• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Identifying ourselves to police?

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
LEO brings a lot of this upon themselves. Here's a little story about that:

About 12 years ago I was a witness regarding a minor crime in my neighborhood. A neighbor called the police, they came, didn't approach anyone watching the situation for a statement so we went on with our lives. Next morning I was putting stuff in the car to leave the house and saw an LEO canvassing. He approached me in my driveway, asked me if I saw the incident, and I gave him a statement. He asked for my name and confirmation of my address. Sure. Then he asked for my SSN. I told him it wasn't relevant. He insisted it was the law. I told him I didn't think it was and I wasn't comfortable providing it. He threatened to arrest me!! I was like, "Really? In my own driveway after I helped you?"

He reached for his cuffs. I said I was going to lock up the house first. He said I was going to jail first. I asked for a supervisor. He told me there was one at the station after my arrest. I was late for work by then. I wasn't absolutely sure of the statute and was rather tight financially at the time so I relented. I later found out he was absolutely wrong or he lied. Either way, the arrest threat was out of line. In MO a witness is required to provide name and address and nothing else.

Fast forward a decade. I was a witness to a traffic accident. Cop from the same PD asked for a witness statement. I provided my atty's name and told him the statement would be through his office. Cop thought I was nuts. Told him I had a bad experience being an uninvolved witness for his PD before and offered to add my atty's phone number.

None of it involved firearms nor my doing anything remotely wrong but to the contrary, my being a good citizen. There was a very real and imminent threat to my liberty in response from the gov't agent on my curtilage. I don't hate LEOs by any means as friends and family members in the profession will profess, however, I also will never, ever, ever again under any circumstances trust any LEO from any agency about any matter simply because s/he is LEO. The days of Officer Friendly are long over and that was a decision of LEOs as a profession and union.

Should have threatened to have him arrested for trespassing.... see how that one plays out.

Seriously, expecting you to supply your SSN is worse than ludicrous, there could be criminal charges for this.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Should have threatened to have him arrested for trespassing.... see how that one plays out.

Seriously, expecting you to supply your SSN is worse than ludicrous, there could be criminal charges for this.

Supermoderator Mike pointed out several years ago that it is a violation of federal law to demand an SSN without also doing certain other things. I don't clearly recall, but I think they included:

1. Having authority of law to demand the SSN in the first place.
2. Citing the statute granting that authority.
3. Stating the purpose for which the SSN would be used.
4. Stating whether SSN disclosure is voluntary.


Mike won a lawsuit or settlement against a sheriff in PA over SSN disclosure. The sheriff was demanding Mike's SSN before processing his LTCF. The sheriff lost; Mike got money out of it if I recall.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Those 4 are the tip of the iceberg

Yeah. Some people would have us believe cops only go off the reservation over guns.

I'm not stupid enough to think those cops woke up that morning and said, "Today for the first, only, and last time in my career I am willing to violate someone's 4A and 5A rights." Hardly.

They were doing it all along. It just came to our attention when we started running into them.

Of course, their problem was/is that OCers are a bit of a different breed, and for the most part aren't going to meekly go along with it. Oh, and OCers know the law to a very fine nicety compared to you average sheeple, including the 4A and 5A. Suddenly those cops were up against somebody they couldn't easily intimidate with lies. Which doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict. Here's a bunch of guys willing to stand out and buck social trends a bit. And, they're doing it with a gun. Were it not for arrogance and disregard for rights (which is really just disregard for the person), it was/is too easy to predict that OCers are tougher nuts, not your usual sheeple who will take the cop's word for whatever and cave in and whine about it without doing something effective in response.

So, back to those cops doing it all along. Even Terry v Ohio (in a concurrence opinion) acknowledges that inner city residents (meaning blacks) had been complaining for years about being detained and frisked for no reason. OCers just stumbled into something that had been going on for years--disregard for 4A and 5A rights.

OCDO started what? almost six years ago in mid 2006? Since then, the recording of cops by private citizens has really taken off in our culture. Tons of videos of rights-violator cops, compared. Too many.

It has now advanced to the point where there is enough citizen recording going on that a new issue developed--cops threatening or violating the people making the recordings, trying to make obvious mis-use of old wiretapping laws. In doing this, those police reveal their true attitudes about the citizens' right to no interference without clear and unquestionable authority of law. And, reveal the extent to which they're willing to try to bend the law to make their preference stick. For themselves, of course, not towards freedom or exposing bad cops. The silence of so-called good cops speaks volumes. The fact that citizen recording went on for awhile before the cop-made wiretapping controversy almost proves that cops had no concept of the law on this point, and had to cast about to find something they could try to use against citizens who record them.

