Identification required

[Aknazer]

If an officer approaches and states I fit a description of a "uvw" that just committed "xyz" and requests ID. I personally wouldn't have a problem being compliant. But when they don't have any reason, or just say they want to check to see if I'm a felon...Nope sorry. I don't play those BS games. Many times if they have a real investigation based on real evidence, they will state it. But when they start making stuff up and lying, that's when there is a problem. But that's just my opinion. Your all free to do as you please. In the end we each will be held accountable for our actions, right or wrong as they may be. So choose as you see fit given the circumstances.

Thing is, how would you know that he isn't lying to you about someone matching your description committing a crime? After all, cops can legally lie to you.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP
Scope of Detention – If Suspect Refuses to Give Name and Address, the Detention may Include
a Search for ID.
State v. Flynn , 92 Wis.2d 427, 285 N.W.2d 710 (1979). A police officer was told to patrol an
area for suspects in a just-completed burglary. Thirty minutes later he saw two men emerge
from an alley – one fit the description of the burglar. The one who fit ID’d himself, but the
other refused to do so, even after the officer explained the reason for the inquiry. The officer
frisked the detainee for a wallet, checked the ID, and found that a “pick-up” order was out for
him. The officer also found pliers and flashlight during the frisk. HELD: In Adams v. Williams
the Court stated that an officer may stop a person [upon reasonable suspicion] “in order to
determine his identity.” To accept defendant’s contention that the officer can stop the suspect
and request ID, but that the suspect can turn right around and refuse to provide it, would reduce
the authority of the officer . . . recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Adams . . . to identify
a person lawfully stopped by him to a mere fiction. Unless the officer is given some recourse in
the event his request for ID is refused, he will be forced to rely either upon the good will of the
person he suspects or upon his own ability to simply bluff that person into thinking he actually
does have some recourse.” Using the 4th Amendment reasonableness test, the Court balanced
the need for the search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. The
intrusion was limited, the scope narrow – and the defendant could have avoided the intrusion by
simply producing the ID himself. Thus, the police action was justified, particularly when you
consider that if the officer lets the suspect go without even identifying him, and it later turns out
he was the perpetrator, locating him will be impossible. LaFave points out that the “right to
remain silent” under the 5th Amendment does not necessarily encompass an unlimited freedom to remain anonymous. LaFave , Volume IV at 304.

LMTD,

Do you have a full cite to the case Adams vs Williams, meaning the all the numbers, for example, Jones v Smith 133 US 10.

I ask because the only SCOTUS Adams vs Williams I could find said nothing about identity. And, seemed to have nothing in it that would support the conclusion in State v Flynn quoted above.

 

[OC for ME]

State v. Flynn was not about ID per se, but about how Flynn's identity was discovered after he refused to ID himself, during what was claimed (classified) as a Terry-ish stop. If Flynn would have had a 'clean' background and ID'd himself, both he and his buddy would have been on their way in just a few minutes. Flynn's buddy was free to go after he gave the cop his identity. So, the logic that the court in State v. Flynn used was shredded by their own conclusions and verbiage. Once Flynn was ID'd and then determined to be a BG, not because of the burglary that prompted the stop, but because of the 'pick-up order', Flynn was done. The cops had PC to arrest. Flynn likely knew this and this is why he refused to ID himself.

So, does State v. Flynn provide LE with justification to 'take' your ID if you refuse? If you know that you are a LAC then the answer is no. Unfortunately you have to get a judge to tell the cops this after they get done doing all of their rights trampling. State v. Flynn would be a poor example to use by a cop and his accomplice, the DA, to prosecute a OCing LAC for contempt of cop.

In every court decision that I have read that even lightly sideswipes the ID issue, the courts have not on a single occasion discussed, let alone even mentioned, how providing ID excludes a detained LAC from being the person reported as committing a crime where a physical description is the primary justification to detain the LAC. 'Time of night', 'seedy neighborhood', 'recent crime in the vicinity' all goes into formulating RAS for the cop. I disagree with this premise that these factors lead to a reasonable conclusion to justify a stop & ID by a cop. But, unfortunately, the courts disagree with my disagreement and it is their disagreement that counts, not mine.

Just because you look like Joe Perp does not mean that the cops know that the perp is named Joe Perp. All that the cops know is that you fit the description of a perp. So, you informing the cop that your name is John LAC contributes zero to the cops investigation. If every OCer who gets rousted by cops unlawfully, told his lawyer to toss this into the mix, LE would be in a very precarious position indeed.

Or, you could just spill your guts, let the cop continue to believe that you must provide your ID upon his 'request', in pursuit of a very brief detainment. Me, if I am the LAC who looks like a perp, the cops better bring their A game, cuz I need a new F-350.

