Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Need to produce ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hartford, CT
    Posts
    85

    Need to produce ID

    I created this thread to discuss issues relating to the production of ID. I posted the analysis below in another thread but decided to repost it here for additional discussion if people are interested.

    In 2007 case State v. Aloi, 280 Conn. 824 (2007), the CT Supreme Court answered the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a person in CT must produce identification when demanded by a police officer. That case involved a suspect who was detained under suspicion that he had comitted a crime and then refused to produce ID when approached by police and demanded to identify himself:

    Sergeant Robert LaBonte and Officers Jay Salvatore and Jenny Keys of the Wethersfield police department] arrived at Mill Woods Park in response to Peruta's complaint and found the defendant [with mud all over his shirt] standing on public property near the fire truck․ Salvatore approached and advised the defendant that Peruta had complained that the defendant was trespassing and possibly had damaged the fire truck.  Salvatore requested that the defendant produce identification.   The defendant did not immediately hand over his identification.   The defendant also stated that he did not need to produce identification, that he was on public property and that ‘this isn't Russia.   I'm not showing you any [identification]․’ ”  State v. Aloi, supra, 86 Conn. at App. 365-66, 861 A.2d 1180.   At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the defendant guilty of several charges, including interfering with a police officer in violation of § 53a-167a.
    The crux of the case was whether refusal to produce ID was within the scope of activity made unlawful by § 53a-167a -- interfering with a police investigation. The court held that the suspect's refusal to produce ID was, indeed, within the ambit of activity that could constitute a violation of CGS 53a-167a. An important limitation on this hold, however, was that the court stressed that the power to compel production of ID is concomitant with a Terry stop only and even framed the question in that light:

    We first must determine whether a person lawfully may be convicted of interfering with a police officer under § 53a-167a for refusing to provide identification to that police officer who is investigating possible criminal activity pursuant to a Terry stop.
    The court held:

    Because a refusal to provide identification in connection with a Terry stop may hamper or impede a police investigation into apparent criminal activity, we see no reason why such conduct would be categorically excluded under the expansive language of § 53a-167a.
    So if you are stopped for OC alone and refuse to produce ID when demanded, note that you may be arrested and charged with violation of CGS 53a-167a. You would likely win a motion to strike the charges against you if you could show that the officer lacked RAS for the detention (e.g. the demand was not made in connection with a Terry stop).

    The court stated that you must produce ID but the case says nothing about whether a pistol permit must be produced. That question has yet to be decided by CT courts.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    This absolutely blows my mind.

    As the child of a libertarian leaning parent, I was raised with the understanding that you do not need to carry ID and you do not need to produce ID.

    Its generally accepted in all parts of the USA that you don't need to providee ID, but you do have to identify yourself.
    It is astonishing that our relatively enlightened state of CT (at least when it comes to those kinds of liberties) has more in common with Nazi Germany (papers please??) than our founders' vision.

    One thing your case citations have made me realize is that if I'm not carrying a gun or driving, should not carry an ID. I can't be cited for not providing what I don't have with me.

    Based on your post a couple of weeks ago, I did not bring any ID when I went out shooting my AR15 and M11/9 sub machine gun this past weekend.

    Don
    Last edited by dcmdon; 08-26-2011 at 12:24 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    We first must determine whether a person lawfully may be convicted of interfering with a police officer under § 53a-167a for refusing to provide identification to that police officer who is investigating possible criminal activity pursuant to a Terry stop.
    Is it your claim that when the court specifically states "provide identification", that means "produce ID?"

    IMHO, the court erred if CT does not yet have a "Stop and Identify" statute in code. Did the court check Hiibel?

    From Hiibel:
    The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop
    Unless CT has become a state that statutorily does require a suspect to disclose his name, I cannot see how that case should not be capable of being struck down.

