If you meet a police officer, do you have to show ID if they ask?

[uppityperson]

Is this a good thing or bad thing? No receipts here, just if a police officer stops you as you walk down the street, or if you are watching people hassle each other, or for any reason at all or no reason except you and the officer are near each other. Do you have to show ID?

Edited to add that I know some really nice cops and this is not supposed to be bashing cops, but asking about the system, are we, should we, be required to show ID.

Re-edited to ask that this be combined with already going thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1746569

[daninthemoon]

1. Only if you are exiting walmart.

[uppityperson]

2. only Walmart? I stay away from those. How about in a park?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. There Was A Supreme Court Case

I forgot how it was resolved...

I was in a car accident which wasn't my fault and didn't have my license with me... I gave the cop my dob and name and he was able to get the info he needed...

[hashibabba]

18. Yes, I've seen that before and have even seen it on *Cops*

But when I lived in Florida, I think we had to have the state I.D. card if we didn't have a license.

Most cops are just following the law and doing their jobs. Of course, there are a few a-holes, but go to any company and you're sure to find a few too.

[pnwmom]

19. I believe it was resolved to say -- yes, you do. Unfortunately,

typical of this court.

[hfojvt]

58. is that if you are driving, or walking?

I think it was about having to identify yourself, Not the same thing as showing ID (although there are penalties mandated, I believe, for falsely identifying yourself). You are required to have a driver's license and to carry it when you drive, but walkers are not required to carry ID - that I know of.

[T Wolf]

4. Legally, it may vary by locale. In reality, of course you do if you want to

avoid arrest and assault.

[lonestarnot]

5. Avoid doing so at your own peril.

[uppityperson]

6. So if I take my dog for a walk I need to carry ID? Wild.

What a world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Depends On The Cop And Circumstances

As you see I was driving without my license, got hit by some fool backing up without looking at a gas station, and the cop filled out the report without it...

[shain from kane]

20. How do they know whether it's your dog, or you're someone's dog? Does the dog have to have an I.D,

to match yours?

[uppityperson]

27. Only if it is a big headed dog (OMG!!!!1 pitbull!!!111)

[lonestarnot]

79. No you don't.

[BeFree]

8. If

You can't prove that you are 'somebody' you can be thrown in jail for showing no signs of visible support, because you must then be a threat to society.

Thank Gawd this country has made so much progress, eh?

[daninthemoon]

9. No idea about the law, but the cops on "Cops" sure seem to

get serious about it.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Ask a real lawyer, preferably a criminal lawyer, about...

Terry searches. Terry v. Ohio set the standard for stop and frisk searches, and is the basis for whatever law now prevails when a cop stops you on the street.

Whatever the law, however, the cop is the one with the gun, tha handcuffs, and a lot of frinds. It is not always the best course of action to piss off the cop and try to straighten it out later in
court.

[mdmc]

11. If I have it on me

As a pot smoker I tend to comply as much as I can....

[Hydra]

12. You'll have to dig

But I think one of the Patriot Act provisions said this specifically- state ID or DL when demanded.

I remember because there was a fuss made a few years ago because a Lady was arrested quite violently off a bus that was traveling through a "sensitive area" when she refused to show her ID. One of the posters who I respect for knowing the laws said that PATRIOT covered this, and why was she so surprised?

[wuushew]

13. Cops are assholes

turn your back and walk away. How is any police officer going to "prove" you didn't hear him. Its not possible.

[uppityperson]

15. Some cops are, not all though. Walk away? Good luck with that.

Speaking of assholes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Are You Serious?

What do you expect the cop to do?

You're going to end up tackled and under arrest...

[wuushew]

21. I fought the law and I won

Walking away is not the same as resisting an officer. Do cops like dealing with conduct hearings and reprimands? I wouldn't think so. I have gotten an officer fired before so don't say complaining doesn't pay dividends.

I have dealt with the exact scenario the OP described. As I am well beyond both the age of minority and the drinking age, how can not be insulted when I local cop asks who I am when I am headed home from the yearly town festival?


People need to fight for their rights.


On Edit, the police firing was for a separate incident. Luckily I was with the mayor's kid so when we were all handcuffed at gun point that move was not good for that guys career.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. OK

I am walking... A cop stops me and asks for my license... I ignore him and keep walking...

What is the probability he just lets me walk away?

[uppityperson]

29. bzzzzzzttttt

[wuushew]

35. Why is violence acceptable for refusing to talk to someone?

Your inner libertarian should make use of the massive numbers of lawyers in this country both to seek policy change or for monetary compensation.


