Do I have to show a cop my I.D./LTCH?

[jamesg]

No, no, no. Kirk is only being argumentative because you're still not getting it. Well... And because he's an attorney. Or is he an attorney because he likes to argue? Hmm. Interesting.

well im all for learning, it seems to me many people in this thread just want to pop in to take cheap shots at people and be a funny guy and want to just argue for the sake of arguing. I am getting it.....I said it was my interpretation. I see now that it does seem to apply to if you were stopped in a motor vehicle for breaking the law. So what about if you are on foot and broke the law? Does it technically mean I can jaywalk and not provide my ID? Can I just state my name, address and dob and leave it at that even if he insists on charging me with an offense? Then what happens when I refuse to notify I am carrying and he pats me down and finds the gun and things get all tense for no reason?

 

[ATM]

What do you have against arguing?

i think some of you guys are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

All I did was correct you, but we can argue if you'd like.

 

[Rookie]

i think some of you guys are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

If you are required to give him your name, address and DOB, why not show him your ID? That's really all there is to your ID anyways and even then with many people it is not up to date. Lots of people walk around with the wrong info on there other than Name and DoB.

So I said something that didn't follow the letter of the law. In this case it's really not an issue. If you stand there and state your name, address and dob or whatever and he still asks for your license and you refuse I feel like you are being difficult.

I also realize that answer is not going to be popular with a bunch of people here who like to post funny pictures instead of speaking reasonably. There are a lot of people who want to press every letter of the law as far as they possibly can go. I get it. I believe there are times when you have to remind yourself that "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

What I stated was my interpretation of the law which is all that matters to me in the end. If it means I showed my ID to a LEO when I didn't have to, so be it. I have no reason not to. For someone with a reason not to, they have to make that decision for themselves. While they may not be able to convict you of anything they CAN and WILL make your life a real PITA for a short while. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

No, the problem is your initial statement was dead wrong. I'll quote it for you.

 

[Rookie]

This. In Indiana (I believe one of only four states) you have to show your ID if asked and unlike the rest of the states the LEO does not need probable cause. They can literally walk up on you and say "let me see your ID". If you are carrying open, they will obviously ask to see a LTCH as well which is a reasonable request and choosing to carry open means they have probable cause. Carrying concealed, with LTCH, if all they do is walk up and ask for ID, means you have to show them your ID, not your LTCH.

The problem with the question is it asks if you have to show ID/LTCH. They are not the same. It's two separate questions. The answer for showing ID does not apply to showing LTCH and vice versa.

There you go. They DO need probable cause that you have committed an infraction or ordinance violation in order to ask for ID.

 

[jamesg]

well im all for learning, it seems to me many people in this thread just want to pop in to take cheap shots at people and be a funny guy and want to just argue for the sake of arguing. I am getting it.....I said it was my interpretation. I see now that it does seem to apply to if you were stopped in a motor vehicle for breaking the law. So what about if you are on foot and broke the law? Does it technically mean I can jaywalk and not provide my ID? Can I just state my name, address and dob and leave it at that even if he insists on charging me with an offense? Then what happens when I refuse to notify I am carrying and he pats me down and finds the gun and things get all tense for no reason?

so answer these questions then, i have moved on from your "calling me out"

 

[jamesg]

There you go. They DO need probable cause that you have committed an infraction or ordinance violation in order to ask for ID.

dont you think carrying open without displaying a LTCH would be probable cause? and don't you think it is far more efficient and easier on both parties to simply show your ID if you are carrying concealed and they ask for ID for no particular reason? why would you refuse?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

i think some of you guys are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

I would say the same about you...

If you are required to give him your name, address and DOB, why not show him your ID? That's really all there is to your ID anyways and even then with many people it is not up to date. Lots of people walk around with the wrong info on there other than Name and DoB.

I really don't care what you do, I am only trying to educate people on what they are legally obligated to do the rest is your choice. The fact is you don't HAVE to, use that knowledge how you see fit.

So I said something that didn't follow the letter of the law. In this case it's really not an issue. If you stand there and state your name, address and dob or whatever and he still asks for your license and you refuse I feel like you are being difficult.

I feel like he would be being difficult since it would HIM that was not following the law. If you are in a position that you would be required to give your information then you have a choice, hand over your ID or state name, address and DOB. They are equal in regards to law and in reality, cops can pull up all of your information including any state issued ID with that information.

I also realize that answer is not going to be popular with a bunch of people here who like to post funny pictures instead of speaking reasonably.

