# TN Cop needs to see drivers license.



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

Activist group are doing air quality monitoring. Within minutes of arrival, TN cops arrive and begin investigating things.
Not interested in that, it's the nature of the cigar cop's actions that concern me.
Another cop on the scene states that they (the activists) did nothing wrong.

Tennessee cop needs to see his drivers license, "Now".
Catch 1 - He's not driving.
Catch 2 - He supplied the cop with a US passport with photo.

Timeline : 2:00 - 3:45

At 3:45 the "cop" then assaults the person by reaching out and covering the camera with his hand, without warning.

[yt]frr-e8C5k6Y[/yt]





This is of course heavily edited footage, so I'm taking it with a bit of salt.

Concerns:
1- Isn't a valid US Passport valid ID?
2- Shouldn't law enforcement know this, and be familiar with them?
3- IF I'm not driving a vehicle, why should I give you a photo ID, much less a drivers license?  
4- If I hand you a Federal ID, isn't that sufficient?
5- Since it is legal to photograph and video cops as long as the act is not interfering with the officers performance of his duty, was the grab of the camera correct?

Reading links on the groups website they appear to have had several run ins with the local cops, who it sounds like are paid by the company refusing to do cleanup work, not by public funds. I may be wrong on that part.


----------



## Xinglu (Jan 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Concerns:
> 1- Isn't a valid US Passport valid ID?
> 2- Shouldn't law enforcement know this, and be familiar with them?
> 3- IF I'm not driving a vehicle, why should I give you a photo ID, much less a drivers license?
> ...



1. It is my understand that it is a valid form of ID.
2. Yes.  
3. Showing ID can be a reasonable request for an officer doing an investigation.  However, refusing one form of valid ID and demanding a DL when you are not driving does seem out of sorts to me.
4. One would think so.
5. I really don't think the grabbing of the camera was appropriate.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

While the passport would have been enough for me, why be such a dick about showing the DL? He said he had one. Apparently he just wanted to be a dick. Or he was hoping to get a cop riled up so he could catch it on camera.

I wouldn't have made such a scene if I were there I must admit. Unless I didn't think the passport was authentic or had been altered. Ask one of the other people there what the guy's name was and see if it matches. Run his name to see if he has a license. There are usually ways to verify the ID if you make the effort. 

That nasally whiny voice thing though...whats up with that? For some reason that always irritates me too.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

From my point of view:

-This guy just handed me a passport. Hmmm. OK that's unusual, Ive only had that happen 4-5 times in my career.

-The guy says he has a drivers license on him.

-He refuses to let me see the license. WTF? He had no problem giving me this passport. Is this passport fake? Does his DL not match? Whats the big deal about letting me see the passport but NOT the license?

While I would definitely do some digging on this guys identification I really don't have cause to FORCE him to give up that license yet. But my radar is going off. 

Another thing people have to consider. The video states that they were on the property owners land with his permission. That's all well and good, but AT THE TIME what did the police have? You don't typically get dispatched to "respond to the property owners residence and harass the people there". What were they dispatched to? What was the info they had to go on at the time?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> While the passport would have been enough for me, why be such a dick about showing the DL? He said he had one. Apparently he just wanted to be a dick. Or he was hoping to get a cop riled up so he could catch it on camera.
> 
> I wouldn't have made such a scene if I were there I must admit. Unless I didn't think the passport was authentic or had been altered. Ask one of the other people there what the guy's name was and see if it matches. Run his name to see if he has a license. There are usually ways to verify the ID if you make the effort.
> 
> That nasally whiny voice thing though...whats up with that? For some reason that always irritates me too.


The guy wanted to get a reaction and response.  But... a passport isn't automatically valid; it could be expired, the photo could be so old that it's worthless as ID (should someone accept the passport obtained for me when I was an infant as valid ID for me today, multiple decades later?) or just not a close enough match for the cop...  Or it's just a lot easier to run a DL query than name/DOB.  Passports don't include all the same information as a driver's license, and I'll often ask for them simply because I can copy the address down... saving several minutes of "OK, and how do you spell that?"

I don't know why the deputy was insisting on a driver's license.  But there were two involved in the tango...  What was the issue with not providing the driver's license?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> From my point of view:
> 
> -This guy just handed me a passport. Hmmm. OK that's unusual, Ive only had that happen 4-5 times in my career.
> 
> ...


Well, I've received them more often than that... though it's probably a function of where I live & work.  But it's not routine for a US citizen within the US to be carrying their passport.  Generally, when it's what they present, there's a reason they don't want me to see the driver's license...  The guy certainly wouldn't have left as long as I had grounds to hold him until I figured out what was up...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 11, 2010)

In all dealings with the police, (or anyone in authority), you can give them only the minimum cooperation and be indifferent to them as people, in essence being a turd, (its not illegal and you are within your rights), but it sets off their radar and a 10 minute dealing suddenly becomes an hour long hassle for everyone.

Or you can make it easy on everyone and do as is requested, even though yes you do not have to, but youre done in 10 minutes. 

Believe me, my libertarian views scream at giving government representatives too much information, but my time is valuable to me!

When I deal with the police, the border guys, even the lady at the ministry of transportation I try to chat, be friendly, because these guys have families, and are just doing a job. They deal mostly with the people most of us dont ever want to deal with, for that alone they deserve our respect.     

The guys in the video were the type who just wanted to show the evil, fascist cops on camera and brag in their blogs and to their buddies later at the bar how they stood up to the man.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

My question is this, if I have a drivers license on me, when am I -required- to present that to LEO, and when is is simply convenient?  Obviously if I'm operating a vehicle on a public road I have to. But if I'm driving a car on private property neither I nor the vehicle need a license. 

Also, if I don't have a government issued photo ID (and some people don't) then what do you do?  



> *Can I See Some ID?*
> During a street encounter, police may request to see your ID. While there are no state laws requiring citizens to carry ID of any kind, many states require you to identify yourself if police have reasonable suspicion to believe you're you're involved in criminal activity.
> But how would you know if an officer asking you do identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You may do this by asking "Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" Repeat, if necessary.
> If the officer says you&#8217;re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.
> ...





