Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Question about Stop and ID laws in Nova...

  1. #1
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652

    Question about Stop and ID laws in Nova...

    Ok, so I can see that Herndon has no statute pertaining to "Stop and ID" but Loudoun does... But for the life of me I can't find an explanaition for what this means to me, the OCer. I've tried finding it in the Loudoun.gov library , even found a link on OCDO to it but that statute won't come up for me to see it. Google hasn't been any help either, which is a first for me.

    What is a Stop and ID law and how does it pertain to me, the OCer? How does this change any encounter with LEO?

    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sesrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    82
    If your question is how to view the actual ordinance through Loudoun County's website then:
    1) Go to "Loudoun County Ordinances"
    2) Click "Part Six: General Offenses (Chapter 602-692)"
    3) Click to open "Chapter 654-Offences Against Public Peace and Safety" (PDF)
    4) Scroll down to 654.01(d)

    It is "unlawful...to fail to identify [one's self] at the request of [an]...officer" when "at a public place or place open to the public." The requirement is "when circumstances indicate that public safety requires such identification."

    For previous discussion of Stop & Carry look -> here. The highlights are quoted in that post and the original link to the main thread (5pgs) is there as well.
    Last edited by Sesrun; 09-13-2011 at 09:34 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Ahh, thanks... I was searching with the wrong keys words...
    Let's see what we have here...
    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    I would question the validity of local statutes.

    Hiibel specifies state statute governing Stop and ID.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sesrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    82
    The validity of the statutes is definitely in question, nevertheless there are a minimum of 12 such local statutes in the State of Virginia. I am sure there is at least 1 cop who would charge you for a violation too. The court battle and whether you would win is another question.

    Hibel is regarding Stop & ID statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Where does it describe that local ordinances are invalid?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sesrun View Post
    The validity of the statutes is definitely in question, nevertheless there are a minimum of 12 such local statutes in the State of Virginia. I am sure there is at least 1 cop who would charge you for a violation too. The court battle and whether you would win is another question.

    Hibel is regarding Stop & ID statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Where does it describe that local ordinances are invalid?
    It doesn't. It states that "stop and ID" is not valid; unless a state has a statute defining it. (to paraphrase).


    http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html
    The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
    A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    The unanswered question is whether localities other than a state may enact valid Stop&ID statute under the wording of Hiibel.
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-13-2011 at 07:55 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sesrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    It doesn't. It states that "stop and ID" is not valid; unless a state has a statute defining it. (to paraphrase).


    http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html



    The unanswered question is whether localities other than a state may enact valid Stop&ID statute under the wording of Hiibel.
    I see. So the authority of locality to create Stop & ID ordinances is not legally restricted nor authorized at this point. I misunderstood your earlier post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    Note also the emphasis above. IIRC SCOTUS held that any S&I statute MUST be worded to comply with the provisions of 'Terry'; namely 'reasonable, articulable suspicion..of a crime...'

    Seems to me the even if a local ordinance/statute is in place, if it does not specify Terry's 'RAS' provisions, then it is unenforceable. See also.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    Note also the emphasis above. IIRC SCOTUS held that any S&I statute MUST be worded to comply with the provisions of 'Terry'; namely 'reasonable, articulable suspicion..of a crime...'

    Seems to me the even if a local ordinance/statute is in place, if it does not specify Terry's 'RAS' provisions, then it is unenforceable. See also.
    That sounds accurate.
    But, judging by the text of the Opinion section II, it appears to be a construct from Brown, not Hiibel:

    In Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity.
    The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
    The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual's interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654.
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-13-2011 at 09:03 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

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