Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.

Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.

We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.

If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know

You are 100% required to identify yourself if they have PC to stop you for a crime.  If you fail to identify yourself, they can arrest you and hold you until they figure out who you are.

One of my recent bails was a female who refused to ID herself for a citation, so she got arrested and got a few more citations as well lol.


-- Why stop with I.D.? Why not run the serial number of your gun, check some fingerprints, swab some DNA?  This way, we can find out if you have committed a crime we don't know about! (Or don't have a 'named' suspect).

What's the difference?  Many of you are trying to use the name to "catch criminals" so why not go all the way?

You are 100% required to identify yourself if they have PC to stop you for a crime.  If you fail to identify yourself, they can arrest you and hold you until they figure out who you are.

One of my recent bails was a female who refused to ID herself for a citation, so she got arrested and got a few more citations as well lol.


-- Why stop with I.D.? Why not run the serial number of your gun, check some fingerprints, swab some DNA?  This way, we can find out if you have committed a crime we don't know about! (Or don't have a 'named' suspect).

What's the difference?  Many of you are trying to use the name to "catch criminals" so why not go all the way?

I recommend you read Kolender and Hiibel. They cover these matters.

No state or territory can require you to "show ID" unless you need the ID to do something that is otherwise illegal, such as drive a car on a government road.

Hiibel upheld a Nevada law requiring a properly detained subject to identify themselves by first and last name.

Not all states have a law requiring people to identify themselves by name, I don't know if Hawaii does or not. I know Arizona does and Michigan does not.

Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search? 

When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.

Why is it so hard to comply? 


I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.

All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.


As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert,  and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.

Bars and tobacco sales are private transactions, they are not government actors. The bar can demand ID as a condition to enter private property but cops can not legally come in and "ID" everyone in a bar "to be sure". It violates Kolender.

And yes, detaining someone for not showing ID (unless required for something like driving a car) is unconstitutional per SCOTUS, so yes, it's a big deal and the court rulings mean more than your opinion.

A "terrorist" hasn't done that in the other 45 states that do not prohibit or require a license to walk or run down the street with a rifle or shotgun.

Amber alerts have to be reported, I would be arresting, not reporting, Furthermore, it doesn't detract from the main point  that any child could just have been stolen and every person on a $2,000 MacBook at Starbucks could be with a stolen Mac, but that doesn't give me the authority to detain you to run your Mac serial number by Apple or the state to see if it's stolen. This is quite common to see people with trunks full of stolen Mac Products. Last arrest I was on with Mac products was a trunk full of new iPads.

And I've already told you why many people do not want to "comply", it's because there are a ton of dirty cops out there who will make up charges on you, just like what happened in Michigan.

because there are a ton of dirty cops out there who will make up charges on you, just like what happened in Michigan.

There are also tons of dirty people out there who are intending to do dirty deeds, very dirty deeds and have full of dirty laundry.


It,s a shame that you have to show your ID to buy cig's,

but you can be the perfect nut under psych meds with an unregistered gun standing on the corner with a fully loaded rifle just waiting for that perfect time to crack and not be required to show an ID.

How convenient.


But either way, whether we show or not, in the end, God knows (I believe and justice is served.)

There are also tons of dirty people out there who are intending to do dirty deeds, very dirty deeds and have full of dirty laundry.


It,s a shame that you have to show your ID to buy cig's,

but you can be the perfect nut under psych meds with an unregistered gun standing on the corner with a fully loaded rifle just waiting for that perfect time to crack and not be required to show an ID.

How convenient.


But either way, whether we show or not, in the end, God knows (I believe and justice is served.)

And only if police could search peoples homes at will, it could have prevented the 10 year incarceration of those poor girls in that house in Cleveland, OH.

Damn that Bill of Rights.

The cigarette analogy was already torn apart and it was clearly stated how its a poor analogy.... Btw, smoking is a disgusting habit.... And stores are not required to ID you, they do it because they are liable if they sell to someone underage.

Damn the "Bill of Rights?'

That's misplaced animosity.

Damn Satan and his followers for placing evil in the world and misleading its inhabitants.

I’m not sure I would blame it on the “Bill of Rights”.

Not to digress too much and Jared please correct me if I’m wrong. Is there not a fine line in the absence of probable cause to lawfully stop an individual depending on the circumstances, irregardless of whether they have a firearm visible in an open carry state or unarmed? A visible firearm should not be a factor; in less of course open carry is illegal in that state or there is a valid reason/concern. Carrying a firearm in an open carry state is not a valid reason for a stop.

I’m specifically talking about two law enforcement tools. A voluntary stop (consensual encounter), which doesn’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause as long as a reasonable person would feel free to leave or decline to speak with the LEO. Basically there are no facts a LEO can use to explain or justify his or her feelings that criminal activity is afoot (just a hunch – mere suspicion). One does not have to answer questions or show ID during a voluntary stop. Everything is strictly voluntary.

