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

[Bunnykid68]

Jamesg, I dont think T. Frost is trying to antagonize you. He is very passionate about protecting ones right regarding the letter of the law. He has been in the very situation where he was given an unlawful order from an officer of the law. I think once you get to know him a little better you will see that.

 

[Rookie]

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.

So, where do you draw the line? When do you decide your rights trump his curiosity? Can he search your vehicle? Your house? After all, with nothing to hide, why not?

 

[jamesg]

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.

I am familiar with that occurrence. It was one of the articles I read while exploring the Indiana code and the cases that have challenged the laws. In this case I feel like he should have simply shown his ID to the officer. What did he have to lose? Many people will say, no!, by giving up your right to refuse you open yourself to other things! To that I say nonsense. There is nothing about showing your ID that implies or suggests guilt or involvement in anything. It is simple compliance in order to reach an amiable resolution. He could have shown his ID and been on his way. There is nothing in showing his ID that would have given them reason to detain him. The fact that he admitted to being in contact with the DOC Employees to me was the greatest slip up. That was the door opening to probably cause, which then gave them the right to ask for the ID.

Again, that's my take on it. I think there is a way to be compliant, and not confrontational and still protect the rights we have. None of his rights would be violated by providing ID other than the literal part about not having to show it. I don't think people died so the letter of the law should be followed black and white. I think they died to protect the ideas and spirit of the law which means you can do some things that it literally says you don't have to without actually giving up rights.

So, where do you draw the line? When do you decide your rights trump his curiosity? Can he search your vehicle? Your house? After all, with nothing to hide, why not?

I draw the line after showing him my ID. If I show him my ID I have more than complied and have done so with mutual respect. If he proceeds to ask for more I know I have the right to refuse. The fact that I decided to let him see my ID doesn't mean I am going to let him search me and I am well within my rights to refuse. Sometimes people act like being a little compliant to one aspect of the law means you instantly give up all other rights which to me is non-sense.

 

[jamesg]

Jamesg, I dont think T. Frost is trying to antagonize you. He is very passionate about protecting ones right regarding the letter of the law. He has been in the very situation where he was given an unlawful order from an officer of the law. I think once you get to know him a little better you will see that.

hopefully so, first impressions and all....i just called it how i saw it, no harm no foul

 

[ATM]

...I have not at all been rude or "raising my voice" or at least that was not the intent...

You obviously mistook those refutations as personalized toward you or the tone of your posting. Not the case.

It was in response to this:

...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 keep ascribing negatives to preserving one's rights, which is not the case, thus the response.

Are you sure you don't like arguing? Just a little bit?

Stick around, INGO is a great site with lots of good people.

Except me, of course. I'm an ass.

 

[Rookie]

Here's another thing to look at.

The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 0 NFP)

This guy actually had a reason to refuse to show ID (assuming his reason was to avoid arrest). Our courts decided his rights trumped the amiable resolution the officers were looking for.

 

[CJK]

My understanding is you are required by federal law to carry and produce an ID when asked by an LEO. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, but why escalate the situation when simply showing your ID makes the situation stay on a calm level.

 

[Roadie]

Let me try this another way...
All one has to do is watch a couple episodes of COPS to see that LEOs can/will use ambiguous language to obtain access to something they don't legally have a right to, without permission.

Example: Citizen is pulled over for speeding. Officer says "While we are here, you don't mind if I search your car do you? You've got nothing to hide, right?" Citizen, under the impression they will look guilty if they say "No" permits Officer to search. Officer finds a roach, paraphernalia, etc etc and BAM Citizen goes to Jail.

The Citizen in question had the right to refuse if there was no other suspicion. Had the Citizen said "I am sorry Officer, but I don't consent to any searches at this time" chances are citizen would have went home that nite, albeit, probably with a ticket.

Now, you are going to say "But I have nothing to hide!" but what if you gave a co-worker a ride home, say, and they dropped something illegal in your car?

Do you think "Officer, I swear that isnt mine!" is going to work?

 

[ATM]

My understanding is you are required by federal law to carry and produce an ID when asked by an LEO. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, but why escalate the situation when simply showing your ID makes the situation stay on a calm level.

Alrighty. Just cite that law and then we'll discuss it.

If I am not required to produce an ID (and until I see that law, I'll stick with this) yet an officer still makes that demand of me...

who is escalating the situation?

Who is protected by the law in that situation?

Who ruined the calm for everyone?

 

[Bunnykid68]

My understanding is you are required by federal law to carry and produce an ID when asked by an LEO. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, but why escalate the situation when simply showing your ID makes the situation stay on a calm level.

I walk to the local store often without ID. If you had to have ID on you all the time our teenagers would have all kind of problems, they do not get them until they start driving.

If you want my ID you better have PC(probable cause) to ask for it because I may be in a bad mood and tell you to go pound sand. Who knows?

 

[jamesg]

Let me try this another way...
All one has to do is watch a couple episodes of COPS to see that LEOs can/will use ambiguous language to obtain access to something they don't legally have a right to, without permission.

Example: Citizen is pulled over for speeding. Officer says "While we are here, you don't mind if I search your car do you? You've got nothing to hide, right?" Citizen, under the impression they will look guilty if they say "No" permits Officer to search. Officer finds a roach, paraphernalia, etc etc and BAM Citizen goes to Jail.

The Citizen in question had the right to refuse if there was no other suspicion. Had the Citizen said "I am sorry Officer, but I don't consent to any searches at this time" chances are citizen would have went home that nite, albeit, probably with a ticket.

