Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember. It was cold in Florida?
In any event, you can't possibly compare CNN with Fox. Let me know if you want me to dig up Fox's greatest hits.
Last edited:
Can police demand to see ID without suspicion a crime was committed?
- Thread starter NoodleStrudle
- Start date
In any event, you can't possibly compare CNN with Fox. Let me know if you want me to dig up Fox's greatest hits.
I call BS. On average liberal media is way more honest than Fox. On the truth-o-meter Fox ranks right next to gutter rats. Remember inauguration crowd size photos and video footage to name one of hundreds....
That may be your feelings and overall I agree, people who refuse to show ID to police authority have an issue with accepting law enforcement as higher authority. There might be isolated cases of overreach but on average I believe a country that operates based on rule of law and has law enforcers that in huge majority conduct themselves professionally one should have no issue to identify oneself.
Having said that I still want to fully understand what the law actually has to say on demanding ID from citizens who are NOT suspected of any crime.
Having said that I still want to fully understand what the law actually has to say on demanding ID from citizens who are NOT suspected of any crime.
How can the police demand to see something that isn’t required to have?
It’s all about circumstance and state laws.
So, if you’re driving a car, the answer is yes because you are required to have ID if operating a vehicle. If you’re walking down the street, minding your own business and not conspicuous, the answer is no. You are secure in your person.
Now, if you are conspicuous, or associated with conspicuous people, then yes.
It’s all about circumstance and state laws.
So, if you’re driving a car, the answer is yes because you are required to have ID if operating a vehicle. If you’re walking down the street, minding your own business and not conspicuous, the answer is no. You are secure in your person.
Now, if you are conspicuous, or associated with conspicuous people, then yes.
Hmm, that seems to be your opinion and I respect that but your point seems inconclusive, just because I have an ID on me does not mean someone can demand to show the ID. Either there is a law or there is not..if there is please point me to it, your state or any state of your choosing...
so far not a single person could point to any law whatsoever. That is exactly what worries me.... that law enforcement and ordinary citizens are on totally different pages and that is exactly one big reason for the current discontent.
so far not a single person could point to any law whatsoever. That is exactly what worries me.... that law enforcement and ordinary citizens are on totally different pages and that is exactly one big reason for the current discontent.
Read to your heart's content:
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/stop_identify_statutes_in_us-lg-20180201v3.pdf
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.[1]
The decision was written by Chief Justice Warren Burger and unanimously supported by the other justices.[2] His summary of the factual elements of the case includes the following:
Two, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."[3]
The finding held that:
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."[3]
While the application of the relevant Texas law was held unconstitutional in the case, the constitutional status of the law itself was not addressed.
__________________
_______________________
"Stop and identify" statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. If there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in "Stop and ID" states. In the case of Utah v. Strieff (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer's stop of Edward Strieff and his demand for identification from Strieff was unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence collected pursuant to the stop was admissible due to the determination that Strieff was subject to a pre-existing arrest warrant. Therefore, the pre-existing warrant "attenuated" the unlawful stop-and-identify.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
The decision was written by Chief Justice Warren Burger and unanimously supported by the other justices.[2] His summary of the factual elements of the case includes the following:
Two, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."[3]
The finding held that:
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."[3]
While the application of the relevant Texas law was held unconstitutional in the case, the constitutional status of the law itself was not addressed.
__________________
_______________________
"Stop and identify" statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. If there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in "Stop and ID" states. In the case of Utah v. Strieff (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer's stop of Edward Strieff and his demand for identification from Strieff was unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence collected pursuant to the stop was admissible due to the determination that Strieff was subject to a pre-existing arrest warrant. Therefore, the pre-existing warrant "attenuated" the unlawful stop-and-identify.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
You keep on repeating the same thing: "the Court reasoned that a state statute can require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a brief stop, if the detention was based on reasonable suspicion of a crime."
If there is no reasonable suspicion a crime was committed then your referenced information does not answer the question at all. An officer cannot just make up a story of "suspicion of a crime".
If there is no reasonable suspicion a crime was committed then your referenced information does not answer the question at all. An officer cannot just make up a story of "suspicion of a crime".
First valuable information here and it confirms my hunch that it is not lawful to force someone to hand out their ID lacking any suspicion a crime was committed. Now, I understand that some in social media actually provoke police stops and curiously stand ready with video camera and a bunch of arguments just to make the point that they are protected by the 4th amendment. I am not in support of such people. Those kind of people are close to social justice warriors whom I do not support in the slightest.
My point here is entirely different: My point is that the lack of clarity and transparency of what exactly is allowed and what is not allowed by both, ordinary citizens and police forces is a main reason of contention and conflict between law enforcement and citizens. In most other counties that do not rely on common law but on civil law that clearly state what privileges and what responsibility its citizens have there is no confusion whatsoever. However, in countries with common law the situation can be less clear. Most people do not know what rights they have and most police offers in the US, so I claim, do not know either. This is perfectly apparent when seeing how many police officers appear confused and not knowledgeable about their rights and limitations.
My point here is entirely different: My point is that the lack of clarity and transparency of what exactly is allowed and what is not allowed by both, ordinary citizens and police forces is a main reason of contention and conflict between law enforcement and citizens. In most other counties that do not rely on common law but on civil law that clearly state what privileges and what responsibility its citizens have there is no confusion whatsoever. However, in countries with common law the situation can be less clear. Most people do not know what rights they have and most police offers in the US, so I claim, do not know either. This is perfectly apparent when seeing how many police officers appear confused and not knowledgeable about their rights and limitations.
Last edited:
Your walking down the street or your in your car, whatever... If the Police want to question you, see your i.d. You'd better comply or be ready to argue your rights back at the station.
Is it right, no. But most Cops don't just pull people over or stop them on the street just for fun. Usually something doesn't look right, or you look out of place.
Simply complying by identifying yourself, although a tad over the constitutional side, usually eases the situation. Agreeing to be searched is something else.
Is it right, no. But most Cops don't just pull people over or stop them on the street just for fun. Usually something doesn't look right, or you look out of place.
Simply complying by identifying yourself, although a tad over the constitutional side, usually eases the situation. Agreeing to be searched is something else.