> *When do I have to show police my ID?*
> 
> Submitted by Steve Silverman on Sun, 02/22/2009 - 20:11     This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
> Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you&#8217;re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.


 http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID

Answerbag has some interesting replies. Most are wrong.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/389764

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread305175/pg1 also has various interesting comments, and cites some USSC cases.


Now all that said, if a cop asked me for ID in a situation that I felt was optional, and IF (big conditional here) I felt I could do this without ending up sparkly, spitting chicklets or getting something dislocated, I would ask why he needed to see it and if he knew the specific law that mandated I show it. I would of course ask in a conversational and not confrontational manner.  I'd also probably comply as 5 minutes to show vs 24 hrs in the slammer, well, y'all know I have withdrawal issues being offline that long. 

I have when I encountered cops in public asked them somewhat weird questions. 2 cases in point were "where can I shoot outdoor nudes and not cause a problem" and "who has the right of way, a cop, a fire truck or an ambulance".  I also usually hand them a MartialTalk business card and point them here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

Also, Border crossings and Air travel run under different rules, and it's been ruled that those cops do NOT need cause to demand ID.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

When do you have to present a driver's license specifically?

Generally, only when you're driving.  If I ask for it for convenience, my personal habit is to explain why; I usually say something like "Just to save me asking you how to spell everything, can I see your license?"

When do you have to present ID (I'm assuming various levels of encounter that are below actual arrest)?

Bigger question; the basic line is anytime that the cop has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that might be dispelled by presenting ID.  I know; not much help.  There's not a hard & fast rule that I'm aware, unless a state or locality has a specific law about it.  (Virginia doesn't -- though it is illegal to lie to a police officer about your identity if you are detained.)  I'm generally going to at least ask for it in anything other than a casual encounter.  Most of the time -- people will give it to me without a problem.  I'll even admit, I'm sometimes a little sneaky.  I'll ask if you have ID; if you voluntarily give it to me, I haven't asked for it...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 12, 2010)

I always carry ID.  A business card is ID.  It has my photo on it. (well, 1 does). 
I've also been asked for a birth certificate and SSI card (not by cops) as ID. Neither are really reliable.  

Out of curiosity, if you pull up a drivers license on a patrol car computer, does it include the DMV photo?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I always carry ID.  A business card is ID.  It has my photo on it. (well, 1 does).
> I've also been asked for a birth certificate and SSI card (not by cops) as ID. Neither are really reliable.
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you pull up a drivers license on a patrol car computer, does it include the DMV photo?


Whether you can get the DMV image depends on a lot of things... 

First, are they accessible at all other than through DMV internal computers.  Then, you get into the software on the computer.  Can it show the picture if DMV sends it?  Can it even ask for the picture?  There is no national standard for DMV returns; there's not even a national standard for what information is collected and held.  (VA DMV doesn't apparently feel that race is an important descriptor of a person...)


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> The guy wanted to get a reaction and response.  But... a passport isn't automatically valid; *it could be expired*, the *photo could be so old that it's worthless as ID *(should someone accept the passport obtained for me when I was an infant as valid ID for me today, multiple decades later?) or just not a close enough match for the cop...  Or it's just a lot easier to run a DL query than name/DOB.  *Passports don't include all the same information as a driver's license*, and I'll often ask for them simply because I can copy the address down... saving several minutes of "OK, and how do you spell that?"
> 
> I don't know why the deputy was insisting on a driver's license.  But there were two involved in the tango...  What was the issue with not providing the driver's license?



Passports have an expiration date printed on them , so it is easy to see if it is valid. This also means automatically that the photo will be fairly recent.
And finally, passports contain at least as much information as a drivers livense, and possibly more. At least, this is the case for European passports. Home address will definitely be there.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I always carry ID.  A business card is ID.  It has my photo on it. (well, 1 does).
> I've also been asked for a birth certificate and SSI card (not by cops) as ID. Neither are really reliable.
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you pull up a drivers license on a patrol car computer, does it include the DMV photo?



I know Americans are terribly upset by the very idea of a uniform id, but the idea does have its merits. We have 1 official id. This insures a uniformity of what is expected and accepted.

It also acts as a way of legitimizing yourself towards a 3d party. For example, banks will want to see that id when you open an account, clubs and stores will request to see it to verify your age, etc. It is much harder to forge than a simple drivers license. The drivers license is only looked at if you are actually driving. And of course, not everybody has a drivers license.

Americans always mention things like 1984 and the soviets as reasons for not having a uniform means of id, but really, many countries have been doing this for ages yet fail to be oppressed by their governments.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

Here, drivers can usually opt to have their photo removed from the Dept. of Safety's computer system.  

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/driverlic/image.html
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/260/260-14.htm

Ya know we've got a lot of freedom in this state Bob.  And less snow than Buffalo :lol2:


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Passports have an expiration date printed on them , so it is easy to see if it is valid. This also means automatically that the photo will be fairly recent.
> And finally, passports contain at least as much information as a drivers livense, and possibly more. At least, this is the case for European passports. Home address will definitely be there.



American passports do not have a person's home address.

Passports are good for 10 years, an expired passport is still enough proof of citizenship for employment reasons, but I suspect LE doesn't appreciate seeing an expired one.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

Carol said:


> American passports do not have a person's home address.
> 
> Passports are good for 10 years, an expired passport is still enough proof of citizenship for employment reasons, but I suspect LE doesn't appreciate seeing an expired one.



Ah ok. Thanks. Ours have everything our gov issued id does (incl home address) and is only valid for 1 - 5 years. As soon as it is expired, it does not hold any legal significance anymore. 

The only reason people sometimes hang onto it is if there are lots of travel stamps in it. However, when you request a new one, the old one has one of the corners cut off and the first couple of pages that are supposed to id you are marked invalid.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

I suspect that a most Belgian folks have passports?

I think the majority of Americans do not.  Those that do are usually folks that travel internationally (until recently we could travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot with just our driver's licenses), or have jobs where one routinely has to show proof of citizenship. (Government contractors, etc.)

A passport is not required, for proof of citizenship for employment purposes.  

And...even less ID is required to vote.

The libertarian in me is not fond of a national ID card...however, I don't like voter fraud or immigration fraud either.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

Carol said:


> I suspect that a most Belgian folks have passports?
> 
> The libertarian in me is not fond of a national ID card...however, I don't like voter fraud or immigration fraud either.



