TN Cop needs to see drivers license.

[Bob Hubbard]

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
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes
States with “stop and identify” 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 “stop and identify” 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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.