I was in ca. I was used to being pulled over, in which case they searched my car and found nothing, but turned it into a rolling dumpster. I guess I looked like someone that didn't fit in. But any way, I was pulled over, I got out of my car, dropped the keys on the driver's seat and locked them in the car. The police were searching me and asked "where are the keys " and another cop said "he locked them in the car " at which I was asked "what did you that for " to which I answered "to keep you out "
So in "stop and ID" states the cops only need "reasonable suspicion" to demand your identity and they don't even have to tell you what their "reasonable suspicion" is. That means they can make up some BS reason after the fact. Good work around the 4th Amendment.
I was near Las Vegas parked inside a recreational area when a cop pulls up. He claims someone called in and he's doing a welfare check on me. I say I'm fine so leave but then he demands to see my ID. I ask why and he says welfare check requires ID. I say hell no and say you need reasonable suspicion of a crime to get ID. He says I'm "off-roading in a sedan..." claiming this is a crime, even though I was clearly parked. I tell him that's not a crime and he says it is. We go back and forth for about 30 minutes then he says "I'll just get it when you leave" and drives away which was obviously a threat to pull me over illegally. But he never got my ID cause he had no RAS. Just goes to show these jerks will do anything to violate your rights.
The only problem I can see with this is "reasonable suspicion". This is far too easy to get around for cops who don't care to follow the laws they are sworn to uphold. A lying cop will always be believed ahead of even the most upstanding citizen.
Cops should have to verbally explain WHY (probable cause) they stopped you at that time. Unfortunately, some people are viewed as "suspicious" just for existing. Police harassment is REAL.
Steve, you might find this interesting. I live in Florida. I was running near my neighborhood. I was about two miles from my home in a rural area along a country road. The nearest house was around a half mile away. I was nearing the end of that road to where it met a second country road. A sheriff's car passed my going the opposite direction. After they passed I stopped to retie my long pants as it was a cold day and my pants were loose from the 5 miles I had already run. After I retied my pants I continued my run around the corner. I was about 25 yards down that road when I heard the bleep of their siren. I stopped and turned around to see two deputy sheriffs coming towards me. They asked who I was and for ID. I gave them my name, and told them I was running and had no ID bur they could come to my home and I had plenty there. They were not being nice about it. They continued to question me. I told them I had been running this area for 20 years. I then asked them why did they stop me? "We saw you putting something in your pants." was the reply. WTF! I was getting cold so I said to them " I'm a trauma surgeon and I see a lots of officers at the hospital ER." At that point they said I could leave, and not very nicely. What if I was putting something into my pants, so what? Was this stop justified in any way? Thank you!
A friend of mine was stopped for jaywalking. He refused to give his name for some time. When he did give his name, the cop was angry. His name? Jay Walker.
OK, Steve, I witnessed a scenario where A guy I work with was eating lunch in a park across from our offices. Someone in the park reported to the cops that they were assaulted. The suspects description could have been my coworker, but there was no way he was involved as he had been in the office prior to the call to police, and only entered the park (to eat) after the alleged assault. Now, unbeknownst to my coworker, his son had taken(without his permission) his car out for a few joyrides, and been caught on speed cameras twice going over the limit. When the tickets were mailed to my coworkers address, the son took the tickets and hid/destroyed them without his dad's knowledge. Now, back to the park, my coworker was approached by a cop who told him he needed to identify himself in connection to the assault that took place earlier. Coworker initially argued with the cop that he didnt do anything and had no reason to interact with the cops. They detained him under the stop and ID law in our area, at which point my coworker complied. He was found to have two outstanding warrants from his sons actions, and was arrested for those warrants... If he wasnt forced to ID himself based solely on a physical likeness, he never would have been arrested for his sons transgressions.... how would you view his constitutional 5th amendment rights in this scenario, being that he had nothing to do with the cops current investigation, but by forcing him to comply by giving his name, he was arrested for a warrant he truly didn't even suspect he might have on his record?
Oklahoma has no statute. Oh, and I was called for jury duty. During voir dire, the defense lawyer asked me what my favorite TV show was. I told her "Lehto's Law" on RU-vid. I was dismissed. Go figure.