Unless you stay within the EU, you need a passport to fly to other countries. Since many great holiday locations are in non EU countries, many people here have a passport. And of course, some people have to fly to the US, China, Japan or Canada for work purposes.

I am very much in favor of a national ID card. It enables you to prove to other parties who you are in an unambiguous manner. And yes, the cops can also look at it. I don't see how that is a problem. I live in this country. I don't think that it is unreasonable that my government knows that I do, too.

Personally I would be bothered much more if companies could get my credit history or medical history by simply asking Visa or my medical insurance company.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Personally I would be bothered much more if companies could get my credit history or medical history by simply asking Visa or my medical insurance company.



Aye...that is a whole 'nother debate. :asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 12, 2010)

A red flag goes up in an LEO's mind when a person refuses a "request" to see a license or any other form of ID... what have you got to hide? A warrant perhaps? A FELONY warrant even? If you haven't done anything WRONG then what is the problem? Show them your ID and be done with it. Sure there's no LAW requiring you to do so but again... what have YOU got to hide? You may be out of state, that allows the officer to reassess the situation and likely to sum you up as a tourist or visiting on business or whatever. If you're a local ... your address reveals how far away from home you are and often times reveals the neighborhood you live in and where you are right now, (i.e. a person with a Beverly Hills address and they're in Compton... wtf are they doing there?). 

Law Enforcement officers have their own reasons for wanting to do things. Maybe SOME are power-tripping but I think that number is reasonably VERY FEW. Most have their jobs to do and already are under enough scrutiny as is without some guy pointing a camera at them. 
Perhaps heavily edited to suit whatever purpose the people had. 
I USED to have a "problem" with cops... for a long time now I haven't. I've made some good friends who are LEO's and found them to be just as regular as you and me. They have a tough job and occasionally a dangerous one. Many an innocent interaction with a citizen has turned bad. 

Tonight I pulled up into my local Walmart and parked behind and to the left of a regular car. I saw the person sitting in the car was a (female) LEO ... dunno if she was on duty or not but she appeared to be reading something and looking up and around once in a while, she certainly noticed me watching her, at which point I casually got out of the car and put myself in full view so to stop any alarms that might be ringing in her head. I smiled waved hello politely and then from about 10 feet away nicely asked her to roll down her window for a second she did and I asked her "is that supposed to be an unmarked police car?" she laughed and shook her head no. I laughed along and just walked off. 
Just people who can appreciate a good joke. There was a patrol car sitting near the front of the store so I'm sure she wasn't as nervous. 

I don't appreciate bad cops anymore than the next person. But I don't lump them in with all the rest. As I said I've had more positive interactions than negatives. HALF of those negative experiences I realized later (much later) were my own perception of the encounter.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 12, 2010)

I've often wondered about American driving licences, I know there's a lot more drivers in American then in the UK and Europe so is expecting someone to have a driving licence reasonable? Do you actually have people who don't drive and don't have a licence? Here we ask for ID not specifically a driving licence as some many don't have one.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2010)

Technically "ID'ing" yourself is as easy as providing me with your full name, DOB and address. Most of the time I can spend about 5-10 minutes running that through a few databases and see what I get. 

The problem is..is that some people are so adept at lying that they memorize a cousins/brothers/associates information so that they can give THAT to the police. I have had a few dolts try that only to have it backfire when their "buddy" wound up having a warrant. Then when Im arresting them they have to admit that they gave me a bad ID..at which point I arrest them for criminal impersonation. 

Bad day to lie to the cops.

And that's another thing that the "average joe" fails to realize. Cops get quickly "suspicious" because we get lied to ALL THE TIME. Even by people who you wouldn't expect. It gets so bad that some just assume that you are lying to them right off the bat until they have proof otherwise. I kid you not..it's that bad.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Technically "ID'ing" yourself is as easy as providing me with your full name, DOB and address. Most of the time I can spend about 5-10 minutes running that through a few databases and see what I get.
> 
> The problem is..is that some people are so adept at lying that they memorize a cousins/brothers/associates information so that they can give THAT to the police. I have had a few dolts try that only to have it backfire when their "buddy" wound up having a warrant. Then when Im arresting them they have to admit that they gave me a bad ID..at which point I arrest them for criminal impersonation.
> 
> ...


 

It's not just the 'criminal' element that lie to police, its the people you would really think should know better as well as having a bit more moral fibre about them. Professional people lie, vicars even, teachers, dentists etc pillars of the community, all of them will tell porkies when stopped by the police!


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

Here's the thing.

Yes, the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S., especially folks under 65, have a driver's license.  Driver's education is mandatory for high school graduation in many states so most teens earn their license whether they have a car to drive or not.

There are a few exceptions. Some school systems don't require it, some children that grow up in a family without a car (esp. in urban environments) don't learn how to drive until they have a need to get a car.

Driver's licenses are issued by the state's Registry of Motor Vehicles.  The Registry of Motor Vehicles in all 50 states will issue a plain state ID (with no driving privileges, it is just an ID card).  There is no need to have both, the State ID is for those that can't drive.

There are two main reasons why a non-driver would have a State ID.

One is work.  A driver's license or State ID plus a Social Security card is sufficient ID to prove citizenship for employment reasons in the U.S.

The second is...booze and/or nightclubs.  Generally you have to be 21 to drink in the states (some exceptions for active military).Virtually all establishments, be they nightclubs, pubs, restaurants, or liquor stores, ask for a Driver's License or Proof of Age to prove that the buyer is 21 years old, even if the subject is over 21.  Usually, you need to be 21 to get in to a nightclub, whether or not you intend to drink alcohol.  I still get carded occasionally and I've been "legal" for...awhile. 

So yes, by the time a person reaches adulthood, they are usually anxious to be able to work, drive, drink, or go clubbing.  Or some combination of the above. And hopefully not all at the same time.  :lol:  Having a driver's license or State ID is completely reasonable, and chances are the same folks that are giving the LEOs a hard time will gladly show their license or their ID when they go to purchase adult beverages later that evening, or when they go out on the town to hear some live music.


