• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

ID required when riding a bicycle?

Junkie said:
I'm much more concerned about being required to always have ID on you than about not being allowed to skateboard. It's rather loud when people do it at night too... and you see a decent number anyway.
Click to expand...

This is a snip from my Legal Sourcebook

The Supreme Court clarified that it was not referring in Berkemer to questions regarding identity. The court upheld as constitutional a Nevada "stop and identify" statute and found that a detainee's failure to identify himself could be the basis for a lawful arrest under a companion statute almost identical to Penal Code section 148. (Hiibel (2004) 124 S.Ct. 2451.)

This is during a lawful detention. If the man on the bike was being lawfully detained then here is your answer. Saying your first name is not identifing yourself.

If you need P.C. 148(a)(1)...

PC§ 148. Resist, Obstruct, Delay of Peace Officer or EMT
(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.B]
 
Last edited:
He was identifying himself as well as he could given what he had on him, I don't think you would ever get obstruction for not having ID on you but cooperating.
 
Ok, there are a lot of sections that can apply to this. First off the only time your are required to have a driver's license/ID is when you are operating a MOTOR vehicle. However if you are stopped for any vehicle code violation on a bike, or as a pedestrian, the officer has to be able to identify you to issue a citation. If they can't, or you refuse, you get booked per 40302 VC as Silversvs posted earlier.

Possession of License
12951. (a) VC-The licensee shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.

Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed when the person charged produces in court a driver's license duly issued to that person and valid at the time of his or her arrest, except that upon a third or subsequent charge the court in its discretion may dismiss the charge. When a temporary, interim, or duplicate driver's license is produced in court, the charge shall not be dismissed unless the court has been furnished proof by the Department of Motor Vehicles that the temporary, interim, or duplicate license was issued prior to the arrest, that the driving privilege and license had not been suspended or revoked, and that the person was eligible for the temporary, interim, or duplicate license.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.

Now it is also covered under the California Penal Code, sections 853.5 and 853.6. They are long sections so in summary they say if you get stopped for any law violation, including any city or county ordinance, if the person does not provide ID or other satisfactory evidence of identity the officer can arrest the subject. If the subject can provide information that the officer believes is correct (Like getting a drivers license match on the name) they can be issued a citation and be required to give a thumbprint.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=16991512806+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Now you can't just be stopped and asked for ID for no reason, but if you break any law you are required to properly identify yourself.
 
Last edited:
As usual, JPM and silversvs have done a great job at addressing the legal issues contained in the original post as well as addressing some of the rampant misinformation that has cropped up here from well intended but misinformed citizens.

What this issue really boils down to is "satisfactory identification." This is not something that is defined in the code, but is a concept that (as with may legal interpretations) is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are LEGALLY DETAINED or ARRESTED by a peace officer (this includes a traffic stop or a stop for any code, ordinance, regulation or law), you can be compelled to provide SATISFACTORY IDENTIFICATION. This is generally held to be the information needed to complete a traffic citation that is supported by some legitimate documentation or other information that the officer feels adequately corroborates the information given.

Of course, the easy solution is to show a government issued identification card or license. That makes the process quick and painless and that is why I strongly suggest people carry their ID or DL when walking, riding a bicycle or going out and about in public. If you are stopped for ANY legal reason, you can be compelled to satisfactorily identify yourself.

In the past, when a government ID was not available, I have used a random combination of available documentation; paystubs, credit cards, school ID, vehicle registration and completed job applications, posted and unposted mail in addition to verbal assurances from uninvolved parties and descriptors from DMV records (height, weight, eye color, age) as well as other identifying information (scars, marks and tattoos) contained in court, booking and probation records or warrants. Many times I also ask questions regarding past addresses, past citations, past arrests, to confirm identity. Whatever it takes to satisfy or assure me that the person IS who they say they are.

Yes, I have arrested many, many people, bicyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders and go-peders, that have not had ID in their possession and either refused to give satisfactory information, were unable to give satisfactory information or gave false information. I have been doing this job for over 20 years and I can tell you, with computer systems and communications available today, it is quite easy to locate and confirm information. This makes it easier to help honest people out and it makes it easier to catch dishonest people in a lie.. it least, in my experience.

So, this brings us back to the OP.
"A Cal Poly UPD officer was stopping bicyclists for riding in areas where you're supposed to walk your bike today, and I heard him tell someone that you're required to have ID on you when riding a bicycle, because otherwise they couldn't tell for sure who you were. He even claimed that he could have arrested them for not having ID... Is this true..."

