Are we required to ID ourselves to police officers that do not have probable cause?

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: daveshel
They can ask for ID at any time for no reason and haul you in pending identification. I forget the case that sets this standard.

They can do a cursory pat-down search without probable cause if they have reasonable suspicion, and this has been construed to allow pretty much random searches on the street. These are called Terry searches from the case Terry v. Ohio.

Depending on what state you live in, they can ask for ID. In North Dakota, I don't legally have to have any ID on me nor do I have to show an Officer any ID unless I am being charged with a crime.

Just because you aren't required to carry government papers on you is irrelevant to the question of whether you have to ID yourself to a police officer upon request.

I'm getting quite a chuckle over the answers here-the vast number of people that feel no restraint whatsoever as to pontificating legal advice, equipped with no knowledge but with plenty of personal belief to back them up. I wonder if they would be so willing to give an opinion on a medical or engineering matter so cavalierly off the cuff?

The short answer, subject to a lot of qualifications, is yes.

I don't know if you read the the thread title, but it's "Are we required to ID ourselves to police officers that do not have probable cause?". As far as I know, you're not required to show a police officer any form of identification for no reason. This is of course, different. When a police officer has Reasonable Suspicion.

As for people that "pointificate" legal advice with personal belief to back them, well...
Stop and Identify Stautes

In short there is no short answer. Seems I am not the one giving opinions off the cuff.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: smack Down
The only thing you need to know is to shut up and tell them no when they ask to search.

Right. Otherwise, what are you going to do? Pull out your glock?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Supposedly you are not required to provide ANY ID when asked. Apparently this is only the case if you say that you are a citizen of the state such as Ohio or whatever state you happen to live in. The second you provide any ID that IDs you are a Citizen of the United States or say the same thing they can convict you. They can arrest you and try you regardless of your response but ultimately it would be thrown out of court if it ever reached SCOTUS.

I have to reasearch this further as I only recently heard of this but supposedly it has to do with the Constitution and the wording of the law that gives police powers etc.

I'm not sure if anyone has actually tried this and pushed it as far as SCOTUS or not. I'm sure lower courts would convict the person regardless. They only selectively follow SCOTUS rullings. That much is a fact.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Supposedly you are not required to provide ANY ID when asked. Apparently this is only the case if you say that you are a citizen of the state such as Ohio or whatever state you happen to live in. The second you provide any ID that IDs you are a Citizen of the United States or say the same thing they can convict you. They can arrest you and try you regardless of your response but ultimately it would be thrown out of court if it ever reached SCOTUS.

I have to reasearch this further as I only recently heard of this but supposedly it has to do with the Constitution and the wording of the law that gives police powers etc.

I'm not sure if anyone has actually tried this and pushed it as far as SCOTUS or not. I'm sure lower courts would convict the person regardless. They only selectively follow SCOTUS rullings. That much is a fact.

Besides this link, read my thread above.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Aelius
Supposedly you are not required to provide ANY ID when asked. Apparently this is only the case if you say that you are a citizen of the state such as Ohio or whatever state you happen to live in. The second you provide any ID that IDs you are a Citizen of the United States or say the same thing they can convict you. They can arrest you and try you regardless of your response but ultimately it would be thrown out of court if it ever reached SCOTUS.

I have to reasearch this further as I only recently heard of this but supposedly it has to do with the Constitution and the wording of the law that gives police powers etc.

I'm not sure if anyone has actually tried this and pushed it as far as SCOTUS or not. I'm sure lower courts would convict the person regardless. They only selectively follow SCOTUS rullings. That much is a fact.

Besides this link, read my thread above.

I'm talking about your status as a person. Not giving your name or the legality of being stopped in the first place.

If your status is that you are a citizen of the United States then a whole whack of federal laws apply to you if it goes to trial.

If however you are stopped and state that you are a citizen of the State of Ohio then no ID is required within state. Now if you went to trial and you were out of state then you may be in trouble, but not if you are in your own state. That's my current understanding and no I cannot back it up because as I said it's something I haven't researched yet. Someone else was explaining this to me the other day in more detail, most of which I don't recall.

Wouldn't be surprised if no one heard of it here, but I doubt if no one has tried it. Either way I don't know for a fact that this is the case or not.

 

[fitzov]

I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: fitzov
I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

Which is illegal.

A bank for example has no right to know your SS or even ask for it. They are a private institution, not a government agency. Technically. In reality its the other way around, but that's a different story.

