• 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.

Produce ID for the police?

If the police want to see your ID because you are OCing, should you give it to them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • No

    Votes: 82 68.3%
  • Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

    Votes: 18 15.0%

  • Total voters
    120

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
OK...... I was just out running some errands and something occurred to me as I drove past a Home Depot. Before we left central Missouri there was a Home Depot with a Quick Trip (Stop-N-Rob) in front, every morning there would be a bunch of dark skinned latinos not a one speaking English hanging around waiting for some day work with people leaving HD; dollars to donuts there were at least a couple illegals in the bunch (if not all), pretty obvious to anyone who's brain is not impaired by PC.

So here is the question.... Can a cop in general or ICE specifically stop and request ID from them????? HELL NO!!! They would be in all kinds of shinola if they did, so why should I a natural born citizen be treated any different!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Requesting "interpretive conversation" regarding Minnesota requirements to ID

This might belong in the Minnesota sub-forum. I don't find any topics or conversation in that area that address my concerns, and I would like input from all posters from anywhere that might be able to help. I'd like to run it here where a lot of you seem to have a good grasp on protecting yourselves from invasions into your privacy.

I'm in the process of relocating from Virginia to out-state Minnesota. I have Virginia, Florida and Utah permits. Minnesota recognizes the Utah permit, so it looks like I'm covered for the time being. I did some homework on Minnesota legalities concerning carrying, discovered a permit is required to carry open or concealed; Minnesota is a "shall issue" state, meaning that if you are not a prohibited person, you shall be issued a permit. Minnesota IS NOT a "Stop and Identify" state. All good..... until I recently was informed on another forum that, as a permit carrier, you WILL produce ID to police on demand, and that this is written into their law. Here's the statute:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

Subd. 1b. Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer


So I have an agenda in all this.

1. Carry a defensive firearm as allowed by Minnesota law.
2. Maintain my right to privacy and to travel freely
3. Avoid detention and/or assault by zealous police
4. Repeat

Here's where the hair splitting comes in: In the above statute, there is the phrase "upon lawful demand by a peace officer".

Does "lawful demand" mean RAS must exist before warranted detention to ID is legit, or does it simply mean "anyone with a badge can strip search you in order to locate your ID?"

I'd really appreciate interpretations and suggestions on this. I am fully aware and accept that responses here cannot be construed as legal advice. It just seems odd that by possessing a permit to carry, one would forfeit their rights to be free of searches, rights to privacy, freedom to travel, and basically, live free of persecution.

What say ye?
 
Last edited:

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Even though I am not required to give ID just for OC, I don't have anything to hide, and I don't mind being cooperative so I say "yes." They'll run my ID, see there is nothing there and leave me alone. In the future if I ever run across the LEO again, I think they might respect me and my rights, because I was cooperative and got both of us on with our day without being a pain.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I just want to make sure you have all the facts before you form it.

Have you watched this vid???

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




Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."



In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's traveling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.


The courts have made a pretty clear distinction of what's required for RAS. It's not a mere hunch, hmm I wonder if he is carrying something he shouldn't be. That looks like something under his coat etc. There must be clear articulable facts of criminal activity. Review Terry v. Ohio for understanding. Or the famous, where investigating to see IF your a felon and IF you can carry that.


HERE is a long discussion on ID'ing ourselves
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
IF, by state law you're forced to carry photo identification, I recommend a Government Issued Passport Card.
It has your name, date of birth and does NOT have a permanent address.
Passport-Card.jpg

They're usually easy to get from the local government office.
 

Maine Expat

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
235
Location
Ukraine & Bangor Maine
Your entitled to your opinion, but I just want to make sure you have all the facts before you form it.

Have you watched this vid???

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




Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."



In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's traveling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.


The courts have made a pretty clear distinction of what's required for RAS. It's not a mere hunch, hmm I wonder if he is carrying something he shouldn't be. That looks like something under his coat etc. There must be clear articulable facts of criminal activity. Review Terry v. Ohio for understanding. Or the famous, where investigating to see IF your a felon and IF you can carry that.