If the officer was making a lawful stop for a violation, it is a legal detention. IN this case, the violator is required to provide satisfactory identification for a citation. If they are unable or unwilling to provide satisfactory identification (the officer is not required to accept verbal assurances or personal writings), they can be legally arrested and held for a reasonable amount of time, as needed to conduct a CAL-ID (fingerprint) check, adequately verify or document their identity or be seen by a magistrate (judge) in open court.

Usually, contrary to Aluisious' opinion, it goes something like this:
OFFICER: Sir, I stopped you because you are riding your bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street. May I please see some identification.
VIOLATOR: What? I don't have to show you any ID, I'm not driving.... I'm on a bicycle!
OFFICER: Sir, I'm going to be issuing you a notice to appear for the traffic violation. I need ID from you to complete the citation. If you are unable to show ID, you will be arrested.
VIOLATOR: This is bullshit! My name is Frank Jones. You can kiss my ass if you think I'm showing you any ID!
OFFICER: Mister Jones, what is your date of birth?
VIOLATOR: What, huh? Oh, January 5th, 1985.
OFFICER: Your address?
VIOLATOR: What do you need that for?
OFFICER: (into radio mic) Records check for last of Jones, first of Frank, common spelling. D-O-B of 01-05-85. Verbal info only. (turning back to violator) Sir, I need your address for the citation.
VIOLATOR: Um... I just moved. I just live a few blocks from here.
OFFICER: Hold on. (places hand on ear, pauses, then keys mic) 10-4. Sir, do you have a license or ID card issued in California?
VIOLATOR: Yes a California driver's license, but I told you, I don't have it with me, so I can't very well give it to you. I'm on a bike, I don't need a fucking license to ride a bike. Jesus!
OFFICER: No, you said you wouldn't show your ID to me.
VIOLATOR: Huh? Well, I can't show it to you if I don't have it with me. Besides, what's the big deal here? Why can't you just give me a warning?
OFFICER: Do you know your DL number?
VIOLATOR: No, is there some LAW that says I need to know it by heart?
OFFICER: How is your name listed on your DL? Is it Francis or Frank?
VIOLATOR: Frank. Frank Jones, I already told you. Can we hurry this up?
OFFICER: Any middle name?
VIOLATOR: No. Frank Jones, that's it.
OFFICER: Dispatch is advising there is no record for the name and DOB you gave.
VIOLATOR: Well, that's your problem.
OFFICER: No, that's YOUR problem. You are under arrest for the traffic infraction and section 148 of the penal code, a misdemeanor. We'll sort this out at the station.
VIOLATOR: Okay, okay, my name is Steven Johnson. Here's my student ID card. I gave a fake name because this is total bullshit and someone told be you can't require ID from me.
OFFICER: You just turned a simple infraction cite into an arrestable offense that can land you in jail. I'll read you your rights when we get to the station. Do you have someone that can come pick up your bike and bring your CA ID or DL?
VIOLATOR: Pick up my bike, why?
OFFICER: Because you are under arrest.
VIOLATOR: :cry
 
because i know ya'll like stories from Washington

A friend of mine rode his tricked out mountain bike down the stairs and crashed it into a wall leaving a hole about 6' in diamiter in the engineering building back in college. I started calling him Wally after that. :party
 
Well, his car was parked something like 50' from him, and they can easily check to see if you are a student if you know your SSN - it's required for a decent number of things here, so most people do. He wasn't doing that or anything, and accepted the verbal identification without anything else.
 
silversvs said:
You might want to take a peek at my post above. Simply saying your name is not enough.

Unfortunatley, I am seeing a lot of misinformation like this cropping up here in our little playground.
Click to expand...

Saying YOUR name and YOUR information IS enough. It can be checked out, despite the bright red scrawls all over my earlier post.

What are you going to do, arrest every 9th grader you catch riding down the sidewalk because he doesn't have a DL? I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Aluisious said:
So when Johnny 9th Grader gets caught riding down the sidewalk on his bike and (surprise) doesn't have a driver's license, you're going to take him to jail?

Doesn't add up.

I read MM4Ls post...well despite pasting red text all over my earlier post, I was not incorrect. Saying your name and whatever else the officer wants to know apparently IS enough, because they can check up on it.

You want to remove your edits from my post or what?