An important point is that all this recording by citizens of rights-violator cops goes beyond OCer encounters with police. The vast majority of videos I have seen were not about OCers. And, my earlier point applies to these as well--it is extremely unlikely it is the first time the cop violated rights.

So, yes. The tip of the iceberg, indeed. Dear reader, if your view of rights-violator cops is limited to what you read here on OCDO between cops and OCers, you're missing the iceberg. To get a fuller view, you must look beyond OCDO. Below are two good sites to start:

http://www.theagitator.com/ Run by an established journalist--Radley Balko. See also his work regarding policing at Reason On-line, and that of his successor at Reason.

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ Run by lawyer(s) if I recall. Daily recap of news feeds of police misconduct around the country. This one is a real eye-opener. Keep in mind some are only at the allegation stage against the cop.
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Amen!

First Amen. Second Amen. Fourth Amen. Fifth Amen. Tenth Amen. Fourteenth Amen.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.

Simple google search will tell you; few states have stop & ID.
 

SgtScott31

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
158
Location
Nashville
YES.
If anyone desires to actually understand court opinions, reading them in their entirety is definitely very necessary.

I understand Hiibel fine. If I read every court opinion in its entirety I'm assigned in law school, then I would never graduate. You do not have to read every sentence of the opinion to understand the court's interpretation and analysis on the case. Believe it or not, briefs or summaries written by law clerks or other legal professionals cover the case just as well as reading the opinion in its entirety. That's why it's law school 101 to learn how to write a good case brief.

I am curious, how do you apply Hiibel as part of your job?

When am I allowed to ask for name/ID during any interaction with a person? Who did this case directly affect? LEOs yes? Hiibel was not anything new. It just helped reinforce the court's stance when LEOs are allowed to demand ID versus when it is a consensual encounter and the person doesn't have to give it. If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not. I'm still waiting on a case where providing such info has incriminated anyone. For most people, the issue is not involving incrimination, but figuring out whether you're obligated to give out your information or not to LE when requested.

And, if it wasn't your intention for this to be a peein match as to who has more "legal knowledge," how come you are freely making it exactly that?

If Citizen wants to imply that my understanding of case law and stop/identify issues are insufficient because I didn't read a court's entire opinion, I'm going to give him my take on the matter. Are you his big brother?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP If Citizen wants to imply that my understanding of case law and stop/identify issues are insufficient because I didn't read a court's entire opinion, I'm going to give him my take on the matter. Are you his big brother?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Strawman, strawman, strawman.

I didn't imply your understanding of case law and stop/identify issues are insufficient because you didn't read a court's entire opinion. I expressly stated you were an arrogant knucklehead for thinking I didn't understand it and hadn't read the opinion. Then I expressly ridiculed you for coming to your own argument with the wrong quote!

Nice try, though--trying to pretend the exchange was about something else, some general problem when it was something very specific. A little sleight of hand there, eh? Does that work for you sometimes? Is that why you thought it would work here? Or did you honestly forget exactly what the discussion was about?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP When am I allowed to ask for name/ID during any interaction with a person? Who did this case directly affect? LEOs yes? Hiibel was not anything new. It just helped reinforce the court's stance when LEOs are allowed to demand ID versus when it is a consensual encounter and the person doesn't have to give it. If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not. I'm still waiting on a case where providing such info has incriminated anyone. For most people, the issue is not involving incrimination, but figuring out whether you're obligated to give out your information or not to LE when requested.

Cite, please.

And, a special request. Please spare us the going around in circles. No half answers, no cites to only half the question.

Please provide a cite that says a citizen is obligated by law to give identity info to a cop who has RAS even if there is not a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance.

We'll take up that vague business about "enough info to identify you" separately.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP For most people, the issue is not involving incrimination, but figuring out whether you're obligated to give out your information or not to LE when requested.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!

You should prolly finish law school before you try to think about legal matters. Even us hokey rednecks got that one figgered out.

Or, are you just trying to set up OCers to get arrested? (And, before you answer, remember you just said one post ago that a person must ID himself to a cop if the cop has RAS, regardless of whether the state has a stop-and-identify statute.)