----------



## cdunn (Jan 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I've often wondered about American driving licences, I know there's a lot more drivers in American then in the UK and Europe so is expecting someone to have a driving licence reasonable? Do you actually have people who don't drive and don't have a licence? Here we ask for ID not specifically a driving licence as some many don't have one.


 
Being a non-driver in the US is not an option for most. Public transportation is functionally non-existant outside of major cities. To the best of my knowledge, however, the majority of state also have a state issued ID which can take the place of the drivers liscense for all intents and purposes. Here in Pennsylvania, that card is also issued by the Department of Transportation. Since there is no legal Federal ID system, this is the most reliable ID system we have in the US.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Passports have an expiration date printed on them , so it is easy to see if it is valid. This also means automatically that the photo will be fairly recent.
> And finally, passports contain at least as much information as a drivers livense, and possibly more. At least, this is the case for European passports. Home address will definitely be there.


Nope; passports do not automatically contain home addresses; they have spaces to provide that information, but you aren't required to complete it.  Nor is the address if filled in automatically valid, though of course a DL address isn't necessarily correct either.  A passsport establishes nationality and ID -- but it doesn't establish state of residence.  

It's also a pain in the *** for most cops.  Unless they handle them regularly, or have studied their own (if they have one), they have to hunt through them for the information.  It's harder to recognize a fraudulent document, too, without the right training on them.

I'm not suggesting that a passport is automatically not a valid ID -- but it's not automatically a valid ID in the home country either.  And, since I didn't see it -- do we even know it was a US passport?  Could it have been a World Passport?  Might that have mattered just a little?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I've often wondered about American driving licences, I know there's a lot more drivers in American then in the UK and Europe so is expecting someone to have a driving licence reasonable? Do you actually have people who don't drive and don't have a licence? Here we ask for ID not specifically a driving licence as some many don't have one.


Depends on where they're from.  New York City, among other places, and I'm not shocked that someone doesn't have a driver's license.  But a driver's license is pretty common in the US; we just don't generally have really good public transit systems, and cabs ain't cheap.

Most states Department of Motor Vehicles or similar agency has become the _de facto_ state ID issuer; they have to issue DLs, and IDs of various sorts are similar.  For example, in Virginia, if you get certain professional licenses, you get the actual card via the DMV.  And you can get a "Walker's ID" which is an official card that contains the same identification info as a DL -- but shows you're not a driver.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Technically "ID'ing" yourself is as easy as providing me with your full name, DOB and address. Most of the time I can spend about 5-10 minutes running that through a few databases and see what I get.
> 
> The problem is..is that some people are so adept at lying that they memorize a cousins/brothers/associates information so that they can give THAT to the police. I have had a few dolts try that only to have it backfire when their "buddy" wound up having a warrant. Then when Im arresting them they have to admit that they gave me a bad ID..at which point I arrest them for criminal impersonation.
> 
> ...


I had one give me his brother's info, and a bogus story about having left his wallet at home.

His brother was suspended... and about a foot different in height!  He ended up locked up for an aggravated form of driving while suspended, as well as lying to a cop.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Technically "ID'ing" yourself is as easy as providing me with your full name, DOB and address. Most of the time I can spend about 5-10 minutes running that through a few databases and see what I get.
> 
> The problem is..is that some people are so adept at lying that they memorize a cousins/brothers/associates information so that they can give THAT to the police. I have had a few dolts try that only to have it backfire when their "buddy" wound up having a warrant. Then when Im arresting them they have to admit that they gave me a bad ID..at which point I arrest them for criminal impersonation.
> 
> ...


 
That's the key here.  Just because YOU know you are a good person, doesn't mean the LEO just meeting you knows your a good person.  After all, we are there for SOME reason even if it's just offering help.  After we are done helping, we STILL have to write a report and put all of your information into it.  If we are there to HELP YOU, and we ask for ID, it is just plain annoying to suddenly start getting asked questions of why do you have to see it?  I don't have to show you, you know!  As others have stated it, HOW you ask for it can go a long way too.  I know of one guy on our department that has this uncanny ability to piss people off.  He is one of the nicest guys, but for some reason if he tells someone to have a nice day and means it, they will take it as if he just told them to eff off.  I kid you not, so having good people skills goes a long way to getting what you need without alot of hassle too.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2010)

Carol said:


> I still get carded occasionally and I've been "legal" for...awhile.


 
Carol if your photo is any indication, I'd "card" you too!! 

I was at Tops in Lewiston, NY a couple of months ago, and I picked up a six pack of beer we can't get back home. The clerk "carded" me. I asked if she was kidding and she says they card everyone. I've seen them card an obviously 50+ year old lady. Point is, there has to be some common sense too.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Carol if your photo is any indication, I'd "card" you too!!
> 
> I was at Tops in Lewiston, NY a couple of months ago, and I picked up a six pack of beer we can't get back home. The clerk "carded" me. I asked if she was kidding and she says they card everyone. I've seen them card an obviously 50+ year old lady. Point is, there has to be some common sense too.



That's store policy. It's easier to ID everybody than get in trouble for some cashier not ID'ing someone based on their age estimation skills.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 12, 2010)

Cashiers card everyone so as to avoid the "your just picking on me" call.

If you see a store being -very- strict on it, they were busted recently for not checking ID.  If they fail too many checks, they can lose their permits to sell booze.

My wife used to work for a convenience store. She would refuse to sell if there was any discrepancy, including seeing obvious minors in the waiting car outside.  Everyone could come in and show ID or no sale.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Carol if your photo is any indication, I'd "card" you too!!
> 
> I was at Tops in Lewiston, NY a couple of months ago, and I picked up a six pack of beer we can't get back home. The clerk "carded" me. I asked if she was kidding and she says they card everyone. I've seen them card an obviously 50+ year old lady. Point is, there has to be some common sense too.


But, in Carol's case, it's obviously because she's so youthful in appearance!

(Really, Ken, did you want to leave it on that particular note?! )


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> But, in Carol's case, it's obviously because she's so youthful in appearance!
> 
> (Really, Ken, did you want to leave it on that particular note?! )


 
LOL!! 

Hey, hey, hey I'm already sucking up to Carol, that job is already taken!! Go away!

Sadly.....I can't think of a good smart *** answer to that!

