This is a discussion on Would you show ID to an LEO? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Yes, on demand, I'm happy to provide identification....
Yes, on demand, I'm happy to provide identification.
God, country, family.
Refusing to Give Name a Crime
Supreme Court Upholds Nevada Law Requiring Identification
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A06
The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a state law that makes it a crime to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, a ruling that strengthens the ability of law enforcement officers to detain citizens even where they lack enough evidence for a full arrest.
By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that Larry Dudley Hiibel's constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable arrest and to remain silent were not violated when Deputy Lee Dove arrested him for refusing to give his name after Dove stopped Hiibel and questioned him near Winnemucca, Nev., on May 21, 2000. Hiibel was convicted of violating Nevada's "stop and identify" law and fined $250.
Hiibel and his supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, had urged the court to strike down the Nevada statute, arguing that it effectively criminalizes a citizen's silence. Advocates for the homeless had argued that laws such as Nevada's could be used to harass homeless people, who are often mentally ill or lack identification cards.
But the author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, made it clear that he regarded the disclosure of one's name, the only piece of information the Nevada law specifically requires, as a modest intrusion on privacy.
And whatever privacy interest or concern about self-incrimination Hiibel might have had was outweighed by the state's interests in protecting police officers and investigating crime, Kennedy wrote.
"As best we can tell, [Hiibel] refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business," Kennedy wrote. "Even today, [Hiibel] does not explain how the disclosure of his name could have been used against him in a criminal case."
Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Eighteen other states have laws like Nevada's, but not all of them provide for criminal penalties.
Nevada's law says that police may detain anyone "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime," and that "any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry."
It was intended to codify the Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio. That case empowered police to briefly detain suspicious subjects -- such as people who seem to be "casing" a bank in preparation for a robbery -- question them and search them for weapons.
The court created "Terry stops" to cover situations in which the police have "reasonable suspicion" of criminal conduct but not enough information for "probable cause," the constitutional standard for making an arrest.
Until yesterday, the court had never clearly said what police may require of a citizen in a Terry stop -- although in a famous concurrence to Terry, Justice Byron R. White had said there is no obligation to respond to police questions.
Hiibel, a rancher who sports a Stetson hat, made his case to the public on a Web site that includes a videotape of his encounter with Dove. The film, shot by a camera mounted on Dove's car, shows a possibly inebriated Hiibel refusing 11 requests for his name before being handcuffed and arrested.
Dove, responding to a tip about a man punching a woman in a pickup truck, had come upon Hiibel standing next to his pickup on the side of a road. His teenage daughter was in the cab.
Hiibel had argued that the Nevada law turns Terry into a license to arrest people just for seeming suspicious. But Kennedy said that would not happen because "an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the [Terry] stop."
As for the risk of self-incrimination from disclosing one's name to police, Kennedy said that would happen "only in unusual circumstances."
But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissenting opinion, called this assumption "quite wrong." Hiibel's name could have helped police link him to criminal activity, Stevens noted, so he "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also dissented, arguing that the court should have endorsed the position outlined in White's Terry concurrence.
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 03-5554.
If you have an urge to ask why you are being asked to identify yourself, shut up.
It won't help the situation in which you are being asked for ID to have a discussion with the officer, and could potentially hurt you.
Identify yourself. Provide your ID. Ask if you are free to leave. If so, leave.
If not, ask for counsel and remain silent.
What can it hurt? If he decided to launch into a "you don't need a gun" speech I'd be sure to get in touch with the Sheriff/Chief.
Since I carry all the time, yes, because I live in the great state of Texas, I would as required by law.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
Of course I would. Why should I not? I have nothing to hide and see nothing to be gained by being uncooperative with a police officer who for whatever reason would like to see my identification.
"The future ain't what it used to be".
MitchellCT, it looks like the laws differ between states. In Pa. you do not have to show your papers without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
I don't know what you mean by "Terry", but yes.
If, however, I was approached by an officer who was unreasonably unpleasant or gave me reason to think s/he would react poorly to knowledge of my concealed weapon, I would not inform him/her unless required to do so by law. An emergency situation might override that. Otherwise, I consider it a courtesy to the officer even though I'm sure they are rarely trained to treat the good guys with guns any differently from the bad guys with guns unless we're talking about a sound stage in Hollywood.
Always have always will if I have ID on me. The law does not require that we have ID, but we have to give our name if asked. If I am not driving and not carrying a gun (which will never happen, I hope) Then I may not carry ID. The only reason I have ID is because I drive and carry concealed.
Why would they ask if there was no reason?
"Just blame Sixto"
Are you going to ask him why he wants to see your ID?
Are you planning on having a debate with the officer as to his interpretation of reasonable suspicion?
What if he declines to get into the discussion and merely asks for your ID again?
What will you do if he tells you and you believe his suspicion is unfounded?
Absolutley would show my card without hesitation.
In a crisis situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.
I don't think anyone here, or most places, would refuse to tell a LEO their name, it's the providing id that has some here balking.
Absolutely since it's a state law if your carrying.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member