Now, you are going to say "But I have nothing to hide!" but what if you gave a co-worker a ride home, say, and they dropped something illegal in your car?

Do you think "Officer, I swear that isnt mine!" is going to work?

I completely agree there. But what if the officer sees, lets say, an open container in the floorboard while speaking to you. That gives him probable cause does it not?

 

[Bunnykid68]

You obviously mistook those refutations as personalized toward you or the tone of your posting. Not the case.

It was in response to this:



You keep ascribing negatives to preserving one's rights, which is not the case, thus the response.

Are you sure you don't like arguing? Just a little bit?

Stick around, INGO is a great site with lots of good people.

Except me, of course. I'm an ass.

I think we can all agree on this and I am right there with ya, ask anyone that knows me.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I completely agree there. But what if the officer sees, lets say, an open container in the floorboard while speaking to you. That gives him probable cause does it not?

Don't know if it gives him anymore PC other than to verify that you are not impaired. I would think the vehicle is off limits still.

 

[jamesg]

So I think the part I still want clarification on guys, is the determining of probable cause. Does the officer have to make it clear to you that he suspects you of committing a crime, or can he proceed to carry out his duties within the law without actually informing you up front of the suspected offense? There seems to be a grey area where if he tells you, you were jaywalking, and you disagree, you now feel like you can play hardball and refuse to show ID or submit to a search but if it is probable cause to him he is within the law. We don't necessarily have to agree with him.

**or should this be a new thread? have we wandered too far OT?

 

[Rookie]

Here's one more example...

The other day, I bought a laptop at Walmart. In order to buy a laptop, you have to find someone, have them unlock two locks to get the laptop, they take it directly to the register, and you pay. Only then can you touch the laptop. The guy started taping my receipt to the laptop and I told him I'd take it. He then tells me a story of the last guy he sold a laptop to. The guy dropped his receipt between the register and the door. As he's walking out, he gets stopped by the greeter demanding to see his receipt. The poor dumb fool stood there for about ten minutes while the manager tracked down his receipt. I was amazed. People are so used to "going with the flow" that they don't see the harm in giving away their rights, even if it becomes inconvenient for them. Rights weren't born of convenience, they were born from necessity. This is why I will hold my rights above amiable resolution.

In case you're wondering, I took the receipt off the computer and walked out the door. When the greeter said, "excuse me, sir", I said, "no thanks" and walked on out.

 

[ATM]

If an officer believes he has PC or RAS to demand something, I won't resist, but that's a whole lot different than just asking me.

They can do pretty much whatever they want, but they will answer for it later if they were wrong.

They will not be held accountable for anything I gave them permission to do and anything they find pursuant to my consent could be used against me.

 

[rugertoter]

In IN you do not have to make it known unless asked. So if I get pulled over, which has never happened so far, I'm not gonna bring it up unless he asks me. Now in MI you have to by law inform the officer immediately. Just learn the laws of the state your going to be in.

You are correct. Michigan is one of TEN states that require you to imform the LEO that you are armed and have a permit to carry.

 

[jamesg]

If an officer believes he has PC or RAS to demand something, I won't resist, but that's a whole lot different than just asking me.

They can do pretty much whatever they want, but they will answer for it later if they were wrong.

They will not be held accountable for anything I gave them permission to do and anything they find pursuant to my consent could be used against me.

But does he have to inform you ahead of time? I think that's where playing hardball with the letter of the law can get people into trouble or at least into unnecessary conflict. If he has that reason but decides not to tell you, and then you decide you aren't going to provide him ID or consent to a search, then you are technically in violation because you are now interfering with a LEO when he has PC and is within his rights to carry out a search.

From my experience they like to cuff you and come explain to you later on why they are doing what they are doing. I like to avoid those situations when possible.

 

[Rookie]

So I think the part I still want clarification on guys, is the determining of probable cause. Does the officer have to make it clear to you that he suspects you of committing a crime, or can he proceed to carry out his duties within the law without actually informing you up front of the suspected offense? There seems to be a grey area where if he tells you, you were jaywalking, and you disagree, you now feel like you can play hardball and refuse to show ID or submit to a search but if it is probable cause to him he is within the law. We don't necessarily have to agree with him.

**or should this be a new thread? have we wandered too far OT?

Let's run with your example. Let's say I'm sitting on a park bench and an officer asks to see my ID. I ask him if I've committed an infraction or ordinance violation and he responds with Jay walking. I will hand him my ID, get it back, and go straight to the station (jaywalking all the way) and file a formal complaint on the officer for violation of my 4th amendment rights.

If he says, "I'd like to know who I'm talking to." I'm going to ask if I'm being detained. If he says no then I'll leave.

Someone quicker than me needs to post the "don't talk to police" link.

 

[ATM]

But does he have to inform you ahead of time? I think that's where playing hardball with the letter of the law can get people into trouble or at least into unnecessary conflict. If he has that reason but decides not to tell you, and then you decide you aren't going to provide him ID or consent to a search, then you are technically in violation because you are now interfering with a LEO when he has PC and is within his rights to carry out a search.

From my experience they like to cuff you and come explain to you later on why they are doing what they are doing. I like to avoid those situations when possible.

First, I would never consent to a search regardless. If they are justified, they don't need my consent so asking is moot.

On IDing myself, I could ask, "why am I being detained?"

If they tell me it is for an infraction or ordinance violation, I do so.

If they aren't willing to tell me why they're talking to me, they should just go ahead and arrest me. I'll find out eventually.