JohnGalt
New member
I created this thread to discuss issues relating to the production of ID. I posted the analysis below in another thread but decided to repost it here for additional discussion if people are interested.
In 2007 case State v. Aloi, 280 Conn. 824 (2007), the CT Supreme Court answered the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a person in CT must produce identification when demanded by a police officer. That case involved a suspect who was detained under suspicion that he had comitted a crime and then refused to produce ID when approached by police and demanded to identify himself:
The crux of the case was whether refusal to produce ID was within the scope of activity made unlawful by § 53a-167a -- interfering with a police investigation. The court held that the suspect's refusal to produce ID was, indeed, within the ambit of activity that could constitute a violation of CGS 53a-167a. An important limitation on this hold, however, was that the court stressed that the power to compel production of ID is concomitant with a Terry stop only and even framed the question in that light:
The court held:
So if you are stopped for OC alone and refuse to produce ID when demanded, note that you may be arrested and charged with violation of CGS 53a-167a. You would likely win a motion to strike the charges against you if you could show that the officer lacked RAS for the detention (e.g. the demand was not made in connection with a Terry stop).
The court stated that you must produce ID but the case says nothing about whether a pistol permit must be produced. That question has yet to be decided by CT courts.
In 2007 case State v. Aloi, 280 Conn. 824 (2007), the CT Supreme Court answered the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a person in CT must produce identification when demanded by a police officer. That case involved a suspect who was detained under suspicion that he had comitted a crime and then refused to produce ID when approached by police and demanded to identify himself:
Sergeant Robert LaBonte and Officers Jay Salvatore and Jenny Keys of the Wethersfield police department] arrived at Mill Woods Park in response to Peruta's complaint and found the defendant [with mud all over his shirt] standing on public property near the fire truck․ Salvatore approached and advised the defendant that Peruta had complained that the defendant was trespassing and possibly had damaged the fire truck. Salvatore requested that the defendant produce identification. The defendant did not immediately hand over his identification. The defendant also stated that he did not need to produce identification, that he was on public property and that ‘this isn't Russia. I'm not showing you any [identification]․’ ” State v. Aloi, supra, 86 Conn. at App. 365-66, 861 A.2d 1180. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the defendant guilty of several charges, including interfering with a police officer in violation of § 53a-167a.
The crux of the case was whether refusal to produce ID was within the scope of activity made unlawful by § 53a-167a -- interfering with a police investigation. The court held that the suspect's refusal to produce ID was, indeed, within the ambit of activity that could constitute a violation of CGS 53a-167a. An important limitation on this hold, however, was that the court stressed that the power to compel production of ID is concomitant with a Terry stop only and even framed the question in that light:
We first must determine whether a person lawfully may be convicted of interfering with a police officer under § 53a-167a for refusing to provide identification to that police officer who is investigating possible criminal activity pursuant to a Terry stop.
The court held:
Because a refusal to provide identification in connection with a Terry stop may hamper or impede a police investigation into apparent criminal activity, we see no reason why such conduct would be categorically excluded under the expansive language of § 53a-167a.
So if you are stopped for OC alone and refuse to produce ID when demanded, note that you may be arrested and charged with violation of CGS 53a-167a. You would likely win a motion to strike the charges against you if you could show that the officer lacked RAS for the detention (e.g. the demand was not made in connection with a Terry stop).
The court stated that you must produce ID but the case says nothing about whether a pistol permit must be produced. That question has yet to be decided by CT courts.