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

[Bunnykid68]

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.

Some of us given the opportunity will embrace those situations just to educate the enforcers of the law, of course depending on the situation.

 

[jamesg]

Thanks for the responses. I am trying to figure out how to protect my rights and follow the law as closely as possible without ending up locked up or detained, even if for a few hours.....unlike some people I would really rather not spend hours away from work having to deal with the stress and all only to prove a point, even if I am in the right. Once I am retired maybe I will embrace those encounters

 

[Rookie]

Thanks for the responses. I am trying to figure out how to protect my rights and follow the law as closely as possible without ending up locked up or detained, even if for a few hours.....unlike some people I would really rather not spend hours away from work having to deal with the stress and all only to prove a point, even if I am in the right.

Believe me when I say this. The last thing I want to do is go to jail especially for obeying the law. I've spent my whole life following the law because I enjoy freedom. However, it would be selfish of me to give up the rights, that many have died for, because it would be a few hours of inconvenience for me.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thanks for the responses. I am trying to figure out how to protect my rights and follow the law as closely as possible without ending up locked up or detained, even if for a few hours.....unlike some people I would really rather not spend hours away from work having to deal with the stress and all only to prove a point, even if I am in the right.

I would gladly go to jail for all of you to help protect our rights. Many officers and soldiers are willing to give their lives to protect those rights, the least I can do is be willing to fight for them anyway I can

 

[jamesg]

So in your opinion the literal letter of the law in black and white is what they died for? You don't think it was more for the spirit of the law written. Like do you think by showing an ID you don't have to somehow is disrespecting the sacrifices made even if you draw a line there and protect your rights still? Because I see those two things on two very different levels. I would not feel comfortable invoking someones death for something so small. I would think more along the lines of they died to protect the constitution as a whole and the rights within but not necessarily to the very letter to the point of being difficult in society.

I am trying to understand that angle without disrespecting the sacrifices made because they mean too much to me also.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So in your opinion the literal letter of the law in black and white is what they died for? You don't think it was more for the spirit of the law written. Like do you think by showing an ID you don't have to somehow is disrespecting the sacrifices made even if you draw a line there and protect your rights still? Because I see those two things on two very different levels. I would not feel comfortable invoking someones death for something so small. I would think more along the lines of they died to protect the constitution as a whole and the rights within but not necessarily to the very letter to the point of being difficult in society.

I am trying to understand that angle without disrespecting the sacrifices made because they mean too much to me also.

4th amendment. Right to privacy and all. I do not have to show papers is my whole point, not sure about everyone else. Even the little laws matter, especially when they cross that fine line that the Constitution tries to protect. We are supposed to be free, not have to prove everyday that we are free.

You also have to remember the powers that be violate some of those laws and try to rewrite them, so I will stand my ground on the smallest statute that is enacted into law.

 

[ATM]

The spirit of the law is to restrain criminals and tyrants from preying on the rest of society.

The letter of the law is what ultimately infringes on us all.

 

[Roadie]

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?

Of course it does, but that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about "fishing expeditions" in essence..

 

[ralphb72]

WOW

This kind of stuff: Aimless: Land of the Free, Part I
makes me sick.

WOW

 

[jamesg]

Of course it does, but that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about "fishing expeditions" in essence..

I am trying to understand is all. Thanks

 

[Bunnykid68]

I am trying to understand is all. Thanks

Dude, that's what we are hear for. To argue, have a good time, and sometimes learn something new.

 

[Roadie]

I am trying to understand is all. Thanks

Glad you are open minded to understanding. It's a great trait in a gun owner!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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.

My sincere apologies if that is how I made you feel. Alan (AJG357) is correct, I am very passionate about this stuff and I can come off a bit harsh. My wife has to tell me all the time to lighten up when we discuss this stuff LOL.

The video I posted was a joke from one of my favorite movies and was intended to lighten up the tone and meant no offense by it. But I also do not like it when someone quotes what I post, says they agree with it, and then proceeds to explain the exact opposite of what I meant. No harm, no foul.

I am glad that you found some guys you could relate to better and come to an understanding on an important issue, that is what INGO is all about. Hope you keep learning just as I do.

 

[Bill of Rights]

ATM hit on it exactly, JamesG. If they have to ask your permission to search, it means they do not have either PC or RAS to do it without your consent. In his example, "Mind if I take a look inside? You don't have anything to hide, do you?", a good reply is, "I don't consent to any searches, and no, I don't have anything to hide." If you only answer "No." (to "you don't have anything to hide, do you?", that's ambiguous enough to be taken as "no, I don't mind." The open container is not only PC for a search, it's also prima facie evidence of a violation of the law, which gets you arrested, your vehicle towed, and its contents inventoried. However, if you had someone in your car last week and took them home, not realizing they still had the bottle on them, and it was covered with a towel on the floor behind your seat, there's no PC, but you're getting busted anyway if you allow the search.

Give the minimum necessary information. Be civil, be polite, but know your rights and exercise them. That's what most of us are saying here. It doesn't have to be adversarial.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamesg]

My sincere apologies if that is how I made you feel. Alan (AJG357) is correct, I am very passionate about this stuff and I can come off a bit harsh. My wife has to tell me all the time to lighten up when we discuss this stuff LOL.

The video I posted was a joke from one of my favorite movies and was intended to lighten up the tone and meant no offense by it. But I also do not like it when someone quotes what I post, says they agree with it, and then proceeds to explain the exact opposite of what I meant. No harm, no foul.

