Defensive Carry banner

Would you show ID to an LEO if asked?

Would you show ID to an LEO?

8K views 125 replies 57 participants last post by  pgrass101 
#1 ·
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?
 
#5 ·
absolutely yes.
I am one of the good guys. and if an LEO asks, I have no problem producing.
I can't think of a circumstance that I would deny an LEO a reasonable request.
 
#6 ·
Circumstances

If under the conditions of a "Terry" stop, yes -- without hesitation.

If while exercising any "privilege" that carries with it the need to ID oneself to have that "privilege", yes -- without hesitation.

In most emergency situations (assuming I understand -- w/ or w/o an explanation for the LEO), yes.

In a "Papers Please!!!" or other internal passport situation, No!
 
#8 ·
Of course I would. LEOS are out doing their job, doing stuff that we would rather not do. I could care less about being sure about whether I had to do this or not or unsure etc etc. Just show him or her the license to carry and it shows that he or she has one less thug to worry about.
They are not our enemies but a lot of law abiding citizens think they are, or don't like them etc but they are the very very first to call 911-----It is BS to be anti-police in general for no good reason other than you do not like authority much.
 
#10 ·
Any ID, then, if they wanted it as it does me no harm to show it.
I misunderstood the question, thought it was ID related to carrying.
I may well be in my rights to refuse but if the officer had some reason, and I would assume a valid one, then why would I refuse or balk?

It asked would you show your ID, and I figured it was the concealed carry permit/license ID.
 
#11 ·
It all depends on the situation. If there is a seemingly valid reason, no problem. If there isn't, no way. If he's just curious about who I am, he can introduce himself and I'll reply with my name in kind. If that's all it is then he/she doesn't really have any business knowing anything more about me than anyone else and I don't know why they would want to other than fishing for something or trying to intimidate. I don't consider that uncooperative at all.
 
#13 ·
Speaking only for myself and no matter the state i am in i hand my ccw to any LE with my id . I dont make a production of stating i am armed , but my permit is handed over with my id on contact . I for one want the officer to know that there is another gun on the contact and dont want it to be any kind of supprise for either of us .
 
#23 ·
I believe the question was about showing id when asked for no particular reason. Not specifically gun related. Like walking down the street, shopping for groceries, ect. and an officer asks for id without known reason.

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.
 
#14 ·
Depends upon the situation...I'm always going to be respectful...but I will not allow myself to be 'legally abused' either!:22a:
 
#15 ·
Very prudent question, SD. If it wasn't as valid a question as it is, I'd say you were baiting. :wink:


-B
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
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.
I really don't think this is the issue here. This case was only for refusing to give your name, not your id. A very narrow ruling, not the broader question posted here.

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.
 
#21 ·
Since I carry all the time, yes, because I live in the great state of Texas, I would as required by law.
 
#39 · (Edited)
"Disregarding the current law...."????



I was under the impression that this thread was not about "when carrying," "while driving" or even what your State law is.

The original post said, "Disregarding the current law in your juridisction, would you show your ID to an LEO (police, BP, FBI...) if asked?"

I read the "Disregarding the current law" to mean "were it not for..."

I did not read it to mean "would you disregard the current law and..."

Then some responses seem to be assuming one reading. Other, seem to assume the other. Therefore, I'm rather confused as to the meaning of the poll and and many of the post.

:confused:
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
I see this question alot, and it amazes me how people are so adamant about only showing ID when it is appropriate... I live in Alabama, and have never had a single problem from LEO when notified I am carrying. When stopped, and asked for ID, I simply provide DL and Permit, and in many cases I have gotten out of a ticket, simply b/c I did not hassle the LEO. One time I was even invited to the police range, and ended up finding a few shooting buddys.
 
#34 ·
That is because, Rescue1325, more than just a few folks are anti-police but they will not come right out and say it. So it is almost never the idea of giving an ID or answering a simple question. If they are not legally compelled to do it, they do not want to do it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top