You are a n00b, I wouldn't expect you to understand but we answer a lot of these threads and deal with some of the same ignorant people over and over again. Its our way of making light of it and keeping our sanity so we can help those who will actually learn and listen to sound advice.

There are a lot of people who want to press every letter of the law as far as they possibly can go. I get it. I believe there are times when you have to remind yourself that "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

And just because you wouldn't, doesn't make it wrong. Remember it does go both ways. We do have the weight of law on our side of our decisions in this case.

What I stated was my interpretation of the law which is all that matters to me in the end.

Actually, it would matter to the cops, a prosecuter, a judge and then a jury. In that order.

If it means I showed my ID to a LEO when I didn't have to, so be it. I have no reason not to. For someone with a reason not to, they have to make that decision for themselves. While they may not be able to convict you of anything they CAN and WILL make your life a real PITA for a short while. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

I don't pick battles actually. But I do stand my ground when someone picks one with me.

 

[ATM]

So what about if you are on foot and broke the law? Does it technically mean I can jaywalk and not provide my ID?

Yes.

Can I just state my name, address and dob and leave it at that even if he insists on charging me with an offense?

Yes.

Then what happens when I refuse to notify I am carrying and he pats me down and finds the gun and things get all tense for no reason?

Nothing.

 

[Rookie]

well im all for learning, it seems to me many people in this thread just want to pop in to take cheap shots at people and be a funny guy and want to just argue for the sake of arguing. I am getting it.....I said it was my interpretation. I see now that it does seem to apply to if you were stopped in a motor vehicle for breaking the law. So what about if you are on foot and broke the law? Does it technically mean I can jaywalk and not provide my ID? Can I just state my name, address and dob and leave it at that even if he insists on charging me with an offense? Then what happens when I refuse to notify I am carrying and he pats me down and finds the gun and things get all tense for no reason?

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 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.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

"Or driver's license, if in the person's possession"

If I've been accused of an infraction or ordinance violation, I'll gladly provided my driver's license.
If I'm being accused of carrying a handgun without a license (which is, at the very least, a misdemeanor), I'll provide my LTCH and nothing else.

 

[ATM]

dont you think carrying open without displaying a LTCH would be probable cause?

Possibly, but of a misdemeanor.

and don't you think it is far more efficient and easier on both parties to simply show your ID if you are carrying concealed and they ask for ID for no particular reason? why would you refuse?

It's always easier and more efficient to waive your rights, but I'm more interested in preserving our liberty.

 

[Rookie]

dont you think carrying open without displaying a LTCH would be probable cause? and don't you think it is far more efficient and easier on both parties to simply show your ID if you are carrying concealed and they ask for ID for no particular reason? why would you refuse?

I do think it's probable cause, but it's neither an infraction nor an ordinance violation, so I'm not required to show my driver's license.

I'm really not interested in making their job easier. I'm interested in them following the law. I am expected to follow the law, and I expect them to do the same.

 

[jamesg]

So here I feel we have come full circle. What of meaning is on your DL? Name, Address, DOB. The rest is not very accurate or relevant but certainly not revealing or in need of preservation. I am all for preserving my rights, but like I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should. If you can show him your ID without causing any problems, you have not revealed anything that needed protection, and you will be seen as much more agreeable.

I kinda figured you guys would respond with "because I don't have to". Sometimes that is not the best response to achieve an amiable resolution. I think the very first reply to the OP's question was the best one quite honestly. Some of you might think standing on the street arguing or being uncooperative or just being seen as difficult is "preserving your rights". In the manner you suggest I disagree.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So what about if you are on foot and broke the law? Does it technically mean I can jaywalk and not provide my ID?

If you are stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation you must give your name, address and DOB or show ID otherwise you will be charged with a C misdemeanor

Can I just state my name, address and dob and leave it at that even if he insists on charging me with an offense?

Yes

Then what happens when I refuse to notify I am carrying and he pats me down and finds the gun and things get all tense for no reason?

That would be up to the officer but there is no need to inform of carry status in Indiana. Why would you consent to being patted down and searched? If you are being arrested it doesn't matter anyway, they WILL search you and look at your license if you have it on you.

dont you think carrying open without displaying a LTCH would be probable cause?

Yes it would be, you are required to show a LTCH when asked by an officer. Refusing would likely wind you up in cuffs and searched until he either finds your info and realizes you have a valid LTCH or you prove to a judge you have one.

and don't you think it is far more efficient and easier on both parties to simply show your ID if you are carrying concealed and they ask for ID for no particular reason? why would you refuse?

