Can you be arrested for not carrying ID?

Please forgive my ignorance on this one. If you're not driving, can you be arrested for failure to present an ID?

Several threads in the past couple of days have made me wonder about this.

But that doesn't mean they won't try it anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6906376



That and the thread about the guy at Circuit City made me wonder.

to mexico because they were brown and not carrying ID.

(They were also impaired and couldn't understand/explain)

for I believe 72 hours so that your identity can be established, this is nothing new it's been this way for years.

I take a horrible picture I wouldn't want it floated around.

no, you can tell tales all you like but the nice officer has to assume that if you are not a bad egg, then you will need at least a state ID for some purpose like writing checks at the grocery store

even old ladies who can no longer drive or who were never taught because their generation didn't drive have state photo IDs and damn few of them resemble paris hilton

you've got to make the story at least a little believable, say your ID was stolen and you haven't yet got it replaced, SOMETHING, but don't completely insult the officer's intelligence and call him a fool to his face

If I'm getting a ride from someone, or riding my bike, whatever. I use either Cash or a Debit card for any transactions, and any liquor or cigs I buy are bought at places that know me personally, so no ID required there either. I have a bad habit of losing my License, so I just don't take it anywhere unless I absolutely need to, I don't see what's wrong with that.

Excerpt from article:
When The State Owns Your Name

One of the most salient traits of a police state is the demand "Papiere bitte"-- “Your papers, please” -- coupled with the understanding that failure to comply is good and sufficient cause for detention.


Three years ago, in the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws authorizing police to detain people who refuse to identify themselves even when there are no other grounds for an arrest.


That decision, observes legal analyst Barbara Babcock (no, not that Barbara Babcock), represents a grave point of transition for our society. No longer do Americans enjoy “our much-vaunted liberty to walk freely on the streets surrounded by a zone of privacy or even anonymity – not numbered and in place; not responsible to explain ourselves on demand to the government.”


Our freedom of movement now may be constricted at any time by anyone wearing the State-issued official costume and junk jewelry, and we can be incarcerated merely for insisting on the sovereign right to mind our own business. That is a tidy description of a police state – however relatively prosperous or apparently benign it may be.


“A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime,” writes Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor to the Plano, Texas Police Department, in the May issue of Police Chief magazine.


“According to the US Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime," writes Bray. "This is commonly known as a Terry stop” -- after the 1968 decision Terry v. Ohio, which grudgingly allowed police to conduct “stop and frisk”-operations in the course of investigating a suspected crime.


The Hiibel ruling, however, expanded “stop and frisk” to include a police power to interrogate people at whim.


The High Court ruling notes that the plaintiff, Nevada resident Larry Dudley Hiibel, “was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself” to Humboldt Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove. Hiibel had been riding in his pickup truck with his 17-year-old daughter Mimi while the two of them argued over the relative merits of Mimi's boyfriend (at the time, Mimi was the driver). At one point, Mimi in frustration slugged her dad in the shoulder, an act that was witnessed and reported to the police by an excessively zealous citizen.


entire article:http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-state-owns-your-name.html



From Wikipedia:


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 2004
Decided June 21, 2004
Full case name: Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
Citations: 542 U.S. 177; 124 S. Ct. 2451; 159 L. Ed. 2d 292; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4385; 72 U.S.L.W. 4509; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 406

Prior history: Defendant convicted, Justice Court of Union Township, Humboldt County; affirmed, Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; affirmed, 59 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2002); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 965 (2003)

Subsequent history: US Supreme Court rehearing denied by Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 960, 125 S. Ct. 18, 159 L. Ed. 2d 849, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4868 (U.S., Aug. 23, 2004)
Holding
Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas
Dissent by: Stevens
Dissent by: Breyer
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. IV, V; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3)

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself.

Like 23 other states, Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law, which allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime,” or simply to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to identify himself, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.