HERE is a long discussion on ID'ing ourselves

You didn't direct it to me, but I have seen the vid as well as a few other ones related to ID/no ID.

For me its a situational thing.

-If LEO has a gun in my face I'm going to do whatever he says and try to live to fight the charges another day. And file a law suit.
-If LEO is being belligerent, I'll resist the urge to show ID.
-If LEO is just checking things out and is being reasonable (by MY estimate) then I'll do what I can to keep a positive dialogue going including showing ID.

Bottom line, I'm not just going to roll over and play dead, but if I'm not still breathing afterwards its kinda useless to play lawyer.

Also bear in mind that I'm a member of Oath Keepers and my first priority is to further the OK outreach mission to get with oath takers and try to talk with them about keeping their oaths to the Constitution. This requires an open door to communication with LEOs.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
my vote is "sometimes yes" because city ordinance requires ID for loaded open carry. Salem, Portland, and a few other Oregon cities.

There is NEVER a reason for LE to just stop you and ask for your ID, carry or no carry. It has to be a legit stop for reason (the carry cannot be the only reason) before they can ask for your CHL. Portland, Salem, Beverton, Astoria, or wherever...4th ammendment says so. Carry is a legal activity, even if it is licensed...just like they cannot just stop you to check your drivers license, for no reason.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Here is a great video of Officers working on a wrong presumption about ID, then calling a LT and getting educated. All captured on video, with an apology while remaining polite and professional.


[video=youtube;n8pkKS66UgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pkKS66UgU&feature=related[/video]
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
You didn't direct it to me, but I have seen the vid as well as a few other ones related to ID/no ID.

For me its a situational thing.

-If LEO has a gun in my face I'm going to do whatever he says and try to live to fight the charges another day. And file a law suit.
-If LEO is being belligerent, I'll resist the urge to show ID.
-If LEO is just checking things out and is being reasonable (by MY estimate) then I'll do what I can to keep a positive dialogue going including showing ID.

Bottom line, I'm not just going to roll over and play dead, but if I'm not still breathing afterwards its kinda useless to play lawyer.

You should learn how to remove a handgun from a person ... its very easy to do...now most times I have had a gun pointed at my head by a cop he has not fired :)dude:). But I can always disarm in most cases. Cop being mean? Ahhhh, they don't need to be nice. And a cop being nice or not has no effect on my behavior. I once had a cop say I stole his badge from him .. 30 minutes of "you SOB" and he finds it in his squad ... 50 ft from where I was. You should practice with a friend yelling at you for 30 minutes ... you get immune to such behavior.

Learn and practice how to disarm...it will also aid you in your carry behavior and improve your survivability chances during a criminal engagement.

their favorite is to ask to search your vehicle once you start refusing things (like from a traffic stop set of std questions) -- just say "I don't think you'll find any more evidence of speeding in my trunk, so no thanks". Some cops will go ballistic. I have even had FBI agents lose their cool. Cops just think they can mow down anyone and when they find one they cannot they get flustered.

I wonder how many cops washed out at boot camp?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
In the case of HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL.. (03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004) 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed. [click this link for the PDF file], "Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault." What is otherwise known as a "Terry Stop."

In Hibel, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one must now "identify oneself" to police officers if they request such identification. They stated in their opinion:

"Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop." [Emphasis added.]

So according to the Supreme Court you must identify yourself to a police officer during a Terry Stop and if you don't you can be arrested and convicted for failing to do so just like poor Hiibel.

I still believe the officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that one is engaged in, or about to be engaged in, criminal activity for their to be cause for a Terry Stop. I have been stopped more than once where no open carry was involved and harassed by cops for no good reason. Not being criminally minded or engaged in criminal activity I had no problem questioning the officers' actions. They don't like that though and on at least two occasions my standing upon my constitutionally secured Rights led to my arrest. It also led to the firing or dismissal of at least four cops, two each for two of the arrests I've mentioned. I do not go along to get along. You'd better have a damn good reason to stop and harass me because I know better.