    Further:
    Petitioner's concerns are met by the requirement that a Terry stop must be justified at its inception and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. 392 U. S., at 20. Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop
    If the name of the suspect was not a factor in the circumstances of the stop, I do not see how even if a statute IS now written, it would apply in the cited case.
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-26-2011 at 01:28 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    One more reason for me to be glad to NOT live in CT:
    Although Hiibel was prosecuted under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 199.280, a statute very similar to § 53a-167a, the primary source of the obligation to provide identification was found in Nev.Rev.Stat. § 171.123, Nevada's “stop and identify” statute.   See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, supra, 542 U.S. at 181-82, 124 S.Ct. 2451. In the present case, the source of that obligation is not a “stop and identify” statute but, rather, § 53a-167a itself.   Of course, the obligation to provide identification exists under § 53a-167a if, and only if, the state can establish that the suspect's refusal to provide identification hindered or impeded the police in the performance of their duties.   We note, finally, that the defendant does not claim that § 53a-167ais unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct because he did not have fair notice that his refusal to provide identification was prohibited by § 53a-167a.   See Risbridger v. Connelly, 275 F.3d 565, 574 (6th Cir.2002) (“a reasonable person would understand that if he refuses an officer's request for identification after being pointed out to that officer by another citizen, his conduct may ‘hinder or obstruct’ the officer in the discharge of his duties”).
    Did the court seriously state that "the source of that obligation is not a 'stop and identify' statute?" Yet STILL uphold it even while referencing Hiibel?

    A few more excerpts from Hiibel:
    The narrow scope of the disclosure requirement is also important
    The statute used in CT is not "narrow in scope," and in fact, does not mention identification at all.

    And, right before that portion:
    While we recognize petitioner's strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature's judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him
    Note that the statute referenced is the specific one that requires providing your name to an le during an investigatory stop.
    See NRS §171.123(3) ("Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer").
    That narrow statutory construction of law is missing in CT, SCOTUS in Hiibel specifies that 'the narrow scope of the disclosure requirement is also important,' yet the CT supremes accept a broad scope and infer that providing identity is required? That sure looks as if the court is legislating from the bench, allowing LE in CT to require yiou to provide identity, absent an actual statute as required under the Hiibel decision.
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-26-2011 at 01:48 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Guntoting lawyer - did the defendant refuse to identify himself verbally?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    Guntoting lawyer - did the defendant refuse to identify himself verbally?
    According to the cited case, yes. But, unless it is defined in actual statute, and by defined, HOW to convey the information, AND what information is required, the court should have followed the Hiible decision and not supported conviction.
    CT statute could be written by the appropriate government body (legislature) requiring a person to identify themselves to an LE during an investigatory stop. That requirement could be statutorily written to require presentation of an actual Identification document if available. But, the ca statute requiring such document was struck down in Kolendor v Lawson.

    Hiibel places a statute requirement upon the state. The state in this case has not created one. IMHO, the court did not use Hiibel as decided, and this case should not be upheld at the SCOTUS level if it is presented and decided.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    I'm obviously not an attorney, but the question in my mind is very simple.

    If I provide verbal identification, do I still need to show ID?
    Based on your interpretation this decision does not address that.

    I'm interested in Guntoting lawyer's thoughts on this.

    Thanks,

    Don

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    I'm obviously not an attorney, but the question in my mind is very simple.

    If I provide verbal identification, do I still need to show ID?
    Based on your interpretation this decision does not address that.

    I'm interested in Guntoting lawyer's thoughts on this.

    Thanks,

    Don
    Please do not take me wrong, I am also interested in that, and attempted to ask him that also. The court case appears to speak about 'provide identification,' but the guntotin changed that to "produce ID."

    from that post.....
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Is it your claim that when the court specifically states "provide identification", that means "produce ID?"
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-26-2011 at 05:15 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Can't produce what I'm not carrying.

    If you want to see my license, stop me while I'm performing a licensed activity. My wallet for the last two years has been an ATM card and my GWL. Work ID stays in the cubby and my GDL in the visor. Anything else, I take with me only as needed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Can't produce what I'm not carrying.