--SNIP---

States with “stop-and-identify” laws

The Court's opinion identified the following U.S. states as having "stop-and-identify" laws:

* Alabama
* Arkansas
* Colorado
* Delaware
* Florida
* Georgia
* Illinois
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* New Mexico
* New York
* North Dakota
* Rhode Island
* Texas
* Utah
* Vermont
* Wisconsin

Although it was not mentioned in the opinion, Indiana has had a “stop-and-identify” law since 1998.

Two states have enacted “stop-and-identify” laws since Hiibel was decided:

* Arizona (2005)
* Ohio (2006)

more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

And "probable cause" is intentionally vague, with some sketchy precedent, if I'm not mistaken.

Is the arrest legal? No.

If you are operating a motor vehicle on the street you have to produce your drivers license.

You are generally obliged to identify yourself. That means you have to tell the nice officer your name, where you live, and perhaps why you are where you are. You are also quite likely to end up at the police station for not producing your documents on demand, legal order or not.

But inside the US while it is generally not strictly legal for a cop to demand your documents, other than your driver's license if you are operating a motor vehicle, it is commonplace and you generally end up detained and/or arrested on some bullshit charge for failing to do so.

you're travelling in a "private vessel" on a religious mission in Kansas

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/sep/01/unusual_hearing_follows_traffic_stop/

:rofl:

It's my Resident Alien Card (aka Green Card). Not presenting it when demanded by police or other law officials means I have committed a misdemeanour. So yes I have to carry ID otherwise I could be arrested for being an illegal alien.

...of course I've been here so bloody long that the picture is just about worthless as it was taken of me when I was 20....(much more handsome and a helluva lot of lbs ago.....)

and there are very good reasons for that

Mind you, I did and once I no longer had to carry mine it was a nice feeling

Then again it was 1998

There are days I kick myself for doing that

:-)

...over here...and I damned sure wouldn't want to become a citizen with ass-face in office...

About half the states have some level of stop and identify statute.
Here's a good primer using the Hiibel court case.
It's important to note that each state sets a different standard for acceptable identification (in some you are required only to state your name, not prove it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel

"^ From the opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., the Court understood the statute to require only that the suspect state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means. The majority opinion noted that Hiibel was asked to provide identification, which the Court understood as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification, 11 different times; however, it did not indicate that Hiibel was ever asked simply to identify himself. "

You do not have to produce any official documents, and as noted in the dissenting opinions, this was a lousy decision anyway.

You are correct that Hiibel is a decision on the Nevada law requiring you to identify yourself by name (not ID) but the law is different in other states as I recall from earlier readings.

And yes, Hiibel is a supremely lousy decision.

Remember that being arrested is not the same as being convicted. A cop can arrest you if he or she believes you are committing a crime, including the crime of "refusing to comply with a lawful, reasonable request from a peace officer." The cops may decide once the matter is resolved to drop the charge, or they may press charges and have the charges dropped by a court. A cop can face a "wrongful arrest" suit, disciplinary action, or even termination if a court decides he or she acted without cause, or improperly.

Criminals frequently claim they don't have ID, especially when trying to stall on something like a shoplifting charge. They seem to think that maybe the cops will charge the wrong person with the crime, I guess. I used to work nights at a hotel, and I've seen people arrested for refusing to show ID, always in conjunction with some other crime (often public intoxication).

The dude at the Circuit City did everything exactly the way a shoplifter would have done it--brushing past the door checker, jumping in a waiting car at the front door, pretending some constitutional right was violated when he got caught. (IMHO, I suspect he did shoplift something, and got away with it--probably stashed in in the car before the manager got there. I've watched more shoplifters than I care to admit act exactly like that when caught.) A cop is making a reasonable request when asking a suspected criminal for ID.

The situation gets a little muddier, though, because the cop didn't catch him shoplifting, and the man finally complied with showing the receipt, so at that point, there is a question of what the cop needed to see his ID for, since he was no longer suspected of shoplifting. At that point, the charge was, basically, being a real asshole. Cops can arrest someone for something they believe is criminal, and sort the specific charges out later--otherwise, they'd have to be lawyers as well as cops. And the man was refusing to show his ID while he was still suspected of being a shoplifter, so the cop's request at that time was reasonable and lawful.