Now, the rest of y'all start your timers and see how long it takes him to arrogantly demand that I explain what it is we have figgered out. Because, you know, it is so extremely unlikely that an OCer with five years experience, who quoted a ton of history on rights at the top of this thread*, and who had actually read Hiibel---it is so extremely unlikely that such a person or persons would have read and figgered out anything else in five years.


*Y'all did notice that a buncha people liked that post, but SgtScott31 said nothing supportive about rights? He went after what he thought was an error that coincidentally supports rights and was being used to reinforce why to exercise them.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I'm still waiting on a case where providing such info has incriminated anyone.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!

Let me get this straight. You make an argument about a point in a SCOTUS opinion to invalidate something I didn't say. And, in that previous post say you'd be more impressed if something had actually occurred like what SCOTUS had acknowledged could happen.

Then, just to continue beating your own strawman, you reference it again later? What? You think strawman arguments gain validity by being repeated?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!


I wonder how SCOTUS would feel if you told them you were unimpressed with their reasoning because something they acknowledged could happen had not, to your knowledge happened yet. Jeez, are you really that clueless? Or, just not paying attention to what you are saying?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.
Really? How so? Under what 'power' does any LE have to compel identification without statute? I will await your cite for that one.

Without the "stop and identify" statute, there isn't a 'by law' to compel identification.



SgtScott31 said:
If Citizen wants to imply that my understanding of case law and stop/identify issues are insufficient because I didn't read a court's entire opinion, I'm going to give him my take on the matter. Are you his big brother?
It was quite clear that you did have an insufficient understanding of the stated case law, as the text did support his claim, and did not support yours.

No, I am not his big, small, or same sized brother. :rolleyes: None of that is relevant a bit, other than an attempt at the ad-hom argument.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Really? How so? Under what 'power' does any LE have to compel identification without statute? I will await your cite for that one.

I too would like to see the cite. For the original assertion.

No offense to Wrightme, but he shifted the meaning ever so slightly when restating it. I don't want SgtScott31 to wriggle out of something by supplying a cite to a paraphrase or arguing that is not what he said.

I just want SgtScott31 to give a cite to his assertion. As represented by the two quoted sentences taken together.

And, just to close the door on another wriggle avenue, this is from the forum rules:

5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
 
Last edited:

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.
How the hell can you sit there as a LEO and proclaim that someone you detain is obligated by law to ID themselves, even if there is not a law about that on the books??? If there is no law about it, you cannot state "It's the law!"

How is this good cop behavior in any way/shape/form?
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
How is this good cop behavior in any way/shape/form?
Remember the 'good cop/bad cop' paradigm! Our "good cop" is doing his best to balance the bad cops that he knows.

We may beat his rap, but we cannot beat his 'ride'! Be not the one.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.

Just like the others, I'm eating popcorn and waiting for a cite to back up this absurd idea.



Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
How the hell can you sit there as a LEO and proclaim that someone you detain is obligated by law to ID themselves, even if there is not a law about that on the books??? If there is no law about it, you cannot state "It's the law!"

There is more law than just statutes. There is also court-made law, called case law, as found in court opinions.

Also, not really applicable here, so just for information, there is the "common law", which started out centuries ago as legal traditions that were not necessarily written down, but over time was written down in court opinions. So, today "common law", where it exists, is almost synonymous with the words court opinions.

But, back to the current thread direction. Waiting for a cite from cop/law student.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Bam, there's the cite for you needing to identify. You are obstructing an officer trying to perform an investigation. Just ignore the bit in the cite about the 5th Amendment and the right to remain silent.

Um, I don't want to go off on a tangent, nor give SgtScott31 a cite he didn't have.

But, I don't see anything about refusal to identify or supporting SS31's assertion at the link you provided. Were you being a little sarcastic? If you were sincere, would you quote the exact text in the wiki article, please. I skimmed twice and didn't see it.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Um, I don't want to go off on a tangent, nor give SgtScott31 a cite he didn't have.

But, I don't see anything about refusal to identify or supporting SS31's assertion at the link you provided. Were you being a little sarcastic? If you were sincere, would you quote the exact text in the wiki article, please. I skimmed twice and didn't see it.

Very first sentence: "The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials." So by refusing to give your name you are interfering with the work of the police! It just requires you to ignore the second sentence of the second paragraph that states: "However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so."

Yes my response was sarcasm, though I believe I've seen people mention on this board that the OOJ charge is relatively common when one refuses to waive their rights when a cop demands it. Not that it sticks, just that it is initially used to try and get the person to comply.
 
Top