• 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?

gixxerjoeca said:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003114409AAOBi8n

First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.
1 year ago
Source(s):
30+ years as a criminal defense attorney
Click to expand...

The highlighted section above is not correct. As a police officer, I can lawfully detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. This is short of the probable cause I would need to arrest that person for a crime. While investigating this suspicious circumstance to possibly later develop the probable cause needed to charge this person with a crime, it is necessary for me to identify the person before I release them to continue with my investigation. If that person were to refuse to identify themselves to my satisfaction, I would have probable cause to believe they were delaying my investigation and would be subject to arrest per 148(a)(1) P.C. So by failing to identify themselves to me during a lawful detention this person would go to jail without probable cause for a separate crime being a factor. That person would not get out of jail until they were identified. How is that for a law?

148(a)(1) P.C. 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.

Furthermore, the reference above about a former law found to be unconstitutional did NOT involve a lawful detention by police as gixxerjoeca stated above. That unconstituional law had required people to identify themselves to police without a lawful detention, when they were wandering about with no apparent reason and the police felt they needed to be identified.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
The highlighted section above is not correct. As a police officer, I can lawfully detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. This is short of the probable cause I would need to arrest that person for a crime. While investigating this suspicious circumstance to possibly later develop the probable cause needed to charge this person with a crime, it is necessary for me to identify the person before I release them to continue with my investigation. If that person were to refuse to identify themselves to my satisfaction, I would have probable cause to believe they were delaying my investigation and would be subject to arrest per 148(a)(1) P.C. So by failing to identify themselves to me during a lawful detention this person would go to jail without probable cause for a separate crime being a factor. That person would not get out of jail until they were identified. How is that for a law?

148(a)(1) P.C. 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.

Furthermore, the reference above about a former law found to be unconstitutional did NOT involve a lawful detention by police as gixxerjoeca stated above. That unconstituional law had required people to identify themselves to police without a lawful detention, when they were wandering about with no apparent reason and the police felt they needed to be identified.
Click to expand...

Where's the "not this shit again" poster when you need it. Rather than write endless paragraphs, I'll just link to an old thread on the topic. Just remember that bojangle can spout 148(a)(1) PC all he wants, but just look up cases where police arrested defendants on that charge for not providing ID during a reasonable suspicion stop. I dare you to find any case where the DA pressed charges and won.
 
bojangle said:
The highlighted section above is not correct. As a police officer, I can unlawfully detain a person based on my own mood. This is short of the probable cause I would need to arrest that person for a crime. While investigating this suspicious circumstance to possibly later develop the probable cause needed to charge this person with a crime, it is necessary for me to identify the person before I release them to continue with my investigation. If that person were to refuse to identify themselves to my satisfaction, I would have probable cause to believe they were delaying my investigation and would be subject to arrest per 148(a)(1) P.C. So by failing to identify themselves to me during a lawful detention this person would go to jail without probable cause for a separate crime being a factor. That person would not get out of jail until they were identified. How is that for a law?

148(a)(1) P.C. 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.

Furthermore, the reference above about a former law found to be unconstitutional did NOT involve a lawful detention by police as gixxerjoeca stated above. That unconstituional law had required people to identify themselves to police without a lawful detention, when they were wandering about with no apparent reason and the police felt they needed to be identified.
Click to expand...
There, fixed it for ya...
 
bertocci said:
Where's the "not this shit again" poster when you need it. Rather than write endless paragraphs, I'll just link to an old thread on the topic. Just remember that bojangle can spout 148(a)(1) PC all he wants, but just look up cases where police arrested defendants on that charge for not providing ID during a reasonable suspicion stop. I dare you to find any case where the DA pressed charges and won.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the DA charges or gets a conviction is irrelevant. No one is arguing whether it's a solid case or not. He's just arguing that it's not a violation of civil rights like all you "civil rights activists" are spouting. Get learnt, dude.
 
Nick said:
Whether or not the DA charges or gets a conviction is irrelevant. No one is arguing whether it's a solid case or not. He's just arguing that it's not a violation of civil rights like all you "Americans" are spouting. Get learnt, dude.
Click to expand...
And...fixed another one. You guys are a tough crowd...
 
:rofl

Goddamn, this is an entertaining thread.

FWIW, the times I've needed to identify myself, (without ID in possession), it was no big deal. I gave my Lic. #, address, DOB. No problem. Hell, 3 of the 5 times, I was pulled over in a car/motorcycle.

I don't see what the huge deal is. But, this is a funny read.
 
Nick said:
Whether or not the DA charges or gets a conviction is irrelevant. No one is arguing whether it's a solid case or not. He's just arguing that it's not a violation of civil rights like all you "civil rights activists" are spouting. Get learnt, dude.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's very relevant. One of the classic examples of civil rights violations has been police using bogus charges to inconvenience and intimidate people. And if you still really think that it isn't a civil rights violation, can you explain to me why the situations where you must provide identification (be it verbal, printed, whatever) like being arrested or driving are explicitly spelled out in law but this situation isn't?

Nick said:
Sorry for the mistake. I'm just an un-American fascist hoping to turn this country into a military state.
Click to expand...