Secondly, investigatory detention (Terry stop), which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable LEO to conclude that criminal activity is afoot…more than an unsupported hunch but less than probable cause. In this case, the LEO can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time, even though it’s not a formal arrest, it is considered a seizure, and the individual is not free to leave. If during the stop, probable cause to arrest is developed, the suspect will be arrested; otherwise they will be released. And there are many factors that determine a lawful Terry stop. Not saying this situation is a valid reason, just stating there are many lawful factors. A Terry stop can also lead to a Terry frisk. My point is I believe there are effective law enforcement tools that ‘good’ officers/agents can utilize when circumstances warrant their use.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, the problem arises when consensual encounters lead to investigatory detention, compounded by the fact that some LEO are corrupt to begin with. So, it may be in ones best interest to avoid a consensual encounter to begin with as Jared has kinda hinted at. It does make good sense when you factor in dirty cops.

However, IMO law abiding citizens should not immediately get defensive when a LEO asks a question during a voluntary stop…just listen to what they are saying; giving them a chance to explain why they have stopped you, which may actually be a good reason. I believe most legal experts would probably advise people to be polite and ask ‘Am I free to go?’ If they say yes, then leave…probably mostly because the dirty cop issue but it’s an individual’s choice. Not every law enforcement stop is intended to end in arrest, and there are often times when police interactions by ‘good’ LEOs may just be casual and attempting to deter criminal activity in a specific area or other valid reasons. JMHO

I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....

I’m not sure I would blame it on the “Bill of Rights”.

Not to digress too much and Jared please correct me if I’m wrong. Is there not a fine line in the absence of probable cause to lawfully stop an individual depending on the circumstances, irregardless of whether they have a firearm visible in an open carry state or unarmed? A visible firearm should not be a factor; in less of course open carry is illegal in that state or there is a valid reason/concern. Carrying a firearm in an open carry state is not a valid reason for a stop.

I’m specifically talking about two law enforcement tools. A voluntary stop (consensual encounter), which doesn’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause as long as a reasonable person would feel free to leave or decline to speak with the LEO. Basically there are no facts a LEO can use to explain or justify his or her feelings that criminal activity is afoot (just a hunch – mere suspicion). One does not have to answer questions or show ID during a voluntary stop. Everything is strictly voluntary.

Secondly, investigatory detention (Terry stop), which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable LEO to conclude that criminal activity is afoot…more than an unsupported hunch but less than probable cause. In this case, the LEO can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time, even though it’s not a formal arrest, it is considered a seizure, and the individual is not free to leave. If during the stop, probable cause to arrest is developed, the suspect will be arrested; otherwise they will be released. And there are many factors that determine a lawful Terry stop. Not saying this situation is a valid reason, just stating there are many lawful factors. A Terry stop can also lead to a Terry frisk. My point is I believe there are effective law enforcement tools that ‘good’ officers/agents can utilize when circumstances warrant their use.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, the problem arises when consensual encounters lead to investigatory detention, compounded by the fact that some LEO are corrupt to begin with. So, it may be in ones best interest to avoid a consensual encounter to begin with as Jared has kinda hinted at. It does make good sense when you factor in dirty cops.

However, IMO law abiding citizens should not immediately get defensive when a LEO asks a question during a voluntary stop…just listen to what they are saying; giving them a chance to explain why they have stopped you, which may actually be a good reason. I believe most legal experts would probably advise people to be polite and ask ‘Am I free to go?’ If they say yes, then leave…probably mostly because the dirty cop issue but it’s an individual’s choice. Not every law enforcement stop is intended to end in arrest, and there are often times when police interactions by ‘good’ LEOs may just be casual and attempting to deter criminal activity in a specific area or other valid reasons. JMHO

Correct, if OC is lawful then it can not count towards RSIA for a detention. If the person is lawfully open carrying and at the same time yelling "I'm going to take care of you right now" into the phone, then that would be RSIA.

Look at it this way, every car being driven down the road is presumed to be driving illegally, becuse you need a drivers license to meet an exemption to the prohibition of driving on a public road, but at the same time, Delaware v Prouse was clear, SCOTUS said you can not detain someone just to see if they have a drivers license.

The Supreme Court was very clear in Florida v J.L. They said there is no firearms exception to the 4th amendment and it doesn't matter how many times 22LR brings Jesus, Satan, or cigarettes into the endless "what if" conversation.

I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....

Very much, if the Royal Oak cop read the numerous State Police  updates that they put out, he would have known that he violated that persons 4th amendment right. If the officer asked  or a consensual encounter, things may have gone different.

Last time I checked, Michigan has Law Enforcement Officers... Not Opinion Enforcement Officers. 

I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....

Agree

Correct, if OC is lawful then it can not count towards RSIA for a detention. If the person is lawfully open carrying and at the same time yelling "I'm going to take care of you right now" into the phone, then that would be RSIA.

Look at it this way, every car being driven down the road is presumed to be driving illegally, becuse you need a drivers license to meet an exemption to the prohibition of driving on a public road, but at the same time, Delaware v Prouse was clear, SCOTUS said you can not detain someone just to see if they have a drivers license.

The Supreme Court was very clear in Florida v J.L. They said there is no firearms exception to the 4th amendment and it doesn't matter how many times 22LR brings Jesus, Satan, or cigarettes into the endless "what if" conversation.

Thanks Jared! Very good info and excellent first-hand insight into the issue.