NYPD jailed me when I wouldn't show ID. They said that they were not investigating any crime, etc., they were merely doing the check randomly. Apparently I was mistaken in believing the Constitution protected me from having to prove my innocence; and, to be left unmolested. I video taped the exchange - me asking if they suspected a crime, etc. - but later told by lawyers it would cost too much with no likely gain... So, I voted with my feet and left the USA for good. Best decision of my life.
I'm not disagreeing with your decision, but leaving in this case really don't count as a vote, just a personal decision, regardless of the legality of people being allowed to change country it is physically impossible for the entire country to just move, either financially, or just based on the other countries right to limit immigrants, we are a captive people as in the vast majority will stay where they are born, and even if as maximum amount of people left every year it still would do no more then hurt the chances of fixing such laws because we now have even less voters against it
In Nevada, they may only compel you to give your first and last name. They may NOT demand you to produce a driver license, unless you are driving a car. There is no law requiring someone walking down the street in Nevada, to carry a driver license. Doesn't stop them from attempting to bully people into thinking so, though.
I live in Illinois, with a Stop & ID law for persons in public places. A menacing policeman demanded I identify myself in my own curtilage in the dark (I was retrieving an insurance paper from my own car, parked directly next to my house on a long private driveway). I said I was the homeowner and that he was trespassing on my curtilage, and to leave. I got arrested solely on a vague anonymous called-in complaint about an alleged moving violation, but later had the case thrown out for lack of specificity regarding probable cause... Police knowingly used a false name as the name of the complainant-witness. The prosecutor later apologized, but the police were unrepentant. The arresting officer was very slow to identify himself, instead shining lights in my eyes and screaming orders at me even though I was well within my curtilage and not driving. Now I now what it feels like to be Driving while Black (although I was Dwelling as White): traumatizing.
Back in the mid-1990's my daughter and boyfriend came up to Michigan from Indiana to pick me up and go back to their place in Indiana. My daughter was driving, boyfriend was setting in the front passenger seat and I was setting in the rear passenger seat. My daughter was pulled over by a Michigan State trooper on US 12, he said the car had a headlight not working. He asked for her driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. He then asked if her boyfriend had ID, to which he responded, yes. The trooper then asked to see it, he complied and produced his ID. The trooper then asked me if I had ID, to which I responded, no I do not and even if I did I would not by law be required to show it to you. The trooper walked back to his car in a huff (it was obvious that he was upset that I had not produced an ID). When he returned he gave my daughter her papers back along with a ticket and then asked why she was driving and not her boyfriend, saying he thought that it was "odd" - no idea as to why since the vehicle was registered to her and not her boyfriend. The trooper then looked at me in the back seat and said, "the only reason that I asked to see your ID was for my protection." Really didn't make sense to me, if I were a dangerous criminal he would have been in danger before he even asked for my ID. I suggested that maybe he should get into a different line of work if he felt that threatened.
“In this day and age”, some police officers retaliate against people especially auditors by getting their information and putting them on watch lists. I’m a retired police officer and saw this by officers who thought “how dare they” not bow to my superiority. Honestly there are too many bad officers out there which overshadow all the good ones. If stopped by police, provide only what’s required and remain silent.
Cops will frequently say that they want to ID you in the event that they find nearby crimes in the future. So if police are going to accuse you of guilt by association to a crime not yet committed, it does seem that providing your name would be a reason to feel that your fifth amendment rights were violated or about to be violated.
Even in states that have “Stop and ID” statutes, if their is no reasonable suspension that a crime has been committed you do not have to show your I.D.
We need the 4th amendment right to tell the police to pound sand because even mere contact with the police can be used against you. I was involved in a custody dispute, the opposition saw me walking with the subject of that dispute (a minor), they then called 911 and reported that it didn't look right, referring to myself and the child. The police stopped us in a public park and I gave them ID (NV). No further interaction took place. The police contact with me was later used to influence official action in relation to the treatment and placement of the minor, most of which were actions of government officials (CPS) and not the courts. The mere fact of police contact was used to libel and defame me to government agents. We need protection, so that is why I wouldn't want to give them my name. Another reason not to identify is to hinder police from targeting and harassing you in the future. You are too trusting of the government.
How about in Michigan when I'm sitting on my front porch with my dog and the deputy sheriff comes up and demands my driver's license? Seriously, isn't that an invasion of my privacy?
