Identifying ourselves to police?

[Shimmer]

I'm a bit under the weather, and seem to be unable to sleep. I've been watching random videos online all night, and at some point decided to see if anyone took any footage of them OC'ing. Seems there is a good bit out there. Every single one of them, however, that gets stopped, does something in common with the rest. In general, they refuse to provide any personal information to the police officers, be it name, address, ID, even the location of one person's vehicle. I know we're protected against self incrimination, and that we don't have to answer questions or identify ourselves when we aren't breaking any laws, but I'm curious as to why in all cases, no information is provided. I assume there is a very good reason, since it seems to be a common factor in all cases, and I think I can draw a few conclusions as to why, but since I'm obvious "new to the game" so to speak, I was hoping a few of you could shed some light on the subject for me? Is this simply to exercise our rights and assert our innocence, or is this entirely to protect us? Some combination? Let me know, please! Thanks in advance.

[Citizen]

Edited to Add: I cleaned it up a bit, corrected some dates. Feel free to use it and spread it around.


I can't answer for everyone. But, here is my reasoning.

1. Counting from the Norman Invasion in 1066 to our federal Bill of Rights in 1791, it took 725 years to wrest rights away from government.

Magna Carta in 1215 was a big step. As were the English Civil Wars in 1642-48 that struck a blow against the divine right of kings to rule. Another big step was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 arising from the Glorious Revolution that kicked out James II.

In between Magna Carta and the American revolution, other rights were wrested from government one little piece at a time. Some examples:

The abolition of the Star Chamber court (tied to the 5A right againstself-incrimination);

William Penn's trial for preaching Quakerism (tied to 1A right of religion);

William Penn's jury cementing the power of a jury to judge an unjust law and the power to refuse to convict for violation of an unjust law (those jurors were literally imprisoned—“without meat, fire, and tobacco”--to coerce them to give the verdict the judges wanted, and a few were prosecuted for not giving the verdict the judges wanted);

Peter Zenger's case where writing the truth was not a defense to a law against seditiously libeling the government (tied to 1A free press rights);

The 1760's case where a lawyer named James Otis argued for hours against general warrants, a young lawyer named John Adams in the gallery who would later say the spark of revolution was born in that courtroom.

The list goes on. One right or a piece of a right at a time across centuries, nearly 800 years from Magna Carta to today. Eight. Hundred. Years.

A lot of people suffered for lack of rights. A lot of people died winning them.

Since the Founding over a million Americans have died defending our rights.

Just the cost in blood and treasure to obtain and maintain rights makes them incredibly valuable; and this is before one prices how much he values the freedom they guarantee.

An individual cop's desire for information pales into insignificance when weighed against the history and cost to get and maintain rights.

"Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but over a million Americans have died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them."

Or, if the officer bugs me further, "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." (followed by polite silence)

2. If you give identity info when not required, it can come back to bite you. It hasn't happened often; rather rare in fact, but its there. The cops may not be able to figure out something to charge you with during the encounter itself. But, afterwards they may talk to a prosecutor, or have some time to research and think, and then come up with some charge. Now they know who you are, where you live, and where to serve the warrant. It happened to an OCer in California a couple years ago. The prosecutor even got the trial judge to agree to twisting the meaning of the word "public" to make the charges stick and obtain a conviction.

In a court case called Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court, the US Supreme court even acknowledged that giving identity info might lead the cops to something more, basically turning it into a self-incrimination issue.

Regarding identifying yourself, you have to decide for yourself which is riskier, giving identity info or not.

Also, you want to make really sure about the state and local laws in your area. There are plenty of places around that require a person to identify himself to a cop, and have penalties for violating their law. Sometimes the penalties are rather stiff.

If you are unsure, you can always say, "Officer, I am providing this information against my will. I will comply, but I do not consent." (give the identity info). Then you would be safe from being charged with failing to provide identity if there happened to be an identity law in that jurisdiction. Plus, if it later turned out there was no identity law, or the cop didn't have sufficient legal grounds to demand your identity, then you would have some ammunition for a formal complaint, or another point for your lawsuit.

[SouthernBoy]

I can't answer for everyone. But, here is my reasoning.

1. Counting from the Norman Invasion in 1066, it took 725 years to wrest rights away from government, achieving our federal Bill of Rights. Magna Carta in 1215 was a big step. As was the English Revolution in the late 1600s that ended the divine right of kings to rule. In between Magna Carta and the American revolution, rights were won one little piece at a time. The abolition of the Star Chamber court (tied to the 5A right against self-incrimination); William Penn's trial for preaching Quakerism (tied to 1A right of religion); William Penn's jury cementing the power of a jury to judge an unjust law and to refuse to convict for violation of an unjust law (those people were literally imprisoned to coerce them to give the verdict the judges wanted, and a few were prosecuted for not giving the verdict the government wanted); Peter Zenger's case where writing the truth was not a defense to seditiously libeling the government (tied to 1A free press rights); the 1760's case where a lawyer named Otis argued for hours against general warrants, a young lawyer named John Adams in the gallery who would later say the spark of revolution was born in that courtroom. The list goes on. One right or a piece of a right at a time across centuries, nearly 800 years from Magna Carta to today. A lot of people suffered for lack of rights. A lot of people died winning them.