I'm 44, but i have been told that I look 35-45. I workout everyday, I try to watch what i eat, I have grey around the temple area and I don't dress hip hop. Some of the kids I've taught tell me I must be at least 22. Gotta love em.

The stores up here, beer, LCBO and places that sell smokes, all have the policy that they will card you if you look under 25. 

There has to be some profiling. Time, and money are in limited supply. 

There is no point in carding an obviously old man or woman. 

There is little point in focusing limited resourses looking for terrorists coming into Miami on a shuttle flight from Reykjavik, if at the same time a flight is arriving from Rabat 

We don't want to offend anyone specifically, so we offend all.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Hey, hey, hey I'm already sucking up to Carol, that job is already taken!! Go away!
> 
> ...



Go on... 

(And don't fight with the nice police officer )


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

Years ago, I worked for a while as a waiter.  I started out carding only those whom I wasn't reasonably comfortable were of age...  Then there was the day that a mother and son came in, and both ordered drinks.  He was borderline, I placed him 18 to 22 or so.  So, I carded him.  I didn't card his mom...

Except it wasn't "mom."  It was WIFE.  And they were both comfortably over 21.   

And, yeah, my tip on that table SUCKED!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Years ago, I worked for a while as a waiter. I started out carding only those whom I wasn't reasonably comfortable were of age... Then there was the day that a mother and son came in, and both ordered drinks. He was borderline, I placed him 18 to 22 or so. So, I carded him. I didn't card his mom...


 
Oh come on Carol, two guys vying for your hand, (and other parts), you love it.

One of my weaknesses, (Yes I have a couple stashed away...) are "high end" restaurants, something I picked up from my dad. Im passing that little treat onto my kids. When my daughter, who is 16 and I go out to high end places, she is always asked if she wants a drink. (Drinking age in Ontario is 19). When she and her girlfriends, (all 16), go out to restaurants, they are always asked if they want anything from the bar. 

Being asked at Tops the other month was the only time in my life I have been asked. Even when I was 17, (generally I was in my army uniform), I was never asked.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 12, 2010)

The other day I was performing and stepped outside for a bit.  A cop stopped me and asked if I had any ID.  I just pointed at the poster on the wall and smiled.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 12, 2010)

The Last Legionary said:


> The other day I was performing and stepped outside for a bit.  A cop stopped me and asked if I had any ID.  I just pointed at the poster on the wall and smiled.


That didn't work out so good for Bob Dylan...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 18, 2010)

After much searching, I found the NY Statutes



> §  140.50  Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
> weapons.
> 1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
> arrest without a warrant, *a police officer may stop a person in a public
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes
*States with &#8220;stop and identify&#8221; statutes*

 There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a _Terry_ stop. _Hiibel_ merely established that states and localities have the power to require people to identify themselves under those conditions.
 As of 2009, the following 24 states have &#8220;stop and identify&#8221; laws:
*Alabama* Ala. Code §15-5-30 *Arizona* Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)   *Arkansas* Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) *Colorado* Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) *Delaware* Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6) *Florida* Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) *Georgia* Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)   *Illinois* Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14 *Indiana* Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5 *Kansas* Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1) *Louisiana* La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A) *Missouri* Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2) *Montana* Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401 *Nebraska* Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829 *Nevada* Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123 *New Hampshire* N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2 *New Mexico* N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3   *New York* N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)   *North Dakota* N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)   *Ohio* Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)   *Rhode Island* R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1 *Utah* Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15 *Vermont* Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983 *Wisconsin* Wis. Stat. §968.24


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 18, 2010)

All that's basically done is codify _Terry_ and adding the requirement to ID yourself.  Virginia handled it differently; it's illegal to give false information about your identity to a LEO after being "lawfully detained."  (See 19.2-82.1)  It's a fairly new statute, so all the wrinkles haven't been tested.  It's under the laws of arrest, but as written, it would include any detention.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 18, 2010)

The NY statute as I read it says when asked I have to give a name, address and briefly describe what I'm doing. It doesn't say I have to present any ID cards however.

Of course, claiming to be Sodoff Baldrick, and that I live in the pipes of the upstairs water closet might get me a longer detention......


----------



## Drac (Jan 19, 2010)

What is the big flamming deal about showing your DL if some LEO askes for it??? I will NEVER understand...I never had a problem showing mine in those days before I donned the badge..


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

I think it is something that is a little too close to 'check-points' for many, that is what causes it to be a matter of importance.

For me, I like a quiet life and I (I hope!) have nothing to hide from an officer of the law, so I would not have any qualms about providing identification, despite the fact that I think they have no right to do so (viz ask for ID) if I am not breaking the law. 

But I can very well see and approve of the position of those that would not choose to cooperate so readily, thus requiring duress from the officer (which in itself reflects somewhat upon what the problem is).

_Papieren bitte!_.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jan 19, 2010)

I go as far as to never give my id.
They can see it, scribble of all the information needed. But it's mine.

Law in Belgium states that you never have to hand over your id to anybody. Policemen get mad for it, but they have no ground to stand on.

And I don't like being checked every 5 minutes. I look like a hoodlum, doesn't mean I am one. I didn't choose my face when I was born.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 19, 2010)

Drac said:


> What is the big flamming deal about showing your DL if some LEO askes for it??? I will NEVER understand...I never had a problem showing mine in those days before I donned the badge..


I'm required to show it when operating a motor vehicle.
Not otherwise.

What else is it no big deal to do?  Let them check the trunk, the glove box, stop in and look around a bit? 

What if I don't have it with me? I don't take my ID when I cut the grass, or sit on my porch. What do I do then to prove who I am?  What if I'm going for a walk and don't feel like carrying my wallet? It's a "Drivers" license, not a "Walkers" license after all. My passport is a Government ID. The DL -serves- as ID but it's really a permit to operate a properly registered vehicle on public roads.

The other answer to what's wrong is this:
By -law-, which a cop is supposed to enforce, there isn't a requirement to show ID. That means that the cop has exceeded his authority, possibly violated the same laws he is entrusted to enforce.
Why should it be ok for a cop to exceed their authority?
Why am I immediately a "suspicious person" if I comply with the letter of the law, and the cop wants me to exceed the legal requirements?

Step by step, cops around the US have done just that and eroded public trust in them. When that trust erodes too far, cops pay the price with sad and deadly results.

