Should you be compelled to show ID when asked?

[Chris0nllyn]

If you don't show ID when asked (even though you don't have to) means you're an ******* (according to the City Attorney).

While, at the same time, the officer (while speaking to the City Attorney) says he could just wait for him to drive away and find somrething to pull him over for in order to get his ID.

During that same conversation, the officer admits that if a home in the area gets broken into, this guy will be the first one they look to. And he wonders why a citizen not suspected of wrongdoing would voluntarily give up his ID.

After that, another officer rolls up and says he's going to lock him up for obstruction AFTER the original officer had just spoke with the City Attorney who advised him the driver has done nothing wrong.

 

[TCROW]

Am I being detained?

 

[This_person]

Without spending 20 minutes to watch a citizen argue with a cop, in answer to the title question I would say that if the government representative (regardless of who) has a reason to ask about identification of a citizen, then yes it is reasonable to provide that identification to the government representative. For example, if a crime has occurred nearby, and the citizen may be believed to be tied to solving that crime in some way, it is reasonable to seek the citizen's ID. If you are trying to interact with the government, such as to vote or register a relationship with the government similar things, you should expect to provide your ID.

 

[Hijinx]

Do you really want the hassle? That's what it amounts to.

OK, maybe you aren't legally forced to show your ID.
Do you really want the hassle of not showing it?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Without spending 20 minutes to watch a citizen argue with a cop, in answer to the title question I would say that if the government representative (regardless of who) has a reason to ask about identification of a citizen, then yes it is reasonable to provide that identification to the government representative. For example, if a crime has occurred nearby, and the citizen may be believed to be tied to solving that crime in some way, it is reasonable to seek the citizen's ID. If you are trying to interact with the government, such as to vote or register a relationship with the government similar things, you should expect to provide your ID.

The man was an insurance adjuster legally allowed to be where he was. He chose not to give his ID because , legally, he didn't have to.

The officer(s) wrongly state that the driver must give ID when requested, absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, and failing to do so amount to obstruction.

It's disheartening to listen to so many police officers not only be incorrect, but to continue to press the issue after being told they were incorrect. It's disheartening to see these officers believe they have the right to demand ID with nothing more than vague suspicion of a non-specific criminal activity based on a call from an anonymous source.

The worst part is the fact that taxpayers will foot the bill of any lawsuits stemming from this sort of behavior. There is no incentive to behave any differently.

Do you really want the hassle? That's what it amounts to.

OK, maybe you aren't legally forced to show your ID.
Do you really want the hassle of not showing it?

That's really what it comes down to.

The flip side is that police are used to people handing it over and (incorrectly) think they are owed ID when asking. When a citizen comes along and denies that request, the officer immediately thinks the person is being uncooperative and "if you've done nothing wrong, what's the problem". This can end up good or bad, depending on the patience of the officer(s). The officer in the video even stated that the driver is lucky he wasn't ripped from his vehicle.

We also saw in this video that had a home been broken into at a later date, the first person they'd be looking at is the man who gave up his ID though he'd done nothing wrong.

 

[GURPS]

It's disheartening to listen to so many police officers not only be incorrect, but to continue to press the issue after being told they were incorrect. It's disheartening to see these officers believe they have the right to demand ID with nothing more than vague suspicion of a non-specific criminal activity based on a call from an anonymous source.

 

[GURPS]

When a citizen comes along and denies that request, the officer immediately thinks the person is being uncooperative and "if you've done nothing wrong, what's the problem".

Failure to Obey Cop ...

 

[BernieP]

The officer(s) wrongly state that the driver must give ID when requested, absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, and failing to do so amount to obstruction.

The problem is that both sies made some mistakes. All the officer had to do was tell the driver that he had clocked him for doing 5 MHP over the speed limit (or something equally as lame). This would have given him cover to ask for the license. The citizen on the other hand made the legal determination he wasn't in the wrong and made the decision he didn't have to turn over the ID.
While state law (in most juridictions) doesn't give law enforcement a blank check to ask for iD and question people, the motor vehicle regulations generally do.
I beliveve the last time I researched this topic it stated the supreme court had upheld that law enforcement had certain descretionary powers on routine traffic stops. The question is, are police gong to far in using that broad power for warrantless searches without probably cause.
Since it's a power granted by the court, only the SCOTUS can take it away. Maybe it should be challenged, challenged so that new guidelines are imposed.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The problem is that both sies made some mistakes. All the officer had to do was tell the driver that he had clocked him for doing 5 MHP over the speed limit (or something equally as lame). This would have given him cover to ask for the license. The citizen on the other hand made the legal determination he wasn't in the wrong and made the decision he didn't have to turn over the ID.
While state law (in most juridictions) doesn't give law enforcement a blank check to ask for iD and question people, the motor vehicle regulations generally do.
I beliveve the last time I researched this topic it stated the supreme court had upheld that law enforcement had certain descretionary powers on routine traffic stops. The question is, are police gong to far in using that broad power for warrantless searches without probably cause.
Since it's a power granted by the court, only the SCOTUS can take it away. Maybe it should be challenged, challenged so that new guidelines are imposed.

Good point, and something the officer elluded to when talkign with the (presumed) City Attorney. Unfortunately for the officer, the guy was not driving (though the video starts makes it seem that way), thus making it hard to stop him for a traffic infraction. A moving car can (and will) be stopped for a litany of justifiable reasons an officer can come up with.

 

[BernieP]

Good point, and something the officer elluded to when talkign with the (presumed) City Attorney. Unfortunately for the officer, the guy was not driving (though the video starts makes it seem that way), thus making it hard to stop him for a traffic infraction. A moving car can (and will) be stopped for a litany of justifiable reasons an officer can come up with.

There is some latitude under the constitution. Below is a synopsis on the ruling on the NYPD use of "Stop and Frisk".
I think there is some linkage to asking for an ID.

In Floyd v. City of New York, decided on August 12, 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk had been used in an unconstitutional manner and directed the police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized.

The judge ruled the implementation uncostitutional, but it was ok if there was a written policy (guidelines).
It sounds similiar to SCOTUS ruling that police must have some descretionary powers to perform their job.

 

[glhs837]

I'm not sure where or who the hell you people think you are, but here we are ten goddamned posts into this and not one friken person has called another one a name, nor hinted that their parents were not married, or that they would fail basic 5th grade tests.......... we got standards, I want to remind you

VRAI!!!!!!!!! Oh VRAI!!!!!!!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There is some latitude under the constitution. Below is a synopsis on the ruling on the NYPD use of "Stop and Frisk".
I think there is some linkage to asking for an ID.

The judge ruled the implementation uncostitutional, but it was ok if there was a written policy (guidelines).
It sounds similiar to SCOTUS ruling that police must have some descretionary powers to perform their job.

SCOTUS has ruled that police need more than suspicion to demand ID from someone. They have to be able to articulate that the person they are demanding ID from has, is, or is about to committ a crime.

Someone "acting suspicious" is not a reason to ID. Someone who is engaged in lawful activities (driving the speed limit, taking photos in public spaces, etc.) is not required to show ID (though they can voluntarily).

The issue with NYPD's stop and frisk is that they stopped people who had not committed a crime, nor were suspected of doing so. Police stopped people for looking away from them, having their hands in their pockets, and all sorts of things used to justify stopping them. Since suspicion is totally objective, that is not, and should not be, grounds for identifying one self.