• 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
"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

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
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.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
36
Location
Eastern CT
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.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
"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.

I was not trying to call you out, I saw your disclaimer. I was just trying to improve the information.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

Post 18.

But, seriously, the Stop&ID subject would make a great item for a "FAQ" forum of such general topics.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

I highlighted the fail.

Up to that point, you described a citizen video taping. You then turn that citizen into "MWAG confronts cop." The incidents I have read about that involve a citizen videotaping a stop, become "cop confronts the citizen who was not interfering."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 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.

It is sloppy thinking and tolerance for "minor" violations of rights that has allowed police to harass OCers. We're late on the scene, too. Nobody will ever convince me that cops who harassed OCers got up that morning and decided to violate rights for the first time in their career. They'd been doing it all along to non-OCers.


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.

It has long been a maxim of freedom in this country that letting some criminals get away is the price we pay for keeping government criminals under some measure of control. A criminal only affects a limited number of people; criminals in government affect every person in government's jurisdiction.


Don't seek out police officers just to test them.

Absolutely nothing wrong with testing police. It is our job as citizens to keep government under control. Also, there is extensive evidence that police cannot or will not police themselves except in the most egregrious situations where the evidence cannot be avoided and public pressure is high. If the police can't or won't, who will? The courts? Hahahaha. Yeah, if you spend several thousand and can get past qualified immunity, and have ironclad evidence. Also, fair is fair. If police want to claim stings and entrapments are fair, well then...
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Here is a nice little video that explains it rather quick and simple. Also watch the second Don't talk to Police vid. Key things to keep in mind is ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU!

[video=youtube;eV_ANiGk4Sc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV_ANiGk4Sc&feature=youtu.be[/video]


[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
 
Last edited:

SgtScott31

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
158
Location
Nashville
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.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion reading Hiibel. How does providing your demographic information (name, dob, etc) incriminate you? If you have an active warrant out for your arrest, this is not incrimination. You have already been charged for an offense, hence why you have the warrant. Providing your name or other basic information is not going to give the officer any more evidence about the crime he is investigating, nor any evidence supporting the warrant the person may have. This is directly from Hiibel...

(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598,...

Some states have "stop and identify" statutes, some do not. It really doesn't matter whether they do. Either way in order for an officer to stop and detain someone they need reasonable suspicion. If they have reasonable suspicion then the court grants officers the authority to gain further information about the person during the investigation to ascertain whether further investigation is necessary.

"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

Make this argument in state court and let me know how it works out for you. I have heard a guy say this to a judge involving his suspended license and it didn't work out so well.

It's great that many here have done some research on case law, but keep in mind that how each state rules on the issue has no binding effect outside of its borders. Where some states require RS to approach someone carrying a weapon and ask for ID, others allow officers to verify the person's permit status to make sure he/she is carrying legally. Does it happen often? not likely, but many states are different concerning the issue.

I think you have to take that into consideration when giving the OP a response. If he doesn't show a permit when asked by a LEO in my state (with or without RS), there can be legal ramifications.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion reading Hiibel. How does providing your demographic information (name, dob, etc) incriminate you? If you have an active warrant out for your arrest, this is not incrimination. You have already been charged for an offense, hence why you have the warrant. Providing your name or other basic information is not going to give the officer any more evidence about the crime he is investigating, nor any evidence supporting the warrant the person may have. This is directly from Hiibel...

Oh, jeezus, what a brilliant display of reading comprehension. I didn't "come to this conclusion", Mr. Legal Academic. I paraphrased the court opinion.

Since you are such an astute supporter of police and are gifted above others who merely read the opinion, I am sure it was just a tiny oversight on your part that you did not read the relevant sentence. So, I'll just quote that sentence below for you. I know, I know. Its hard to keep track of the sentences that might limit police power when you are busy trying to justify police actions. Completely understandable. No need to apologize. You didn't really come off as an arrogant know-it-all who wrote before he thunk. Besides, its so easy to just assume a forum member with years experience discussing these points had never actually read the cases. Totally understandable how you might do that.


So, here is the quote:


Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow.

Third sentence from the end of the opinion.


Oh! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! I just discovered how our brilliant legal mind, SgtScott31 got it wrong! He read the Syllabus (summary) instead of the opinion itself. His quote comes from the Syllabus. "Oh, I'll just read the cliffnotes and I'll be an expert." Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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 <snip> Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2) <snip>
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes\c000-099\0840000710.htm

Thanks for the info, really good stuff. 84.710 applies to the KS, MO and STL PD only. This means that the city of KS MO and STL are the only political subdivisions that have stop and ID. After researching, I have not found a statute that permits a stop and ID outside of those two cities. There may be, I just have not found them.

