buster81
Regular Member
imported post
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Virginia Requirement To Provide ID To Police?
- Thread starter -C4-
- Start date
marine2000
Regular Member
imported post
But of course.
All human(s) are made equal. (True)
But it's how we evlove ourselves is what matter(s) at moment...!!!!!!!!!!!
Ihave walked around O'cing everywhere that the LAW allows me too....!!!!!
Our 2A rights states that "We Have the Right To Bear Arms"........
But does it say where and when......?????????????????
Interesting ain't it....???????
So did the government just over rule the constitution and the amendments ????
But of course.
All human(s) are made equal. (True)
But it's how we evlove ourselves is what matter(s) at moment...!!!!!!!!!!!
Ihave walked around O'cing everywhere that the LAW allows me too....!!!!!
Our 2A rights states that "We Have the Right To Bear Arms"........
But does it say where and when......?????????????????
Interesting ain't it....???????
So did the government just over rule the constitution and the amendments ????
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
Lately, I've been walking between 1 1/2 and 3 1/2 miles at least every other night when it's cooler, both to lose weight and because it really knocks the blood sugar down, even after a big meal.
I walk in a loop through various neighborhoods in my town. I carry nothing with me but a cell phone and my house keys. Ohio requires no ID exceptwhen drivingor carrying a concealed firearm (flying an aircraft too, I imagine).
If stopped, I'd gladly give my name and address. After that, my next and ONLY words are "Am I free to leave, Officer?"
Lately, I've been walking between 1 1/2 and 3 1/2 miles at least every other night when it's cooler, both to lose weight and because it really knocks the blood sugar down, even after a big meal.
I walk in a loop through various neighborhoods in my town. I carry nothing with me but a cell phone and my house keys. Ohio requires no ID exceptwhen drivingor carrying a concealed firearm (flying an aircraft too, I imagine).
If stopped, I'd gladly give my name and address. After that, my next and ONLY words are "Am I free to leave, Officer?"
imported post
http://circuit4.blogspot.com/search?q=soriano-jarquin
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected all of Soriano-Jarquin's arguments. First, the court rejected the argument that the trooper violated the Fourth Amendment by asking to see the identification of the van's passengers, noting that such a request is part of a legitimate traffic stop and is related to officer safety
http://circuit4.blogspot.com/search?q=soriano-jarquin
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected all of Soriano-Jarquin's arguments. First, the court rejected the argument that the trooper violated the Fourth Amendment by asking to see the identification of the van's passengers, noting that such a request is part of a legitimate traffic stop and is related to officer safety
ODA 226
Regular Member
imported post
I have no problem showing ID to any LEO if he requests it. I have nothing to hide.
Since I CC most all of the time, I am required to anyway. As a matter of a PERSONAL choice, I always inform the LEO that I have a CHL and that I am armed.
Again, this is a PERSONAL choice and have found that LEOs react well to me making this statement up front. I have NEVER been asked to disarm for "officer safety" nor did I ever ask anyone who was legally carrying to disarm when I was a Sheriff's Deputy.
I have no problem showing ID to any LEO if he requests it. I have nothing to hide.
Since I CC most all of the time, I am required to anyway. As a matter of a PERSONAL choice, I always inform the LEO that I have a CHL and that I am armed.
Again, this is a PERSONAL choice and have found that LEOs react well to me making this statement up front. I have NEVER been asked to disarm for "officer safety" nor did I ever ask anyone who was legally carrying to disarm when I was a Sheriff's Deputy.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
I have a significant problem with any law, policy or standardthattreats the citizen with less than the dignity that our federal and state constitution confirm.
We are free men. There is nothingthat canjustify subjecting free men to indignities from an intrusive government agent.
Live Free or Die
Thundar
I have a significant problem with any law, policy or standardthattreats the citizen with less than the dignity that our federal and state constitution confirm.
We are free men. There is nothingthat canjustify subjecting free men to indignities from an intrusive government agent.
Live Free or Die
Thundar
imported post
ODA 226 wrote:
Most of the time.... as long as you do not pull it out there is no problem.
As far as ID requests.... cops are people too. It is a job that sometimes requires we ask who you are. We would rather be back in the car, listening to the radio, and enjoying the AC.
Having to deal with someone that needs to be known for some reason just delays this and a report probably still needs to be written. It is not going to make the cop happy to have to be with you any longer than he needs to be. (I know.... you are not there to make the cop happy or his job easier)
ODA 226 wrote:
There is no need to tell the officer unless you are being detained. You do not want him doing a pat down and find it on his own. :shock:
Most of the time.... as long as you do not pull it out there is no problem.
