Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Stop and ID?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lake Elsinore, California, USA
    Posts
    45

    Stop and ID?

    I talked to a LEO who claimed it is legal for him to stop and ask for ID of anyone. Is this the case for Colorado? It was my understanding that only if you are being detained must you give any form of ID. Moreover, you can only be detained when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime occurring or about to occur.
    Last edited by inetprez; 09-17-2011 at 02:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    its also legal for them to ask you to do the hokie pokie....

    asking is different than demanding ID and forcing one to comply.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 09-17-2011 at 03:18 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Avon, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    53
    I mean, that is what it's all about. <ducks and runs>

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    It is legal for them to ask . I could ask you for ID. You don't have to provide though.

    I'm sure the officer said it in a way that implied you would have to provide it if asked. This is the reason I don't usually ask LE for legal advice. A lot of times they don't know the correct answer or they will flat out lie in order to get other citizens to behave the way they want.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    16-3-103

    Is the applicable "Stop & ID" statute. It describes a "Terry Stop," and requires RAS. Otherwise, KYBMS wrt identification in CO. (IANAL, IMHO, BMOC, ETC).

    http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=

    16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
    (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
    (2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
    Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 198, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-103. L. 83: (1) amended, p. 663, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 941, § 9, effective July 1.
    Cross references: For the stopping of persons suspected of alcohol- or drug-related traffic offenses, see § 42-4-1302.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    But......

    WHen you read the annotations, it appears that the courts do allow a bunch of "wiggle room."

    ANNOTATION
    Law reviews. For comment, "People v. Thomas: Furtive Gestures as an Element of Reasonable Suspicion -- The Ongoing Struggle to Determine a Standard", see 61 Den. L.J. 579 (1984). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with stops and arrests, see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 165 (1985). For article, "A DUI Primer", see 16 Colo. Law. 2179 (1987).
    Diferent standards govern full-scale arrest and investigatory stops. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

    Limited, temporary detention permissible though no probable cause to arrest exists. A police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigation of possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause for arrest. People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973); People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974).

    There is an area of proper police procedure in which an officer having less than probable cause to arrest may temporarily detain an individual for limited purposes. People v. Marquez, 183 Colo. 231, 516 P.2d 1134 (1973); People v. Schreyer, 640 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1982).

    A temporary police detention in the nature of "field investigation" can be justified by less than probable cause for arrest. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973).

    Police officers may make a limited stop on less than probable cause. People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974).

    In certain circumstances a police officer having less than probable cause to arrest may stop an individual for identification purposes and not violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986).

    Where officer has a reasonable suspicion that an automobile temporary sticker has been altered, officer has authority to make a stop under this section since such alteration would constitute a misdemeanor traffic offense. People v. Thomas, 839 P.2d 1174 (Colo. 1992).

    In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).

    The first of these requirements is determined by whether there were specific and articulable facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant's personal security. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).
    Permissible purposes for investigatory stops. Investigatory stops constitute an intermediate response by the police between nondetention and arrest. These procedures are permissible only for the purpose of questioning a suspect, who might otherwise escape, regarding his identity or observed behavior in order temporarily to maintain the status quo while seeking to procure more information regarding possible wrongdoing. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

    Police may detain and require identification if reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct. People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980).

    The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion is determined from the totality of the circumstances in which the suspicion arose. People v. Bell, 698 P.2d 269 (Colo. 1985); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Coca, 829 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1992).

    Officer's suspicion that the defendant's were connected to the reported criminal activity held reasonable given the defendants' evasive actions and their proximity to the location of the reported burglary shortly after the officer received the dispatch call. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Sosbe, 789 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1990).

    Investigatory stops. A police officer, lacking probable cause to arrest, may stop a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is involved in criminal activity. People v. Sosbe, 789 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1990).

    An investigatory stop implicates a seizure that is based on less than probable cause and so it must be brief in duration, limited in scope, and narrow in purpose. People v. Tottenhoff, 691 P.2d 340 (Colo. 1984); Outlaw v. People, 17 P.3d 150 (Colo. 2001).