Just since the Founding over a million Americans have died defending our rights.

Just the cost in blood and treasure to obtain and maintain rights makes them incredibly valuable, and this is before one prices how much he values the freedom they guarantee.

An individual cop's desire for information pales into insignificance when weighed against the history and what it cost to get and maintain those rights.

"Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but over a million Americans have died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them."

Or, if he's bugging me further for identity, "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." (followed by silence)

2. If you give identity info when not required, it can come back to bite you. It hasn't happened often; rather rare in fact, but its there. The cops may not be able to figure out something to charge you with during the encounter itself. But, afterwards they talk to a prosecutor, or have some time to research and think, and then come up with some charge. Now they know who you are, where you live, and where to serve the warrant. It happened to an OCer in California a couple years ago. The prosecutor even got the trial judge to agree to twisting the meaning of the word "public" to make the charges stick and obtain a conviction.

In a court case called Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court, the US Supreme court even acknowledged that giving identity info might lead the cops to something more, basically turning it into a self-incrimination issue.

On this point, you have to decide for yourself which is riskier, giving identity info or not.

Also, you want to make really sure what the state and local laws are in your area. There are plenty of places around that require a person to identify himself to a cop, and have penalties for violating their law. Sometimes the penalties are rather stiff.

If you are unsure, you can always say, "Officer, I am providing this information against my will. I will comply, but I do not consent." (give the identity info). Then you would be safe from being charged with failing to provide identity if there happened to be an identity law in that jurisdiction. Plus, if it later turned out there was no identity law, or the cop didn't have sufficient legal grounds to demand your identity, then you would have some ammunition for a formal complaint, or another point for your lawsuit.

Bravo!! (he stands to applaud)

I don't believe I have ever read a more succinctly worded and tightly gathered piece of short history prose on the subject of rights on a website than this. Extremely well done.

Would you mind, sir, if I shared your writing with some folks on another site?

[sudden valley gunner]

Bravo!! (he stands to applaud)

I don't believe I have ever read a more succinctly worded and tightly gathered piece of short history prose on the subject of rights on a website than this. Extremely well done.

Would you mind, sir, if I shared your writing with some folks on another site?

I agree! Great post!

[sraacke]

Great reply, Citizen. I hope you don't mind but I copy and pasted it to cross post in a thread on Bayou Shooter that started about discussing one thing and derailed into discussion about IDing to LEOs. Thread is at http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/s...nt-Pt-I-amp-II , it's post #16.

[Shimmer]

So, both principle, and practicality. Principle I got, but I wasn't sure how others viewed the risk/requirement of identifying ourselves. I will say, though, when worded that way, the principle alone is enough to settle my mind on the issue.

[Citizen]

Wow! Thanks for the validation fellas!


SouthernBoy and Yale,

Please, yes. Feel free to copy and paste elsewhere. The more people who reconsider the value of liberty, the better.

[okboomer]

Posted in my prepper's group

[Daylen]

Patriots don't waive their rights.

[William Fisher]

GREAT POST Citizen.

[Brass Magnet]

Bravo!! (he stands to applaud)

I don't believe I have ever read a more succinctly worded and tightly gathered piece of short history prose on the subject of rights on a website than this. Extremely well done.

I agree! Great post!

Great reply, Citizen.

GREAT POST Citizen.

Shhhh....he's gonna get all big-headed and complacent now....we've gotta keep him striving for perfection.


Seriously, +1 That was a great post!

[georg jetson]

Keep in mind that each state is different and statutorily some(ALL?) may require minimal cooperation with law enforcement. In my state the following is required...

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=112364

Also, keep in mind that if an officer sees you exit a vehicle as a driver AND sees a violation, then those statutes relevant to motor vehicle laws apply(driver's license etc...)

[MKEgal]

+1 on the clapping for Citizen!!!

And to add to the reasons not to identify...
Since I'm not doing anything illegal by carrying (or, rather, since the police have no RAS that I was, am, or will commit a crime), the officer has no reason to bother me in the first place, much less demand an accounting of who I am & what I'm doing, etc.

Unless & until everybody else around is stopped & required to ID themselves, no matter what they're doing, singling out a lawfully-armed citizen simply for being armed is wrong. Is that man with a young child the father or a kidnapper? How can the police know he's not prohibited from contact with minors, or with that particular child?