    If you want to see my license, stop me while I'm performing a licensed activity. My wallet for the last two years has been an ATM card and my GWL. Work ID stays in the cubby and my GDL in the visor. Anything else, I take with me only as needed.
    We are required by statute to have our pistol permit on us if we are carrying.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    145
    Same for the state of Georgia, but there's no statute requiring us to produce it either.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    We are required by statute to have our pistol permit on us if we are carrying.
    My fault, proper writing style would have had me using the long form "Georgia Weapons License" before using the acronym GWL.
    Still, not a lot to be gleaned from a laminated piece of typewriter paper and a smudged fingerprint (which is essentially what the GWL is.)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-27-2011 at 11:35 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by smn View Post
    Same for the state of Georgia, but there's no statute requiring us to produce it either.
    CT is the same. Requirement to carry it, but no requirement to produce it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hartford, CT
    Posts
    85
    Sorry I wasn't able to reply back quickly to some of the questions in this thread. Wrightme did a great job pairing the Aloi decision with Hiibel -- the SCOTUS case that the CT Supreme Court cited (and the case that held stop-and-ID statutes such as Nevada's to be constitutional). The court recognized in Aloi that CT does not have a stop-and-ID statute used the broad language of CGS 53a-167a to justify the LEO's power to compel identification. I will clarify and extend my analysis later today vis-a-vis whether you must produce concrete ID versus verbally identifying yourself. There was a followup case to Aloi that I have to finish going through.

    At the outset Don - I agree with you that Aloi blows my mind. The majority's decision in Hiibel also blew the minds of the dissenting justices. It had always been assumed that you had the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. The mere act of giving up your name may, in fact, incriminate you if, for example, there are outstanding warrants against you. That line of thinking was, unfortunately, swept aside with Hiibel.

    More to follow...
    Last edited by GunTotingLawyer; 08-29-2011 at 01:31 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by GunTotingLawyer View Post
    Sorry I wasn't able to reply back quickly to some of the questions in this thread. Wrightme did a great job pairing the Aloi decision with Hiibel -- the SCOTUS case that the CT Supreme Court cited (and the case that stop-and-ID statutes such as Nevada's were constitutional). The court recognized in Aloi that CT does not have a stop-and-ID statute used the broad language of CGS 53a-167a to justify the LEO's power to compel identification. I will clarify and extend my analysis later today vis-a-vis whether you must produce concrete ID versus verbally identifying yourself. There was a followup case to Aloi that I have to finish going through.

    At the outset Don - I agree with you that Aloi blows my mind. The majority's decision in Hiibel also blew the minds of the dissenting justices. It had always been assumed that you had the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. The mere act of giving up your name may, in fact, incriminate you if, for example, there are outstanding warrants against you. That line of thinking was, unfortunately, swept aside with Hiibel.

    More to follow...
    As mentioned by me, IMHO, the court erred in allowing the broad language of CGS 53a-167a to justify compelling identification, given that Hiibel specified "state statute" and has upheld the narrow scope (and the direct language) of the NV statute, but other cases have NOT upheld broad or vague language in S&ID statutes.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wolcott, CT
    Posts
    31
    I was stopped tonight for some apparently illegal mods to my Jeep, and it was a newbie officer and a seasoned officer. The newbie led and after talking for a few he took my license and info. I gave him both of my licenses and he instantly went "Hey man you're supposed to tell me you're carrying first thing" and I told him I do not and the other officer agreed. After that he disarmed me and "yadda yadda verbal warning have a good night". I gave him the ID out of sheer courtesy. I didn't have to do it.
    "Faster, Faster until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - Hunter S. Thompson

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    I was stopped tonight for some apparently illegal mods to my Jeep, and it was a newbie officer and a seasoned officer. The newbie led and after talking for a few he took my license and info. I gave him both of my licenses and he instantly went "Hey man you're supposed to tell me you're carrying first thing" and I told him I do not and the other officer agreed. After that he disarmed me and "yadda yadda verbal warning have a good night". I gave him the ID out of sheer courtesy. I didn't have to do it.
    I don't understand why anyone would bother to introduce a firearm into a traffic stop.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wolcott, CT
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I don't understand why anyone would bother to introduce a firearm into a traffic stop.
    If you mean on my part it was because he asked me to step out.
    "Faster, Faster until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - Hunter S. Thompson

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    If you mean on my part it was because he asked me to step out.
    Well then, that was more than an 'illegal equipment' traffic stop, no? Otherwise these officers are very questionable on conduct from the start...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wolcott, CT
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Well then, that was more than an 'illegal equipment' traffic stop, no? Otherwise these officers are very questionable on conduct from the start...
    I wish I knew. It was my first stop while carrying.
    "Faster, Faster until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - Hunter S. Thompson

  21. #21
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I don't understand why anyone would bother to introduce a firearm into a traffic stop.
    Notification laws are scarry.