When I created my bank account and they required an SI card (Canada) I refused to provide one. Instead I gave them my military ID instead. In case anyone is wondering yes they accepted it. Since that ID is archived and no longer used once I leave the military it doesn't matter that I give it out. Your SS or SI pretty much stays with you forever and its a pain and a very long process to get a new one.

It was funny because the account manager was insulted that I refused to provide her my SI card and she tried to make me feel like an idiot for daring to suggest that I could not provide it. She practically reached out for it when it fell out of my wallet when I pulled my military ID out.

Anyway I don't give it out.

Sometimes I wonder how far we are from the following line; "Papers please....your papers are not in order... please come with us for your own protection."

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: fitzov
I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

Which is illegal.

A bank for example has no right to know your SS or even ask for it. They are a private institution, not a government agency. Technically. In reality its the other way around, but that's a different story.

When I created my bank account and they required an SI card (Canada) I refused to provide one. Instead I gave them my military ID instead. In case anyone is wondering yes they accepted it. Since that ID is archived and no longer used once I leave the military it doesn't matter that I give it out. Your SS or SI pretty much stays with you forever and its a pain and a very long process to get a new one.

It was funny because the account manager was insulted that I refused to provide her my SI card and she tried to make me feel like an idiot for daring to suggest that I could not provide it. She practically reached out for it when it fell out of my wallet when I pulled my military ID out.

Anyway I don't give it out.

Sometimes I wonder how far we are from the following line; "Papers please....your papers are not in order... please come with us for your own protection."

It's illegal to use SS# for id? Serious question, really.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: fitzov
I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

Which is illegal.

A bank for example has no right to know your SS or even ask for it. They are a private institution, not a government agency. Technically. In reality its the other way around, but that's a different story.

When I created my bank account and they required an SI card (Canada) I refused to provide one. Instead I gave them my military ID instead. In case anyone is wondering yes they accepted it. Since that ID is archived and no longer used once I leave the military it doesn't matter that I give it out. Your SS or SI pretty much stays with you forever and its a pain and a very long process to get a new one.

It was funny because the account manager was insulted that I refused to provide her my SI card and she tried to make me feel like an idiot for daring to suggest that I could not provide it. She practically reached out for it when it fell out of my wallet when I pulled my military ID out.

Anyway I don't give it out.

Sometimes I wonder how far we are from the following line; "Papers please....your papers are not in order... please come with us for your own protection."

That may work in Canada, but you can't get a credit card without using your SSN here in the states, that's their primary way of tracking your credit history.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: fitzov
I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

Which is illegal.

A bank for example has no right to know your SS or even ask for it. They are a private institution, not a government agency. Technically. In reality its the other way around, but that's a different story.

When I created my bank account and they required an SI card (Canada) I refused to provide one. Instead I gave them my military ID instead. In case anyone is wondering yes they accepted it. Since that ID is archived and no longer used once I leave the military it doesn't matter that I give it out. Your SS or SI pretty much stays with you forever and its a pain and a very long process to get a new one.

It was funny because the account manager was insulted that I refused to provide her my SI card and she tried to make me feel like an idiot for daring to suggest that I could not provide it. She practically reached out for it when it fell out of my wallet when I pulled my military ID out.

Anyway I don't give it out.

Sometimes I wonder how far we are from the following line; "Papers please....your papers are not in order... please come with us for your own protection."

That may work in Canada, but you can't get a credit card without using your SSN here in the states, that's their primary way of tracking your credit history.

I don't think you can get a bank account either, or a job, or a license to drive, etc.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: fitzov
I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is it because someone asking you for id is against privacy? If that's it then you need to look at SS#. Virtually every agency and corporation uses it for ID purposes yet no one give to shites about that.

Which is illegal.

A bank for example has no right to know your SS or even ask for it. They are a private institution, not a government agency. Technically. In reality its the other way around, but that's a different story.

When I created my bank account and they required an SI card (Canada) I refused to provide one. Instead I gave them my military ID instead. In case anyone is wondering yes they accepted it. Since that ID is archived and no longer used once I leave the military it doesn't matter that I give it out. Your SS or SI pretty much stays with you forever and its a pain and a very long process to get a new one.

It was funny because the account manager was insulted that I refused to provide her my SI card and she tried to make me feel like an idiot for daring to suggest that I could not provide it. She practically reached out for it when it fell out of my wallet when I pulled my military ID out.

Anyway I don't give it out.

Sometimes I wonder how far we are from the following line; "Papers please....your papers are not in order... please come with us for your own protection."

That may work in Canada, but you can't get a credit card without using your SSN here in the states, that's their primary way of tracking your credit history.