 

[OC for ME]

My lawyer, Perry Mason, questioning The Cop in a Missouri courtroom. (This presumes that The Cop does not lie under oath)

Mr. Mason: Officer, did you detain my client on 'X' date?
The Cop: Yes.

Mr. Mason: Officer, why did you detain my client on 'X' date?
The Cop: Your client matched the description of the perpetrator of a crime committed on 'X' date, at 'X' location. Your client was in the vicinity of 'X' location shortly after the crime at 'X' location was reported to LE.

Mr. Mason: Officer, did you on 'X' date, prior to, during, or after the detainment of my client, know the name of the perpetrator?
The Cop: No.

Mr. Mason: Officer, did you have authority under statute to demand my clients identity on 'X' date?
The Cop: Yes.

Mr. Mason: Officer, what statute gave you authority to demand my client's identity?
The Cop: Statute 'X'.

Mr. Mason: Officer, did my client provide you his identity on 'X' date without objection?
The Cop: Your client objected to providing his identity, but do not withhold his identity.

Mr. Mason: Officer, why did my client object to providing his identity?
The Cop: Your client did not agree that I had the authority to demand his identity on 'X' date.

Mr. Mason: Officer, upon determining my clients identity, did this information exclude him as a possible suspect in your investigation of the crime reported on 'X' date?
The Cop: Yes.

Mr. Mason: officer, you have testified under oath that my client, matched the description of the perpetrator of a crime committed on 'X' date, at 'X' location. and that my client was in the vicinity of 'X' location shortly after the crime at 'X' location was reported to LE. Officer, please explain to the court, how my client, providing his identity to you on 'X' date, excluded him as a suspect in the crime on 'X' date, if you did not know the name of the perpetrator of the crime at 'X' location, prior to, during, or after the detainment of my client.
The Cop: ....crickets chirping?

Iam not a lawyer and I am using my best Perry Mason questioning techniques. So, don't ding me too much on my courtroom acumen.

 

[LMTD]

Sir,

I am not a lawyer, below the quote I will post what is in the book. That is an excerpt from a book for Missouri prosecutors citing all kinds of case law regarding search and seizures. It is about 120 pages of legal cases and quite possibly has the prosecutor who wrote it opinions inserted as well.

It is literally case law after case law. I have only what was pasted.

LMTD,

Do you have a full cite to the case Adams vs Williams, meaning the all the numbers, for example, Jones v Smith 133 US 10.

I ask because the only SCOTUS Adams vs Williams I could find said nothing about identity. And, seemed to have nothing in it that would support the conclusion in State v Flynn quoted above.

Adams v. Williams , 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). The officer did a
Terry stop and did the frisk before asking
if his
reasonable suspicion is for a crime of violence or that the suspect is committing, has committed
or is about to commit a crime for which he would likely be armed, such as robbery, burglary,
homicide, rape, assault with a weapon or dealing in large quantities of narcotics. LaFave , Vol.
IV, page 225.
any
M. The “Terry” Frisk Doctrine Extends to the Interior of a Passenger Compartment of a Car.
questions at all. An informant known to Sgt.
Connolly told him while he was alone on patrol duty in the early morning in a high crime area
that a person (defendant) seated in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and had a gun at
his waist. No details of how he knew. Sgt. Connolly approached the vehicle and tapped on the
window, asked defendant to open the door, then seized the gun. HELD: The stop & frisk was
justified by reasonable suspicion. As Justice Harlan said in his concurrence in Terry : “Where
such a stop is reasonable ... the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for
the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Just as a full search
incident to lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to lawful stop
must often be rapid and routine. There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly
confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take
the risk that the answer might be a bullet.”

 

[ecocks]

I'm always curious why so much is made of quoting these cases.

Really, how does this have any bearing at all on what you will do while enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks and a policeman approaches you and engages?

I suspect I have provided ID to LEO's a half-dozen times (not counting my approaching them) and know a dozen or more guys who have stories like these. The numbers of encounters related which have involved the police department's search for "a perp" has been zero.

They aren't looking for "a perp", they're responding o a call about a MWAG who has some pansy citizen or store employee wetting their pants that "something" is about to happen. Usually that "something" is the order of a frappuccino, fries, purchase of a sweatshirt or a TV set.

Going through You-Tube and looking at most (but certainly not all) of the videos on police encounters while OC'ing, it's overwhelmingly clear that the police are being baited, often by people that I wouldn't let eat in my restaurant much less invite into my home.

 

[LMTD]

I'm always curious why so much is made of quoting these cases.

Really, how does this have any bearing at all on what you will do while enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks and a policeman approaches you and engages?