Just in case this point has not been driven home in the preceding discussion, let me do so here.

In Hiibel, SCOTUS didn't say you must identify yourself to a cop who has RAS. SCOTUS said a state statute requiring such was not unconstitutional and did not violate the 5A right against self-incrimination. The point here being that in addition to RAS, the cop still needs a state statute or local ordinance authorizing him to demand identity or compelling you to identify.

If there is no state or local ordinance or state court opinions compelling you to identify, then you would not be breaking the law by refusing.

Now, you have to watch out for the quirks in the law. For example, it has been represented to me by a lawyer I trust that VA police are empowered by statute with all the authority of old time constables under common law. And, buried in that common law was the authority of a constable to demand from anyone abroad after dark that he identify himself and satisfactorily explain his business. As modified by the guarantees of the 4A against unreasonable search and seizure. Huh!?! Yeah, I had the same problem--does that mean I do or don't have to identify after dark even if the cop has no RAS? Who can say?

For myself, I plan on identifying while refusing consent. This way I'm covered. If it turns out later he did not have genuine RAS, I have a bullet point for a formal complaint or lawsuit. And, since it is my personal policy to formally complain about all investigative contact, even consensual contacts, about mere OC, it does not particularly matter to me whether he gets my name during the detention, or from the formal complaint. If he doesn't get my name now, he's gonna get it later when my formal complaint lands on the internal affairs desk.

And, yes I know that my name will go into the computers when I identify during a police encounter. I'm betting the fact of the formal complaint goes into the police database, too. And, is perhaps viewable to the next cop who seizes me.

Edited to Add: Don't overlook those dammed local ordinances. For example, VA has no state stop-and-identify statute; but we've already found a number of VA localities with stop-and-identify ordinances, most of which have rather severe penalties for refusing.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Where I live the police have the authority to request that I identify myself (name and name of locality where I reside, although some say it must include the street address) if they have RAS of a crime committed, being presently committed, or about to be committed.

The question applies to a request for ID based on the mere act of OCing. Therefore, my answer is "no".

I have in fact gone to jail because I would not display a government ID doccument when challenged for OCing - although the actual charge was "obstructing justice". Would I do it again? Absolutely, unequivocally "yes". Because it is that important.

Am I some sort of "gun nut" looking for confrontations with cops? Not in the least. I really want nothing more than to be left alone and allowed to go about my lawful activity without interference or harassment by the government and its minions.

For those who have answered that they would produce ID in order to avoid confrontation/harassment I can only say "Thank you for making my life that much more likely to include harassment and complication." When government monions believe they can get away with violating the rights of lawfully-behaving armed citizens because some of those citizens are more willing to surrender their rights than to stand up for them, those minions are more likely to try the same thing with other lawfully-behaving armed (and unarmed) citizens. I believe there is an old saying about either giving them an inch or about allowing the camel to put its nose under the edge of the tent. Both address the same thing - allow them to get away with "a little" and they will eventually think they can get away with anything unless someone hauls them up short. I know not what course others may take, but for me "there is no way you are going to get away with that, buddy!"

I believe the end of the line I am standing somewhere in the middle of is located "over there" (points using index finger):shocker:.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Where I live the police have the authority to request that I identify myself (name and name of locality where I reside, although some say it must include the street address) if they have RAS of a crime committed, being presently committed, or about to be committed.

The question applies to a request for ID based on the mere act of OCing. Therefore, my answer is "no".

I have in fact gone to jail because I would not display a government ID doccument when challenged for OCing - although the actual charge was "obstructing justice". Would I do it again? Absolutely, unequivocally "yes". Because it is that important.

Am I some sort of "gun nut" looking for confrontations with cops? Not in the least. I really want nothing more than to be left alone and allowed to go about my lawful activity without interference or harassment by the government and its minions.