    I tell my students that the choice is theirs and they have to look at all sides of the issue. I then say "this is what I do"......

    I have seen on dash cam video and witnessed too much on the issue to come to this conclusion.

    Putting your hands on the wheel, stating you have a pistol permit and you have a firearm in the vehicle does one thing.....

    "GUN!!!!!!!"

    Given the plethora of video where cops accidentally shoot or harass a law abiding citizen, I wait until it gets to the point where I have to get out of my car.

    A cop friend of mine says "but if my life is in danger".... I'm like "it never was, I'm a law abiding citizen and I'm not going to shoot a cop".

    His response: "but, if you're a criminal......." and I but in..... "good luck with that notification from a criminal!".

    Look on his face was priceless.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Notification laws are scarry.

    I tell my students that the choice is theirs and they have to look at all sides of the issue. I then say "this is what I do"......

    I have seen on dash cam video and witnessed too much on the issue to come to this conclusion.

    Putting your hands on the wheel, stating you have a pistol permit and you have a firearm in the vehicle does one thing.....

    "GUN!!!!!!!"

    Given the plethora of video where cops accidentally shoot or harass a law abiding citizen, I wait until it gets to the point where I have to get out of my car.

    A cop friend of mine says "but if my life is in danger".... I'm like "it never was, I'm a law abiding citizen and I'm not going to shoot a cop".

    His response: "but, if you're a criminal......." and I but in..... "good luck with that notification from a criminal!".

    Look on his face was priceless.

    Jonathan

    Many years ago and not long after I got my permit, someone I knew told me what happened when he volunteered such information "out of courtesy." The officer DREW on him right after he handed over his permit. Now, I can't say for sure whether his story was BS, but it certainly made me think about what I would do. I will only notify if required by law or if I am ordered to exit the vehicle.

    There are many officers who are true professionals but unfortunately, you usually don't know if they will react like the Canton, OH cop or not. I would not want to be staring down the barrel of a gun just because I was trying to be "courteous." If we could count on all officers being 100% professional, then perhaps I would re-evaluate that position.

    IMHO, mandatory notification laws are indeed scary. It creates another "gotcha-law" that is VERY subjective. After all, how long is "immediately".... 1 second, 5 seconds, 1 minute? If your notification does not fall within the officer's view of immediate, then GOTCHA! You possibly get arrested and maybe even lose your permit. I hope CT doesn't consider such a wrongheaded law.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    This absolutely blows my mind.

    As the child of a libertarian leaning parent, I was raised with the understanding that you do not need to carry ID and you do not need to produce ID.

    Its generally accepted in all parts of the USA that you don't need to providee ID, but you do have to identify yourself.
    It is astonishing that our relatively enlightened state of CT (at least when it comes to those kinds of liberties) has more in common with Nazi Germany (papers please??) than our founders' vision.

    One thing your case citations have made me realize is that if I'm not carrying a gun or driving, should not carry an ID. I can't be cited for not providing what I don't have with me.

    Based on your post a couple of weeks ago, I did not bring any ID when I went out shooting my AR15 and M11/9 sub machine gun this past weekend.

    Don

    Poll: OK to trade some freedoms to fight terrorism

    http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110...liberties_poll

    "47 percent favor requiring all people in the U.S. to carry a national ID card and provide it to authorities upon demand."

    I guess half of America is OK with "Your papers please."
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Its over.. We lose.

  25. #25
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    I wait until asked.

    They often use it as a gateway to search your vehicle, proper or not.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

Posting Permissions

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