Cops will never respect boundaries unless they are constantly defined.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I'm Not Turning My Back On A Man With A Gun Who Asks Me To Stop

eom

[wuushew]

55. Are you saying you fear getting shot in the back?

you are not violent and not threating other people or property.

If something bad happens it because the police did not exercise professional conduct. The very act of illustrating such events serves the public interest. Don't let fear stop your level of civic activism.

[uppityperson]

63. I fear them shooting or tasing me. Even if afterwards they say "oh, wrong thing", still am

shot/tased.

[TX-RAT]

66. Very bad advice, and a good way to go to jail.

[Bitwit1234]

14. Supposing you don't drive

Angela Lansbury doesn't drive. She never did, will she had to show a driver's license. I don't even carry a picture ID> Why should I..

[uppityperson]

17. Because it is the law and if you don't you are impeding a law officer in their duty.

[Indenturedebtor]

24. All back to the war on drugs

It has made all of us potential criminals. Add the terra thing to that, stir in a legal system that sustains itself from fines, and you have a police state. It's a good thing that we have an informed and politically active citizenry or we'd really be in trouble. This whole thing is gonna blow over any day now ;)

[Hekate]

30. Before I got a driver's license I got a State ID card so I could write checks.Simple as that.

It had my photo and signature on it, as well as similiar information to a driver's license. Everywhere you go in the shopping world people want to see your license as a convenient means of identification before accepting your check, and if you don't drive you are quite inconvenienced.

However, the notion of producing ID on demand for the cops without them having some kind of "probable cause" is just creepy. It may be legal for them to do so, but I find it chilling -- kind of like having a wall at our borders.

Hekate

[Left Is Write]

64. I got my driver's license at 19. Before that, I had a state-issued ID card.

It looked similar to a driver's license, but the heading was Non-Driver ID.

[justanaveragedude]

22. I'm going to research it but..

I believe that you are required to honestly identify yourself when asked to do so by a police officer in the course of his duty. I don't believe that you are required to always have your photo id with you to prove who you are. You are just expected by law to tell the truth when asked.

However, in the state of FL you are required to surrender your DL if you are pulled over by a cop and request that you do so. To not do so is breaking the law. This based on be able to drive is a privilege, not a right.

[VP505]

23. Nope

next question?

[pnwmom]

31. Wrong, unfortunately. See post 28, below. n/t

[VP505]

41. Bullshit

you have to identify yourself, that's different from showing an ID card read the ruling again. http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/news/index.php?contentID=52

[ComerPerro]

26. no, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't just because you don't have to

[pnwmom]

28. Here's the Supreme Court case. You have to provide I.D. if asked. Scary.

However, this assumes you live in a state that has a law like Nevada's. I don't know how many do.

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/news/index.php?contentID=52

The U. S. Supreme Court has upheld the ruling by Union Township Justice of the Peace Gene Wambolt that citizens are subject to arrest and criminal conviction if they fail to identify themselves when asked by law enforcement officers. The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ challenging the decision by a 4-3 vote.

The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down June 21 affirms the Nevada law that allows the government to arrest and punish people who refuse to cooperate by revealing their identities.


And background here:

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/03/20/66724.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News&sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=local_news

Humboldt County Deputy Lee Dove told Hiibel he had received a report of some fighting going on between him and the young woman in the passenger seat.
Then Dove asked: “You got any identification on you?”
“No,” Hiibel responded. “Why should I have an ID?”
Dove said he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some.
“Why?” Hiibel asked. “Am I illegally parked?”
The verbal jostling on that May 2000 evening near Winnemucca continued with Hiibel refusing 11 requests for ID until Dove placed him under arrest.
Police initially threatened Hiibel with a domestic battery charge, but he was convicted of only one offense: resisting an officer by refusing to show his identification, a misdemeanor. He was fined $250.

SNIP

[Hydra]

36. I just read the brief

And it forces you to identify yourself, no mention of proof of identity.

[pnwmom]

37. I don't understand that, because the charge

was that he failed to "show" proof of identity. From the RGJ article in post 28,

"Police initially threatened Hiibel with a domestic battery charge, but he was convicted of only one offense: resisting an officer by refusing to show his identification, a misdemeanor. He was fined $250."