For those who have answered that they would produce ID in order to avoid confrontation/harassment I can only say "Thank you for making my life that much more likely to include harassment and complication." When government monions believe they can get away with violating the rights of lawfully-behaving armed citizens because some of those citizens are more willing to surrender their rights than to stand up for them, those minions are more likely to try the same thing with other lawfully-behaving armed (and unarmed) citizens. I believe there is an old saying about either giving them an inch or about allowing the camel to put its nose under the edge of the tent. Both address the same thing - allow them to get away with "a little" and they will eventually think they can get away with anything unless someone hauls them up short. I know not what course others may take, but for me "there is no way you are going to get away with that, buddy!"

I believe the end of the line I am standing somewhere in the middle of is located "over there" (points using index finger):shocker:.

stay safe.


Hey! That's a great word. Sort of a contraction of moron minions. Or, moronions. I love it. :)

Now, that you've opened the can of worms about how an OCer is supposed to know or figure out whether the cop has genuine RAS, and the liabilities of the OCer being wrong, I'll let you explain that. I've never been able to get it all explained in less than six or eight paragraphs.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Skidmark jogged something for me.

You will also want to check your state's court opinions and so forth to see if identity refusals come under the heading of obstruction--obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, etc.

I vaguely recall that some states have no stop-and-identify statutes compelling giving identity, but court opinions support charging an identity refusal as obstruction.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Hey! That's a great word. Sort of a contraction of moron minions. Or, moronions. I love it. :)

Now, that you've opened the can of worms about how an OCer is supposed to know or figure out whether the cop has genuine RAS, and the liabilities of the OCer being wrong, I'll let you explain that. I've never been able to get it all explained in less than six or eight paragraphs.

"Monions" - another typo that if I shut my mouth about will look like I actually intended to create a new word. Let's see if I can get away with it.

As for determining if the cop has "gen-you-wine RAS" -- easy peasey. Listen for these words: "Put your hands behind your back," followed by the feel of steel bracelets being put on. In other words, if the cop has RAS he's not going to Richard around playing games with you. Of course, the cop may not in fact have RAS that a judge (or three) would agree was genuine but you still might win everything behind Door #1 - which will give you a chance at some lovely parting gifts later on.

The liabilities of the OCer being wrong about whether or not the cop has RAS? An all-expenses-paid vacation, American plan (meals included) and the opportunity to meet new and exciting people. A set of commerative portraits suitable for being framed. The opportunity to tell everyone how it felt to sit on the "Group W" bench with mother-stabbers and the rest of the guys.


Skidmark jogged something for me.

You will also want to check your state's court opinions and so forth to see if identity refusals come under the heading of obstruction--obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, etc.

I vaguely recall that some states have no stop-and-identify statutes compelling giving identity, but court opinions support charging an identity refusal as obstruction.


Can you give a citation or three?

stay safe.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Can you give a citation or three?

stay safe.

I can provide something slightly relevant from WV

(STATE v. SRNSKY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-suprem...s/1482046.html) where the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of Obstruction (among other irrelevant charges) where the conviction of Obstruction was gained because of the defendants refusal to identify himself to LEO. Here a snip from the reversal:

"Consequently, we hold that refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not, standing alone, form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer in performing official duties.   However, the charge of obstructing an officer may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen's name is being sought in relation to the officer's official duties."
 
Last edited:

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
I said Yes.


Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse you're request. Are you demanding?:


Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I said Yes.

Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse your request. Are you demanding?:

Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?

I don't need to check, I know I'm not. Typically the only people that want to demand ID are pushy, authoritarian, cops who are looking to put someone in jail because what they are witnessing isn't sufficient, they want to check for background wants&warrants. Since I have no need to be there and no desire to assist Officer Friendly in his pursuits, I'll refrain, thank-you-very-much.


I also went to school long enough to realize the difference between "your" and "you're."


Apparently, by this particular LEO's way of thinking, 70% of us are what he would typically consider "dirt bags". Way to go, Sparky.
 
Last edited:
Top