In Nevada, if a police officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion ("RAS"), you are required to identify yourself, yes, correct. However, you are not required to produce an ID unless you have been operating a motor vehicle. Consequently, simply telling the officer your name meets the requirement. BTW, from that juncture, the officer has sixty minutes and may not detain you longer without a charge.
Has committed, Is committing, about to commit a crime. I have seen many videos on RU-vid of people walking on public sidewalks with a camera where cops have demanded ID even though they cannot articulate a crime. They however will say that they consider the person "suspicious" as they have a camera and detain them. At that point when they refuse to identify, sometimes they are arrested because they are told they are interfering with an investigation, even though no crime has been committed. Their cameras are confiscated, sometimes smashed, and sometimes the flashcard is deleted. They are taken down to the police station and put in a holding cell. Often the cuffs will be put on unusually tight to cause pain. Usually they are let go as many prosecuting attorneys will not touch it, however sometimes they are charged and go to trial. So the "has committed, is commiting, or about to commit a crime", may be the law when it comes to being identified, but it may cost you a lot in time, money, and pain.
I have dealt with this many times as a photographer, the way I usually handle it is I just ID myself that's it nothing else, now if they ask me what I'm doing then I answer based on their attitude LOL If they are being nice then I tell them I'm covering a story or taking photos for a magazine. But if they are being jerk then LOL ok I can be a jerk as well. I tell them I am on a public walkway taking photos of whatever I want you, your house, police station, FBI building, military doesn't matter if don't like it contact your supervisor or chief. And NO I'm not one of those people that harasses the police, I have been threatened with arrest before and my answer to that is ok arrest me, I can use some free money for more gear. They usually leave me alone then hahaha.
The lesson is this: Don't move to a state that allows cops to stop and ID you. Don't move anywhere you have to stop and show your papers. The Constitution was written and enacted for a reason.
So say you were wanted, could it be argued that providing your name would be self incriminating, therefore a violation of the fifth amendment, making your eminent arrest fruits of the poisonous tree?
Well, yeah, in "stop and ID" states there may be a case for it, but how is knowing your name, address and other data going to help the officer discover - and produce evidence of - the commission of a crime that he is supposedly investigating?
I love how you have protection from incrimination, but the charge for not IDing yourself is obstructing a police officer(who's trying to gather information to prosecute you)
Steve, I get what you say about identifying yourself to the police but I have seen both in person and on RU-vid videos, police removing, handcuffing and detaining and searching driver’s vehicles during pretextual traffic stops. There are unfortunately more bad cops working than we would like to believe.
Nevada law does not require you to give a peace officer any identification document IF it is not a traffic stop. You can simply state your name and the officer cannot demand any documents to verify your identification.
I guess my strange question is, if the person has his (or her) face in every post office in the country, would giving their name count as self incrimination
The cops are the prosecutors against you during the interaction. Then, they are a witness against you if charges are filed. They are not there for you as your buddy. Say nothing ever. If you drive, yes give them your license. Beyond that, nothing, ever, for any reason. Why would you ever help someone to make a case against you? American mindset since the 70's has gone very weird. Officers work for the people. Servants.... if your not breaking any law, you have more power than an officer. WE GRANT them powers to deal with criminals. Not the general population. Their job is to serve the needs of the public. They are not there to protect you either. The supreme court specified that in great detail. (see 2'nd Amendment) Best advice, never assist an officer by answering questions that can be used against you. They love ID. it's like their crack.. all they care about is ID ID ID... why? because they want to run your name for warrants... additionally, they want to see any history you had which would add obvious bias to the encounter...
It's shocking to me the amount of interviews I've watched where people had no problem incriminating themselves after being read their rights. It's like they've heard them so many times on tv or elsewhere that they've become deaf to the 'anything you say can be used against you' part.
Under New York state law, an officer can only stop you and demand ID if there is sufficient probable cause or reasonable suspicion to demand the identification. Additionally, if you are not being detained, you are not legally obligated to show ID. In order for there to be reasonable suspicion, the officer must suspect that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his conduct. The concept of reasonable suspicion is where the lines begin to blur. The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers can deceive the public in an effort to obtain the information they need. That being said, an officer must be able to articulate his or her suspicion. For example, if a citizen resembles a wanted suspect, an officer can demand that person' identification in order to ascertain whether or not they're the one at large. While the officer would technically be violating the citizens rights under the fourth amendment of the United States, their violation will be excused by the reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person ID'd was the actual suspect. In sum, we are all safe from illegal searches and seizures under the fourth amendment. That right however is not absolute. It is wise to cooperate with law enforcement officers if there is any question as to why you are being ID'd, if only to avoid the threat of jail. If the officer is unable to state a reason why you are being ID'd, the citizen is faced with a judgment call: how far am I willing to push the system? Some are more willing to stand and fight for their constitutional rights than others. What each and every United States citizen must understand is that we live in a time when our rights are being ground to dust, all in the name of public safety. Officers often cite 9/11 as an excuse to be more aggressive in their quest to enforce the law. In the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this is "pure applesauce."