The cop didn't overstep his authority, in other words. Whether the man is ultimately tried or punished is up to prosecutors and judges. Since he's rich, he probably won't be. Sad to say.

Face it, if this were a Republican senator, we'd be all over him for crapping on the working man, believing he was above the law, and being a general asshole. Because he phrased this in terms of "constitutional rights" and "Nazi suppression" and all the other bullshit criminals spout, he's suddenly a hero to some. That's really, really pathetic.

,

you can be 'detained' for refussing to give up your name, address, and other identifying information. mind you once they get you to the station they can find out who u are through other means....


never heard of it happening , but im sure it has.

I used to work nights at a hotel, and we had off-duty cops do our security. I saw people taken to jail for refusing to provide ID, though always in conjunction with another crime--PI, DUI, or fighting, usually.

Had a long conversation with a cop once about cyclists. Some jackass cyclists refuse to obey traffic laws, blowing through stop signs and stuff like that (makes it harder on those of us who do obey the laws). When cops stop them, they almost always claim they don't have ID, believing that the cop can't give them a ticket without ID. Once the cop explains that they will be arrested and held until they can produce ID, and then will be ticketed, they always remember that they have their wallets.

I was walking to the store three blocks from my home when I was accosted by police who demanded ID, which I did not have with me because I was walking and the money for the paper and milk I intended to buy was in my pocket. They threw me over the back of a cop car, handcuffed me, called more cops, stuffed me in the back of one of the cars and were about to take me to be "booked" when my husband came driving by because he was worried that it was taking me so long to get to the store and back. By this time I was terrified and just about hysterical.

Somehow, he convinced them to release me on the spot. Turns out it was "mistaken identity." A photo of a young woman alleged to be a heroin dealer that the cops eventually produced did eerily resemble me. However, the city did pay damages for the terror they caused to me, because citizens are not required to carry a license, or any form of ID for that matter, when walking and the cops had far exceeded the boundaries of their own guidelines at the time. The cop who was most responsible for throwing me all around was fired.

But that was 1972.

i am not sure why we have started an entirely new thread, when it was well thrashed out yesterday

states make their own laws, nevada is one where you are required to always have ID whilst in public, been that way for many a year

Please forgive my duplication error.

you had the bar code tattooed on your neck yet?

I thought we all had one by now....

I think that an ID is pretty necessary in most cases. Pre-911 it was not an issue.

when i worked there in the 90s, i was always required to have ID and i was given to understand by the legal advisors that it had been a requirement for some years going back to the 80s at least

i don't see the point in romanticizing 911, most of the freedoms that people claim we lost on that day, were lost in the 80s, but since most people never exercise their freedoms they were unaware of the loss until they read about it on the internet (things like reporting requirements for cash go back to the reagan era and NOT 911, as the banks claim because it looks better these days to say it's about 911 than about nancy reagan's war on drugs)

an ID is not required in the US

Now as things go, that may change... but for the moment, no you cannot be arrested for not carrying an ID

I didn't even carry an ID when I was driving. Being a white guy I could get away with a lot. I could get pulled over, do my "Oh no, I forgot my wallet!!!" act, recite my drivers license number (or something similar) and get away with that. I've been in Mexico and Canada without an ID. I once got drunk in Tijuana and woke up in San Diego too, and no, I wasn't carrying ID at any time.

Sorry, a lot of my young adulthood was :wtf: and I couldn't reconcile my self identity with the odd creature peering out of my drivers license.

Then I got married and my wife put an end to such experiments. She told me she would be really, really, angry if she had to pick me up from jail. I carry my ID when I drive, but when I'm not driving, mostly not.

If you ask me, that's why they invented cars, so they could force us all to worry about identification papers. Before that a person was whoever they said they were, and for the most part people were trustworthy about that.

But everything changed after 9/11.