If there is to be a legal requirement to carry and present ID at any request, it needs to be codified into law thereby reinforcing the LEO's request for ID at any time. Otherwise it is optional. Yes, it is expedient to comply with the request, but it is not a legal requirement at most times.

Here's a question for all the LEO's reading this:  What is the statute that justifies a demand for ID where you're at? Not a "what's you're name" question but a "must show ID" statute.  Other than a motor vehicle one. I'd be curious to compare some of them.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

Drac said:


> What is the big flamming deal about showing your DL if some LEO askes for it??? I will NEVER understand...I never had a problem showing mine in those days before I donned the badge..



Especially in THIS case where the dude WAS willing to show one form of ID but got all assy over showing another.

PS-You better be damn sure you know why the cop is talking to you too. If the cop IS within the law and you are unaware of it then you are setting yourself up for trouble. We can be perfectly within the letter of the law based on the information we have at the time. Even if it turns out that you are not the person we were looking for. It could be argued here that maybe the cops were dispatched to a call of trespassers with suspicious packages. I could articulate a good "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be occurring there.

Props to you for looking up the law Bob. Just be sure you know what it means and if the situation you find yourself in is the right one to apply it on.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 19, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Especially in THIS case where the dude WAS willing to show one form of ID but got all assy over showing another.
> 
> PS-You better be damn sure you know why the cop is talking to you too. If the cop IS within the law and you are unaware of it then you are setting yourself up for trouble. We can be perfectly within the letter of the law based on the information we have at the time. Even if it turns out that you are not the person we were looking for. It could be argued here that maybe the cops were dispatched to a call of trespassers with suspicious packages. I could articulate a good "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be occurring there.
> 
> Props to you for looking up the law Bob. Just be sure you know what it means and if the situation you find yourself in is the right one to apply it on.


Yep...  As a certain professor learned recently.

If I've got a reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has, is, or is about to commit a crime, I can detain that person as long as I need to confirm or dispel that suspicion, so long as I'm actively working to do so.  That can be as simple as seeing your ID and finding out you do live around the corner or whatever.  

I'll tell you that often, if you listen carefully, my words will tell you whether I'm really giving you a choice.  "I need to see your ID" is different from "Do you have any ID?"


----------



## Drac (Jan 19, 2010)

I ask for an ID so I know whom I am talking too..No I won't just take your word that you are telling me the truth..


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

It is the fact that such an opinion is not troubling to the officers of the law here present that is the root of peoples disquiet.  I clearly have no knowledge of American law so I shall refrain from any definitive statements other than giving vent to my opinions (such being worth exactly what is paid for them).

These are that policeman should have no right to demand ID or control the activities of a citizen/subject who is not in direct and clear breach of the law.  I have seen far too many comments from the officers on MT that give a distinct impression that they don't think that is the way things are and, even worse, don't think it should be a matter of any concern.

A policeman is not a sgt-at-arms for the local liege-lord and the citizens are not the peasantry to be ordered at his whim.  That might seem an inappropriate analogy but that is the extent of the powers that have been voiced as being desired.  Again a flag to note I am spouting rather than speaking from a learned postion but, as far as I know, Citizens have the rights they took for themselves when the Constitution was written - it is not up to the officer to decide which ones he will let them have on his own recognisance or for his own convenience.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 19, 2010)

Drac said:


> I ask for an ID so I know whom I am talking too..No I won't just take your word that you are telling me the truth..


Fine, I understand that part. My question is this: Are they -legally- required to show you ID?   If so, what is the law that states that?

Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean I have to talk to them of hand them my "Papers" to satisfy their curiosity.

Drivers license, shows I'm authorized to operate a vehicle.
Passport shows I'm authorized to travel out of the country and reenter it.
Fishing license shows I'm authorized to catch a fish.
Gun license shows I'm authorized to carry. (Well leave the 2nd Amend argument out here)

I hate to say it this bluntly, but in some situations, legally, you have no legal choice but to take my word I am who I say I am, unless you choose to escalate the situation. 

Then again, if I hand over this ID, well......
http://images.damncrows.com/img/upld/bad-fake-id.jpg

Course, I can hand you a fake ID. How would you know unless you run the ID?  How often are they actually run compared to "I asked for ID to see if they'd comply"?
http://www.expandmywealth.com/2009/08/13/fake-ids-and-drivers-licenses/
(Yes, fake ID has legal fall out when detected. I know this. My question is how do you detect it?)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 19, 2010)

I'm focusing strictly on the legal requirement.
I understand that it speeds things up, puts a cop more at ease, etc.
If asked for it, I'd most likely present it simply to get out of there faster.
But I'm looking for the law behind the request, where they exist and under what circumstances, etc.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

All these "stop and identify" statutes provide is a legal foundation for when an officer can DEMAND identification and provide a legal remedy for the officer if you refuse. If I have reasonable suspicion that you are committing or about to commit a crime I can DEMAND your ID and charge you with obstruction if you refuse. 

If I just see you walking around a neighborhood known for break-ins and I stop to talk to you and I "ask" you for ID...that's perfectly legal, however I can't FORCE you to provide a document or charge you with something if you refuse.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

And all "government repression agent" crap aside. Don't you WANT your police talking to and trying to schmooze ID from suspicious people walking around your neighborhood in the middle of the night?


----------



## KELLYG (Jan 19, 2010)

O.K. These guys were in someones back yard. Obviously they did not live there.   They were wearing gas mask and fiddling with a piece of equipment which could be anything from a old ham radio to a suitcase nuke.  They then had the nerve to offer a passport as ID.  It seemed that the young man had a drivers license but wanted to make an *** of himself and make an already suspicious cop more suspicious in the process.  This entire ID exercises was to entice the Police Officer to behave in a manor that could be put on Tube as proof of their "conspiracy theory mentality".  If the young man had said, this is my friend Buba's house we have permission to be here and  I have a license but since I was not driving I left my wallet at home is a Passport id OK. The entire episode may have been avoided.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

Aye, as to the OP 'incident', *Kelly*, I reckon you have the right of it there.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And all "government repression agent" crap aside. Don't you WANT your police talking to and trying to schmooze ID from suspicious people walking around your neighborhood in the middle of the night?




