Can police demand to see ID without suspicion a crime was committed?

N

NoodleStrudle

I have come across many videos on YouTube where private citizens filmed being randomly stopped in their cars by police and where the police demanded to see ID. Now I want to make perfectly clear that I have zero issue with showing ID to a police officer who properly identified himself. I am just curious what the law exactly says and why there seem to be so many contradicting remarks either by various people or even by police officers who definitely do not seem to know the law else they would be able to cite or at least be able to point to it.

Just as an example the following youtube clip. Can we please keep politics and all the Republican and Democrat BS out of this. I simply like to understand what the law specifically says, I understand that there are different state laws so maybe we can just stick for the moment to this particular video which was filmed in NY state.

 
Do you have a link to the law code? I am interested in what the law says not what someone thinks. Thanks

DTB2 said:
Yes, they can.

Usually they'll say that they want to know who they're dealing with. Refuse and it goes downhill from there, usually.
More...
 
In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime. If the officer has reasonable suspicion the detainee is armed, the officer may perform a "pat-down" of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop;[5] some states (e.g., Colorado[6]) require that a person detained provide additional information.

From Wikipedia
 
Well, the key here seems to be "reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime". If no speeding while driving occurred, the car is in perfect condition, the driver does not appear intoxicated, and has not run from a crime scene then it appears to be hard to me to apply "reasonable suspicion". Hence my wondering whether police can just stop someone and ask for their ID when there is no such suspicion.

DTB2 said:
In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime. If the officer has reasonable suspicion the detainee is armed, the officer may perform a "pat-down" of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop;[5] some states (e.g., Colorado[6]) require that a person detained provide additional information.

From Wikipedia
More...
 
If you are stopped, IMO, they have a reasonable suspicion of something. "erratic" driving, acting "suspiciously".

Like I said, if you refuse, it puts you in a different light in their eyes. Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is.
 
hmm, thank you. Its probably not an exhaustive answer to the specific question I asked but again as I said I guess I side with your general thought on this in that when I am stopped I believe police have some reason other than just wanting to waste their time or harass people.

DTB2 said:
If you are stopped, IMO, they have a reasonable suspicion of something. "erratic" driving, acting "suspiciously".

Like I said, if you refuse, it puts you in a different light in their eyes. Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is.
More...
 
NoodleStrudle said:
I have come across many videos on YouTube where private citizens filmed being randomly stopped in their cars by police and where the police demanded to see ID. Now I want to make perfectly clear that I have zero issue with showing ID to a police officer who properly identified himself. I am just curious what the law exactly says and why there seem to be so many contradicting remarks either by various people or even by police officers who definitely do not seem to know the law else they would be able to cite or at least be able to point to it.

Just as an example the following youtube clip. Can we please keep politics and all the Republican and Democrat BS out of this. I simply like to understand what the law specifically says, I understand that there are different state laws so maybe we can just stick for the moment to this particular video which was filmed in NY state.

More...
What a bunch of assholes- The guys filming I mean.
Oh, and anytime someone “edits” a video you know they are removing pieces that don’t help their argument.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Graduates from the Fox News School of Broadcasting?
More...
CNN and MSNBC have been caught not only editing but doctoring their videos!
Remeber when CNN repeatedly tried pushing the story that George Zimmerman muttered "fucking c**n" instead of "fucking cold". They even manipulated the sound to fit their story until they were BUSTED!
Not surprised though.
Can't spell LIBERAL without LIE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top