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. :laughing
 
bertocci said:
Actually, it's very relevant. One of the classic examples of civil rights violations has been police using bogus charges to inconvenience and intimidate people. And if you still really think that it isn't a civil rights violation, can you explain to me why the situations where you must provide identification (be it verbal, printed, whatever) like being arrested or driving are explicitly spelled out in law but this situation isn't?
Click to expand...

If you don't understand the difference between the probable cause to arrest standard and the reasonable doubt standard to obtain a conviction, perhaps you need to review criminal procedure before joining this discussion. People get arrested all the time and the charges are dropped. By no means does that translate to the arrest was a violation of someone's rights.

Examples have already been discussed in this thread. Read them.
 
cycle61 said:
Okay, so I have to have my license with me when I'm driving. Duh.

I plan to walk to the park later with my kids. I will likely not have my license, wallet, or any other identifying information with me. If I am assaulted and knocked out by some random drunk then so be it. If I am asked to identify myself by a police officer, I will likely do so, but I do not believe I am violating any law by not having ID on my person while in public.
Click to expand...

You have to identify yourself to the peace officer's satisfaction if the officer lawfully requests you identify yourself. No, it's not required to have ID on you when you go to the park. If a peace officer lawfully asks you to identify yourself and you are not able to do so to his satisfaction because you do not have identification on your person, the peace officer may place you under arrest until such time as he can verify your identity.

You might be asked to identify yourself because 1) you match a description, even if it wasn't you (LEO has no way of knowing) 2) someone called about a suspicious person harrassing kids at the park 3) you are at the park after hours and the officer intends to cite you for it.

You can't decide whether or not you are likely to identify yourself if lawfully asked to do so. You are required to by law. And you must do so to the officer's satisfaction. The only thing that can essentially guarantee the officer's satisfaction is valid government issued identification.

Is that clear?
 
bertocci said:
Where's the "not this shit again" poster when you need it. Rather than write endless paragraphs, I'll just link to an old thread on the topic. Just remember that bojangle can spout 148(a)(1) PC all he wants, but just look up cases where police arrested defendants on that charge for not providing ID during a reasonable suspicion stop. I dare you to find any case where the DA pressed charges and won.
Click to expand...

Thanks for linking the other thread because this one is starting to sound like a broken record. :laughing The only thing I will add to your comment is that it is really irrelevant whether or not the DA files charges or gets a conviction. Check Nick's post for an education on the different standards for arrest and conviction under the law. The whole point is that the person will be identified in the end, which is all the officer lawfully requested him to do in the first place. :|

I'm not going to waste much time on Nedro's comments since he obviously does not have anything intelligent to say. I guess it helps him further his anti-police agenda or justify his own criminal ways by saying that I (or all police officers) unlawfully detain people based on my mood. In reality, I take pride in upholding my duties with integrity. I am out there, sometimes risking my own life, to try and keep my community safe for all the decent folks out there. But that is something that the haters out there just don't want to acknowledge. :thumbdown

And yes, it is a bit of a silly discussion since this issue is rarely ever pushed to the limit where an arrest is required simply to lawfully identify someone based on reasonable suspicion. More often than not, people simply lie about their name. Sometimes they get away with it. More often than not they are arrested for violation of 148.9(a) P.C. or 529 P.C.
 
Last edited:
I do not have an anti peace keeping agenda. I have an anti jack booted thug agenda. Get it straight!
I DO NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH POLICE OFFICERS WHO PRACTICE THE FORMER!!!
 
nedro said:
I believe I do not have an anti-peace-keeping agenda. I have a paranoia-based agenda. Get it straight!
Click to expand...
There, fixed it for ya...
 
brichter said:
Not pertinent to requests for ID, but this could have a bearing on your paranoia statement above:

<snip>

<snip>
Click to expand...

So the police served a search warrant operating on information that a father reported his daughter being held captive in a drug house and did a building search of said house and this is evidence of police corruption?

Caught red handed! :rolleyes

And the people went to the trouble of using pre-paid phones because they thought the police would tap their lines for setting up a TV show? I'm surprised he wasn't wearing a tin-foil hat during the interview.
 
Last edited:
Nick said:
So the police served a search warrant operating on information that a father reported his daughter being held captive in a drug house and did a building search of said house and this is evidence of police corruption?
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of the video is not what the video shows. :rolleyes (yup, I can use that smiley too! :laughing)

The officers raided the house in the video because the guy in the video (who is an ex-LEO) set up a couple of trees with grow lights. The attorney for Kop Busters was the only person present when the house was raided, and was handcuffed (police would not state whether he was detained or arrested). When asked to furnish the warrant, the officers would not. When the rest of the Kop Busters crew showed up with media in tow, the officers released the attorney. Now the police in Odessa have stated they are trying to file charges against the Kop Busters organization, but what those charges are hasn't been mentioned yet.

The father in question called Kop Busters (not the police, as you mistakenly state) because his daughter is serving 8 years for drug charges. The officers in that case allegedly had an informant set up a buy from the daughter, then searched her car and found meth. The informant (who planted the meth in the car) testified in court he planted the meth in the car, so she was convicted.

I'm not addressing her case, just adding the background since you either didn't watch the second video or didn't understand they were talking about.

I also don't believe for a second that all officers behave this way, I know many who don't. But, we do know there are some that do behave in this manner, hence a little paranoia is well-founded in fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top