    Construction of § 42-2-113 inconsistent with this section. A construction of § 42-2-113, which requires that drivers' licenses be displayed to peace officers upon demand, which would give to a police officer unlimited discretionary authority to stop any car at any time for any reason as long as he asked contemporaneously for display of a driver's license would be inconsistent with this section, which specifically limits an officer's authority to stop persons for investigation in the absence of probable cause to arrest. People v. McPherson, 191 Colo. 81, 550 P.2d 311 (1976).

    Limited searches of a person for weapons during an investigative detention, when probable cause for arrest is lacking, is permissible, but there must be: (1) Some reason for the officer to confront the citizen in the first place; (2) something in the circumstances, including the citizen's reaction to the confrontation, must give the officer reason to suspect that the citizen may be armed and, thus, dangerous to the officer or others; and (3) the search must be limited to a frisk directed at discovery and appropriation of weapons and not at evidence in general. People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974); People v. Shackelford, 37 Colo. App. 317, 546 P.2d 964 (1976).

    In determining the reasonableness of a search in the situation where the search is not full blown but is rather just a protective search for weapons, the inquiry is a dual one: (1) Was the officer's action justified at its inception; and (2) was the search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. People v. Burley, 185 Colo. 224, 523 P.2d 981 (1974).

    So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. People v. Burley, 185 Colo. 224, 523 P.2d 981 (1974).

    Protective search for weapons is justified only when circumstances of an otherwise valid stop provides the officer with a reasonable basis to suspect person stopped may be armed and dangerous. People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994).

    Based not on hunches and limited in scope. In order to uphold the stop and frisk as reasonable, both the initial confrontation and the subsequent search must have been prompted by the officers' reliance on particular facts, rather than on inarticulable hunches, and the scope of the frisk must be limited to that necessary for the discovery of weapons. People v. Shackelford, 37 Colo. App. 317, 546 P.2d 964 (1976).

    Sufficient basis for weapons search to be excepted from warrant requirement. The reasonable apprehension of danger or injury to the police officers -- judged by objective standards -- provides a sufficient basis for a search to fall within the search for weapons exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement. People v. Burley, 185 Colo. 224, 523 P.2d 981 (1974).

    Based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle search. Trial court properly found that police officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in drug trafficking sufficient to justify the investigatory stop. People v. Ramirez, 1 P.3d 233 (Colo. App. 1999).

    Even if seizure of person is unconstitutional, evidence abandoned prior to that seizure is not the fruit of the seizure and should not be suppressed. People v. McClain, 149 P.3d 787 (Colo. 2007).

    Even if the totality of police officers' conduct rose to the level of a show of authority to constitute a seizure, evidence abandoned prior to the seizure cannot be suppressed. People v. McClain, 149 P.3d 787 (Colo. 2007).

    Reasonable grounds to fear suspect armed. Where the arresting officers stopped defendant because he matched description of a suspect who had allegedly committed an act of violence, these circumstances constituted reasonable grounds to fear that the suspect might well be armed, and thus, be potentially dangerous. The officers therefore acted properly in initiating a pat-down search for weapons. People v. Shackelford, 37 Colo. App. 317, 546 P.2d 964 (1976).

    Doctrine of allowing investigative stops based upon "reasonable cause" was extended to include information supplied by informants' tips as well as the personal observations of police officers. People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973).

    Stop, search, and seizure of evidence reasonable and justified under circumstances even though conduct was compatible with innocent activity. Informant told police there were three males in the area and that one was wearing a poncho and possibly carrying a rifle. When officers spotted three males, one wearing a poncho, they stopped them for questioning. People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1997).

    Officers do not have to observe criminal conduct to corroborate anonymous tip. People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1997).

    The record revealed no circumstances which could legitimate the stopping of defendant's vehicle as a temporary detention within the contemplation of this section, where the officers had never seen or heard of defendant before, did not even know if drug trafficking actually had taken place in the house under surveillance, and had no reason to believe the sack defendant carried contained drugs, and where defendant did not violate any traffic laws as he drove away. People v. McPherson, 191 Colo. 81, 550 P.2d 311 (1976).

