Right to Not Show Your Papers?

[CdwJava]

No, I know hawaii used to use ss numbers on drivers licenses, but they are phasing it out because I believe it was found illegal or unconstitutional, something of that sort.

That's correct. Even colleges and universities have begun phasing out the SSN as a student ID#. That makes it harder to fill out paperwork, though ... yet another number for someone to remember!

- Carl

 

[mrgonzo]

If you do not show them what they ask and they do have a legitimate reason for wanting it then you may get charged with resisting arrest.

So if your THOUGHT to be breaking a law then you have to do whatever the police want?

It seems that this period where you are breaking a law but not yet charged is a grey area where the police can do whatever the hell they want. Once you are placed under arrest you have miranda rights, which seems to be more than you have before arrest from what you are telling me.

Again, a drivers license is not a national ID and if your not driving I cannot understand what right the police have to my drivers license or bank account number for that matter.

 

[seniorjudge]

So if your THOUGHT to be breaking a law then you have to do whatever the police want?

It seems that this period where you are breaking a law but not yet charged is a grey area where the police can do whatever the hell they want. Once you are placed under arrest you have miranda rights, which seems to be more than you have before arrest from what you are telling me.

Again, a drivers license is not a national ID and if your not driving I cannot understand what right the police have to my drivers license or bank account number for that matter.

Well, of course I said nothing like that.

Hey, if it were up to me, I'd require a court order every time the cops wanted to talk to you.

But, I am not in charge.

Anyway, go back and read my answer again.

 

[CdwJava]

Again, a drivers license is not a national ID and if your not driving I cannot understand what right the police have to my drivers license or bank account number for that matter.

They do not have a right to the information. But, as I wrote, if you have no ID then you cannot be reliably identified and can be arrested instead of released on a citation.

So, don't carry your ID with you ... just hope that you never do anything that might cause you to be issued a citation.

- Carl

 

[driven]

I am not an attorney FYI, but it is my understanding that you were caught on private property, therefore you were trespassing. Trespassing is breaking the law so they had the right to detain you in the vehicle even though you were a passenger.

 

[mrgonzo]

They do not have a right to the information. But, as I wrote, if you have no ID then you cannot be reliably identified and can be arrested instead of released on a citation.

Thanks, although SeniorJudge said that you could be hit with resisting arrest if you don't?

But If your right, your answer makes sense to me, its an identification issue; however if your in that grey area where they probably won't issue you a citation - then not showing an ID, could sway them enough to arrest you.

So by defacto this country has allowed the police force to require ID; similar to a plea bargain I suppose, where you can give up your civil liberties for cheap freedom or choose to keep them and gamble.

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks, although SeniorJudge said that you could be hit with resisting arrest if you don't?

That might be the case in some state and under the right circumstances.

however if your in that grey area where they probably won't issue you a citation - then not showing an ID, could sway them enough to arrest you.

It has made that decision easy, yes. If you might have otherwise let them go with a warning, the lack of ID might compel the officers to make the arrest.

So by defacto this country has allowed the police force to require ID

Not at all. It is generally only required if an arrest (or citation) is to be issued. Otherwise, there is no ID requirement. Some states might require a detained individual to identify themselves, but a verbal response may be sufficient in that case.

- Carl

 

[mrgonzo]

Different states have different laws on the matter. However, ALL the states would require a lawful detention before identification would be required.

Carl, I found this earlier post of yours; this grey area is what interests me - what constitutes "lawful detention" ?

If you are trespassing or seen as a suspect, and and police confront you and start questioning you, do they have to identify why they are questioning you for it to be a lawful detention?

I know with traffic stops, I have asked right off the bat what I was doing wrong and police usually refuse to say, they like to question you first and write the ticket before telling you; my point is that, if they are not identifying the crime, why should I have to talk? And regarding this, if you have a po box on your DL, can a police officer legally ask for a physical address or employer when issuing a citation?

 

[mrgonzo]

I kept trying to edit the last post but wouldnt work, so here is an addition to that question.

what constitutes "lawful detention" ? Is it the time where your being questioned by police and they are perhaps fishing? Or is it when you are read your rights and arrested?

 

[driven]

So reading your orginal post again, you knew that you were trespassing but aren't sure whether or not they had the right to identify you? I don't see why they would not have the legal right to not be able to identify you. You were clearly in the wrong from what I can tell. The same would apply if a person was loitering and had no real purpose for being in a place. Now I guess the real question would be, is it lawful for them to request a SS#? I can see them asking for name and DOB, which should be sufficient to identify you.

