

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
88
Location
Dearborn Heights MI, ,
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.
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
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/(S(vh...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=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:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
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.
 

warrior1978

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
64
Location
, ,
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:
Top