    Stopping of defendant held not arrest but proper temporary detention in nature of field investigation. People v. Cruz, 186 Colo. 295, 526 P.2d 1315 (1974).

    Detention held a full-scale arrest. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

    Discovery of evidence of crime while searching for weapons. Where the search was limited to a frisk directed at the discovery and appropriation of weapons, and not to uncover evidence as such, evidence of a crime having thus been lawfully uncovered, it is competent and admissible in evidence as relevant proof of the charges of which defendant is accused. People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974).

    Where police officer obtained probable cause to search a vehicle and seize evidence in the process of making a lawful stop for threshold investigatory purposes, the defendant's motion to suppress this evidence was properly denied. People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973).

    Police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation. Because the defendant had committed a traffic violation and that offense alone was sufficient to justify the police encounter, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress. People v. Valencia-Alvarez, 101 P.3d 1112 (Colo. App. 2004).

    Discovery of evidence of crime while responding to taxicab driver's plea. Where the search was the result of police responding to the plea of a taxicab driver who thought he was about to be robbed, but the search revealed that the defendant, who was the passenger, was in possession of narcotics, the defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. People v. McNeal, 191 Colo. 490, 553 P.2d 757 (1976).

    Seizure of heroin under plain-view doctrine held proper. Where police officer, who had legitimately stopped defendant, observed what he believed to be heroin in plain view on seat of automobile which defendant had just exited, he could seize the heroin under the "plain-view doctrine". People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974).

    Trial court properly suppressed evidence seized during search of defendant when fact that defendant ran in opposite direction from companions did not satisfy constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop and scope of resulting search exceeded a pat down for weapons. People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).

    There was no probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle where the officer observed a crack in the windshield but could not recall the severity or position of the crack and did not issue a citation for the crack. Evidence that defendant was driving on a suspended license obtained as a result of the unwarranted stop was therefore suppressed. People v. Cerda, 819 P.2d 502 (Colo. 1991).

    Trial court properly denied motion to suppress statements made by the defendant between the time he was detained and the time he was actually placed under arrest. The record supported a finding that the defendant was not in custody at the time he was detained as part of a proper investigatory stop, but that he was placed in custody after the arresting officer had probable cause for the arrest based on identification of the defendant by the victim and the finding of an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest. People v. Young, 923 P.2d 145 (Colo. App. 1995).

    Following Arizona v. Gant, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009), the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply in this case, and the search of the passenger compartment of defendant's car was unconstitutional. Because statements defendant made following the discovery of drugs were the fruit of the unlawful search, the evidentiary use of the statements must also be suppressed. Perez v. People, 231 P.3d 957 (Colo. 2010).

    Applied in People v. Taylor, 190 Colo. 144, 544 P.2d 392 (1975); People v. Derrera, 40 Colo. App. 86, 570 P.2d 558 (1977).
    So, the actual answer is: "It depends. Upon how much the cop wants to know your name....."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member zwvirtual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado
    Posts
    16
    This isn't Nazi Germany, or the former Soviet Union. You are not required to have ID on you. And LEO's can't just walk up to people "ID please" or "papers please". Whoever you talked to is in love with his ego or a complete idiot. Either way it sounds like someone that is in for a career changing moment sometime in his future.
    Last edited by zwvirtual; 09-17-2011 at 10:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    As everyone has said, it's perfectly legal to ask, but the authority to demand does not exist outside of suspicion of criminal conduct.
    If I'm walking, asking for my driving license is going to either get a dumb look in return, or maybe a long, loonnnggg trek out to wherever I Think I may have parked my car. I have a bad habit of forgetting where it is, so you might wanna pack a lunch while we go looking.