[Hydra]

40. Here's what I got

"Mr. Hiibel was standing beside a truck where his daughter was sitting when he was approached by the officer. After refusing 11 requests by Deputy Lee Dove for his identity on May 21, 2000, Mr. Hiibel was arrested and charged with failing to identify himself."

and

"Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.”"

And while I agree with that, I think it's being deliberately being interpreted broadly. As I posted earlier, check the PATRIOT act. I think the provision is in there. This precedent would be shaky to use on anyone who identified themselves voluntarily.

[huskerlaw]

51. Please read the whole case...

Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer "credible and reliable" identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) ("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207.

-Justice Kennedy, delivering the opinion of the US Supreme Court in LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554#opinion1

If your state has a stop and identify statute, you have to state your name. You do NOT have to produce a driver's license.

[pnwmom]

57. Not exactly. I don't think it's that cut and dry.

In states with laws like Nevada's, it is. But if another state has a broader law -- one that actually requires you to show ID -- then it hasn't yet been tested.

[huskerlaw]

60. True it hasn't been tested,

but the Supreme Court made a point of saying that they were ruling that way specifically because Nevada's law was so narrowly construed. The pretty easy translation there is that they would not support a broader law. Of course, we have a different Supreme Court now, so who knows.

Regardless, the answer, today, is still no, you do NOT have to show your driver's license. And so it shall remain unless/until the Supreme Court, or the highest court in your jurisdiction, decides otherwise.

[pnwmom]

72. What you should have said is that you don't have to show your I.D. IF

you don't mind being convicted and becoming the next Supreme Court test case for an ID law.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. In Texas you do.

Personally, I find it to be an asinine law.

I posted here how it caused a night of hell for my SO and myself.

[pnwmom]

39. Interesting, because it wasn't listed as one of the states with such a law.

So the list (at post 38) must be incorrect -- unless they arrested him on the basis of a law that doesn't exist.

Might be worth checking into.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. To be honest this was a few years ago

I don't know if it's still in effect, but I will check.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

68. I see where the problem was

In Texas they can legally detain you if you don't provide ID and they feel you are suspicious of committing an offense but they cannot arrest you. It is then up to you to prove you are who you said you are if they are unable to find the information out for themselves.

In your reference below it was a matter of being arrested rather than detained. Which would mean that even if they can later prove who you were or that you had not committed an offense, you've broken the law by not providing a valid ID.


I may have misread the intention of the OP when I thought my situation applied.

[suffragette]

33. Found this on the Supreme Court Case and more from ACLU

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html

Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police


(FindLaw) -- In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel.

Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.

Hiibel -- who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity -- believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name.

But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated. (The high court's ruling)

In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties.

I think I remember cases before this that were decided the opposite way, but I could be mistaken. Wasn't there an old case that involved a man from San Diego a long time ago that went the other way. We have definitely entered a new era, one with fewer rights than before.


From ACLU:
Know Your Rights: What to Do If You're Stopped by the Police (7/30/2004)
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html

From the date, it looks like they updated this info after the above case.

[MadHound]

42. Key words in there

"Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". Since when does walking down the street constitute "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"? So in answer to the OP's question, the answer is no.

If you were walking funny, vocalizing loudly, or some other such thing that drunks do at times, or otherwise looking suspicious, yes, you have to provide an ID. But not for just walking down the street.

[suffragette]

52. I agree with you

And in looking at this more closely, it does look like they defined this narrowly. But it still seems to me like a further chipping away at privacy rights.


From http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html
(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 167—171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3—6.

AND

(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10—13.

118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

[durrrty libby]

34. In some states you can be arrested as a vagrant if you can not produce a valid ID

[pnwmom]

38. In at least these 21 states, you do. . .

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/news/index.php?contentID=52

Nevada is one of 21 states with laws requiring persons stopped by police to identify themselves. The other states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.

[sinkingfeeling]

70. In Arkansas, you must identify who you are, but are not required to provide ID.

[ThomWV]

43. HELL NO! You don't have to tell anyone a god dam thing about yourself, including your name

We are not a police state just yet and we will never become one unless people lay down and take shit.

[pnwmom]

48. People in W.V. don't have to, but in 22 other states they do.

The laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

[renie408]

49. Don't attack me...but why wouldn't you? I mean, what is so bad about

having to identify yourself? I am not saying it isn't wrong, I am just not sure I understand WHY it is wrong. The only thing I can think that would be bad is if they automatically arrested you for being unable to identify yourself. They can't do that, can they?

[wuushew]

56. Maybe because you value your time and or privacy?

Also making other people irritated can lead to increased levels of self-satisfaction.