Part of the problem is that officers such as yourself see it as 'crap' - it is most assuredly not; just ask the miners of England for a foreign example (I can't cite any American examples I am afraid as the ones I know of are media polluted).  

Perception is half the battle and if your clientel sees you as a negative rather than a postive force then you are in trouble.  The police excercise their duties by 'our' consent, not the other way around.

The scenario you propose is a perfectly reasonable time for officers to be excercising a little pressure to make sure the streets are safer during the hours of darkness.  Carrying around in their souls the idea that they can 'bully' any member of the populous they so choose, under any circumstances they can fabricate within their self-defined 'code of practice' (aka "What can we get away with?"), is the issue that really concerns ordinary people.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

Have you read any of our responses?

By law if an officer HAS REASON TO BELIEVE that a CRIME is, has or is about to occur he has the authority to demand ID. If he doesn't he has the right to "request" it. What's wrong with that?

Personally I don't think you have more than a "gut"/media knowledge of police work in general let alone American police work in particular. IMO most "ordinary people" who are afraid of police are so because of "bad cop media" like "The Shield", "Training Day" etc. or from horror stories from faceless posters on the internet vs. any true knowledge of the realities.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

Of course I don't have more than an emotional response to police work in the States, *Angel*.  I did say as much earlier.  Also, I did read the responses given by those who do work in law enforcement and those responses held within them the cues that moved me to add more comment.

I'm not expecting to change the world, or even the views of individual police officers, via a handful of honestly written words on the internet.  It's not my job, at the end of the day, to live any of your lives for you.  I'm excercising my fingers to put a point of view forward that is, as far as the people I know go, widely held.

Ignore it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

People can see seeds of many things in others words depending on what baggage they are carrying with them. 

Honest Cops who go out there every day doing a hard and generally thankless job as best as they can only to be characterized as bullies or "governmental repression agents" due to the actions of some officers they do not act like , know or ever even met make our baggage seem heavier by the day.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2010)

I can understand and accept that fully.  It's not pleasant to try to execute your duties as best you can only to be tarred with the same brush as someone who donned the same uniform as you with no other motive but to excercise power over others.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I can understand and accept that fully.  It's not pleasant to try to execute your duties as best you can only to be tarred with the same brush as someone who donned the same uniform as you with no other motive but to excercise power over others.



I know that you are using "the same uniform" in the figurative sense, but...hell we wear so many different "uniforms" around here that I would rather prefer to be painted with the same brush as the officers from the rest of MY DEPARTMENT (for most part). Cops in New Orleans wear far different uniforms from mine. Paint them from their own can....if you catch my meaning.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 20, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> It is the fact that such an opinion is not troubling to the officers of the law here present that is the root of peoples disquiet.  I clearly have no knowledge of American law so I shall refrain from any definitive statements other than giving vent to my opinions (such being worth exactly what is paid for them).
> 
> These are that policeman should have no right to demand ID or control the activities of a citizen/subject who is not in direct and clear breach of the law.  I have seen far too many comments from the officers on MT that give a distinct impression that they don't think that is the way things are and, even worse, don't think it should be a matter of any concern.
> 
> A policeman is not a sgt-at-arms for the local liege-lord and the citizens are not the peasantry to be ordered at his whim.  That might seem an inappropriate analogy but that is the extent of the powers that have been voiced as being desired.  Again a flag to note I am spouting rather than speaking from a learned postion but, as far as I know, Citizens have the rights they took for themselves when the Constitution was written - it is not up to the officer to decide which ones he will let them have on his own recognisance or for his own convenience.



There are strict limits to when a police officer may demand ID or detain a person.  These limits are derived from the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, and the decisions of the various courts, especially the US Supreme Court.  The Fourth Amendment specifically states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  It prohibits any unreasonable search unless a warrant has been issued by a neutral party (usually a magistrate or judge) who has determined, after receiving information under oath, that it is more likely than not that the person named committed the crime in question, or that the specific evidence is more likely than not to be found in the specific location.  Police encounters move around the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable."  The general rule is that, to deprive a person of their liberty at all, or to intrude upon their person or effects, a warrant is required.

The least intrusive contact is a consensual encounter.  A police officer has every right to walk up to anyone in public and say "Hi, howdy do..."  We can *ask* for identification during this or not, as we like.  Of course, the person we're talking to has every right to tell us to screw off, and walk away, or refuse to give us their ID.  

Lots of things can give rise to suspicion -- but if they're only a hunch or guess without some specific, articulable combination of facts and circumstances, we can't go further than a consensual encounter.  We can see something that's just not right or hinky, and chat with someone -- if they'll stay.  Sometimes, making them move along by being "friendly" satisfies the goal; they won't commit a crime in my area if they decide that I'm too "friendly."

But... if the combination of facts and circumstances, evaluated in the light of our training and experience, give rise to some unspecified quantum of evidence that the person in question may be committing a crime, may be about to commit a crime, or may have recently committed a crime, we can detain that person briefly for the specific purpose of confirming or dispelling that suspicion.  In doing so, if there is a state law supporting it, we can then demand identification.  If the crime we suspect involves weapons, or we can otherwise justify the suspicion of weapons, we can conduct a brief, limited search of the outer clothing specifically to find weapons.  (See _Terry v Ohio_ and _Hiibel v Nevada_; note that these are articles about the decisions, not the actual decisions.  I don't vouch for everything in them without reading them more carefully than I have time for.)

This isn't a blanket authority to stop anyone; there must be specific, articulable facts that a reasonable officer in the same position would likely agree lead to the logical inference that "crime is afoot."  They don't have to be things that would be meaningful to the ordinary person, without an officer's training and experience.  Nor is it a blanket search of the person; the pat down or frisk is limited to the areas that the person might be concealing an immediately available weapon.  In _Terry_, a detective observed a group of people loitering outside a business.  They would take turns passing in front of the business, peering in, and then return to a somewhat secluded area around the corner.  One would frequently pat his pocket.  The detective knew that there had been stickups in the area, and knew the beat well.  He made contact with them, and in the course of that contact, grabbed one of them, checking his pockets and found a handgun.  Notice that this wasn't just "gee, those guys are odd..." -- but specific behaviors that he recognized as being consistent with the behavior of someone casing a place for a stickup.  Other rulings have defined some of the things that can be considered, like several that have addressed complainants and reports received.  An anonymous complaint by itself needs more, either specific observations by the officer to support it or some other indication that the person making the tip has specific knowledge and information and is credible.