    As for being briefly detained ... "I wouldn't want to hinder or obstruct your criminal investigation, Officer Friendly, so I'll just stand here without saying a word until you're done. Get back to me when you finish though, m'kay?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member RebelWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    As everyone has said, it's perfectly legal to ask, but the authority to demand does not exist outside of suspicion of criminal conduct.
    If I'm walking, asking for my driving license is going to either get a dumb look in return, or maybe a long, loonnnggg trek out to wherever I Think I may have parked my car. I have a bad habit of forgetting where it is, so you might wanna pack a lunch while we go looking.

    As for being briefly detained ... "I wouldn't want to hinder or obstruct your criminal investigation, Officer Friendly, so I'll just stand here without saying a word until you're done. Get back to me when you finish though, m'kay?"
    This is awesome! I've actually been thinking about leaving my DL in my car, since I do carry other forms of ID with my picture on it, such as a VA card, school ID, etc. An officer can only ask for your address, name, and Date Of Birth if you are walking or riding a bicycle in CO (since bikes aren't considered motor vehicles). according to 16-3-103(1) they can't ask for your SSN, however it states clearly that you must be suspected of, about to, or are in the process of committing a crime. All the annotations in the law support this as well.

    I recently wrote an article on this subject, Here is the link: http://wp.me/p1hlKV-2u Hope you enjoy reading it!

    RebelWolf
    Last edited by RebelWolf; 09-18-2011 at 04:37 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf View Post
    This is awesome! I've actually been thinking about leaving my DL in my car, since I do carry other forms of ID with my picture on it, such as a VA card, school ID, etc. An officer can only ask for your address, name, and Date Of Birth if you are walking or riding a bicycle in CO (since bikes aren't considered motor vehicles). according to 16-3-103(1) they can't ask for your SSN, however it states clearly that you must be suspected of, about to, or are in the process of committing a crime. All the annotations in the law support this as well.

    I recently wrote an article on this subject, Here is the link: http://wp.me/p1hlKV-2u Hope you enjoy reading it!

    RebelWolf
    I thought it was name and address only. Not date of birth also. I will have to go back and read the statute again.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Fellas,

    Please keep in mind that:

    1. The cop may not be required to disclose his reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to you. I have never seen a statute or court opinion that requires the cop to disclose his RAS to the detainee during the detention.

    2. Judges have the final say as to whether the suspicion was reasonable. Not the cop. Not the detainee. The judge makes this determination after the incident, after you have been arrested, possibly for refusing to identify yourself. Whatever reason the cop gives you, even if you think it is not genuine RAS, the judge might agree with the cop.

    In fact, in Terry v Ohio, near the end of the written opinion, the court says that each detention will have to be judged on its own circumstances. Meaning, the courts are the ones who evaluate whether the detention was legal. Emphasis on courts and after the detention.

    Thus, even if you know that genuine RAS is required per court opinion and statute, during a detention you will likely have no way to know with certainty whether the detention is legal, and thus possibly no way to know whether you can safely refuse to identify yourself.

    Welcome to the loss of 4th Amendment rights.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-18-2011 at 06:26 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    I would rather have a refusal to identify charge stick than roll over like a good dog.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf View Post
    This is awesome! I've actually been thinking about leaving my DL in my car, since I do carry other forms of ID with my picture on it, such as a VA card, school ID, etc. An officer can only ask for your address, name, and Date Of Birth if you are walking or riding a bicycle in CO (since bikes aren't considered motor vehicles).....
    I don't even carry those on my person. Everywhere I need an ID, I'm Driving To, that means it all stays in the car unless needed. The only ID I carry that has my picture is a Passport Card (which doesn't have an address.) For the last two years, the only things in my wallet on a daily basis have been an ATM card and my Georgia Weapons License. Not having a blood sucking tick on your buttocks does wonders.

  14. #14
    Regular Member RebelWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I thought it was name and address only. Not date of birth also. I will have to go back and read the statute again.
    I was digging around for a while looking for that as well (thinking that I had seen only name and address to), The statue listed above does say that they can't ask for SSN, but that seems to be the only thing that they can't ID you with. Everything else looks like fair game. If you find it let me know, and I'll add it to my papers with statues on it. I'm building an information packet, and can use all the info I can get!

