Police asking for your.... papers?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**generalgrog**

We have kind of touched on this issue but I don't think directly tackled the issue of police "random" check points asking people for their ID's.

I've been watching some of those youtube videos where people are filming the police acting quite badly when U.S. citizens refuse to present their ID when asked. It does raise a few questions:
1) As US citizens we are not required to provide ID unless the police have a "reasonable" suspicion(not sure of terms are right).
2) Police can lie to people to manipulate them. I.E.
Police officer... can I see your ID.
Citezen..Do I have to show you?
Officer.... yes you do........(Lie)
Citizen......what have I done?
Officer.......It doesn't matter let me see your ID
Citizen....I'm pretty sure I need to be suspected of commiting a crime
etc..etc..

some of the videos show how vindictive police officers can get when US citizens express their constitutional rights, and also they hate it when they are being filmed.

Here is a video of a guy beaten and tased for no reason. He went to trial and was found not guilty..not sure if he is sueing or not.

another incident of police over reaction..

I don't know the laws on this issue that's why I am posting these here..because I am very disturbed by the seeming lack of respect for US citizens rights.

GG

**Jihadin**

We're off to the races

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
We're off to the races

Where?!?!?
(looks sheepishly side-to-side)
No weiner dogs!?! Bah!

**KalashnikovMarine**

In some states you do have a duty to present your identification to a LEO if asked. I couldn't tell you which off the top of my head but it is state dependent.

Green card and Visa holders are required by federal law to have their visa/green card/etc on them at all times and to present them when asked by a LEO/Immigration agent/etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay dug some info up:

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Variations_in_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_laws

Variations in “stop and identify” laws

Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:

In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.

Identifying information varies, but typically includes

Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.

In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.

and here's a very well written article by a gentleman named Jerry Bray, the senior legal advisor to the Plano, TX police department that covers it all pretty well: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007

So from most of this it is in fact criminal to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer to some extent or another, I'm not sure how it works for Border Patrol and the like but I assume it's no different then a mandatory traffic stop for drinking and driving. You pull up to one of those and you can't refuse to breath in the tube or step out of the car and do a little dance or whatever.

**AustonT**

I thought this would be about Arizona and was pleasantly surprised. The guys who work those checkpoints are douchetools.

**Jihadin**

Can you imagine if AZ activated their NG for 28 days to assist

talk about a kick off for the conspiracy theorists

**Mannahnin**

This is related to the AZ laws, though. Civil Libertarians should be all up in arms about both.

There are some guys up here in NH who occasionally annoy the local constabulary (not trying to be dicks, but making a point about our rights) by doing things like refusing to show ID, and/or open-carrying their handguns in public.

**Polonius**

The key is that only one state requires you produce an identifying document.

It skirts very close to the constitutional line, but I'd imagine that one's identity is essentially covered by the "plain view" doctrine.

**Jihadin**

Obedience can of ingrain in me. If a LEO ask me for ID I comply. Of course I hand my military ID over unless I'm driving then its my driver license. I don't have a problem with it since I'm so use to using my Mil ID card for about everything in the military. Like signing for equipment, pay, or what not.

**Polonius**

Jihadin wrote:
Obedience can of ingrain in me. If a LEO ask me for ID I comply. Of course I hand my military ID over unless I'm driving then its my driver license. I don't have a problem with it since I'm so use to using my Mil ID card for about everything in the military. Like signing for equipment, pay, or what not.

Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?

**Jihadin**

They ask for an ID card and you equate it to a search?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Mannahnin wrote:
This is related to the AZ laws, though. Civil Libertarians should be all up in arms about both.

There are some guys up here in NH who occasionally annoy the local constabulary (not trying to be dicks, but making a point about our rights) by doing things like refusing to show ID, and/or open-carrying their handguns in public.

The latter is definitely a cultural thing. When I open carry here in CO I get some freaked out looks and will occasionally have an officer stop and talk to me. When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.

**Jihadin**

My bad Pol I jumped the gun on the discussion thats going to follow Tuesday morning

**Polonius**

Jihadin wrote:
They ask for an ID card and you equate it to a search?

I would, yes. My ID is on my person, it is also one of my papers and/or effects. I am free from unreasonable search of my person and my papers.

If the courts hold that giving ID is a reasonable search, so be it, but they are looking for something. That is a search.

**Kaldor**

To be honest, most of the problems I've seen (and I never encountered any myself as a LEO) result not from officers getting pissed off that someone is exercising their right to not be identified, but officers getting pissed off at donkey-caves acting like donkey-caves to prove a point. To paraphrase many of the incidents I've seen:

"Can I see some ID?"

