Would you show ID to an LEO? - Page 8

Would you show ID to an LEO?

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; Originally Posted by SelfDefense Some of the issues we discuss come down to cooperating with law enforcement. Disregarding the current law in your juridisction, would ...

View Poll Results: Would you show ID to an LEO if asked?

Voters
245. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    169 68.98%
  • No

    2 0.82%
  • Depends on the circumstances

    74 30.20%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 126

Thread: Would you show ID to an LEO?

  1. #106
    Member Array calmp9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Some of the issues we discuss come down to cooperating with law enforcement. Disregarding the current law in your juridisction, would you show your ID to an LEO (police, BP, FBI...) if asked?
    Always. I have nothing to hide. I want to comply with law enforcement officers at all times. If they want to check me out, be my guest.


  2. #107
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by rhinokrk View Post
    If you lawyer up, you will be detained in most (if not all) cases. If you refuse to identify yourself, it will be a larger pain for you than them. As they are being paid for their time, and you are not. Not to mention your taking a cop off the street that could be responding to a situation in which they may do some good.

    I'm quite sure you are a good guy (with nothing to hide), so how would a quick ID check be a hassle (with nothing to hide)?

    JMHO
    Then they would be detaining me illegitimately in violation of my natural rights. I'm not saying that I would lawyer up or withhold my name. I was just saying they have no more right to ask than any other random person walking down the sidewalk.

    The distinction between federal and local is due to the fact that local LE are generally about keeping people safe and upholding order. The Federal government is generally about the violation of rights and the enforcement of draconian, intrusive "laws" for "crimes" that have no actual victims.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  3. #108
    Member Array BlackJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    360
    Yes, but I want to know that his is LEO before I produce that ID. I would be more than willing to produce my ID, both Drivers License and CWP, as soon as I was provided the LEO’s ID to verify that his is in fact a LEO.

    Here in Colorado we have had the occasional problem with people impersonating an officer so a uniform or business card is not going to do it for me. All LEO’s carry badges and IDs.

    Recently we even had one in a uniform AND a marked car who sexually assaulted a young lady after pulling her over.

  4. #109
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    And just what is an "unreasonable request ?"
    That's the real question, isn't it? As I said, I haven't run into an unreasonable request yet, and I don't really have a litany of hypotheticals handy. We're not in a police state, regardless of what the occasional clown says about "enslavement" by LEOs.

    I think one circumstance where I would hesitate to produce ID would if the LEO had failed to provide proper credentials to establish that they were in fact an LEO. If I'm not sure they are who they claim to be, they're not going to get much cooperation.

    By and large, however, I've never found myself in a circumstance where there would have been any advantage in being discourteous and uncooperative.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  5. #110
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Almost certainly. If the officer is being antagonistic and belligerent without cause, I would probably make him work for it.

    Either way, if I'm unaware of the reason, I'm going to ask politely, "May I ask why?" And if he says no, I'd respectfully say, "Sir, if I'm not mistaken, I have a legal right to know." If still no dice, I'm asking for his name and a way to contact his supervisor.

    I understand that police officers hold down a job I have no interest in pursuing -- and for which I am very thankful. Nevertheless, they are public servants paid by my tax dollars, and while we should all accord them a great deal of leniency and understanding, I don't plan to encourage police belligerence, as rare as that may be.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  6. #111
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    Either way, if I'm unaware of the reason, I'm going to ask politely, "May I ask why?" And if he says no, I'd respectfully say, "Sir, if I'm not mistaken, I have a legal right to know." If still no dice, I'm asking for his name and a way to contact his supervisor.

    I don't plan to encourage police belligerence, as rare as that may be.
    I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference between your plan and a plan to encourage belligerence.

  7. #112
    Senior Member Array mark555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Center of the World Ma! Center of the World!
    Posts
    680
    The number on my DL and the number on my CCL are the same. So I think the point is negligible as if they run my DL it will come back that I have a CCL.
    "Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
    - William Munny (Clint Eastwood in the Unfrogivin)

    “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

    “My Idea of a fair fight is beating baby seals with a club”

  8. #113
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference between your plan and a plan to encourage belligerence.
    Why not? Respectfully asking why or non-compliance within legal standards and being belligerent should be easy to differentiate by an LEO or anyone else.

  9. #114
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    kpw, SelfDefense was implying (I believe) that my plan would encourage law-enforcement belligerence. I disagree. I would politely give him the opportunity to respond in maturity and respect; no need to escalate tempers unnecessarily. I'll hold him accountable to his responsibilities, but not in a petulant or abrasive manner.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  10. #115
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    kpw, SelfDefense was implying (I believe) that my plan would encourage law-enforcement belligerence. I disagree. I would politely give him the opportunity to respond in maturity and respect; no need to escalate tempers unnecessarily. I'll hold him accountable to his responsibilities, but not in a petulant or abrasive manner.
    I think kpw misinterpreted my remark. I think requesting a conversation with an LEO and not immediately complying with a request can be done without being belligerent.

    This entire thread was based on an opinion that some think it is fine to not comply with a simple request for identification, which we all have at our disposal within a matter of a few seconds. Some think it is their 'right' to be anonymous and a request by law enforcement is so out of line that they want to cause a scene.