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I would rather have a refusal to identify charge stick than roll over like a good dog.
    I'd be willing to sit in jail for a few days for being charged illegally. If the state really wants to pony up the dough after the fact, so be it. The guy from Loveland got $500 a minute for having his 2nd and 4th Amendment rights taken away for legally carrying his gun, imagine what they would do if they actually put you in jail...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I don't even carry those on my person. Everywhere I need an ID, I'm Driving To, that means it all stays in the car unless needed. The only ID I carry that has my picture is a Passport Card (which doesn't have an address.) For the last two years, the only things in my wallet on a daily basis have been an ATM card and my Georgia Weapons License. Not having a blood sucking tick on your buttocks does wonders.
    I usually wear cargo pants, I'm a computer tech, and the big pockets come in handy! But only having an ATM card and a single Pic ID would be handy, and save some space. Glad you thought of this!
    Last edited by RebelWolf; 09-19-2011 at 02:42 PM. Reason: location changed

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf View Post
    The guy from Denver got $500 a minute for having his 2nd and 4th Amendment rights taken away for legally carrying his gun, imagine what they would do if they actually put you in jail...
    For my own reference, which guy?

  16. #16
    Regular Member RebelWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    For my own reference, which guy?
    Here is the Post, Link to the story inside. It's the $15,000 "sticky" at the top of the threads list.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-carry-lawsuit

    RebelWolf

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Replying to Rebel Wolf and Beau,

    If you all can afford to toss off tactics and deal with the consequences, great. I definitely won't get in the way of people who want to stand up to government over-reach.

    However, you might want to think through a little bit on what you might be getting yourself into, as perhaps might other readers.

    I don't have the time to lay out all the angles on this. I'll lay out a few here. A little thinking will turn up the rest for you.

    1. The cop may very well have genuine RAS. It doesn't matter what you are actually doing. What matters is what was reported to him or observed by him. Did he get a false 911-call report? Did he observe you in circumstances that are similar enough to something ruled previously by a court as being enough for RAS?

    2. Are cops allowed to apply their training and experience to suspicious circumstances? (rhetorical question. I know the answer but cannot remember the cite. I'm asking it as a question to plant the seed and start you thinking rather than break the forum rules about providing a cite or leave it entirely unaddressed). For example, can you be stopped for driving slowly through a neighborhood? Can you be stopped in a high-crime neighborhood for approximating the description of a recent perpetrator? These are just examples to prompt you to understand courts have been handing out reams and reams of decisions about whether this-or-that set of circumstances were enough to provide genuine RAS.

    3. Do you know all the sets of circumstances ruled as providing RAS by the courts? Do you think you can remember them under pressure during a detention, even if the cop gives you his RAS, which he might not? Even if the cop lies to you and only gives you part of his RAS, or lies to you to prompt you to talk?

    4. Do you know the judges in your district well enough to guess whether the one you will face might rule the circumstances behind your detention as giving RAS or not?

    5. Arrest records stay with you. Once the locality reports it up-channels to the fed's databases, its there for good. Even if you win locally, and have the local records expunged, the locality cannot make the fed's delete the arrest record--no authority.

    6. Do you have enough finance for the legal defense, even assuming everything else went your way?

    7. But, what if it does not go your way? Are you willing to carry the appeals all the way to SCOTUS?

    You get the idea. There is a lot more to this than first meets the eye.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    For those who want a lesser approach to an identity demand--lesser than always refusing, and risking arrest and all that goes along with being arrested:

    You can always comply while politely, verbally refusing consent.

    For example, "Officer, I will identify myself. I want to be clear that I do not consent. I am only giving you my identity because you have demanded it in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled."

    Then, the ball is in his court. The onus is on him. If it turns out later--when you look into it after the detention--that he did not have genuine RAS, you've got grounds for a formal written complaint. Or, depending on what else happens during your detention, another point for your lawsuit.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-19-2011 at 02:30 AM.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by inetprez View Post
    I talked to a LEO who claimed it is legal for him to stop and ask for ID of anyone. Is this the case for Colorado? It was my understanding that only if you are being detained must you give any form of ID. Moreover, you can only be detained when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime occurring or about to occur.
    The rules under which law enforcement officers operate here in Colorado vary by jurisdiction. However, they must all conform to state law.

