Cops Taking Your Gun.

[james.bryant88]

Simple, the only statute on IDing is IC 34-28-5-3 and -3.5. That's it. That's the only reference in the code to a requirement to ID, and it doesn't say that photo ID is mandatory. It says that photo ID is optional, along with the option to instead give name, addr, and DoB, all three of which are present on the LTCH anyway. And either are only required if suspected of an infraction (traffic) or (city) ordnance violation. No such requirement to ID is valid for suspicion of a misdemeanor, felony, or consensual interactions.

If anyone has any case law on the matter, let Kut know.

Thanks for the information, this is great to know. It will come in handy.

 

[Rookie]

Indiana v. Starr

 

[Roadie]

Indiana v. Starr

Interesting read, thanks for posting it..

I was surprised that the case was even made in the first place that a passenger is part of a traffic stop(barring any other PC/RAS etc.) but am glad to see it was reversed..

 

[CathyInBlue]

I found Starr v State 49G21-0909-CM-77109, in the Indiana Court of Appeals. Did it go to the Supreme Court as State v Starr?

I'm surprised they didn't get him for false informing.

 

[Rookie]

I don't think it went to the supreme court.

 

[cobber]

Here's an interesting SCOTUS case re 'stop and identify'. I remember seeing this guy on TV and thinking he looked far out. Nowadays no one would give him a second look.

http://hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V12/I1/Stormer.pdf

I found Starr v State 49G21-0909-CM-77109, in the Indiana Court of Appeals. Did it go to the Supreme Court as State v Starr?

No transfer. Apparently didn't go up?