I don't think you can get a bank account either, or a job, or a license to drive, etc.

All true and none of it is legal. It's socially acceptable which is not the same thing as legal.

Actually license doesn't count as that's provided by the state which is a government.

The only reason you would need a SSN for a job is for the purpose of income taxes. Which is illegal for the government to collect. Again that's a different story.

We live in a credit world where everything revolves around credit and debt. Fvck credit card companies and major banks. Deal with a small bank and own your own stuff instead of buying everything on credit. I know, easy to say and hard to do. Sadly.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Topic Title: Are we required to ID ourselves to police officers that do not have probable cause?

Actually there should be a License to Live.

Do something stupid and lose that License and be put to death immediately.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Topic Title: Are we required to ID ourselves to police officers that do not have probable cause?

Actually there should be a License to Live.

Do something stupid and lose that License and be put to death immediately.

In that case you'd be dead 27,825 times over.

 

[piasabird]

Refusing to cooperate with a police officer is called obstruction of justice.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: bctbct
I know you have to obey if they have probable cuase, but if you are walking down the sidewalk and a cop pulls up and asks to see your ID, do you have to show? I dont think so.

A few months ago there was a story in Colorado where a woman riding the bus was asked for her ID (bus somehow went thru a federal complex). She refused and was arrested but later released.

IMO this is a right I would like to see preserved. Just another reason that we are the greatest country on earth.

It depends, the borough of state college made a nice little rule to basically "legally" illegally search anyone.
In order stop homeless persons in the town, a police officer can ask for id, if you do not wish to show id, you either have to produce proof of residence or have greater than $50 dollars. Dont have either, you are getting patted down. Hope you didnt spend your last 50 on drugs.

 

[flyboy84]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Topic Title: Are we required to ID ourselves to police officers that do not have probable cause?

Actually there should be a License to Live.

Do something stupid and lose that License and be put to death immediately.

In that case you'd be dead 27,825 times over.

hahahahahhaha

 

[Nutz]

Originally posted by: smack Down
The only thing you need to know is to shut up and tell them no when they ask to search.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. This is exactly how you deal with it. Its lawful, civic minded, and protects you from incriminating yourself.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Refusing to cooperate with a police officer is called obstruction of justice.

And when you use it illegally it gets thrown out of court.

Why do you think police charge people and then suddenly drop charges or don't charge them at all yet arrest them but let them go later.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smack Down
The only thing you need to know is to shut up and tell them no when they ask to search.

Hey Smack, here's what happens whn you do that:

11-22-2006 Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police

ATLANTA - A police official said narcotics officers were justified in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.

Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity. But police said the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years.

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

Sarah Dozier, identified as a niece of the woman, told WAGA-TV that there were never any drugs at the house.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."
=================================================
War on Drugs - Killing one Grandmother at a time

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."
=================================================
War on Drugs - Killing one Grandmother at a time

No, of course not. They should have just taken the bullets like real men do and walked the sting off.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Wanted to add one more thing about SIN or SSNs. At least in Canada a SIN # is your corporate #. That's how they can legally take income tax from you. It's also how many other laws are applied to you. My advice is to not use it. It's a tricky process but, at least in Canada, you can declare that you are a Natural Person in which case many "bad" laws do not apply to you.

In case anyone is wondering if this would work... A friend of my friend's friend was charged with evading income tax by Revenue Canada. His court date was just the other day. It was quite tricky and he had to do and say things exactly but he gave the Judge no other choice but to have the charge thrown out. A lot of his friends are starting the process of declaring themselves a Natural Person.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."
=================================================
War on Drugs - Killing one Grandmother at a time

No, of course not. They should have just taken the bullets like real men do and walked the sting off.

Real men wouldn't be bashing 92 yr old Grandmother's doors down to begin with.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Real men wouldn't be bashing 92 yr old Grandmother's doors down to begin with.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

Besides, this article doesn't correlate to the topic at hand. There is a distinct difference between getting pulled over and the cop asking to search you and a cop serving a search warrant. You can not refuse a search warrant.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Real men wouldn't be bashing 92 yr old Grandmother's doors down to begin with.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

Besides, this article doesn't correlate to the topic at hand. There is a distinct difference between getting pulled over and the cop asking to search you and a cop serving a search warrant. You can not refuse a search warrant.

It's no different from a home invasion if they didn't announce that they are police. Lets not forget that they were not even in uniform. I know they said they did, but is there a witness or is that just something written on a peice of paper?

 

[skrewler2]

I didn't read the whole thread, but in California, a cop cannot just come up to you on the street and ask for your ID.