• 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.

Stop amd ID yourself law

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,946
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:
Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. 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. Terry, supra, at 34.

The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of a Terry stop. And the Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Since you've read a few, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing a link to one or two? I'm interested in what communities can mandate that I carry any sort of identification with me when wandering about.

ID = providing your name, address, DOB .. have not seen anyone require you carry a DL or other papers.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Since you've read a few, I suppose you wouldn't mind providing a link to one or two? I'm interested in what communities can mandate that I carry any sort of identification with me when wandering about.

These were several years ago, when OCers were still working out our legal strategies for dealing with cops. So, I can only guess which localities' websites I was looking at. Probably "Municode" linked through a county or city website.

I can clarify a couple points, though.

None of the locality stop-and-identify ordinances required showing an identity document or even carrying an identity document, the implication being that giving identity verbally was the requirement.

On the other hand, I have read the stop-and-identify statute of at least one state--Midwest?--that required showing an identity document if you had one on you. That is to say, the statute did not compel you to carry an identity document, but if you had a drivers license or state ID card on you, then the statute compelled you to provide it to the cop during a Terry Stop if the cop asked for it.

I think readers will just have to start checking the ordinances of each locality they visit regularly.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
None of the locality stop-and-identify ordinances required showing an identity document or even carrying an identity document, the implication being that giving identity verbally was the requirement.
Citizen, please allow me to apologize; I conflated your post with another that mentioned documents and made my reply based upon that. Reading what you posted again makes it plain that you never mentioned any documentation only (at most) a requirement to identify.

mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Should we ever meet, the first sarsaparilla's on me.


I seem to recall the same 'going through state laws re: identification' a few years back and even collected as many of the state laws as I could find (at least the ones mentioned in Wikipedia). From it I gleaned the following:

INDIANA
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.html
IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

MONTANA
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk.
...
(2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:
(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and, if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; and
History: En. 95-719 by Sec. 4, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-719(1) thru (3); amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 343, L. 2003.



Technically, I guess Montana doesn't really count as it only applies to the driver of a vehicle, who's usually required to have a valid license to drive readily available.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Note on the above: That applies Strictly and Only to "Stop and Identify" and the requirement to present a document. I believe there is more than one state that requires a driving license (or other state identification document) to be carried and presented when carrying a firearm.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,946
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Many mentions of Terry in the annotations of case law below.

§ 968.24  Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486...............

The legislature has a history of using "and" when the context shows it means "or." "And" in statutes is not always interpreted as a conjunctive term. It is a familiar rule of construction that the words "or" and "and" are often used incorrectly, and that when a strict reading would render the sense dubious one may be read in place of the other, in deference to the meaning of the context. State v. Freer, 2010 WI App 9, 323 Wis. 2d 29, 779 N.W.2d 12, 08-2233.

Based on Hiibel the "and" means "or." "may demand the name or address of the person....."

This statement "explanation of the person's conduct" would violate my 5th. amendment rights.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Earlier I was just hitting the high points on stop-and-identify. But, since we're now this deep into it, lets really provide some info. Not that posters above are not, but there is still some missing picture.

There are at least three main court cases that deal with stop-and-identify. I'll touch on each, and cite each so interested readers can look them up on Cornell University's law website (my favorite for formatting readability), or Google Scholar (kinda like finding Google Maps, just select Scholar instead).

Brown vs Texas. Texas had a statute requiring somebody to identify himself to a cop. A cop demanded somebody's identity, and arrested that somebody when he refused. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The court said, in so many words, the statute was invalid because the statute did not require the cop to have genuine reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to detain a suspect in the first place. In effect, the statute allowed any cop to seize (detain) anybody in Texas just to demand his name. SCOTUS said no. In Brown, SCOTUS said, in so many words, that a cop can't just up and detain anybody just to obtain their name; first the cop must have RAS. Meaning, the cop first must have legitimate reason to detain the person. I suspect this case is the reason we often see verbiage in stop-and-identify statutes and ordinances about suspicion and public concern and so forth.

Kollender vs Lawson. California had a statute that said in effect that if somebody was detained by cop and did not provide proof of identity satisfactory to the cop, he committed an offense. SCOTUS said no. Too much latitude for the cop. What if all the guy had on him for proof of identity was an old electric bill? What if that particular cop was not satisfied with an old electric bill? Then, under the statute, the detainee could be penalized for violating the statute. So, SCOTUS said no. I suspect this case is behind the verbiage we see in statutes that say, "...drivers license or state-issued ID card if in possession at that time." The state can't specify giving over to the cop a drivers license or state ID card because not everybody has a drivers license or state ID card and they would violation of the statute when the cop demanded an identity document. Thus, the weasel language we see in state statutes today referring to "if in his possession." Occasionally you will hear or read someone say that Kollender stands for the idea that we don't have to carry ID. A careful reading of the case shows that is not quite accurate. Using high precision, Kollender stands for the idea that a state can't hand that much discretion to a cop. Down at the street-wise level Kollender stands for the idea that the dang state or locality might set you up by writing a statute requiring a particular identity document if you have it on you at the time you are detained.

One solution to this problem, long advocated by Supermoderator and Founder Mike is "sterile carry", which means OCing without identity documents. Meaning, if OCing in a state where no license is required to OC, just leave your wallet in the car while OCing in the grocery store, etc. Just take along the cash you need to make the purchase.

Hiibel vs 6h Judicial District Court. Already covered in posts above, so I'll be really succinct. Hiibel stands for the idea that the courts consider that it is not a violation of your right to remain silent for a statute to demand you verbally identify yourself to a police officer who is legally detaining you.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,946
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I believe that you may be confusing grammatic AND conjunction ∧ with logical OR, that may be XOR exclusive disjunction ⊻, or OR inclusive disjunction ∨.
Did you not read the case I posted? - State v. Freer

Ohio spells it out in the statutes. ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.)

Since Wisconsin does not spell it out statutorily so the court has.

The legislature has a history of using "and" when the context shows it means "or." "And" in statutes is not always interpreted as a conjunctive term. It is a familiar rule of construction that the words "or" and "and" are often used incorrectly, and that when a strict reading would render the sense dubious one may be read in place of the other, in deference to the meaning of the context.
State v. Freer, 2010 WI App 9, 323 Wis. 2d 29, 779 N.W.2d 12, 08-2233.
 
Top