"I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU JACK, YOU STUPID PIG! NEENER NEENER, CAN'T TOUCH ME, I KNOW MY RIGHTS!"

And things generally go badly from that point.

**Grey Templar**

If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.

If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.

Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)

**Polonius**

Another bit of a loophole for ID laws is that a State can issue driver's licenses that remain state property. The idea being that since you are holding State property, they can ask for it at any time.

It's the same reason that while flag burning is constitutional, burning your draft card is not.

Still, giving your name and other info is the limit. Most of the time, cops are simply looking for somebody missing, or a witness, not a suspect.

Give your name, but don't give permission to search anything. You can always offer to look for what they want, rather than have them search. anything they find in a consensual search can be used against you.

**ShumaGorath**

Grey Templar wrote:
If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.

If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.

Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)

Driving isn't a privilege. Use of roads isn't even a privilege, since you can walk on them without a licence. The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Another bit of a loophole for ID laws is that a State can issue driver's licenses that remain state property. The idea being that since you are holding State property, they can ask for it at any time.

What states do that?

**Polonius**

Any cop that can't find cause to stop a motorist isn't trying.

**Ouze**

It depends on the state you live in, whether it has a "stop and identify" law, and how it's worded.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Give your name, but don't give permission to search anything. You can always offer to look for what they want, rather than have them search. anything they find in a consensual search can be used against you.

This, this, so much this.

**Grey Templar**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.

If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.

Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)

Driving isn't a privilege. Use of roads isn't even a privilege, since you can walk on them without a licence. The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.

What is driving if not a priviledge?

It certaintly isn't a right, nor is it a necessity(dependent on your exact circumstances)

its a privilege the government can revoke if you violate the standards. Everyone exercising it must be able to display proof of their permission to do it.

The cops do actually have the right to stop you if you are suspected of being in violation of the law. Operating a moter vehicle without a license is a violation of the law.

Naturally there is no way of telling if someone has a license or not simply be seeing them drive by. But if something else happens that warrents a stop they can and will ask for your license. But it is technically legal for them to stop you simply to ask for a drivers license.

**ShumaGorath**

What is driving if not a priviledge?

Something I can do on my own property when and how I want. The state doesn't give it's citizens the privilege of acting, the citizens give the state the authority to restrict acts based on the rule of law. What you describe is tyranny because power is derived from the top down in your example.

It certaintly isn't a right, nor is it a necessity(dependent on your exact circumstances)

Legal is the default status of an act unless otherwise specified by law. Things aren't "made legal", they are "made illegal".

The cops do actually have the right to stop you if you are suspected of being in violation of the law. Operating a moter vehicle without a license is a violation of the law.

In which case they need cause to suspect. The default state of observation is neutrality.

Naturally there is no way of telling if someone has a license or not simply be seeing them drive by. But if something else happens that warrents a stop they can and will ask for your license. But it is technically legal for them to stop you simply to ask for a drivers license.

No, it's not. They need cause to suspect that you've broken a law, otherwise it's an illegal search. Can they post facto make up something that they suspected in order to justify what would otherwise have been an abuse of their authority? Sure. But it isn't lawful for them to stop you simply because they've got nothing better to do.

**Grey Templar**

ShumaGorath wrote:
What is driving if not a priviledge?

Something I can do on my own property when and how I want. The state doesn't give it's citizens the privilege of acting, the citizens give the state the authority to restrict acts based on the rule of law. What you describe is tyranny because power is derived from the top down in your example.

There are no restrictions on operating vehicles on your own property. You don't need a license to do that. You do need a license to drive on public roads.

Licenses are State Property. The State may demand their property of you at any time.

Heck, credit and debit cards are not your property. They remain the property of the institution that issued them.

**Kaldor**

ShumaGorath wrote:
The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.

In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.

**youbedead**

Kaldor wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.

In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.

Well you are all descended from criminal scum

**nomotog**

The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.

I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.

**Grey Templar**

youbedead wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.

In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.

Well you are all descended from criminal scum

Even the police

**KalashnikovMarine**

nomotog wrote:
The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.

I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.

Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them

**Khornholio**

I was asked by some sort of special 'official', not related to the airline I was using, at an airport in Canada recently for my boarding pass and my itinerary after I had already passed through security....just like the old CCCP.

**nomotog**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
nomotog wrote:
The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.

I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.

Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them

Unless I'm driving (or voting ), I can't think of a reason to have my license. That's really all it's good for.