I sure as hell am not going to take ID with me every time I walk out the door. I don't need plastic to justify being alive and outside my own house.
Click to expand...

I had not seen MM4L's red writing until you mentioned it.

Very cool Motorman! :thumbup
 
motorman4life said:
.............
Of course, the easy solution is to show a government issued identification card or license. That makes the process quick and painless and that is why I strongly suggest people carry their ID or DL when walking, riding a bicycle or going out and about in public. .....................
Click to expand...

And another good reason for having some sort of ID on you is if you get into an accident, hit, ill, ect. I have had quite a few incidents where peds, bikes, have been hit by cars and the person in unconscious or killed, and we have no idea who they are and no way to contact family. Sometimes for days or weeks before we can ID them. The last bike rider we had killed we did not even know who she was until her family came into the next day to file a missing person report on her.
 
JPM said:
And another good reason for having some sort of ID on you is if you get into an accident, hit, ill, ect. I have had quite a few incidents where peds, bikes, have been hit by cars and the person in unconscious or killed, and we have no idea who they are and no way to contact family. Sometimes for days or weeks before we can ID them. The last bike rider we had killed we did not even know who she was, until her family came into the next day to file a missing person report on her.
Click to expand...



WHATTTTTTTTT:wow
 
I think all recently immigrated Canadians need to be tazed as part of the naturalization process. It will help them STFU in future interactions.
 
Aluisious said:
Saying YOUR name and YOUR information IS enough. It can be checked out, despite the bright red scrawls all over my earlier post.

What are you going to do, arrest every 9th grader you catch riding down the sidewalk because he doesn't have a DL? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Don't doubt it.

Saying your name and information is not enough unless the officer is satisfied that it is enough. Yes, they can try to check to verify information using whatever resources are available to them at the time, but they do not have to merely take your word for it if they are issuing a notice to appear. If they are not convinced or cannot verify the information, they will take the 9th grader in to the station and release them to a parent or adult after they independently verify the info they were given by the child and get positive ID from the adult. Happens every day.

As for the "scrawls" or "red text" pasted over your post. Let's be clear. This is the LEO forum. It is a place people come for information and advice. I have no problem with non-LEOs (or LEOs, for that matter) posting their replies, based upon their knowledge-base or their past experiences or the experiences of their family or associates or information gleened from articles or shows they have watched. I have no problem with people posting their opinions. But, I do have a problem with someone posting information that is untrue and trying to pass it off as factual.

In most threads, it is merely corrected in trailing posts, which is fine when we are talking about mounting a plate or lanesharing or what type of m/c is better for police work. In this case, you were telling people they are not required to have ID and if they do break a law, merely saying their name is enough and that there is no law requiring they be able to satisfactorily identify themselves. At least, that is the interpretation I took from your 3 sentence response.

You are incorrect. I am a huge proponent of the Constitution and both a champion and protector of civil rights, but advising people they can merely state their name when they are being detained or arrested and the police are required to accept that as ID... you are doing a huge disservice to those that might give creedence to your erroneous post.

My other option was deleting the post... which I considered. In the spirit of free speech, I decided to allow your misinformation to remain, but with a disclaimer. If it bothers you, feel free to delete the post yourself.

JPM said:
And another good reason for having some sort of ID on you is if you get into an accident, hit, ill, ect. I have had quite a few incidents where peds, bikes, have been hit by cars and the person in unconscious or killed, and we have no idea who they are and no way to contact family. Sometimes for days or weeks before we can ID them...
Click to expand...
This is a great point. After reading it, I thought of how many pedestrains and bicyclists we have had killed, dismembered or in a serious medical emergency that had no ID on them. It happens a lot. It is really frustrating for us, hospital staff and the families. Usually it works out okay, but it adds a whole new batch of problems and concerns that could easily be avoided by carring ID and a medical alert card. If you know your blood type, put it on the back of your DL with an emergency contact name/number.
 
There seems to be some confusion arising out of the fact that the average person may not know why an officer is stopping them, and may not believe the officer has the right to stop them. MM4L's post illustrates this quite clearly. First, the citizen assumes he's not doing anything wrong, and bases his assumption that he can't be made to identify himself on the first incorrect assumption that he isn't doing anything wrong. And he is wrong in both instances.