How does providing ID help the officer prove you were breaking into the cars? Wouldn’t reasonable suspicion be if he finds a hammer, screw driver, etc on me? What if they are more than one person, would identify everyone help him find the person who is breaking into cars? How would identifying anyone help an officer determine is some one is about to crime, has committed a crime or will commit a crime?
When investigating a crime, knowing what crime was committed, the date and approximate time the crime was committed, who was in the area at the time, were there any witnesses, was there any crime evidence at the scene, are all helpful to the investigator.
In Illinois. If at first contact when an officer approaches a pedestrian they say, "you fit the description of a crime"... If you are ultimately released or it doesn't go to court, can you obtain the details of the reasonable suspicion to find out if the detention was in fact lawful.
This is a big L for citizens. If police is not required to articulate their reasonable suspicion to you, why is that even required? You will never know with certainty when to comply or refuse given that police can always make things up. The only realistic choice you have is to comply. The supreme court messed up on this one.
If you are taken to court, the police may need to explain to the judge what their reasonable cause was, but they are not required to justify their actions to you on the side of the road.
That case is a little different than some one not suspected of an actual crime. A "suspicious" person call does not meet probable cause if the person isn't breaking any laws.
Thanks for bringing this up. I checked the laws for my state (arizona) which are similar to the case you stated. One must supply a truthful full name if asked , but is required to answer no other questions nor provide any other information to the peace officer.
This is accurate in describing the case law, but totally missing the point of why the ruling is problematic. It's a 4th Amendment issue, not 5th. The concern is that stop and id laws give officers a weapon, which they well use, to go on fishing expeditions to find an excuse to jam someone up. The fact that they don't have to clearly state the basis of their reasonable suspicion at the time of the stop is ridiculous, as this obviously gives them all the time in the world to make up a decent sounding reason after the fact. It also makes it impossible for the citizen to know if the request is legitimate or not, which puts them in the awkward position of when deciding whether to comply or not. Stop and id is also too easily used as a harassment technique against activists, people who file police complaints, and anyone else who might be on the bad side of an officer or dept.
Even in Stop and Identify States, the police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you have been involved in criminal activity.
My favorite of all time, actress Reese Witherspoon. When NOT asked for her ID, she responded in an apparent tone of entitlement, “Do you know who I am?” The cop answered yes, that she is the next in line to be arrested if she doesn’t sit down. 😀
If your traveling how should you be expected to know all the laws? If you ask the cop if you have to give ID (or anything else). How can you trust him bc by law cops CAN lie to you to get what they want from you?
Great video! Except the kicking down your door and killing your puppy joke. That's exactly what happened to a friend of mine. Done by cops carrying a forged warrant.
Arresticated??! Steve, you crack me up! As an Unrepentant Punster for most of the past 3/4 century, I love to see a creative butchery of the Language like you just did! Roll on young man. Roll on. "Damn the dictionaries; full stream ahead".......
Here is an example of how your name could be used against you incorrectly. If you give them your name and birthdate and it matches someone on the list for deportation you could be incorrectly deported. If you have been incorrectly placed on the “do not fly list” because of mistaken identity you would have a reasonable suspicion to believe that your name could be used against you in wrongful charges or deportation.
What is this "list for deportation" you speak of? No, you are not going to be deported to a country you are not a citizen of, it doesn't work that way.
Looking at all of the arguments and all of the comments below I am thinking , that we the ordinary people minding their own business, working hard.......we are so screwed. It's frustrating ,that it seems nobody knows how to interpret the law and how to use it. Even lawyers are arguing among themselves. The logical conclusion is, that the law is a broad and hard to comprehend matter, that can be used against ordinary citizens at any time. Not to protect them. And thats on of the characteristics of a police state.