    I'm mentioned state laws previously.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf View Post
    Here is the Post, Link to the story inside. It's the $15,000 "sticky" at the top of the threads list.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-carry-lawsuit

    RebelWolf
    Ah, Billy. He was in Loveland. Got confused.

  21. #21
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I would rather have a refusal to identify charge stick than roll over like a good dog.
    If this goes to an arrest, you would likely be looking at a charge of 'resisting' or obstructing.' Both of these are generally a disqualifier for a ccw permit. Just food for thought.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    For those who want a lesser approach to an identity demand--lesser than always refusing, and risking arrest and all that goes along with being arrested:

    You can always comply while politely, verbally refusing consent.

    For example, "Officer, I will identify myself. I want to be clear that I do not consent. I am only giving you my identity because you have demanded it in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled."

    Then, the ball is in his court. The onus is on him. If it turns out later--when you look into it after the detention--that he did not have genuine RAS, you've got grounds for a formal written complaint. Or, depending on what else happens during your detention, another point for your lawsuit.
    I like your approach but how about starting like this?

    Officer: May I see your ID please?

    LAC: Officer, am I required by law to provide ID to you at this point in time?

    I think that pretty effectively puts the LEO on the spot. If they say "No" then you politely decline to show it to them. However, if they say "Yes" then you could use what you stated.

    "Officer, I will provide my ID solely because you've stated I'm compelled to do so, however, I am NOT providing my consent."

    I would think something like this would put the LAC in as little jeopardy as possible, while still turning up the heat on the LEO.
    Last edited by Polynikes; 09-19-2011 at 02:13 PM.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  23. #23
    Regular Member RebelWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    41
    ( This is a bit lengthy, but needs to be said)

    I like the scenario that citizen gives, as it does put a bit less stress into the encounter. But, if you aren't committing a crime, then legally they can't demand to see your ID. And Isn't that what this thread is all about?

    Personally, I carry a couple sheets of folded paper with the C.R.Statutes printed on them with the supporting information, in the event I get stopped by an officer who doesn't know exactly what the law says (information is power), or chooses to ignore it. I'd ask him to state his reasonable suspicion that I am about to, have, or am in the process of committing a crime (CRS 16-3-103(1)), and show him the State Law where he is required to have such RAS before getting ID out of me.

    If he still won't listen, or won't supply RAS and Demands ID, then I'd request the officer's Supervisor, if he refused to call him, I'd dial 911, and request that the Supervisor be dispatched due to being harassed by an officer (whatever agency, PD or Sheriff), and not hang up until the super gets there (to record any further harassment). For my area the LEOs don't like to confront Open Carriers because it's our 2nd amendment right, and protected (again) by Colorado Statutes. However, the supervisors do want to know if you're having problems with the officers harassing you about your right immediately.

    I, like Beau, Would rather sit in jail than let anyone walk on me. If more people stood up to the government, and it's agents, concerning their rights, eventually the government would have to force it's agents to comply with the law.

    I do feel strongly about this topic, as officers treading on the citizens rights is something that I can't stand. As well, I can't stand people who recommend that we comply with unjust demands placed upon us, while committing no crime. An officer is no different than the common person when it comes to following the law. I have just as much right to carry a gun to defend myself and others, as I have to wear whatever I want in public, and as that officer does to defend himself and others. When you read C.R.S 16-3-103, read the annotations (posted above), it's pretty cut and dry; the officer requesting you to ID yourself MUST believe that you are, have, or will commit a crime, and the 4th Amendment Requires this ("upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation").

    I'm not saying to be an ass about refusing to provide an ID, doing that will give them RAS. Be polite, and respectful.

    My conversation would be like this:

    LEO: "Can I see your ID?," "Let's see some ID," "Give me your ID," "What are you doing here," Etc.

