America is still free, there is no law that requires you to carry around a government issued ID at all times.
I got ticketed for jaywalking
- Thread starter Alidar Jarok
- Start date
America is still free, there is no law that requires you to carry around a government issued ID at all times.
The ACLU (and, really, any sensible person) holds the position that for a police officer to make it compulsory for any person to produce an ID, no matter what, is tantamount to an unwarranted search and seizure.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2007, however, that even if an officer has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that a person has committed a crime, that officer may request identification and then use information garnered from running that identification against that person. Example: An officer can stop a random passer-by, request identification, run the information, see that the person has a bench warrant for arrest on outstanding traffic tickets, and execute the arrest. (The Court further ruled that an officer using a statement such as, "Please show me your identification," qualified as a request and not a demand, and that any citizen should know that he or she is free to walk away from an encounter with an officer unless one is under arrest or being questioned under a Terry stop.)
The ACLU opposes that decision on the grounds of Terry v. Ohio, which established that an officer must have, if not probable cause, at the very least reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed or is going to commit a crime. The Sixth Court's decision essentially throws out that part of Terry. It's still a matter of legal debate at this point, as far as I know.
But it is illegal to lie to a police officer. The police officer asked if I had ID on me. I guess I could have said "Yes" and then refused to hand it over, but I wasn't really in the mood for such nuances.
For constitutional legality, I would argue that it's not unreasonable to expand a Terry stop to include asking for identification (although the rationale in Terry v. Ohio I believe was officer safety). The problem is he had more than reasonable suspicion that I had committed a crime (he had flat out probable cause). Technically speaking, they could arrest me for it (at least they can for minor traffic violations, I would assume pedestrian violations would fit in this category). Stupid Burger court and their pro-police policies.
Wait, what?
These two statements seem mutually exclusive.
The law of a Terry stop requires the very minimum of an officer holding reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.
How can one sensibly expand that law into allowing for compulsory identification, no matter the situation?
(I'm not asking regarding your specific case -- I'm asking in the strict sense of the law.)
Common courtesy, and common sense, both lacking in most of the U.S., though not everywhere - in some States/cities it's like the U.K. sensibility.
Where I live, though, in New York State, people are so untrusting of cars (as they should be), they often won't cross even if the driver halts and waves them out. Because you can get run down, and the driver gets off scott-free in many cases.
In NYC though, there is a lot more lemming-power, which helps halt the cars that would just as soon turn you into road pizza.
Making false statements to a police officer
By not specifically using Terry v. Ohio, just adding that, an officer who performs such a stop and pat-down can also ask for name, etc. Why? I'm not sure I can think of a specific reason, probably some rationale about a person running from a police officer, but I can't think of a good reason.
Similar threads