I am glad that you found some guys you could relate to better and come to an understanding on an important issue, that is what INGO is all about. Hope you keep learning just as I do.

i appreciate your passion for something that matters, no apology necessary, I will defend your rights as much as I can bro

ATM hit on it exactly, JamesG. If they have to ask your permission to search, it means they do not have either PC or RAS to do it without your consent. In his example, "Mind if I take a look inside? You don't have anything to hide, do you?", a good reply is, "I don't consent to any searches, and no, I don't have anything to hide." If you only answer "No." (to "you don't have anything to hide, do you?", that's ambiguous enough to be taken as "no, I don't mind." The open container is not only PC for a search, it's also prima facie evidence of a violation of the law, which gets you arrested, your vehicle towed, and its contents inventoried. However, if you had someone in your car last week and took them home, not realizing they still had the bottle on them, and it was covered with a towel on the floor behind your seat, there's no PC, but you're getting busted anyway if you allow the search.

Give the minimum necessary information. Be civil, be polite, but know your rights and exercise them. That's what most of us are saying here. It doesn't have to be adversarial.

Blessings,
Bill

i like the clarification, that if they have to ask, they don't already have PC. That seems logical.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My sincere apologies if that is how I made you feel. Alan (AJG357) is correct, I am very passionate about this stuff and I can come off a bit harsh. My wife has to tell me all the time to lighten up when we discuss this stuff LOL.

The video I posted was a joke from one of my favorite movies and was intended to lighten up the tone and meant no offense by it. But I also do not like it when someone quotes what I post, says they agree with it, and then proceeds to explain the exact opposite of what I meant. No harm, no foul.

I am glad that you found some guys you could relate to better and come to an understanding on an important issue, that is what INGO is all about. Hope you keep learning just as I do.

Frost, just quit being so confusing all the time



Troublemaker

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Troublemaker

You know, that's what I meant to put as my screen name and I just didn't spell so good that day.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

James...

Let me dip back a ways and bring up a point that your expressed. Sometimes, until we are challenged, we don't really understand the errors in our thinking... so I would ask you to really think about what you posted here.

We all agree, and black letter law was posted, that UNLESS a cop can articulate a violation that you have committed that you do not have to show your ID, right? (We're not dealing with the LTC, now, just general ID.) And that TELLING the cop the information is sufficient under the law. A drivers license is not necessary unless it involves a motor vehicle. Are you with me so far?

So what you just posted, reflexively and I think without thinking it through, that a cop who 1) has no cause to deal with you since you have not committed a violation and 2) has no legal right to ask for your ID 3) MAY STILL create a situation for you, a totally innocent citizen minding his own buisness, that will "make your life a real PITA for a short while" merely because he CAN.

I'm not saying that you said the cop should do this. I am not saying that you approve of the cop doing so. But it seems as if you posted that without once sitting back and thinking, "is this the behaviour that we want, desire, and come to expect in the very people who have the power of not only making our life a living hell but have the power of instantaneous life and death over us the moment they feel "threatened.""

THIS is the reason why many of the posters are disagreeing with you. Because we want to clear the streets of cops who are willing to create a PITA situation just because they "want to." WE want to identify them, label them and make their life miserable. Unfortunately they don't come with a yellow stripe down their spine so we can't go lifting the shirts of cops to find them.

What we can do, though, is to hold to our rights. Hold fast. And let the cops self identify and proclaim to the public just how well THEY understand the concept of "freedom" and "rights" and all those other good things.

If a cop cannot remain professional, if a cop must "make up" a spitting on the sidewalk as you posted otherwise just to get probably cause, do YOU really want that cop on the street? Do you want him busting your wife on false charges because she was nervous, didn't answer a question fast enough and it ticked him off?

Or do you want someone, somewhere, previously finding out just what this cop is made of, and hopefully either getting his behavioiur corrected or him off the force.

 

[jamesg]

James...

Let me dip back a ways and bring up a point that your expressed. Sometimes, until we are challenged, we don't really understand the errors in our thinking... so I would ask you to really think about what you posted here.

We all agree, and black letter law was posted, that UNLESS a cop can articulate a violation that you have committed that you do not have to show your ID, right? (We're not dealing with the LTC, now, just general ID.) And that TELLING the cop the information is sufficient under the law. A drivers license is not necessary unless it involves a motor vehicle. Are you with me so far?

So what you just posted, reflexively and I think without thinking it through, that a cop who 1) has no cause to deal with you since you have not committed a violation and 2) has no legal right to ask for your ID 3) MAY STILL create a situation for you, a totally innocent citizen minding his own buisness, that will "make your life a real PITA for a short while" merely because he CAN.

I'm not saying that you said the cop should do this. I am not saying that you approve of the cop doing so. But it seems as if you posted that without once sitting back and thinking, "is this the behaviour that we want, desire, and come to expect in the very people who have the power of not only making our life a living hell but have the power of instantaneous life and death over us the moment they feel "threatened.""

THIS is the reason why many of the posters are disagreeing with you. Because we want to clear the streets of cops who are willing to create a PITA situation just because they "want to." WE want to identify them, label them and make their life miserable. Unfortunately they don't come with a yellow stripe down their spine so we can't go lifting the shirts of cops to find them.

What we can do, though, is to hold to our rights. Hold fast. And let the cops self identify and proclaim to the public just how well THEY understand the concept of "freedom" and "rights" and all those other good things.

If a cop cannot remain professional, if a cop must "make up" a spitting on the sidewalk as you posted otherwise just to get probably cause, do YOU really want that cop on the street? Do you want him busting your wife on false charges because she was nervous, didn't answer a question fast enough and it ticked him off?

Or do you want someone, somewhere, previously finding out just what this cop is made of, and hopefully either getting his behavioiur corrected or him off the force.

nice post, agreed

is there a laymans interpretation of the black and white letter of the law anywhere? something one can use to quick drill themselves in various situations so when the time comes they can be prepared to react accordingly?

 

[Rookie]

Officer Harless of Canton Ohio is a great example of what Jack is talking about.