**********

No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
[WI S.C.]

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489
[SCOTUS]

"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2052.
[WI Court of Appeals]

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
[SCOTUS]

"Resemblance to a “drug courier profile” was an insufficient basis for seizure."
Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980).

“Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution."
County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97−0642.
[WI]

"Police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive. Subtle pressures are considered to be coercive if they exceed the defendant’s ability to resist. Pressures that are not coercive in one set of circumstances may be coercive in another set of circumstances."
State v. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, 261 Wis. 2D 294, 661 N.W.2d 407, 00−1886.
[WI]

"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley

The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000)

[SouthernBoy]

I posted Citizen's opening text on another thread and someone offered a list of states which have stop and identify laws. I don't know these to be factual but here they are;

States with “stop and identify” laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

[SouthernBoy]

Also, keep in mind that if an officer sees you exit a vehicle as a driver AND sees a violation, then those statutes relevant to motor vehicle laws apply(driver's license etc...)

If I may speak for Citizen, the thrust of his post was not that of having to show a driver's license. Remember, driving on public highways is not a right.... it's privilege which of course requires one to have on their person an present when requested a license to operate that motor vehicle.

Nor was it meant to address the carrying and showing of a concealed carry permit when requested. Concealed carry permits and carrying a concealed handgun are much like drivers licenses and operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways because they are issued by a government/agency. So the act of carrying concealed with a permit has removed the right of concealed carry and turned it into a government authorized privilege.., again much like a drivers license.

The four states which recognize Constitutional carry have turned the act of concealed carry back into a right again since doing such requires no permit.


Citizen;

If I took license by answering as I have here, please make whatever corrections you deem fit.

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I posted Citizen's opening text on another thread and someone offered a list of states which have stop and identify laws. I don't know these to be factual but here they are;

States with “stop and identify” laws Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...atutes/968.pdf

§ 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.

1. Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
   103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
2. A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
   test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
   N.W.2d 386 (1989).
3. Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
   to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
   155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
4. The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
   encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
   the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
   532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
5. When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
   stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
   App. 1991).
6. A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
   often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
   impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
   (Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
7. Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
   of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
   part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
   N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
8. That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
   mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
   depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
   himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
   N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
9. This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
   of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification
   in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613
   N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
10. A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
    a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
    officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
    3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
    had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
    did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686.
11. Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
    bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
    the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
    aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
    be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
    2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
12. An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
    phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
    1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
    if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
    regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
    the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
    an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
    that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
    Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
13. When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
    at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
    criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
    Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
    could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
    risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
    State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
14. It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
    of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
    2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
    public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
    police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
    entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
    enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
    N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
15. To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
    that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
    belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
    but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
    a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
    to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
    675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
16. The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
    in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
    so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
    159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
17. When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
    real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
    would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
    a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
    reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
    against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
    County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
18. Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
    necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
    a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
    v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
19. The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
    stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
    notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
    drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
    of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877,
    07−1578.
20. Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.
21. NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution

[georg jetson]

If I may speak for Citizen, the thrust of his post was not that of having to show a driver's license. Remember, driving on public highways is not a right.... it's privilege which of course requires one to have on their person an present when requested a license to operate that motor vehicle.

I understand... but there are circumstances where one can be Ocing in a parking lot from their car to a place of business. When one decides how to handle contact with an LEO, it is wise to be mindfull of EXACTLY what the circumstances are...

SNIP

The four states which recognize Constitutional carry have turned the act of concealed carry back into a right again since doing such requires no permit.

SNIP

Not to get off subject, but it is my understanding that those states have NOT "turned the act of concealed carry back into a right again." I read the law passed in AZ. and it was strictly a statitory change. Their constitution was NOT amended. Properly stated, they "legalized" permitless carry.

[wrightme]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...atutes/968.pdf

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
of committing a crime

I cut that bit out as directly relevant to MOST S&ID statutes. In other words, as the case in the Hiibel state, Nevada, without reasonable suspicion as noted in statute, there is NO requirement to identify to LE, absent conduct of a state licensed activity such as driving or concealment. So, if LE were to approach an OC'er in NV, only upon noting a firearm in a holster, it is legal to remain silent to 'requests' to identify. Further, as the S&ID statute in NV does not require presenting a form of identification, even WHEN required, it is legally sufficient to only verbally state your true name.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the forums, but given the search non-functionality, I will not exhort anyone to 'search the forums!'

But, find and read Terry v Ohio, Hiibel v nv or whoever, Kolendor v Lawson, and there is one more that I cannot recall from tx I think...brown v something?

[Motofixxer]

Remember, driving on public highways is not a right.... it's privilege which of course requires one to have on their person an present when requested a license to operate that motor vehicle.