Relating to the original post, yes the officer could have arrested the individual, but not for not carrying a driver's license. The officer would have arrested the individual for the combination a) violating the law and b) not be able to identify himself to the satisfaction of the officer. He was technically correct, although it sounds like it was a little more of a threat/power trip than it needed to be for that particular situation.

MM4L (or others) I have a follow up question: I essentially always carry ID because it's in my wallet. The other morning after driving the GF home I was on my way back to my own place when I realized I didn't have my wallet on me, I'd left it in my work slacks and thrown my jeans on in the morning.

Had I been pulled over, would the officer be required to arrest me, or could he issue a citation for not having my license on me and confirm that I'm legally allowed to drive by my providing my DL # and any other information so that I'd proven my identity to his satisfaction? If I could prove my identity to his satisfaction, would he be required to let me go with a citation, or would it be to his discretion whether to cite me and release me or arrest me until someone brought my DL down to the station?

Thanks for any help. I'll make sure not to forget my DL again but I was just curious for curiosity's sake.
 
Officer does not have to arrest you or cite you for not having a license if you can satisfactorily identify yourself.

BTW has anyone mentioned that bicycles, by CA law, are considered basically the same as motor vehicles? That they must be ridden on the street and follow all the laws that govern motor vehicles, such as lane change signaling and stopping at stop signs? And that, right there, says why you have to have a license or ID.
 
cardinal03 said:
MM4L (or others) I have a follow up question: ...The other morning ... I realized I didn't have my wallet on me... Had I been pulled over, would the officer be required to arrest me, or could he issue a citation for not having my license on me and confirm that I'm legally allowed to drive by my providing my DL # and any other information so that I'd proven my identity to his satisfaction? If I could prove my identity to his satisfaction, would he be required to let me go with a citation, or would it be to his discretion whether to cite me and release me or arrest me until someone brought my DL down to the station?
Click to expand...
The key phrase here is "..to his (the officer's) satisfaction.." If you have a record in the system (keep in mind, everyone does not) and they are able to locate it (keep in mind the system does not always work properly) and the officer is able to confirm the information to their satisfaction, then you could be given a ticket for the reason for the initial stop as well as a violation of 12951(a) CVC (assuming you are driving a motor vehicle).

If the officer were satisfied with your verbal ID info and whatever method they use to coroborate it, they would not have a need to take things further. If, for some reason, they don't believe you (ie.. they are not satisfied, for whatever reason), then they would start looking for alternative solutions. One option would be to take you or follow you to your house and go in with you to get your ID. Another option might be to have you call someone to have them get your ID and bring it to the scene. Lastly, would be to take you or have you follow them to the police station, so they could run a CAL ID check.

If the person stopped is a total asshole, their options are going to be reduced dramatically. Staying cool pays off in a situation like this. If you start off with a bad attitude, you can pretty much expect to end up in handcuffs. Please remember, the officer is under no obligation to accept verbal ID info. whether you are walking, driving or riding a bicycle. If any violation has been comitted, however slight, then they have you. Arguing will not help your situation, nor will challenging their authority or the reason for the stop. ie. being a total dick will only make your situation worse.

So, no, the officer is not REQUIRED to arrest you. They are required to ensure the info. they accept from you and you both sign for on citation (under penalty of perjury) is accurate, to the best of their ability. Ultimately, it is their responsibility to ensure the person they release on a citation or violation notice has provided "true and correct" information, so an accurate warrant can be sworn out if they happen to FTA for court. It becomes sticky when false information is given and accepted at a stop and later on a warrant is issued in the name of another. Think about the mess this creates. The officer's methods of ID and their ability to conduct an adequate investigation will come into question. Providing false ID information at a stop is a form of identity theft and is taken even more seriously by the DA and the courts if you happen to use information for a real person, whether it is intended or not. In these cases, the officer is (to some degree) facilitating the crime, so it is incumbent upon them to exercise some due diligence.

Similarly, anything the officer does, SHORT of placing handcuffs and taking you to the station (to be run throught the system or await the arrival of your ID)... such as, letting you follow them to the station or following you to your house... they are taking a risk. An officer safety (tactical) risk and a risk of losing control of the situation. Taking a lawful detention on the move is a risky proposition. I have had people flee, run into their house and lock the door, you name it. Each time, my judgement is questioned by my superiors. In cases such as these, as an officer, you always have to consider the WORST-CASE SCENARIO and decide how much risk you are willing to take. If the person has already shown themselves to be an asshole, it just makes your decision that much easier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top