Again, I am not concerned with that in this discussion. We were talking about the bare legalities of showing ID and LTCH.

But since you are unwilling to not discuss it-

Why would they ask for ID for no particular reason? Aren't you concerned when a cop uses his authority to violate a right? Where would it stop? How about random house inspections to make sure your registered guns were still in their government approved locked containers and that they were not loaded?

How about random vehicle stops and ID checks to make sure there are no illegal aliens or criminals in your car? What about when your 16 year old daughter forgets her government ID and is strip searched in public by male officers?

See where I'm getting at? If you do not exercise your rights you WILL lose them. Never at any point have I said you should be rude OR militant in your actions. Silence is best, but "I am not required by law to..." in a polite tone will also suffice.

 

[ATM]

...just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Exactly. Just because you can waive your rights doesn't mean you should.

Some of you might think standing on the street arguing or being uncooperative or just being seen as difficult is "preserving your rights". In the manner you suggest I disagree.

You are the only one implying that one would need to be rude or argumentative to do so.

I can maintain my rights and be polite at the same time. It's really not difficult.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So here I feel we have come full circle. What of meaning is on your DL? Name, Address, DOB. The rest is not very accurate or relevant but certainly not revealing or in need of preservation. I am all for preserving my rights, but like I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should. If you can show him your ID without causing any problems, you have not revealed anything that needed protection, and you will be seen as much more agreeable.

Do you understand that you don't have to? I really don't care if you do but I really want you to realize that it is not a requirement of the law.

I kinda figured you guys would respond with "because I don't have to". Sometimes that is not the best response to achieve an amiable resolution. I think the very first reply to the OP's question was the best one quite honestly. Some of you might think standing on the street arguing or being uncooperative or just being seen as difficult is "preserving your rights". In the manner you suggest I disagree.

None of us have argued, been uncooperative in regards to the law, or have been difficult at this point. No need to raise your voice or talk in a rude manner.

 

[Rookie]

So here I feel we have come full circle. What of meaning is on your DL? Name, Address, DOB. The rest is not very accurate or relevant but certainly not revealing or in need of preservation. I am all for preserving my rights, but like I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should. If you can show him your ID without causing any problems, you have not revealed anything that needed protection, and you will be seen as much more agreeable.

I kinda figured you guys would respond with "because I don't have to". Sometimes that is not the best response to achieve an amiable resolution. I think the very first reply to the OP's question was the best one quite honestly. Some of you might think standing on the street arguing or being uncooperative or just being seen as difficult is "preserving your rights". In the manner you suggest I disagree.

Indeed we have. You're still hung up on an "amiable resolution", and I'm still hung up on following the law as it's written. You and I are required to know the law. Ignorance is no excuse. I expect the same from an individual whose job is to enforce the law. You want amiable? How about this?

An officer sees you have a firearm...
Officer: "excuse me, are you licensed?"
Me: "yes sir, here is my LTCH"
Officer: "may I see your driver's license?"
Me: "am I required to give it to you?"
Officer: "no, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Here's your LTCH, have a nice day."
Me: "you too."

That, my friend, would be an amiable resolution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Time out.

JamesG, I know it seems like people here argue for the sake of argument. In some cases (especially in General Political Discussion,) that's true. In this case, though, that's not what's happening. You will find in your time here that some of us are very committed to upholding our rights. All of them. It's been said that the Constitution, as amended, is not multiple choice. That document protects pre-existing rights, enumerated and non-enumerated, from infringement by our Federal government, and in some cases, by state governments as well. It sets out the basic framework inside which our national government is allowed to operate. (I'm not telling you anything new, I'm sure.)

OK, so if that's where we are, and a LEO is an agent of some government under that Constitution, that means he has sworn to uphold it before he ever learns anything about any other law. Still with me? Good. So, given that the 4A protects us from unreasonable search and seizure and our state law specifically provides an either/or option in identifying oneself and further clarifies that the need to do so is only incumbent upon a person when that person is suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation, I don't think it's asking too much to expect the LEO to follow the state law.