"Driving" in a "motor vehicle" is a privilege, "Traveling" in a private "Automobile" is a Right very clearly defined in Jurisprudence. Make sure you clearly understand the definitions and what your thinking, and clearly convey your thought. There's a ton of fact and court opinion listed here


Also I just found a case with lots of info, definitions and opinions of the types of encounters, it's a really good read. It's available here

[georg jetson]

"Driving" in a "motor vehicle" is a privilege, "Traveling" in a private "Automobile" is a Right very clearly defined in Jurisprudence. Make sure you clearly understand the definitions and what your thinking, and clearly convey your thought. There's a ton of fact and court opinion listed here

SNIP

.

This is true. However, states, through the confusing process of administrative procedure, assumes that all conveyances are "motor vehicles". I fear this assumption has been left unchallenged so long as to make any rebuttal futile.

[SouthernBoy]

"Driving" in a "motor vehicle" is a privilege, "Traveling" in a private "Automobile" is a Right very clearly defined in Jurisprudence. Make sure you clearly understand the definitions and what your thinking, and clearly convey your thought. There's a ton of fact and court opinion listed here


Also I just found a case with lots of info, definitions and opinions of the types of encounters, it's a really good read. It's available here

I never mentioned riding in an automobile for one thing and I never mentioned automobile for another. I had thought I conveyed my expression pretty clearly.

[slapmonkay]

I posted Citizen's opening text on another thread and someone offered a list of states which have stop and identify laws. I don't know these to be factual but here they are;

States with “stop and identify” laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

There are many different variations of 'Stop and Identify', most of which do not require an id but just to identify your name and DOB or Address.

Some only forward the officers the right to ask but you are not obligated to return.
Some only require ID when driving.
Some only allow them to demand Id when RAS/PC is met.

Your above quoted list is that of ANY stop identify type statue (driving, request, demand with RAS, etc). To my knowledge, very minimum amount of states (single digits) may REQUIRE you to identify on demand no matter the circumstances, perhaps none (unconstitutional ?) I have not done the research. Other states may use your failure to identify as a factor in an arrest.

If you take the time to look up the statues provided, you will likely notice those are mostly a stop identify if they have RAS/PC of a crime or driving. For example, I know for a fact that Montana is only when they have RAS/PC of a crime. That list looks like it might be from wikipedia.

IANAL, its your responsibility to know the laws in the locations you are.

[SouthernBoy]

There are many different variations of 'Stop and Identify', most of which do not require an id but just to identify your name and DOB or Address.

Some only forward the officers the right to ask but you are not obligated to return.
Some only require ID when driving.
Some only allow them to demand Id when RAS/PC is met.

Your above quoted list is that of ANY stop identify type statue (driving, request, demand with RAS, etc). To my knowledge, very minimum amount of states (single digits) may REQUIRE you to identify on demand no matter the circumstances, perhaps none (unconstitutional ?) I have not done the research. Other states may use your failure to identify as a factor in an arrest.

If you take the time to look up the statues provided, you will likely notice those are mostly a stop identify if they have RAS/PC of a crime or driving. For example, I know for a fact that Montana is only when they have RAS/PC of a crime. That list looks like it might be from wikipedia.

IANAL, its your responsibility to know the laws in the locations you are.

"I don't know these to be factual but here they are;"

The above is what I wrote when I posted the fellow's list. Had I been the one to develop this list, I would have checked it out.

[Citizen]

Fellas,

If you go to the top of the thread and read down, from the viewpoint of a new guy, its really hard to make heads or tails about what is being discussed in the last several posts and come away with a useful understanding. Heck, I know all this stuff, and I am having a hard time figuring out who is saying what and where it relates to identity questions in an intelligent, organized way.

Can somebody take a moment and compose a post that briefs a new guy without too much detail. Then, if he has any questions, he can ask for clarification.

[SickPythons]

Someone calls the police about a man with a gun
Police shows up and finds said man with gun
Policeman: "You have a permit for that thing?"
Man: "Sure do"
Police: "Can I see it?"
Man: "Respectfully, no"

I think this is a far cry from someone's house being searched without a warrant or randomly checking people for guns on the streets.

What if the guy with the gun wasn't a law abiding citizen? Policeman leaves the scene and man with gun kills the one who called the cops on him.

I'm all for standing up for what you believe in but I think the Police Officers deserve a little more respect and maybe a little leeway on this particular issue.

These videos that I see on the web about OC'ers and their police encounters come off as a bunch of people looking for trouble.
ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP02Dkp7A
Man seeks out police with a video camera OC'ing while to officer is performing a traffic stop. If I'm that cop, a man with a gun confronts me while I'm trying to do my job, I feel threatened. People like this guy do more harm to the cause than good.

Open carry in peace. Don't seek out police officers just to test them.