ID required when riding a bicycle?

[espitbullpup]

question

There is no law requiring you to have ID when you are out in public.

However, if you are stopped for commiting a violation of the vehicle code (even on a bicycle), and the officer cannot properly identify you, you may be arrested and booked into jail in order to get proper identification (mug shots and fingerprints). This is covered under 40302 VC.

I don't recommend telling an officer to cram something up his rear, but let us know how that works for you.

Here is the approriate section:

40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this
code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in
which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who
has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible
with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the
following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license
or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise
to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance
before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section
23152.

Just out of curiosity, does your department cite illegal aliens on bikes who can't produce ID?

 

[NorCalBusa]

r, or an emergency medical technician,

An EMT??? WTF?...Felonious bandaid refusal

 

[what]

Sounds like a little contradiction in your statement. No law in California that says you have to have identification on you? While driving a vehicle, yes you do. 12951 VC sure looks like a law to me. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12951.htm

Motor vehicle. This thread is about a bicycle. There is no law requiring you to carry an ID while riding a bicycle, plain and simple.

JPM, I agree that carrying an ID can simplify an interaction with the police, but on the other hand it's fairly upsetting to see so many LEOs opine that an ID is somehow required when it is clearly not.

 

[bojangle]

Motor vehicle. This thread is about a bicycle. There is no law requiring you to carry an ID while riding a bicycle, plain and simple.

JPM, I agree that carrying an ID can simplify an interaction with the police, but on the other hand it's fairly upsetting to see so many LEOs opine that an ID is somehow required when it is clearly not.

See 40302(a) V.C. above. That is a law. It also applies to a person riding a bicycle. The LEO just needs to make a lawful arrest such as for running a stop sign, riding on the wrong side of the road, or riding with no light at night. If the bike rider can't produce valid ID, the LEO can take the person before a magistrate without unnecessary delay (read take to jail).

So while there is no law requiring ID to be carried simply to ride a bicycle, if a person is stopped and cited (arrested) by a LEO then they are required to satisfactorily identify themselves.....and since I have yet to see a bicyclist obey all the rules of the road....

 

[what]

See 40302(a) V.C. above. That is a law. It also applies to a person riding a bicycle.

Yes, but 40302(a) does not require a license or ID card. It requires the rider to identify themselves. This is what you are missing.

So while there is no law requiring ID to be carried simply to ride a bicycle, if a person is stopped and cited (arrested) by a LEO then they are required to satisfactorily identify themselves.....and since I have yet to see a bicyclist obey all the rules of the road....

Sure, and a person on foot is required to satisfactorily identify themselves during a terry stop. The VC here is redundant. But, again, an ID card is not required. Will you be unfairly persecuted for not carrying a card? Possibly. Do you have reasonable means of recourse? Not often, unless you're a model citizen who happens to carry recording equipment.

There is no legal requirement to carry an ID card, whether you are breaking the law or not. On a bicycle or not. Get it right.

 

[Shaggy]

Yes, but 40302(a) does not require a license or ID card. It requires the rider to identify themselves. This is what you are missing.

So you conduct a records check on the name the person gives you. Dispatch cannot find a driver license match and you have no local contacts with the name in CAD. Thus, you are unable to obtain a physical description through the records check.

Now what? Just take the person's word for it? How can you be sure they are who they say they are? They would never lie to us, right?

EDIT: I'm not arguing your point about a bicycle not being a motor vehicle. I'm just saying that it's always easier (on you and the officer) to have a form of ID.

 

[JPM]

Motor vehicle. This thread is about a bicycle. There is no law requiring you to carry an ID while riding a bicycle, plain and simple.

JPM, I agree that carrying an ID can simplify an interaction with the police, but on the other hand it's fairly upsetting to see so many LEOs opine that an ID is somehow required when it is clearly not.

This thread is about a bicycle; however that post you referenced was a response to another post in the thread. The prior poster said there were no laws, period, that required you to carry identification. I showed that there was, when operating a mother vehicle, but I never said it applied to a bicycle. If you are going to reply to an old thread, please read the whole thing for context.

 

[what]

So you conduct a records check on the name the person gives you. Dispatch cannot find a driver license match and you have no local contacts with the name in CAD. Thus, you are unable to obtain a physical description through the records check.

Now what? Just take the person's word for it? How can you be sure they are who they say they are? They would never lie to us, right?

EDIT: I'm not arguing your point about a bicycle not being a motor vehicle. I'm just saying that it's always easier (on you and the officer) to have a form of ID.

I agree that it carrying a form of ID is sometimes is easier on you and always easier on the officer. It is also not the law.