The real issue in every encounter with LE is that we citizens do not know what that LEO knows. It is likely we will only learn what he knows, after the fact, that that LEO may have violated the law. I am not stating that you refuse to ID or provide ID, that decision can only be made during that encounter by you. Know the applicable law and hope that a judge or jury will see it your way and not the LEO.

My two encounters required me to provide ID because a CCW permit is required to OC in my town. There is no law that requires me to engage in a conversation other than acknowledging that I will comply with the lawful request for my CCW permit where a permit is required to OC. In those jurisdictions where OC is not regulated, I do not provide ID unless the LEo clearly articulates his authority to require me to provide my ID.

The LEO can ask anything he wants of me, I know whether or not I am legally bound to provide my ID to him. It is a difficult decision to make at that moment.
 

SgtScott31

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
158
Location
Nashville
Oh, jeezus, what a brilliant display of reading comprehension. I didn't "come to this conclusion", Mr. Legal Academic. I paraphrased the court opinion.

Since you are such an astute supporter of police and are gifted above others who merely read the opinion, I am sure it was just a tiny oversight on your part that you did not read the relevant sentence. So, I'll just quote that sentence below for you. I know, I know. Its hard to keep track of the sentences that might limit police power when you are busy trying to justify police actions. Completely understandable. No need to apologize. You didn't really come off as an arrogant know-it-all who wrote before he thunk. Besides, its so easy to just assume a forum member with years experience discussing these points had never actually read the cases. Totally understandable how you might do that.


So, here is the quote:


Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow.

Third sentence from the end of the opinion.


Oh! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! I just discovered how our brilliant legal mind, SgtScott31 got it wrong! He read the Syllabus (summary) instead of the opinion itself. His quote comes from the Syllabus. "Oh, I'll just read the cliffnotes and I'll be an expert." Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!



You seriously think I'm going to read the entire opinion? Needless to say since I actually apply issues like those discussed in Hiibel as part of my job I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on it than you do. Notice the quote you mentioned stated "a case MAY arise..?" Find me a case where someone giving his/her name actually did incriminate themselves in violation of the 5th and I might be impressed. It wasn't my intention for this to be a peein match as to who has more "legal knowledge." I'm curious. Do you attempt to bend every case you happen to find on the internet to imply the big, bad police are in the wrong or do you actually read them with any level of neutrality? Oh I forgot, you're anti-police. What was I thinking. Ignore button on. Buh-bye..
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
You seriously think I'm going to read the entire opinion? Needless to say since I actually apply issues like those discussed in Hiibel as part of my job I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on it than you do. Notice the quote you mentioned stated "a case MAY arise..?" Find me a case where someone giving his/her name actually did incriminate themselves in violation of the 5th and I might be impressed. It wasn't my intention for this to be a peein match as to who has more "legal knowledge." I'm curious. Do you attempt to bend every case you happen to find on the internet to imply the big, bad police are in the wrong or do you actually read them with any level of neutrality? Oh I forgot, you're anti-police. What was I thinking. Ignore button on. Buh-bye..

OMG this is rich! Of course you didn't read the whole opinion. :rolleyes:

I can't think of anyone that I know on this forum who HASN'T had contact with a cop who doesn't know the law. Search all the various police encounters here for proof. Hell, there has been 4 encounters in my state alone in the last couple years causing federal civil rights lawsuits won by the OC'ers. Guess what? They were for illegal arrests, illegal seizures, and improper charges. Those 4 are the tip of the iceberg.

So, were the enforcers involved ignorant of the law or trying to cover their butts? It's gotta be one and since you've tried to refute both, I think you'll have a hard time.

Sure cops are human and can make mistakes but they should be held to a much higher standard because their mistakes cost citizens their life and liberty.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, 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.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
You seriously think I'm going to read the entire opinion?
YES.
If anyone desires to actually understand court opinions, reading them in their entirety is definitely very necessary.

SgtScott31 said:
Needless to say since I actually apply issues like those discussed in Hiibel as part of my job I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on it than you do. Notice the quote you mentioned stated "a case MAY arise..?" Find me a case where someone giving his/her name actually did incriminate themselves in violation of the 5th and I might be impressed. It wasn't my intention for this to be a peein match as to who has more "legal knowledge." I'm curious. Do you attempt to bend every case you happen to find on the internet to imply the big, bad police are in the wrong or do you actually read them with any level of neutrality? Oh I forgot, you're anti-police. What was I thinking. Ignore button on. Buh-bye..
I am curious, how do you apply Hiibel as part of your job?

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?
 
Top