I found a couple of links worth reading:

Passenger rights and the fourth amendment:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070221.html

Fourth Amendment Protection to Vehicle Passengers:
http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/supreme_court_decisions_vehicle_passengers.asp

Passenger rights:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/2007_06_20_supreme_court_victory_passengers_have_rights_too

I also found this:

During a routine traffic stop, the officer looked at my driver’s license and then requested my Social Security number? Why would he need that and do I have to give it to him?
-- (Name withheld) Kirkland, Wash.

I contacted a couple of police departments and was told there are several reasons why an officer might ask for a Social Security number, and they all involve making a positive identification. This can happen if you have a common name, if the officer believes you are giving false information, or if the police computer indicates there’s a warrant out for your arrest. The officer will want to use a second form of identification (your Social Security number) before making an arrest. In these situations, if you decided not to provide the requested information, you could find yourself in the back of a patrol car headed to the police station.

Seems that they can ask for a SS# regardless.

 

[mrgonzo]

Seems that they can ask for a SS# regardless.

The previous posts here conflict with what you are saying.

Also, I think we have come to a consensus that if you ARE committing a crime, then you could be taken to the station for not showing ID - HOWEVER - they couldn't charge you with anything addittional to the initial crime (except under rare circumstances). SO, you dont have to show ID.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, I found this earlier post of yours; this grey area is what interests me - what constitutes "lawful detention" ?

Being detained on reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in unlawful activity (that does not mean engaged in, but could also mean about to engage in). In other words, they have to have an articulable reason.

Here is some CA and US case law on the matter from the CA Attorney general:

For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have "reasonable suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119; Ornelas (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 695-696; Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 386.)

To establish "reasonable suspicion," both the quality and quantity of the information you need is considerably less than the "probable cause" you need to arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 387; Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.) "'[R]easonable suspicion' is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence. . . ." (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 274.)

"Reasonable suspicion" is evaluated based on objective facts. Your subjective thinking, i.e., the purpose behind your search or seizure (detention or arrest), should have no bearing on a court's determination of the legality of your action. Your "subjective intentions" are irrelevant in determining whether a detention or an arrest was justified. (See Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 772; Whren (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 813; see also Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38; Scott (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138; Hull (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1454; Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 724, 733.) ​

If you are trespassing or seen as a suspect, and and police confront you and start questioning you, do they have to identify why they are questioning you for it to be a lawful detention?

They do not have to tell you why they are detaining you in my state. Other states may have differing laws.

I know with traffic stops, I have asked right off the bat what I was doing wrong and police usually refuse to say, they like to question you first and write the ticket before telling you;

There are a lot of good reasons for this practice.

my point is that, if they are not identifying the crime, why should I have to talk?

You don't. But, if you have an obligation to ID yourself and you refuse, you may find yourself in handcuffs.

And regarding this, if you have a po box on your DL, can a police officer legally ask for a physical address or employer when issuing a citation?

He can ask anything. But, if arrested or cited, you will likely have to give a residence address not just the PO Box.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Now I guess the real question would be, is it lawful for them to request a SS#? I can see them asking for name and DOB, which should be sufficient to identify you.

The police can ASK anything they want, but you don't generally have to provide the SSN.


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

The previous posts here conflict with what you are saying.

Also, I think we have come to a consensus that if you ARE committing a crime, then you could be taken to the station for not showing ID - HOWEVER - they couldn't charge you with anything addittional to the initial crime (except under rare circumstances). SO, you dont have to show ID.

Well, if they were going to cite or arrest you, you would. or, if your state requires a detained person to produce good ID, then you would.

Not having ID can result in a custodial arrest for what would otherwise have been a cite-able infraction.

- Carl

 

[mrgonzo]

Well, if they were going to cite or arrest you, you would. or, if your state requires a detained person to produce good ID, then you would.

Not having ID can result in a custodial arrest for what would otherwise have been a cite-able infraction.

- Carl

So if my state requires a detained person to produce good ID - and I choose not to produce it while being detained. Would that add to my initial infraction? Or just mean that they have to take me to the station to identify me before issuing it? And of course we have mentioned the rare circumstances where that could be resisting; but I am looking for a general answer.