Question from a newbie

So ive been reading though a few posts and I have a question I'm alittlw fuzzy about. I know if I am simply walking my dog and OCing and a LEO asks for ID I'm not required to provide it but am I required to give any information? Ive been under the impression I didn't have to provide anything what so ever if I haven't commited or am being accused of commiting a crime but what's this i hear about stop and ID? From what I read I kinda take it as even if they do stop and try this they still have to have to reasonable suspicion that i did something or was about to. I could be wrong and I was wondering if someone could clarify. I don't want this to happen to me and not know my rights and look like a fool.

There are multiple threads concerning this topic. From what I have found it depends on what city ordinances are in place. The only place I have found that anybody has mentioned to have one in the Hampton roads area is Virginia Beach. This is the most notable thread I found.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-about-open-carry-cards-pamphlets-and-va-code

drdan01 posted this:

"Sec. 23-7.1. Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.

And that's a 1985 ordinance, confirmed still listed in Municode now. I have wondered a 100 times why it has never been challenged. And other "reasonable man" things have been tossed (such as the noise ordinances for the same reason -- no measurable test for that I think). As this was being discussed in the above thread, it was also (I thought) being added to the code tracker as there were other cities that had similar ordinances (still)."

So from what I have been able to gather IN Virginia Beach, you are required at a minimum to give your name and address. That can still be up for interpretation, because of exactly what drdan01 points out. "if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification." What is to be considered a "reasonable man"?

As for MY take on it, and I am no lawyer. I see it as, why cause yourself the trouble of ******* off a cop. Now if the cop is asking for too much he won’t get it without RAS. To make things easier for myself and the stop I will give my name and address but that’s it. In all reality though I personally haven't heard a lot of stop and ID stories in the Hampton roads area recently. I know there was a spike in incidents about 2 years ago. From what I can gather though it hasn't been a real problem lately. The most recent story i have found what this month. That stop only happened due to the persistence to a shop owner at a strip mall. The dispatcher even tried to tell the man that open carry was legal but he insisted on having the cops come out. That story can be found here.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?39693-Open-Carry-in-Hampton-Roads/page212

I know I am kind of all over the place on this, but I guess the overall answer is that it depends on what locality you are in. In VB they do have a Stop and ID ordinance. This can be up for interpretation. So then it comes down to how comfortable you are with testing the limits of the cops.

I hope that was somewhat helpful. Although I am sure somebody will clarify what I am trying to say in a way that is better understood.

drdan01 if you read this I hope you don't mind that i quoted you!

"Sec. 23-7.1. Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.

Click to expand...

From what I was told, you don't have to give them nothing. Unless your driving a car.

MagiK_SacK said:

I hope that was somewhat helpful. Although I am sure somebody will clarify what I am trying to say in a way that is better understood.

Click to expand...

Quite helpfull indeed. That's pretty much what I had gathered from my own research I just wanted to verify. The only time ive been in contact with a LEO all he did was strike up a conversation about how he wishes he saw more armed citizens. Hopefully ill never have to deal withstop and id but if I do ill know. Thanks!

Having a basis for stopping a person is not the same as having a basis for demanding identification. Before they can ask you any questions that you have to stand there and listen to (as opposed to saying, "good evening, officer", and walking away), they have to have "reasonable suspicion" that you're up to no good, involved with someone who's up to no good, or a witness to the not-goodness. Then they can ask you all the questions they want, and if they have a reason to think you're armed and that you pose a threat, they can pat you down and disarm you. (Despite the way people use the language, there's really no such thing as a "Terry stop" - only a "Terry search".) You still don't have to answer any questions, though they can take you into custody instead of simply issuing a summons if you fail to identify yourself.

There is a common law basis for the notion that they do have the right to stop anyone after dark and the person stopped must identify himself upon request to a police officer (though not to a sheriff's deputy). But the U.S. Sup. Ct. says they can't even do that, based on 4th Amendment stop and seizure rules (which trumps the power of cops under Va. common law) without reasonable suspicion.