    Me: "Good day/afternoon/evening officer, may I inquire the nature of this detention?" (This puts the officer in a position that he has to state that you are, or are not being legally detained, without questioning his authority, or being sarcastic).

    If he say's that you are not being detained, simply let him know that under Amendment 4, and again under State Statute 16-3-103 he MUST have RAS, and detain me, before IDing me. If he insisted, and did not provide RAS, I'd ask for his supervisor. If he doesn't want to call his supervisor (or says that he doesn't have to), I'd call 911 and make the request for him. This is a free country, and I don't have to supply "papers upon request" (fourth amendment)

    If he said that yes I am being detained and stated his RAS, then I would be more compelled to supply him with the needed information (Not a DL if walking/riding a bike)-- that is should his RAS be justified (again C.R.S 16-3-103(1)).

    If it's not justified i.e.: "You're carrying a gun, and I need to ensure that you're not a felon." Then I'd politely tell him, "I would like to help you with your investigation, and I can confirm that I am not a felon, without supplying my ID." At this point I'd refer him to Amendment 2, C.R.S. 29-11.7-101, and Amendment 4 where it states that I can carry a weapon, and he must provide "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," before he takes any papers or personal property from me (this includes ID of any kind). Again, if he still insists, I'd go through getting his supervisor there (as stated above), to ensure that due process is followed properly.

    Basically, I'd make a big stink about being stopped for "papers upon request," if I feel that I'm being discriminated against for openly carrying a weapon (or any other unjust reason), and I would involve as many people as possible while doing it (peacefully of course).

    Now, if someone was robbed at gunpoint, and I happen to be down the street, in the direction that the person fled, then I would help him in his investigation/inquiry by supplying him with what he needs to rule me out (especially if I match the description). If that means supplying him with ID, then yes, I'll do it. But only if he has RAS to hold me (again a description fitting mine, or other ID that I match), and followed due process.

    I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty, forcing me to provide an ID (papers) for no reasonable suspicion, taking away any weapon and running it's serial number, and running a background check on me via my ID, is saying that I'm Guilty until they can prove that I'm innocent. It's just a sneaky way of walking all over my rights, and is NOT legal.

    If you live in a state where the lawman can come and put you belly down at gunpoint for any reason (and there are places that can, and will do it), then I feel sorry for you. In Colorado, we are free to carry our gun anywhere in the state (Except the "state" of Denver (yes sarcasm is strong here)), whenever we choose, without question (unless it's prohibited by C.R.S 29-11.7-104).

    In my opinion, Citizen is saying to comply with the LEO, while saying that you protest to his illegal demand, and I don't agree with this. It's like telling an officer "I don't want you to search my car, but I'll let you do it anyway, because you'll just cause me trouble if I don't let you." It's illegal, and unjust.

    Just say no to illegal searches.

    Use the internet, and search for the needed information about the state YOU live in. This information is for Colorado law only.

    Respectfully,

    RebelWolf






    P.S. In a simple answer to the OP, NO Co is not a "Stop and ID state" or "Papers please." A LEO MUST have RAS to Detain and ID you.
    Last edited by RebelWolf; 09-19-2011 at 05:41 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    Excellent post RebelWolf.Well through out and lots of good info.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf View Post
    ( This is a bit lengthy, but needs to be said)

    I like the scenario that citizen gives, as it does put a bit less stress into the encounter. But, if you aren't committing a crime, then legally they can't demand to see your ID. And Isn't that what this thread is all about?
    Well, yes and no.
    In CO, legally they can't demand to see your ID. Plain and simple.

    WITH RAS, they can demand to be provided with your IDENTITY.
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelWolf
    P.S. In a simple answer to the OP, NO Co is not a "Stop and ID state" or "Papers please." A LEO MUST have RAS to Detain and ID you.
    "Stop and ID" is not "Papers please."

    An LEO must have RAS to Detain and identify you. No papers required.


    As cited in post 5:

    16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
    (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
    Don't have identification available, and none can be compelled. Have identity verbally communicated.
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-19-2011 at 06:11 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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