do u have to provide police ss #

[gawm]

What is the name of your state? az. if a police officer ask for your social security # do you have to provide it to them even if you have valid id ? also why would they ask for it? and should you provide it to them?

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state? az. if a police officer ask for your social security # do you have to provide it to them even if you have valid id ? also why would they ask for it? and should you provide it to them?

They can ask, but I do not believe there is any law that requires you provide it to them ... though upon booking, I seem to recall that you may be required to provide it.

It is irrelevent for purposes of ID because it is not a valid form of government ID and cannot be readily verified as valid OR as belonging to the individual being detained.

- Carl

 

[lostsoul23]

Here's the thing.

I presently work as a police dispatcher, and the reason they ask for it when writing a ticket, etc. is that if you don't pay it, it makes it alot easier to make sure that they attach the warrant to the right person. There could be a dozen "Joe Smiths," but the ss# makes it easier to check your criminal/traffic background. They can check your background by running your name/date of birth, but running the social security number gets results quicker.

Why refuse? Why make it harder than it already is? If they are asking it at the beginning of a traffic stop, for example - why refuse it? I don't have my social security number on my license either, but, if asked, I provide it.

Most cops do alot based on attitude - you play nice with them and they will do the same.

And for clarification purposes - if you ever decide not to show an ID that gets you into big trouble when asked, because the Supreme Court recently ruled that if the police ask for an ID you need to present it, regardless.

 

[CdwJava]

And for clarification purposes - if you ever decide not to show an ID that gets you into big trouble when asked, because the Supreme Court recently ruled that if the police ask for an ID you need to present it, regardless.

It's a state dependent thing. NV had a law that provided consequences for failing to produce ID when detained (thus we had Hiibel - the case which you refer to). My state (CA) does NOT have such a statute, and we are specifically prohibited from using our statute for resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer, so failure to produce ID in such a situation should not generally result in an arrest (absent probable cause for a crime).

And you are very right on the attitude. It can make ALL the difference.


- Carl

 

[gawm]

only an idiot would be stupid enough to give an attitude to a cop, but i know it happens. i just thought it is a strange question. how many people know their ss# well enough to recite it to them. if it wasn't my employee i.d. # and if i didn't use it to punch into work everyday i don't know if i would of been able to recite it and if that were the case i was just wondering what would happen? but you answered my question, thanks!

 

[Lacy_UnderAlls]

Here's the thing.

I presently work as a police dispatcher, and the reason they ask for it when writing a ticket, etc. is that if you don't pay it, it makes it alot easier to make sure that they attach the warrant to the right person. There could be a dozen "Joe Smiths," but the ss# makes it easier to check your criminal/traffic background. They can check your background by running your name/date of birth, but running the social security number gets results quicker.

Why refuse? Why make it harder than it already is? If they are asking it at the beginning of a traffic stop, for example - why refuse it? I don't have my social security number on my license either, but, if asked, I provide it.

Most cops do alot based on attitude - you play nice with them and they will do the same.

And for clarification purposes - if you ever decide not to show an ID that gets you into big trouble when asked, because the Supreme Court recently ruled that if the police ask for an ID you need to present it, regardless.

I can't argue with the "play nice" part of that. You would only be causing yourself problems with an attitude.

But something is being missed here in my opinion. Is this country a police state now? Last time I checked we are called a free country. Is this the Russia of old, "show me your papers".

What's next? What's your Mother's maiden name? Be nice and don't argue with me or I'll put the screws to you.

You should either have a reason to be arrested or not. It shouldn't be left up to the whim of the person wearing the badge not liking you or not..

I know that isn't the reality of it and most of law enforcement are the good guys. There used to be a line of thinking they worked for us. Not we should fear them.

 

[stephenk]

"how many people know their ss# well enough to recite it to them"

You're kidding right?

 

[gawm]

"how many people know their ss# well enough to recite it to them"

You're kidding right?

so your saying if i told them i did not know it , that would not fly? you're not suppose to carry those cards around you know!

 

[CdwJava]

so your saying if i told them i did not know it , that would not fly? you're not suppose to carry those cards around you know!

Most people know it ... some don't. But, there is really no legal penalty for not being able to provide it.

- Carl

 

[Jack_David]

Why refuse? Why make it harder than it already is? If they are asking it at the beginning of a traffic stop, for example - why refuse it?

Same reason I would refuse a voluntary search of my vehicle, because I value my privacy and I have the right to tell the police no.

Why should I make it any easier for the police who are usually seeking to deprive me of some of my money.

Most cops do alot based on attitude - you play nice with them and they will do the same.

Clearly it depends on the officer. I'm sure there are some that would but it has been my experience that "playing nice" usually doesnt mean jack.

Three times I've been pulled over for speeding at relatively trivial speeds, 83 in a 70, 40 in a 30, 79 in a 70. I was respectful, gave them my info even answered thier questions about where I was coming from and going to. Didnt get me out of any of those tickets.

That being said I'm also thinking the kind of police officer that would write up speeding tickets for such low speeds are probably are probably pretty anal to begin with.

And for clarification purposes - if you ever decide not to show an ID that gets you into big trouble when asked, because the Supreme Court recently ruled that if the police ask for an ID you need to present it, regardless.

You are mistaken.

If you are driving a vehicle you have to provide a driver's liscense because that is part of the agreement for the "privildege" of driving a car.

However there are no requirements to provide a picture ID.

In that particular Supreme Court case, the issue was if the guy, Hiibel, had to identify himself to the police. I.E. give them his name, not showing his ID.

 

[stephenk]

"83 in a 70, 40 in a 30, 79 in a 70."

"That being said I'm also thinking the kind of police officer that would write up speeding tickets for such low speeds are probably are probably pretty anal to begin with"


Low speeds??

 

[Jack_David]

Low speeds??

Out on the open roads of Texas, yes.

Paid the first one because I was young and naieve. When I learned what the laws really were though I fought the other two and they were dismissed.

 

[lostsoul23]

You are mistaken.

If you are driving a vehicle you have to provide a driver's liscense because that is part of the agreement for the "privildege" of driving a car.

However there are no requirements to provide a picture ID.

In that particular Supreme Court case, the issue was if the guy, Hiibel, had to identify himself to the police. I.E. give them his name, not showing his ID.

I suppose then, we should agree to disagree. The information I've always read was that he refused to give his name OR his ID. (That's mentioned in this article.)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.police.id/index.html

 

[Jack_David]

I suppose then, we should agree to disagree. The information I've always read was that he refused to give his name OR his ID. (That's mentioned in this article.)

What he was charged with was violating the following.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.html#NRS171Sec123

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

The Nevada law states that the person has to identify themselves, but does not state that they must show ID.

Showing ID is one method of identifying yourself, and if he had that would have fulfilled that legal requirement.

However in these United States, citizens are not required to carry thier papers with them, and there is no requirement to provide picture ID to the police or anyone.

 

[CdwJava]

The question then becomes if the officer is obligated - under NV law - to accept the mere word of the detained party as proof of ID. Since the law authorizes the detention to "ascertain" the party's identity, one can argue that failure to prevent valid ID falls short of that definition.

How far an officer in that state - and others that have similar statutes - wants to push it, is a matter for the courts. My state doesn't have such a statute so it's not an issue here. But it is an interesting academic exercise.

- Carl