    My response to your post was simply an observation that if you wanted to cause an LEO to become belligerent then your plan might very well succeed. As I previously posted on this thread the LEO is not interested in conversing with you and you have no 'right' to know what he is investigating or why he is investigating. You can simply provide identification, which is not burden whatsoever, or encourage a negative response from LEO. Not a single person has made a credible case for not cooperating with LEO.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; May 28th, 2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason: misinterpreted the post

  11. #116
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,507
    Depends on what I have done. Er, I mean what they are asking for.

    I used to say, "sure I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide." Too many people have said that and now our rights are being chipped away bit by bit because of it.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  12. #117
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think kpw misinterpreted my remark. I think requesting a conversation with an LEO and not immediately complying with a request can be done without being belligerent.

    This entire thread was based on an opinion that some think it is fine to not comply with a simple request for identification, which we all have at our disposal within a matter of a few seconds. Some think it is their 'right' to be anonymous and a request by law enforcement is so out of line that they want to cause a scene.

    My response to your post was simply an observation that if you wanted to cause an LEO to become belligerent then your plan might very well succeed. As I previously posted on this thread the LEO is not interested in conversing with you and you have no 'right' to know what he is investigating or why he is investigating. You can simply provide identification, which is not burden whatsoever, or encourage a negative response from LEO. Not a single person has made a credible case for not cooperating with LEO.
    Ah, my mistake! Sorry.

    If it involves me, I have a right to know and have never been denied a reason wether I asked or it was volunteered from the officer. Your idea of a credible case and mine differ. You seem a little more pliable when it involves your rights. At least in this case.
    Last edited by kpw; May 29th, 2008 at 06:32 AM. Reason: added

  13. #118
    New Member Array mikerkba's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2
    Yes, but I have a follow-up question:
    Do you mean my real id, or just an ID?
    :)

  14. #119
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    I don't have a problem with showing my ID to a LEO if they request it.

    QUESTION: Isn't refusing to show ID when asked to by a LEO automatically grounds for arrest?
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  15. #120
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf357 View Post
    QUESTION: Isn't refusing to show ID when asked to by a LEO automatically grounds for arrest?
    We are looping back to the three thread out of which this one grew.

    According to the US Supreme Court and all the statutes and case law which I have seen on this site & elsewhere, the answer is, "Refusing to show ID when asked to by a LEO is not automatically grounds for arrest, unless he/she has cause or adequate suspicion to detain you under what is typically called a "Terry" stop.

    Here in Virginia you do not have to identify yourself to LEO unless he/she is in the midst of detaining you -- a Terry Stop.

    Now if he/she started a conversation through consensual stop, and he/she changes into investigative detention mode, the officer must notify the subject that he/she is detaining them and state the reason for the detention, no matter how short in time the detention may be.

    The requirement for a "Terry Stop" are from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

    See: Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On October 31, 1963, Cleveland police detective Martin McFadden saw two men (John W. Terry and Richard Chilton) standing on a street corner and acting suspiciously. One man would walk past a certain store window, stare in, walk on a short distance, turn back, stare in the store window again, and walk back to the other man and converse for a short period of time. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of “casing” the store for a robbery, McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away. The officer approached the three men, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. When they “mumbled something” in response, McFadden patted them down for weapons and discovered that Terry and Chilton were armed. He removed their guns and arrested them for carrying concealed weapons. When the trial court denied his motion to suppress, Terry pleaded not guilty, but the court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to one to three years in prison.

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case, claiming that no “substantial constitutional question” was involved. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case.

    ....

    The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion."

    ....

    “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,

    And simple “‘good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.’ . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ only in the discretion of the police.” — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

    ....

    These principles led the Court to conclude that the evidence found on Terry's person was properly admitted because the search was reasonable. The detective had observed Terry and his companions acting in a manner he took to be a preface to a stick-up. A reasonable person in the detective's position would have thought that Terry was armed and thus presented a threat to his safety while he was investigating the suspicious behavior he was observing. The events he had witnessed made it reasonable for him to believe that either Terry or his cohorts were armed. "The record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so."

    In situations such as the one presented in this case,

    “The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” (392 U.S. 1, at 29)
    The police detective here limited his search to the outer surfaces of Terry's clothing. Thus, the search was reasonably related in scope to the concern for his own safety that justified the stop from the beginning. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the revolver found on Terry's person was properly admitted into evidence.


    This is a very contentious issue on a number of fronts -- not just this list.
    Last edited by DaveH; May 29th, 2008 at 04:19 PM. Reason: typos
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Show your age
    By Bubbiesdad in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: January 15th, 2011, 06:54 PM
  2. A little show and tell
    By ccholsters in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 28th, 2010, 12:26 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 1st, 2009, 10:34 PM
  4. Phoenix Gun Show or Any Gun Show Question
    By mi2az in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 12:17 AM
  5. OK one more from the show-me-state (or don't show me)
    By clipse in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 29th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Search tags for this page

probable cause to show id

,

when are you required to present id to an leo

,

when are you required to present id to leo

Click on a term to search for related topics.