Probable cause allows an officer to make an arrest (subject to specific state laws regarding when an officer may make an arrest without a warrant).  Probable cause is facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person in question more likely than not committed the offense in question.  Notice that this moves beyond the realm of specific knowledge and training; the facts or circumstances must be such that any person of normal intelligence, education, and judgment would say that it's more likely than not.

We're not jack-booted thugs grabbing people at random; these sorts don't last as a general rule.  They get too many complaints too fast, and their poor judgment gets them fired.  (Most agencies try to catch 'em before they even go to the academy.)  But knowing who we're talking to is often very important; asking for or compelling the production of an ID is one way to have some confidence that you do know who it is that you're dealing with.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 20, 2010)

Well stated, *jks* :tup:.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 20, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I know that you are using "the same uniform" in the figurative sense, but...hell we wear so many different "uniforms" around here that I would rather prefer to be painted with the same brush as the officers from the rest of MY DEPARTMENT (for most part). Cops in New Orleans wear far different uniforms from mine. Paint them from their own can....if you catch my meaning.


This is something else that's important to understand about police in the US.

We're not some monolithic body of identically trained people, doing exactly the same job, like the staff at a fast food restaurant.  Grab a fry cook from Mcdonalds here in Virginia and drop them in California -- and they'll still be able to do their job.  They may need someone to point out where things are, but the job is the same.  But a cop from my jurisdiction would need a fair amount of specific retraining, both classroom and on the job, to work in a similar jurisdiction in California.  There are different laws, different cultures both within the department and in the people of the community.  And, even in a relatively small area (say a 100 mile radius), you can find major differences in training, experience, and how a cop works.

We all work under the US Constitution, and also our state constitutions, state laws, and then local laws.  There's a lot of latitude between each tier; the local has the most influence and power over the day to day actions of a person, while the federal level has the least.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 20, 2010)

If I understand Sukerkin's point, there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that LEOs here view the refusal to identify as reasoonable suspicion. Regardless of what the Constitution may say.

The attitude I also get is that if I'm walking down the street and a cop stops me just to chat, and asks for my ID, that my refusal to comply is enough to raise 'reasonable suspicion' fot the cop to detain me. 

Drac's answer is a good example. If asked for my name, I just give it. The fact that you may not believe me is not reason enough to demand ID or to detain me if I can't provide it.


----------



## Carol (Jan 20, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> If I understand Sukerkin's point, there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that LEOs here view the refusal to identify as reasoonable suspicion. Regardless of what the Constitution may say.
> 
> The attitude I also get is that if I'm walking down the street and a cop stops me just to chat, and asks for my ID, that my refusal to comply is enough to raise 'reasonable suspicion' fot the cop to detain me.
> 
> Drac's answer is a good example. If asked for my name, I just give it. The fact that you may not believe me is not reason enough to demand ID or to detain me if I can't provide it.




How would you know that it is just to chat, though?  

I have called 911 about suspicious or odd behaviour when I am out and about.  If I see someone acting strangely in my neighborhood when I get home at 1am, how am I supposed to know who that person is?  Maybe he is "Bill from Building 2" stumbling back home after catching a ball game with his brother in Building 12 and having a bit too much to drink in the process.  Or, maybe he's someone who is ill, or someone whose intentions are a bit more harmful.  Or maybe its none of the above.  

This is why I call someone that is more equipped to handle such a situation than I am...but when the officer approaches that person s/he knows no more about the that person than I do.


----------



## Drac (Jan 20, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Probable cause allows an officer to make an arrest (subject to specific state laws regarding when an officer may make an arrest without a warrant). Probable cause is facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person in question more likely than not committed the offense in question. Notice that this moves beyond the realm of specific knowledge and training; the facts or circumstances must be such that any person of normal intelligence, education, and judgment would say that it's more likely than not.


 
The above passage is *DRUMMED* into us from the first day of the academy



jks9199 said:


> We're not jack-booted thugs grabbing people at random; these sorts don't last as a general rule. They get too many complaints too fast, and their poor judgment gets them fired. (Most agencies try to catch 'em before they even go to the academy.)


 
Yup, that's why rookies spend alot of time with an FTO( field training officer) before they are turned out on their own...Just because they were sworn in and were given the badge, the gun , and the training it isnt a guarantee that you will make it past your "probie" period ..I know a few that couldn't cut being on the streets...But I am getting off topic here...





jks9199 said:


> But knowing who we're talking to is often very important; asking for or compelling the production of an ID is one way to have some confidence that you do know who it is that you're dealing with.


 
That says it all..


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 20, 2010)

...and then there are the times that the cop gets ridiculed for NOT asking for identification. Like that case of the wanted criminal (murderer if I remember correctly) caught on dash cam talking to an officer. 

Damned if you do....


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 21, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> If I understand Sukerkin's point, there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that LEOs here view the refusal to identify as reasoonable suspicion. Regardless of what the Constitution may say.
> 
> The attitude I also get is that if I'm walking down the street and a cop stops me just to chat, and asks for my ID, that my refusal to comply is enough to raise 'reasonable suspicion' fot the cop to detain me.
> 
> Drac's answer is a good example. If asked for my name, I just give it. The fact that you may not believe me is not reason enough to demand ID or to detain me if I can't provide it.


In and of itself, a refusal to talk or provide ID during a *consensual encounter* probably doesn't equal reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS for convenience), but it may be one more factor to consider.  And, in a few cases, it may be enough to change that encounter from consensual to detention; for example, if I'm chatting with someone because they have some significant similarities to a wanted person -- but not enough to lead me to confidently state that they are the person -- that refusal to provide ID might support my suspicion.   Another example might be if the suspicious person claims the car they're leaning on or trying to break into is theirs...  

A good cop in the US knows the lines, and knows how to work with them without crossing them.  It's not easy, and it takes constant learning because the Supreme Court (and other courts) are constantly shifting the lines with their decisions.


----------