Q) how is your name going to be used against you? A) what if you have a warrant and providing them with your name would give them reasonable cause to arrest you.??
In my experience , it is always best to comply with the police , but I wonder if it is against the law to give them a fake name if you are not driving and do not have a license with you. I was on a bicycle once , riding down the sidewalk looking at the custom cars during a car show event when a cop on a bicycle stopped me and told me it was against the law to ride my bike on Grand Ave. He then pulled out his ticket book and started writing me a ticket. He asked for my ID , and I had none with me , so I just made up a fake name and address . I later threw the ticket away and never had a problem about the incident.
He could have had a warrant out on him.. #2 police always call your name in and now it becomes record which can work against you the next time your name gets called in.
I've never been asked by a cop on the street while i was walking to identify myself. But if it happens, i don't think i have a problem telling my name or showing my ID if i have it on me. But in a routine traffic stop for speeding on the expressway, i do have a problem when the officer start with a 20 questions routine. Where are you going? where did you come from? Your license is Texas, what you doing in Ohio? Nobody else is in the car, why you traveling alone? This has happened to me several times over the years and i find it very slimy. I know they don't really care about the answers to these questions, they are just trying to see if i get flustered so that they can plausibly say in an report that the "subject became evasive and exhibited behaviors indicative of guilt" or some such malarkey to justify a follow on body and/or vehicle search. Nothing has every come of it because i don't get flustered from the police, even when they are trying to incite something with abusive behavior, but i don't like it. Like the time a officer shined a very powerful maglight in my face (even though i was parked near a bright street lamp AND turned on my dome light when the officer indicated he wanted me to roll the window down) and started screaming at me right off, while i was doing nothing but sitting in my car on a city side street waiting for somebody. When there is no indication of any kind of crime, they should not be going on fishing expeditions.
Met a young power tripping deputy at courthouse while screanning to fight a summons. I was talking to wife about the unreasonable requirement to pass screanning to pay water bill. He said give me your ID, my response what's your cause. I don't need a reason this is a stop and identify state, I can ID anyone for any reason. Curt response from me. Then he wants to arrest me. An argument perused calling other deputies. I explained what had happened. Then allowed to go and the boy was taken to the side for a 15 min. Lecture. So many cameras got me off . Even in Louisiana (world's most incarcerated per capita) stop and ID has qualifers. . Don't forget lying to a cop is a crime; cop lying to you is good technique. My suggestion is take supreme courts advice and remain silent.
Stop and ID lows can be used by the authorities to make the homeless and/or minorities unwelcome in high crime areas and in neighborhoods where homeowners didn't want to see them. I believe this practice was used to drastically reduce street crime in NYC at one time. Not sure if political pressure stopped the practice or if there was a court case that stopped it.
I have a question how would I know if the search and or seizure is unreasonable if cops don't have to tell you the reason for detainment because sometimes they don't have R.A.S or P.C because they're tyrants but will come up with a reason later after they conspire against you to retaliate I believe there's an amendment that protects you against malicious prosecution.
It is my understanding that Indiana is a "stop and identify" State, IC 34-28-5-3.5 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. However, based on that it would appear that before he could be charged with this Class C misdemeanor by the police that are requesting/demanding ID needs to have been stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation - not just, "hey, show me your ID".
There's a difference between verbally telling them who you are and being required to "show papers." My state (Utah) requires non-auto stops to verbally state name and address but only under reasonable suspicion.
But Steve, If I tell the cop my name he will find out about the warrants that I have! Ergo, giving him my name incriminates me. At least that is how it seems to me after 4 or 5 tall boys. lol
Seems like the intoxicated guy in Nevada by arguing with the cop about giving his name and then taunting him, got the cop to arrest him for doing that and got out of the drunk driving charge.
You know my only problem with stop and id, or any stop where you are asked for an ID is that the police don't have to tell you why they stopped you. If the office can't tell you why they stopped you, which to me seems reasonable assuming the circumstance permit it, is it really RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) if they can't you? BTW the best traffic stop I was involved in, yes I paid a fine, the office came up to the car, said I'm officer so and so, badge number x. The reason I stopped you was you were (in my case speeding). I need your driver's licences.. etc. In the first 30 seconds I had all the information I needed. Best officer ever even though I got a ticket.
