Virginia Requirement To Provide ID To Police?

[Thundar]

Stafford Stop and Identify Law

Sec. 17-7. - Loitering; failure to give name and address to law enforcement officer under certain circumstances.
(a)
For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them herein:
(1)
Loiter shall mean to stand around or remain, or to park or remain parked in a motor vehicle, at a public place or place open to the public and to engage in any conduct prohibited under this section. "Loiter" also means to collect, gather, congregate or be a member of a group or a crowd of people gathered together in any public place or place open to the public and to engage in any conduct prohibited under this section.
(2)
Public place shall mean any public street, road, highway, alley, lane, sidewalk, crosswalk or other public way or any public resort, place of amusement, park, playground, public building or grounds appurtenant thereto, school building or school grounds, public parking lot or any other publicly-owned property.
(3)
Place open to the public shall mean any place open to the public or any place to which the public is invited or may reasonably expect to be invited, including areas in, on or around any privately-owned place of business, private parking lot, private institution, place of worship, cemetery and any place of amusement and entertainment, whether or not a charge of admission or entry thereto is made. The term includes the elevators, lobbies, halls, corridors and areas open to the public of any store, office or apartment building.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at, on or in a public place open to the public in such manner as to:
(1)
Interfere, impede or hinder the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, [1] or
(2)
Threaten or do physical harm to another member or members of the public; or
(3)
Threaten or do physical harm to the property of another member or members of the public; or
(4)
Create, by words, acts or other conduct, a present danger of a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct.
(c)
It shall be unlawful 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 law-enforcement officer or a properly identified law-enforcement officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
(d)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit orderly picketing or other lawful assembly.
(e)
Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1979, § 19-38)

Cross reference— Penalty for class 1 misdemeanor, § 1-11.

 

[Grapeshot]

Sec. 17-7. - Loitering; failure to give name and address to law enforcement officer under certain circumstances.
(a)
For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them herein:
(1)
Loiter shall mean to stand around or remain, or to park or remain parked in a motor vehicle, at a public place or place open to the public and to engage in any conduct prohibited under this section. "Loiter" also means to collect, gather, congregate or be a member of a group or a crowd of people gathered together in any public place or place open to the public and to engage in any conduct prohibited under this section.
(2)
Public place shall mean any public street, road, highway, alley, lane, sidewalk, crosswalk or other public way or any public resort, place of amusement, park, playground, public building or grounds appurtenant thereto, school building or school grounds, public parking lot or any other publicly-owned property.
(3)
Place open to the public shall mean any place open to the public or any place to which the public is invited or may reasonably expect to be invited, including areas in, on or around any privately-owned place of business, private parking lot, private institution, place of worship, cemetery and any place of amusement and entertainment, whether or not a charge of admission or entry thereto is made. The term includes the elevators, lobbies, halls, corridors and areas open to the public of any store, office or apartment building.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at, on or in a public place open to the public in such manner as to:
(1)
Interfere, impede or hinder the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, [1] or
(2)
Threaten or do physical harm to another member or members of the public; or
(3)
Threaten or do physical harm to the property of another member or members of the public; or
(4)
Create, by words, acts or other conduct, a present danger of a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct.
(c)
It shall be unlawful 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 law-enforcement officer or a properly identified law-enforcement officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
(d)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit orderly picketing or other lawful assembly.
(e)
Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1979, § 19-38)

Cross reference— Penalty for class 1 misdemeanor, § 1-11.

Bolding is mine.

 

[OC for ME]

Bolding is mine.

Unfortunately, your, and likely mine, definition of what a reasonable man is is likely far different than a cops or a member of the judges guild.

 

[Citizen]

Bolding is mine.

What is your point? You underlined "if" as though there is something important about the word if in that context.

Every stop-and-identify statute or ordinance I've ever read included some version of that clause. It is the way they comply with Brown v Texas, the SCOTUS decision that said in so many words that a cop must first have genuine RAS before demanding identity.

A couple points immediately jump to mind.

First, no ordinance or statute is going to get far if it runs afoul of Brown v Texas and subsequent rulings, for example, Kolender v Lawson and Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court. It's not like SCOTUS is gonna let a local ordinance re-write Fourth Amendment case law. That is to say, those cases control. Not the wording of the ordinance.

