Personal ID when in public in New York State

[nhg48]

What is the name of your state? NY

I was stopped by a policeman while walking my dog in a park only three streets from my house and asked to produce ID. I did not have my wallet with me and was told that in NY it is a law that you must have personal ID on your person at all times when in public. Can anyone confirm this?

[xylene]

Originally Posted by nhg48

What is the name of your state? NY

I was stopped by a policeman while walking my dog in a park only three streets from my house and asked to produce ID. I did not have my wallet with me and was told that in NY it is a law that you must have personal ID on your person at all times when in public. Can anyone confirm this?

What happened when you did not / could not produce ID per the officers request?

[acmb05]

Originally Posted by xylene

What happened when you did not / could not produce ID per the officers request?

Who cares? Yes it is the law. Not only in New York either.

[tranquility]

Even in these days of terror threats at every corner, I can't believe this to be true. If I visit New York and lose my license, I can't go out in public until I return to my home state and get a replacement? (How do I get home without going into public?)

Often, the law requires a person to turn over written ID if they have one, when properly detained by the police. The recent Supreme Court decision made a state statute (CO? Ninth circut at least.) to this effect legal. It did not requre everyone to have their papers under threat of arrest. In CA the law is a little less as the police don't have to cite and release for minor arrests if the suspect cannot properly identify themselves. The police officer can decide if whatever identification presented is good enough. (Unless it is certain types of id like passport or driver's license, then he must accept them as good enough.)

[xylene]

Originally Posted by acmb05

Who cares? Yes it is the law. Not only in New York either.

I care. It is part of a coherent story.

Why would I go to the trouble of doing homework for someone.

If they are just curious why not just ask, why a ruse.

And frankly, not knowing the outcome of this confrontation is BORING!

So its the law? Your terse assertion is not goog enough. The OP deserves better than that, so does everybody here.

Please cite the the law then acmb05. Not recent court cases, although relevant, but the actual NYS law or laws that compels citizens to:

carry ID in public under pain of law.

AND / OR

produce ID on demand of lawfull authority.

[You Are Guilty]

People v. Hill

The propriety of encounters initiated by police officers is assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework set forth in People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 (1976) and later reaffirmed in People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184-185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 (1992). As relevant here, “[i]t is well settled that when an officer asks an individual to provide identification or destination information during a police-initiated encounter, the request for information implicates the initial tier of De Bour analysis ··· Although police officers have ‘fairly broad authority’ to approach and pose questions, they may not do so on mere ‘whim or caprice’; the request must be based on ‘an articulable reason not necessarily related to criminality’ ”(People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 525, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 (2001)). The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the Troopers had an “objective, credible reason” to request information relating to defendant's identity based upon their observation of him waiting in the driver's seat of a car parked in an unusual manner towards the rear of a convenience store during the late evening hours at a time when there had been a number of robberies at area convenience stores (id. at 525, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329; see, People v. Bailey, 204 A.D.2d 751, 753, 611 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1994).

People v. Grullon

The first and least intrusive form of police action is a request for information, which is permissible as long as the police have some objective reason for the intrusion and are not acting on a whim or hunch ( People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223 [1976] ). The second level is the common law right to inquire, under which a police officer with a “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot” may “interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure”(Id. at 223). Next, New York Criminal Procedure Law §140.50 gives the police the authority to stop a suspect and demand the suspect's name, address and an explanation of the suspect's conduct when the police officer reasonably suspects that the suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor. That statute also authorizes an officer who reasonably suspects that there is a danger of physical injury, to search the citizen for deadly weapons. The final and most intrusive level of police interaction with individual citizens, is an arrest, where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime or offense in the officer's presence (DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223).

It is well settled under this hierarchy of authority to detain that, “[w]hen the police lack a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, which is necessary to justify a forcible stop, they cannot stop an individual who exercises his or her right to be let alone and to refuse to respond to police inquiry” (People v. Adams, 194 A.D.2d 102, 106 (3rd Dept. 1993); see, also, People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 586 (1980) (“An individual to whom a police officer addresses a question has a constitutional right not to respond. He may remain silent or walk or run away. His refusal to answer is not a crime. Though the police officer may endeavor to complete the interrogation, he may not pursue, absent probable cause to believe that the individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, seize or search the individual or his possessions, even though he ran away.”,People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 112 (1975) (“Before a person may be stopped in a public place a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that such person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.” ).

...in In re Davan L. (91 N.Y.2d 88 (1997)),police officers observed the defendant littering on the sidewalk. When an officer informed the defendant that he would receive a summons, the defendant ignored the officer's demand for identification, a prerequisite to the summons process, and replied “go f* *k yourself” (Offen, 96 Misc.2d at 148, 149). The defendant then fled into a store, locked the door, and refused to allow the officers to enter (id. at 149). The court dismissed the obstructing governmental administration charge, holding that the defendant's refusal to provide identification and his subsequent refusal to open the door to the officers was not a crime...

Bet you're sorry you asked now, huh?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by acmb05

Who cares? Yes it is the law. Not only in New York either.

What law?

No, it is NOT the law. It is helpful to be able to produce ID when stopped by the police for a violation of the law as it could be the difference between receiving a citation/summons or going to jail, but there is no law in the US that says you have to have ID on you.

- Carl

[gawm]

Lucky he didn't ask to see your dog's tags or Fido might be in the pound right now.