Stop and ID?

Beau said:

I would rather have a refusal to identify charge stick than roll over like a good dog.

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

( 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.

Excellent post RebelWolf.Well through out and lots of good info.

RebelWolf said:

( 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?

Click to expand...

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.

RebelWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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.

Click to expand...

Don't have identification available, and none can be compelled. Have identity verbally communicated.

Beau said:

Excellent post RebelWolf.Well through out and lots of good info.

Click to expand...

Thank you, It took a while, but worth it in the end.

RebelWolf

RebelWolf said:

SNIP 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?

Click to expand...

This is NOT true. Dammit, read my post.

Assuming the jurisdiction you are in has a stop-and-identify ordinance or statute, then, for the purposes of RAS, it doesn't matter what you are actually doing. It does not matter whether you are committing a crime.

What matters from a legal standpoint is whether the cop has enough to be suspicious and lawfully detain you. There are all kinds of circumstances unknown to you yet that courts have already judged provide reasonable suspicion of drug dealing, burglary, etc., etc., etc. The subject area is much broader than OC.

Do you coincidentally fit the description of someone seen prowling some cars two blocks over and reported to police? Does that block have a few car break-ins recently? How would you know your gun is the sole cause of the detention?

All it might take is for the cop to have a false 911 call that you had your gun out of your holster in public. Whether you did or didn't doesn't matter. The cop now has that report. If certain other characteristics are present in connection with the report, the cop may then have reasonable suspicion to detain you while he investigates. You might know you were doing nothing wrong. The cop doesn't.

The whole point of the detention and investigation is to find out whether a crime was committed. During a detention, he's trying to find out. And, maybe develop enough info to move from reasonable suspicion to probable cause for an arrest.

------------

Separately, keep in mind that during a detention, it matters little whether you think the cop has genuine RAS. What matters most is whether he thinks he has authority to detain you. Anything else, including the law on the matter, is a question for a court to decide later. Or, maybe his supervisor if the supervisor is willing to get involved.

Citizen said:

This is NOT true. Dammit, read my post. (Was this really necessary/professional??)

Assuming the jurisdiction you are in has a stop-and-identify ordinance or statute, then, for the purposes of RAS, it doesn't matter what you are actually doing. It does not matter whether you are committing a crime.

What matters from a legal standpoint is whether the cop has enough to be suspicious and lawfully detain you. There are all kinds of circumstances unknown to you yet that courts have already judged provide reasonable suspicion of drug dealing, burglary, etc., etc., etc. The subject area is much broader than OC.

Do you coincidentally fit the description of someone seen prowling some cars two blocks over and reported to police? Does that block have a few car break-ins recently? How would you know your gun is the sole cause of the detention?

All it might take is for the cop to have a false 911 call that you had your gun out of your holster in public. Whether you did or didn't doesn't matter. The cop now has that report. If certain other characteristics are present in connection with the report, the cop may then have reasonable suspicion to detain you while he investigates. You might know you were doing nothing wrong. The cop doesn't.

The whole point of the detention and investigation is to find out whether a crime was committed. During a detention, he's trying to find out. And, maybe develop enough info to move from reasonable suspicion to probable cause for an arrest.

------------

Separately, keep in mind that during a detention, it matters little whether you think the cop has genuine RAS. What matters most is whether he thinks he has authority to detain you. Anything else, including the law on the matter, is a question for a court to decide later. Or, maybe his supervisor if the supervisor is willing to get involved.

Click to expand...

I've read your posts, and respectfully disagree with your view on Colorado's Law. I've highlighted some points of interest for future readers of your post, namely that you are "Assuming the jurisdiction you are in has a stop-and-identify ordinance or statute." I won't engage you further on this subject, since you have chosen to become rude, and seem unfamiliar with Colorado state law.

Peace be with you,

RebelWolf

P.S. Statutes have been posted (wither hyperlinks) in my posts if you wish to familiarize yourself with Colorado Statutes.

wrightme said:

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



So, the actual answer is: "It depends. Upon how much the cop wants to know your name....."

Click to expand...

In CO, RAS MUST exist. PC is not required, but any stop without RAS under Terry is unlawful. That doesn't 'depend' on anything else.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would add that while I would give my name and address, I would also inform the cop that his request is unlawful unless he has and can PROVE RAS and failing that, I will be taking legal action against him for false arrest. Then I would ask if he still is 'demanding' id. It would definitely not end there, however. If based on discussions above, he had false--but good faith RAS, I'd let it drop, if the stop was reasonable by my definition. If the stop, even given good faith RAS, was not reasonable it is still actionable under CO and Federal law.