Second, the clause that follows "if" brings us right back to the long post I gave above about trying to guess whether the cop has genuine RAS. Even if we treat the clause that follows if as literally functionally different from RAS, the detainee still has the same problem guessing whether "the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification."

Third, there is a spike driving in from another direction. (Commonwealth v Christian?) where the VA Court of Appeals ruled that the legality of a detention is not something that gets decided on the street. This was the case where the defendant judged correctly that the cop had no legitimate reason to hold him, and tried to leave. The cop seized his body; while thrashing to squirm away, his elbow caught the cop in the face or chest, so he was charged with assaulting the cop. The VA Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, rationalizing there is no right to resist an illegal detention. If you can't resist an illegal detention, you can't resist being arrested for refusing to sign the citation for the Class I misdemeanor of refusing to identify. RAS gets sorted out later in court. The courts certainly are not going to let the detainee decide during the detention whether the RAS is legitimate. Nor are they going to let the detainee decide during the detention whether "the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification."

 

[Grapeshot]

What is your point? You underlined "if" as though there is something important about the word if in that context.
--snipped--

Well if it got someone's attention and generated thought, then it was productive.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Citizen]

Well if it got someone's attention and generated thought, then it was productive.

Thank you for your response.

You're welcome.

Now, did you have an answer as to what your actual point was? You were not asked whether it was productive.

 

[Grapeshot]

You're welcome.

Now, did you have an answer as to what your actual point was? You were not asked whether it was productive.

The point is obviously that I choose to stimulate thought, whether or not anyone asked me to do so. That is one of the things I do.

I was neither asked if it was productive or not - that was volunteered.

Oh well, I won't loose sleep over it.

 

[solus]

The point is obviously that I choose to stimulate thought, whether or not anyone asked me to do so. That is one of the things I do.

I was neither asked if it was productive or not - that was volunteered.

Oh well, I won't loose sleep over it.

IF you were to lose sleep, please note i am volunteering sidestreet to croon outside your bedroom window as this tone deaf musican lightly beats, from afar, the mellow garbage can timba to accompany him.

please note, in case you do not like or appreciate sidestreet's selection, we will be in flack gear from head to toe...:shocker:

cant, due to lack of restful & peaceful sleep, have a crank super mod roaming the forum's byways ...

ipse

being proactive here even tho i wasnt asked

 

[OC for ME]

The point is obviously that I choose to stimulate thought, whether or not anyone asked me to do so. That is one of the things I do.

I was neither asked if it was productive or not - that was volunteered.

Oh well, I won't loose sleep over it.

It would be more productive and stimulating to stimulate thought on when this law can not be applied, not when it can be applied. Like (b) (1-4)...stimulating...I'm thinking...no?

 

[Grapeshot]

It would be more productive and stimulating to stimulate thought on when this law can not be applied, not when it can be applied. Like (b) (1-4)...stimulating...I'm thinking...no?

You can't have one......without the oooother.

Viewer intelligent analysis optional.

 

[wrearick]

Virginia Beach: 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.

(Ord. No. 1570, 12-16-85)

Thank you for researching this Thundar!

 

[Thundar]

Thank you for researching this Thundar!

You are welcome Wrearick!

It was a quick and dirty search of Municode. Do not assume that for cities, towns or counties not listed that there is not a stupid stop and identify law.

 

[Thundar]

The interesting thing about all of the stop and identify laws that I found is that in every case the crime required the use of a justification clause (if the surrounding circumstances...). This means that you were already detained.

Stop and identify laws really are a difficult problem for those that assert their civil rights. You will not know what justification the police have when they demand that you identify yourself. If the police officer thinks his justification passes the RAS test, and you do not give your name (and in some cities address) then they have met their probable cause threshold to arrest you. Even in the cities where failure to identify is a class 3 misdemeanor, the police officer will arrest you and take you to jail because he cannot issue a summons because you have not identified yourself.

Your friends in a stop and identify city or county:

Am I detained?

Voice recorder

sterile carry

 

[Va_Nemo]

Some may find this of interest.

Nemo

An Unconstitutional Arrest for Refusing To Show ID to the Cops

In an important win for Fourth Amendment advocates, a Virginia man's arrest for refusing to show identification to the police...

reason.com

 

[BB62]

Excellent ruling generally, but BS on the granting of qualified immunity. How frustrating & idiotic.

Thanks Nemo.