Steve, after watching your videos, I have a serious question I would like you to answer. How can you still have faith in the criminal justice system and say we are NOT going down the slippery slope to all the -ism’s you mention? Here’s a situation that is 100% plausible from your videos. And although the chances of it happening are small, it is possible and I would say is going to start happening more often with over eager police departments looking to make money and make themselves look good in the public eye. Scenario: You and your friend are out driving around. A police officer pulls you over. The officer doesn’t have a reason for the stop, but he knows that all he has to say is there was an Anonymous tip about a vehicle matching your vehicle, and he is covered. You give him all the documentation needed, and when he runs your name, boom! You got a warrant you don’t even know about. Remember your video where you talked about your friend who almost had an arrest warrant because he was late to jury duty because of a snow storm? Or maybe the Postal Service screwed up and delivered the jury duty notice to your neighbor. Either way, you have a warrant and that officer is going to treat you like the criminal that you now are. So you are cuffed and thrown in the back of the car and your buddy thinks to himself, “this is getting serious. I better just remain silent”. Then Boom! He’s in cuffs in the back of the squad car along with you. He’s arrested for being TOO silent. Remember that video you did on that? Or maybe they will hit him with the all inclusive “obstruction” charge. Now that the officer has you two criminals out of the car, you can bet he’s gonna search it. “Just got to say I smelled some marijuana to justify this search” he thinks to himself. Or his new personal favorite work around that he has heard about is doing an “inventory” of the car. Not a search, but just an inventory. Anyways, if he’s a dirty cop, which I’ve heard about in the news recently, he’ll plant drugs, make the dash cam video disappear and never face any discipline because of qualified immunity. But if he’s an honest cop, you just get to experience some light Civil Asset Forfeiture. You know that $200 you keep in your glovebox for emergencies? Well it’s theirs now. But, on second though, the officer decides we better take the vehicle too. The departments ford explorers are pushing 200,000 miles and yours only has 60,000 miles. And it’s got the premium package with heated seats! Thanks Steve! Those will come in handy in the cold Michigan winter. In the back seat you think to yourself, “Wow, what bad luck I’m having. Thankfully a judge will straighten this all out in court.” But your bad luck continues when you get a judge who honestly thinks and rules that someone who asks for a “lawyer dog”, really wanted a furry 4 legged canine that practices law. So you and your friend are found guilty on all charges and are branded a criminal for life. Thoughts on the above situation? Is it possible? Yes. Is it Plausible? Not so much. Is it morale? Absolutely not, but the most important question: is it legal? You bet it is, and that’s all the system cares about.
Cops rang my doorbell and asked if I had any trouble. I said no and they asked if I lived alone, and I said yes. They said someone called and said they were needed at my apartment. I said it wasn't me. They left without asking me if anything was wrong, asking to come in, or for any id. They didn't even ask me my name. I rather they had, as I don't have any idea who called them or why....
Why not give a cop your ID- You realize a huge portion of the population was literally picked up because of the color of their skin and blamed for crimes they never committed... So if 'the only person' in the vicinity of a Car robbery gives their name- its now the (possibly) corrupts cops scapegoat... (I probably didn't say all this very well, but I hope you get the point) Even if they have a bodycam, their buddies are in control of it. @Steve Lehto I hope you watch some of the cop watcher or 1st amendment auditors at some point- Esp the Mesa Arizona vids- they are some dirty cops from what I've seen.
So if you provide your ID and the cop (is a jerk) and puts your name in a police report detailing a criminal investigation that you were just an innocent bystander in that becomes public record. Worse is that the police can lie in the report and make false statements about you without telling you. For someone seeking a clearence or who goes to civil/family court this can be a huge drawback.
Totally agree, Steve! On a related topic though, how about a video on 'no-knock' warrants. Here in Las Vegas we've had cases where the cops were at the wrong house, turned out the warrant application wasn't validated, same name, wrong house, guy got killed (cop NOT fired). I maintain that is not proper service of a warrant, yet apparently these are legal. I don't get it. How can that be squared with the 4th Amendment. How do I as a (firearm owning) citizen tell the difference between cops knocking down my door vs. a home invader. Both can yell Police. One of them is fraudulent. One of them I need to defend myself against and the other is bad trouble if I shoot a cop by mistake. Something I do not under any circumstances want to do. That would be a great video. How about it?