As far as ID requests.... cops are people too. It is a job that sometimes requires we ask who you are. We would rather be back in the car, listening to the radio, and enjoying the AC.
Having to deal with someone that needs to be known for some reason just delays this and a report probably still needs to be written. It is not going to make the cop happy to have to be with you any longer than he needs to be. (I know.... you are not there to make the cop happy or his job easier)
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
The officer believed the passengers had committed a crime and had RS to detain.
"a state trooper asked to see the identification of the dozen passengers in the van. It became apparent that the passengers did not speak English and the trooper suspected they were illegal immigrants"
LEO 229 wrote:
In your link,
The officer believed the passengers had committed a crime and had RS to detain.
"a state trooper asked to see the identification of the dozen passengers in the van. It became apparent that the passengers did not speak English and the trooper suspected they were illegal immigrants"
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
May be so..
However, having and or producing a DL/ID is not required unless you are operating a vehicle or carrying concealed in VA.
[line]
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
Which is what the OP's question was/is.
May be so..
However, having and or producing a DL/ID is not required unless you are operating a vehicle or carrying concealed in VA.
[line]
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
Which is what the OP's question was/is.
imported post
Agent19 wrote:
But as I mentioned in the past and as identified in the document....
You can be held till you are identified if you are suspected of a crime [and no charges actually placed.]
It would be so easy for criminals to avoid capture or detection if located in the area if they did not have to say who they were.
Can you imagine??
Police: "Sir, you match the description of a guy that killed a man. Who are you?"
Man: "I aint tellin' you a damn thing! Am I free to go?"
Police: "Yes..."
Agent19 wrote:
Correct...!!! You cannot be charged with "Obstruction" for not showing an ID.
But as I mentioned in the past and as identified in the document....
You can be held till you are identified if you are suspected of a crime [and no charges actually placed.]
It would be so easy for criminals to avoid capture or detection if located in the area if they did not have to say who they were.
Can you imagine??
Police: "Sir, you match the description of a guy that killed a man. Who are you?"
Man: "I aint tellin' you a damn thing! Am I free to go?"
Police: "Yes..."
imported post
nova wrote:
You may be able to detain an unidentified suspect, but not necessarily until he is identified. That depends on how quickly the identifacation process works and how much information, if any is on file.
There is a reasonable amount of time he may be held (I don't remember the limit now) but it is measured in hours.
If Juan doesn't have any records and either doesn't or won't speak English, he's gonna be back picking the beans pronto quick.
nova wrote:
That's not exactly what it says 229 and it's not what they can do. I happen to know Marsha and know the circumstances that prompted the inquiry.
You may be able to detain an unidentified suspect, but not necessarily until he is identified. That depends on how quickly the identifacation process works and how much information, if any is on file.
There is a reasonable amount of time he may be held (I don't remember the limit now) but it is measured in hours.
If Juan doesn't have any records and either doesn't or won't speak English, he's gonna be back picking the beans pronto quick.
imported post
peter nap wrote:
The time kept is really going to depend on the seriousness of the crime and the likeness that you are involved.
Obviously.. they cannot just keep you forever...
peter nap wrote:
I guess I really mean for the way it sounded.. :lol:
The time kept is really going to depend on the seriousness of the crime and the likeness that you are involved.
Obviously.. they cannot just keep you forever...
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
The technology exists to have the prints scanned from the patrol car. But if you happen to randomly cuff the gangland equivalent of a 33rd Degree Mason, then it's not safe to sit in one location while waiting for Clarksburg to tell you that important fact. So printing suspects from the police car doesn't really make sense. You can also see what happens in the fingerprint process at the jail on numerous YouTube videos.
:dude:
LEO 229 wrote:
Without correct identification, they will keep you until the FBI fingerprint center in Clarksburg, WV, responds to their request. That's usually about 20 minutes, once the prints are scanned into the system from the police station.I guess I really mean for the way it sounded.. :lol:
The time kept is really going to depend on the seriousness of the crime and the likeness that you are involved.
Obviously.. they cannot just keep you forever...
The technology exists to have the prints scanned from the patrol car. But if you happen to randomly cuff the gangland equivalent of a 33rd Degree Mason, then it's not safe to sit in one location while waiting for Clarksburg to tell you that important fact. So printing suspects from the police car doesn't really make sense. You can also see what happens in the fingerprint process at the jail on numerous YouTube videos.
