The case SayUncle links to here rules that police can’t ask you for identification without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. I have a feeling this case, currently in the eighth circuit, might end up being useful in a case that’s developing here in Pennsylvania. Hopefully I’ll be able to post more about that later.
8 thoughts on “Failure to Show ID”
Comments are closed.
I am aware of that developing case and know why you trying to get all the ducks in a row before commenting/blogging on it. I look forward to that, and figure if anyone can get to the bottom of all the details floating around, YOU can.
I’m looking for a comprehensive source on what happened… or a media article. I’d also be open to guest blogging opportunities for PA patriot if he wants to come on and tell his story.
A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday and “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 stop.”
That is pointedly different from “cannot ask you for ID”.
It means only that they can’t compel you to show ID, unless they can relate it to the reason for the stop.
They can certainly ask you nicely if you have any.
Didn’t SCotUS already issue a ruling to the opposite effect a couple of years ago in a Nevada case?
Ah, here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html
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.
I believe there’s a difference between not providing your name and not providing papers. It’s the sort of minute detail that the SCOTUS loves to toy with.
Of course here in SC, if an officer of the law asks for my ID and I’m carrying… I have to not only show him my CWP, but I also am obligated to let him know that I’m carrying.
The law doesn’t have any allowances for why the officer is asking for your ID.
That’s one of the rights I give up by getting a CWP here. Ironic, huh?
“The case SayUncle links to here rules that police can’t ask you for identification without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.”
At any given moment, the local cops have a significant backlog of unsolved crimes which you may be the solution to. If you refuse to provide ID, they have reasonable cause to take you to jail until they can ID you, and charge you for the cost of making them do it. Plus punitive damages.
They can ask you for identification if it’s related to a reasonable suspicion that was the cause of a terry stop. That’s what the Supreme Court says. If they have no reasonable suspicion, they can’t demand ID, or even stop you lawfully.