Because a vast majority of folks haven't a clue what is legal and what is not and arguing it out without facts is pointless. A large number of folks believe open carry is indeed against the law, it is not in most locations but can be in others. Unless you cite the law or case law supporting a position, it remains simply opinion and often uninformed opinion.

The identification issue has merit in Missouri because of (6) Has not engaged in a pattern of behavior, documented in public records, that causes the sheriff to have a reasonable belief that the applicant presents a danger to himself or others;

from 571. When your ID is run, it is public record and having "frequent" checks on it could be construed as a danger. While you may or may not agree, the fact is, more than one sheriff had to be sued to force them to issue permits. The idea that one of them could use "3 id checks" as merit for such an argument is not outside the box at all. It is not so much as I agree that one would lose in court as it is how much winning in court might cost.

We have a mamber right here on this board that was charged and indeed convicted, primarily because he could not afford counsel to fight such stupidity.

Why is it such a big deal for citizens to be free from a search of their papers just because a cop wants to harass them?

Why cite the case law? Because that is what has been used to circumvent our constitution for years and if you do not know it exist, you could indeed be subject to illegal activities by our government, it happens all the time, it is really pathetic.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

A much better answer that mine, LMTD, I was going to go with, "Because an educated citizenry is an abusive cop's worst enemy besides the Constitution."



"The law says? What are you some kinda lawyer?"

 

[ecocks]

Okay, some people just can't get enough case law with their morning cup of coffee I guess.

I don't find the logic to be terribly sound but to each their own.

 

[OC for ME]

I'm always curious why so much is made of quoting these cases. <snip>

Because, any potential appeal to a bogus conviction for your lawful activity may depend on that case law. The appeals process will use case law to decide for or against you. I look at it this way, I will be able to determine if my lawyer is worth keeping for the appeal process. If you know the case law, the lawyer knows the courtroom hoops, the better your chances are in front of a judge(s). Would you use a self-defense tool you knew you had no idea how to operate and how to operate proficiently?

It's all about the case law, because case law is derived from case law, appellate judges are funny that way.

 

[Citizen]

I'm always curious why so much is made of quoting these cases.

Really, how does this have any bearing at all on what you will do while enjoying a cup of coffee at Starbucks and a policeman approaches you and engages?

Because certain parts of the opinions are law just as much as a statute is law.

And, because we have to know the law before we can figure out strategy and tactics for police encounters. Which means we often have to know both statutes and court opinions.

 

[ecocks]

That's all well and good. If I ever get arrested for drinking a cup of coffee, I'll ask my lawyer about these cases then.

Thanks for the info!

 

[LMTD]

That's all well and good. If I ever get arrested for drinking a cup of coffee, I'll ask my lawyer about these cases then.

Thanks for the info!

Living in a state with laws that require much less reform, you are likely 100% correct.

If you wander down here to MO, I would suggest you become a lot better schooled at what may happen to you, and how you should react.

It can vary from a "hey how are you doing" to being ordered to the ground at gun point.

My understanding of Idaho is that it is some what rugged, absolutely wonderful for outdoor activities of all types, and gorgous views about all year around.

That rugged part, I like it, indicates somewhat that you lack a lot of pansey's, that is not the case here where we have these small clusters of libtards who will do and try anything to prevent you from having any rights and in doing so, a lot of libtard judges make case law that is not good for you until it gets reversed which is kinda rare.

 

[ecocks]

Actually, I just moved to Sparta.

 

[LMTD]

Actually, I just moved to Sparta.

Welcome to MO.

My sister lives near Sparta.

Not sure how long you have been reading the MO forums but OC is fairly well accepted down there, but there have been a few incidents.

Hope you enjoy your new stomping ground and I get down there a couple times a year, might arrange a cup of coffee or something at a later date.

 

[Citizen]

That's all well and good. If I ever get arrested for drinking a cup of coffee, I'll ask my lawyer about these cases then.

The point is to know the law so you avoid being arrested, while exercising ever-diminishing rights.

 

[ecocks]

Welcome to MO.

My sister lives near Sparta.

Not sure how long you have been reading the MO forums but OC is fairly well accepted down there, but there have been a few incidents.

Hope you enjoy your new stomping ground and I get down there a couple times a year, might arrange a cup of coffee or something at a later date.

I'm always good for a cup or seven of coffee.

 

[ecocks]

The point is to know the law so you avoid being arrested, while exercising ever-diminishing rights.

Hmmm, as I said, the logic escapes me.

If I do CHOOSE to show my ID, how in the world would I be arrested for that?

Now, if I was a fugitive I guess it makes sense that it would be handy to stand on my "rights" and refuse to show the ID but then....well....why would I want a fugitive to be able to escape detection under the shelter of a valid law?