Now... All of that said, if I am asked for my ID by a LEO, I will likely remove it from my pocket and provide it depending upon the officer's demeanor. Unless required by law to do so (i.e. MI, OH), I will not be informing that I am armed, but I will not lie about the fact either. I consent to no searches because I have nothing to hide and I have no need to prove my innocence of a crime. The burden of proof is on the accuser, except in the case of proving that I hold a valid LTCH. I choose to provide my information because as I see it, the officer is going to find out one way or the other, provided I am being accused of some crime. I do not surrender my rights by choosing not to exercise them; that is, I can choose to exercise them whenever I wish to do so.

It's not about arguing. It's not about making anyone's job easier or more difficult. It's about the fact that doing their jobs must fall within the framework of the document they are oath-bound to support and defend. One cannot uphold the law by breaking it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamesg]

Indeed we have. You're still hung up on an "amiable resolution", and I'm still hung up on following the law as it's written. You and I are required to know the law. Ignorance is no excuse. I expect the same from an individual whose job is to enforce the law. You want amiable? How about this?

An officer sees you have a firearm...
Officer: "excuse me, are you licensed?"
Me: "yes sir, here is my LTCH"
Officer: "may I see your driver's license?"
Me: "am I required to give it to you?"
Officer: "no, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Here's your LTCH, have a nice day."
Me: "you too."

That, my friend, would be an amiable resolution.

Or I could show both to him and get the same response. Refusing to show my ID may be mistaken as a hostile or argumentative or uncooperative.

I have not at all been rude or "raising my voice" or at least that was not the intent. I am fully capable of being acceptable to opposing opinions without posting picture, calling names, etc...... That Titanium_Frost guy is obviously hell bent on antagonizing even though I am not responding to his repeated posts. He should take a hint.

So thanks for the info guys, those who filled in the blanks for me without being rude about it. The only part I wasn't aware of was the wording that implies the need to show ID (in this case a DL) only applies to a supposed offense in a motor vehicle. I understand the letter of the law better now thanks to some of you. We all have to determine how we deal with it.

I personally feel like by showing my ID I am not giving up anything that was in need of protection to begin with. By showing it I don't give him anything he wouldn't have access to anyways. What would I be protecting by refusing to show it? My weight, my height, or eye color? Simply not showing it just because "I don't have to" is a poor reason to me if there is nothing to hide. I don't have to do a lot of things in life if I follow the letter of the law. That doesn't mean that is the best decision to make.

 

[jamesg]

Time out.

JamesG, I know it seems like people here argue for the sake of argument. In some cases (especially in General Political Discussion,) that's true. In this case, though, that's not what's happening. You will find in your time here that some of us are very committed to upholding our rights. All of them. It's been said that the Constitution, as amended, is not multiple choice. That document protects pre-existing rights, enumerated and non-enumerated, from infringement by our Federal government, and in some cases, by state governments as well. It sets out the basic framework inside which our national government is allowed to operate. (I'm not telling you anything new, I'm sure.)

OK, so if that's where we are, and a LEO is an agent of some government under that Constitution, that means he has sworn to uphold it before he ever learns anything about any other law. Still with me? Good. So, given that the 4A protects us from unreasonable search and seizure and our state law specifically provides an either/or option in identifying oneself and further clarifies that the need to do so is only incumbent upon a person when that person is suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation, I don't think it's asking too much to expect the LEO to follow the state law.

Now... All of that said, if I am asked for my ID by a LEO, I will likely remove it from my pocket and provide it depending upon the officer's demeanor. Unless required by law to do so (i.e. MI, OH), I will not be informing that I am armed, but I will not lie about the fact either. I consent to no searches because I have nothing to hide and I have no need to prove my innocence of a crime. The burden of proof is on the accuser, except in the case of proving that I hold a valid LTCH. I choose to provide my information because as I see it, the officer is going to find out one way or the other, provided I am being accused of some crime. I do not surrender my rights by choosing not to exercise them; that is, I can choose to exercise them whenever I wish to do so.

It's not about arguing. It's not about making anyone's job easier or more difficult. It's about the fact that doing their jobs must fall within the framework of the document they are oath-bound to support and defend. One cannot uphold the law by breaking it.



Blessings,
Bill

good stuff Bill, thanks

 

[Rookie]

Here's a good example of someone who was more interested in following the law, than obtaining an amiable resolution.

Aimless: Land of the Free, Part I

Story in a nutshell...
Officers did not know the law. Law abiding citizen did and still got thrown in jail. All charges were dropped. You may roll your eyes and think, "it would have been easier to just do what they asked." You are absolutely correct, but this guy (and many others on this board) are willing to stand up for the rights that countless people have died for.