He wants your id to see if you have any thing pending or drug history and boom he will find something if you do you do not live in a free country end of story
Most states that do NOT have a Stop and ID law do have laws against "resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties" In those states refusal to ID when the cop has a legitimate reason to stop you (like the example you gave of the complaint of persons breaking into cars at night) that is still an arrestable offense since failing to ID is "delaying and obstructing" the officer with a legitimate need to ID in order to investigate the criminal complaint, prevent crime, detect crime and arrest violators.
A person could just take off running just to make an officer have to work to take you in. In the end it may not be a very good idea. Having a bad attitude will always cost you when it comes to dealing with the police.
You kept saying that you have to “ID” yourself in states that require it. However, you never defined “ID”. You are not required to carry any form of ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle. In all other circumstances you are only required to state or write your First Name, Last Name, and Birthdate. You can’t be compelled to show an ID while walking down the street. Not everyone has a government issued ID. That being said. They can detain you until they positively identify you if the state you are in allows them to do that.
Detain vers arrest is a good video topic..... In the first example if they had an assault victim, and his proximity to the crime and description matching the assailant, I would think would qualify as probable cause. If not the charge could be resisting arrest or disturbing the peace. Cops use one or both often. Requiring a person to ID for suspicion is an invitation to harass since suspicion would never need to be validated if no charges are filed and if you ask me, we all look suspicious.
They don't have to provide it to you at the time of the detention or arrest. They are only required (Constitutionally) to provide it to you at your arraignment. That is the law. Devenbeck v Alford. I did a video on this in the last week or so.
In the states with the stop and ID laws, are the police obligated to tell you why they need you to ID yourself? Otherwise they can simply be fishing to look for anything, find some random infraction and claim that was their reasonable suspicion. Also, if I am stoped on the street, can I simply ID myself verbally? What if I don't have my ID on me? What if I do have my ID and I want to ID myself verbally only and not provide an ID.
Although I no longer trust the police; verbally giving my identity to an officer is no problem for me. (walking down the street) It's what comes after that concerns me. It is none of his business where I'm going, where I'm coming from and what I intend to do when I get there. I would decline to answer. If I'm being detained, I have the right to remain silent and I will. If that leads to an arrest, so be it. The real place to fight an unlawful detention is in court; not in some bullshit verbal gymnastics on the sidewalk with a bully with a badge.
I see and agree. Still if you are notorious for anything , be it truth or just myth and allegations , you still should be able to not give your name. Also what about professional names and the like? What is a name , legal name or what you prefer to respond to ? Slippery I know but still. My name has caused me problem before, not criminally because it was a lie , still it got my upper pallet and nose broke while in cuffs , by the black top . Just my name .
Something I wish was specifically addressed was, what about people with no photo id? I have known quite a few people who don't drive, don't smoke, don't drink. They don't have use for photo ids and when they encounter police, its always a problem. It has almost always been the case that they are the passenger in a car that got pulled over. This is the slippery slope mentioned in the video. Without a reason given to the person being asked for identification, it either seems or sometimes is completely arbitrary. And the police don't like it if you don't have your papers, which does feel like something that would be required of someone traveling around in East Germany or something.
I haven't had ANY form of government issued ID since 1993, so that's 26 years of going "paperless". Hell, I even sent my Social Security card back to Baltimore, Maryland in 1995!
The problem I have with it is, there is a log of every contact that you have been identified. If you're in a small town, it can spell out trouble if the police have record of multiple contacts. It can lead to excessive charges if you were to actually do something wrong. If at all possible, I keep my name from the police.
What if you’re sitting in a parked car and someone gets suspicious that they don’t recognize your car on the block and an officer arrives? Are you required to identify for simply sitting in a car in Illinois?
ISTR a case from many years ago in south Florida where a man was arrested for refusing his name and ID. He spent quite a bit of time in jail, because "conveniently" with no name his file kept getting "lost". When he eventually ended up before a judge, the judge made it very clear how annoyed he was with the police, and made it very clear that refusing to provide an ID is not criminal in and of itself, and thus there was no basis for arrest. He also said that the man could sue the police, but in doing so he'd have to provide an ID. Providing a false ID is a crime, and it is necessary to show a concealed carry ID upon police request.
I should also point out that (at least as mentioned in the news article) the police admitted there was no probable cause to have stopped the man for any other reason than he did not appear to "belong" in the area. That's what differs this case from the one in the decision under discussion.