Tell you what, I'll try to work with you on this. IF I am ever jumping bail, fleeing a warrant or the scene of a criminal act I performed, i will remember these cases and be sure to stand on my right to refuse identification.

 

[LMTD]

Hmmm, as I said, the logic escapes me.

If I do CHOOSE to show my ID, how in the world would I be arrested for that?

The logic is simple. You are not required to carry ID, you may not be arrested for not carrying ID. If a police officer comes up to you and ask for your ID just because you have a firearm, he is asking you for consent to seize your ID. If you say yes, you have given consent. Not unlike what SCOTUS just ruled about the 5th, your right to remain silent, YOU have the full responsibility to assert it and he has no duty what so ever to inform you of as much.

Officers are highly trained in obtaining consent and do so on a regular basis.

If you are as you say innocent and it is harmless, then you need to ask yourself why you are allowing this perfect stranger into your life at all. A **** pot of cops are thrown in jail every year, though the vast majority are basicly really decent folks.

If he has any reason what so ever to suspect you, then you are being detained and he can indeed demand it. You missing the logic is not understanding that the rules change across the contact and can change instantly. There is no reason to engage them at all because it can ONLY go to the next level, that is his ONLY goal. Casual/detain/custody and at no time what so ever is the officer required to tell the truth or inform you of your rights. If you are in stage one, his threat of dragging you down to the station and identify you is false and a threat against your libery violating your rights.

The logic, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS.

 

[Firedawg314]

BTW, a bit of information from a MO prosecutors Handbook of sorts.

Scope of Detention – If Suspect Refuses to Give Name and Address, the Detention may Include
a Search for ID.
State v. Flynn , 92 Wis.2d 427, 285 N.W.2d 710 (1979). A police officer was told to patrol an
area for suspects in a just-completed burglary. Thirty minutes later he saw two men emerge
from an alley – one fit the description of the burglar. The one who fit ID’d himself, but the
other refused to do so, even after the officer explained the reason for the inquiry. The officer
frisked the detainee for a wallet, checked the ID, and found that a “pick-up” order was out for
him. The officer also found pliers and flashlight during the frisk. HELD: In Adams v. Williams
the Court stated that an officer may stop a person [upon reasonable suspicion] “in order to
determine his identity.” To accept defendant’s contention that the officer can stop the suspect
and request ID, but that the suspect can turn right around and refuse to provide it, would reduce
the authority of the officer . . . recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Adams . . . to identify
a person lawfully stopped by him to a mere fiction. Unless the officer is given some recourse in
the event his request for ID is refused, he will be forced to rely either upon the good will of the
person he suspects or upon his own ability to simply bluff that person into thinking he actually
does have some recourse.” Using the 4th Amendment reasonableness test, the Court balanced
the need for the search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. The
intrusion was limited, the scope narrow – and the defendant could have avoided the intrusion by
simply producing the ID himself. Thus, the police action was justified, particularly when you
consider that if the officer lets the suspect go without even identifying him, and it later turns out
he was the perpetrator, locating him will be impossible. LaFave points out that the “right to
remain silent” under the 5th Amendment does not necessarily encompass an unlimited freedom to remain anonymous. LaFave , Volume IV at 304.

NOTE: If a state or municipality wants to make it a crime to refuse to provide identification after
being stopped on reasonable suspicion, it may do so. Such a law allows the officer to arrest
the uncooperative suspect once the suspect refuses to provide any ID. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial
District , 124 U.S. 2451 (2004).

Hey, thanks for the comment etc from the other post. Help me out here... from what I understand from your post, you agree to not show your ID (for what ever reason)... then you later post this... basically showing that if a person(s) who fit the description (and if the local law approves the arrest of not showing) and refuse to identify their self would/could be "detained/locked up"...

I see your points really from both post... its a bit scary, because from the first one... I kinda wanted to stand on my own two feet if i'm out jogging and get pulled over. Then reading this second one... just might as well stick to my orningal thought... if got it, just show it.

I guess I basically "stick" with the "show it" because... of the few cops I know of, and work around with... most of them... if you baisically do what they ask, they pretty much let you go. Some of them, they tell me all the time... if you got caught speeding by them, they pull you over, ask you for all your paper work. If you get it out in a short amount of time after they asked you and you have no warrants etc. You are basically going to get "off" with a warning. Unless you almost double the speed limit, etc. But if you start off the conversation of; I did nothing wrong... or why me... or, there are criminals out here.. etc. You're getting a ticket for the speeding. Like with anything else... it all depends on, where you are at and the type of cop you are dealing with. Now, it get to be about 10 days before the end of the month... all bets are off, they are giving the ticket.

Good research !