:dude:
imported post
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[line]
443 U.S. 47
Brown v. Texas
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW No. 2, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS
No. 77-6673 Argued: February 21, 1979 --- Decided: June 25, 1979
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
The police must have a reason to ask for your identification. It's okay to ask why they're asking, too. It's not okay for cops to go around asking for stuff as if they are private citizens while dressed and working as cops. Police are citizens, but while in uniform, they can't do things like askcitizens for charitable contributions. The idea that they have an unlimitedright to ask for stuffis not founded inactual practice, although citizens will often agree to police searches in an effort to cooperate with law enforcement.Their cooperation is sometimes repaid with the enforcement of laws against them which theydidn't realize they were in violation of.
:celebrate
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[line]
443 U.S. 47
Brown v. Texas
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW No. 2, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS
No. 77-6673 Argued: February 21, 1979 --- Decided: June 25, 1979
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
The police must have a reason to ask for your identification. It's okay to ask why they're asking, too. It's not okay for cops to go around asking for stuff as if they are private citizens while dressed and working as cops. Police are citizens, but while in uniform, they can't do things like askcitizens for charitable contributions. The idea that they have an unlimitedright to ask for stuffis not founded inactual practice, although citizens will often agree to police searches in an effort to cooperate with law enforcement.Their cooperation is sometimes repaid with the enforcement of laws against them which theydidn't realize they were in violation of.
:celebrate
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
This thread in combination with the one about being asked to disarm has me utterly confused. For the purposes of my questions, no one involved is carrying a firearm.
I'm riding to work with my pal and we are running late. he gets pulled for speeding. During the stop, I do nothing suspicious yet officer requests that I provide identificiation? Am I under any obligation to provide it??
While riding with my buddy home from a baseball game, our route takes us through a police checkpoint. Neither of us has had a drop to drink and all applicable laws regarding the vehicle are satisfied. For some reason, officer demands that I provide id as the passenger. Am I under any obligation to provide it?
I used to believe the answer was a clear-cut NO but after reading some of LEO 229's recent posts, i'm utterly confused.
This thread in combination with the one about being asked to disarm has me utterly confused. For the purposes of my questions, no one involved is carrying a firearm.
I'm riding to work with my pal and we are running late. he gets pulled for speeding. During the stop, I do nothing suspicious yet officer requests that I provide identificiation? Am I under any obligation to provide it??
While riding with my buddy home from a baseball game, our route takes us through a police checkpoint. Neither of us has had a drop to drink and all applicable laws regarding the vehicle are satisfied. For some reason, officer demands that I provide id as the passenger. Am I under any obligation to provide it?
I used to believe the answer was a clear-cut NO but after reading some of LEO 229's recent posts, i'm utterly confused.
imported post
bayboy42 wrote:
The most important thing is that you havethe police officer explain why it is required. Whatever the cop says is the reason should be a valid reason -- like a car similar to the one you're in was involved in a robbery. Including sobriety checkpoints, since you're not driving.
You can always say you don't have license because it was revoked for speeding or driving drunk, or that you left your walletat home.
We really don't haveforms ofidentity that citizens must carry with them everywhere they go.
Then there is the SCOTUS case cited above saying that without reasonable suspicion, a citizen should be left alone.
:dude:
Absent any basis for suspecting [someone] of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and [a person's] right to personalsecurity and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
bayboy42 wrote:
The most important thing is that you havethe police officer explain why it is required. Whatever the cop says is the reason should be a valid reason -- like a car similar to the one you're in was involved in a robbery. Including sobriety checkpoints, since you're not driving.
You can always say you don't have license because it was revoked for speeding or driving drunk, or that you left your walletat home.
We really don't haveforms ofidentity that citizens must carry with them everywhere they go.
Then there is the SCOTUS case cited above saying that without reasonable suspicion, a citizen should be left alone.
:dude:
Absent any basis for suspecting [someone] of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and [a person's] right to personalsecurity and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
bayboy42 wrote:
And seizure of you for your refusal to find and produce some identify token in your wallet is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
This question has been asked and answered so many times it is getting a little old folks.
bayboy42 wrote:
No, not in Virginia (which has no stop and ID statute), and even in a state with a astop and ID statute, not then either absent Terry stop conditions for YOU, and even then, you meet the statute if you meerely"state your name," see Hiibel.
And seizure of you for your refusal to find and produce some identify token in your wallet is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
This question has been asked and answered so many times it is getting a little old folks.