[LSK]

44. this was posted deep in my thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

[Balbus]

46. False premise

If you meet a cop there is always a reason. If the cop is at your car window and you have a police car behind you with flashing lights, the cop is there because they believe you committed some sort of traffic violation - so show your I.D. If you just witnessed an assault or a violent crime, the cop is there in order to take your statement as a witness - so show your I.D. If you're carrying a bag full of money out of the bank while wearing a ski mask, then the cop is there to arrest you - you'll have to show I.D. eventually so might as well get it out of the way.

[pnwmom]

54. That's not actually true.

The cop might be merely HOPING he could find something. I was stopped once, on a move to another state, and was never accused of any traffic violation or anything. The cop wanted to search the trailer we were pulling. I let him because I was tired, basically, and just wanted to get home. (It was 2 a.m.) When the broom and the ironing board fell on him he just closed up the back and said I could go. It was then that he mentioned that he had been looking for alcohol and cigarettes -- apparently he was suspicious because of the out of state license plates on the U-haul trailer.

[Balbus]

71. "he had been looking for alcohol and cigarettes..."

There's the reason. Now whether the reason is legitimate or valid, I'm not going to argue with you or the poster below because I'd lose - some cops are shifty.

[pnwmom]

73. But this is what you said:

"If the cop is at your car window and you have a police car behind you with flashing lights, the cop is there because they believe you committed some sort of traffic violation - so show your I.D. "

And that wasn't true. When we asked why we were stopped, all he said was that he wanted to look in our trailer. No traffic violation, no vehicle problem -- nothing but a fishing expedition.

And in that state, at that time, that cop did not have a right to stop us under those circumstances. (A lawyer friend confirmed this later.) And I knew this, but I just wanted to go home and get to bed.

[uppityperson]

65. Wrong. They can stop you without a valid reason.

If I am walking my dog, perhaps they will stop and ask for my ID saying "oh, you look like you might be casing a joint" or some such. They can always come up with something (there was a robbery near there and you are a person of same skin color, is your dog licensed, etc)

[hfojvt]

67. I have met cops on Sunday afternoons while waiting to enter the library

(apparently this yokel had never seen a walkman (in 1990)) I met another cop while walking to church on Sunday morning (he did not stop to talk with me, but he was making a left turn at an intersection when I walked by on his right side and cross the street. Suddenly he makes a right turn instead and drives around the block of the parking lot I was cutting across (apparently looking for traffic before you cross a street is suspicious behaviour, or I just look like a thug)) I met another one when I was walking home from the grocery store at 2 in the morning. I kept getting pulled over here on my way home from work for failing to use my turn signal - mainly, again, it was 4 in the morning and they had nothing better to do.

[pnwmom]

75. And I was stopped on two different occasions

for driving my older model car into my parent's neighborhood. No reason -- when they saw the address on the license was a block away, they let me go. I think my offense was not having a fancy enough car.

[hfojvt]

78. I call that DWP

"Driving While Poor" although it really could be DWMC

[catmandu57]

50. I really don't have one

I've got an old long expired drivers license that I keep in my wallet, I suppose that would work, it sucks though the drug war started this mess. Fucking st ronnie started the rape of the constitution and chimpolini is burning it.

[huskerlaw]

53. No, you do not.

Please see post #51

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I'm Complying And Will Report Him Or Her Later

I'm not playing games with a man or woman with a gun, mace, handcuffs, and the power of arrest...

[huskerlaw]

61. That's fine...that's your choice

The answer still remains that by law, you do not have to. Whether it's intelligent to fight the cop is another question entirely.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. American Skin

41 shots, Lena gets her son ready for school
She says now on these streets Charles
You got to understand the rules
*If an officer stops you promise me you'll always be polite*
Never ever run away and promise mama you'll keep your hands in sight

http://www.mymp3lyrics.com/artist-bruce_springsteen/song-american_skin_(41_shots).html

[sinkingfeeling]

69. I guess it depends on what state law says. In Ohio and Arkansas, the legal answer is 'no'.

However, it would appear that most police officers do not know those laws or will arrest you for something else if you refuse.

[12string]

74. showing your identification

In washington state it is punishible by up to a year in prison
for not having your identification on your person.

[slackmaster]

76. If you are driving on a public road, yes

Otherwise, no; but you are likely asking for a hassle.

[truebrit71]

77. Never mind.

Fuck it...welcome to the Fatherland...ihre papeiren bitte