If I were detained I know that police should be able to identify me by my permanent address and full name, or other reasonable verbal information. If they were to make a claim that they could not, well, questions would be asked and let's leave it at that.

This thread is about a bicycle; however that post you referenced was a response to another post in the thread. The prior poster said there were no laws, period, that required you to carry identification. I showed that there was, when operating a mother vehicle, but I never said it applied to a bicycle. If you are going to reply to an old thread, please read the whole thing for context.

I can't promise to read everything but I will apologize I got it mixed up with the other folks mis-referencing various codes.

 

[Shaggy]

I agree that it carrying a form of ID is sometimes is easier on you and always easier on the officer. It is also not the law.

If I were detained I know that police should be able to identify me by my permanent address and full name, or other reasonable verbal information. If they were to make a claim that they could not, well, questions would be asked and let's leave it at that.

Try again. People who don't want to be identified by law enforcement often memorize other people's addresses, names, dates of birth, driver license numbers, etc...

 

[brichter]

Try again. People who don't want to be identified by law enforcement often memorize other people's addresses, names, dates of birth, driver license numbers, etc...

Yeah, but when they pull up your picture on the laptop in the car, it's pretty much a given that you've been identified.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Yeah, but when they pull up your picture on the laptop in the car, it's pretty much a given that you've been identified.

That's not true at all. What if you're a brother, a twin, or just someone who happens to meet the description of "5'7, 160lbs, brown hair brown eyes" that the DMV license readout gives us?

In reality, the totality of the circumstance will let us know whether or not the person is being truthful. When I pull over a bicyclists for some unsafe maneuver or whatever, and they don't have their ID -- I get their name verbally, check the computer and if it matches the descriptions and I don't have any belief that the rider is not being truthful.... then that's good for me. Sometimes I'll have them throw a finger print on the back of the citation or check them through my portable finger-print thingymabob, but neither of those help with identification in the field at that exact moment.

In some cases, you get that "feeling" that the person is not being truthful, so you dig a little further, and if you can't comfortably identify that person -- they go to jail.

This is where the experience, judgement and common sense of the officer comes into play... It's why the citizens pay for human beings to patrol the streets and not a camera or robot. You know when someone is lying to you, and just the same, we know when someone is lying to us. Of course, everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Shaggy]

Yeah, but when they pull up your picture on the laptop in the car, it's pretty much a given that you've been identified.

I don't have an MDT in my patrol car. Additionally, some people haven't updated their license picture in several years and they don't look the same. Just some other things to think about. It's not always black and white.

 

[brichter]

That's not true at all. What if you're a brother, a twin, or just someone who happens to meet the description of "5'7, 160lbs, brown hair brown eyes" that the DMV license readout gives us?

In reality, the totality of the circumstance will let us know whether or not the person is being truthful. When I pull over a bicyclists for some unsafe maneuver or whatever, and they don't have their ID -- I get their name verbally, check the computer and if it matches the descriptions and I don't have any belief that the rider is not being truthful.... then that's good for me. Sometimes I'll have them throw a finger print on the back of the citation or check them through my portable finger-print thingymabob, but neither of those help with identification in the field at that exact moment.

In some cases, you get that "feeling" that the person is not being truthful, so you dig a little further, and if you can't comfortably identify that person -- they go to jail.

This is where the experience, judgement and common sense of the officer comes into play... It's why the citizens pay for human beings to patrol the streets and not a camera or robot. You know when someone is lying to you, and just the same, we know when someone is lying to us. Of course, everyone makes mistakes.

The tattoos might give them away...

BTW, the citizens are paying for more and more cameras, and less and less officers.

 

[brichter]

I don't have an MDT in my patrol car. Additionally, some people haven't updated their license picture in several years and they don't look the same. Just some other things to think about. It's not always black and white.

No laptop in the ride? How are you gonna post on BARF when you're on duty?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

The tattoos might give them away...

BTW, the citizens are paying for more and more cameras, and less and less officers.

I get the feeling you like being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Conversation over. Ignore list increased.

 

[what]

Try again. People who don't want to be identified by law enforcement often memorize other people's addresses, names, dates of birth, driver license numbers, etc...

Try what again? That is the law. It is not a crime to ride a bike without ID. Period.

You found a problem with it? Ok, neat, lobby to pass a new law. Until then, that's how it is.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Try what again? That is the law. It is not a crime to ride a bike without ID. Period.

You found a problem with it? Ok, neat, lobby to pass a new law. Until then, that's how it is.

You are correct, but as stated above... if you are legally detained, you are required by law to identify yourself in a manner that is acceptable. In some cases, verbal may be enough. In some cases, it is not. In any case where you cannot legally be identified during a lawful encounter, you can (and may) be arrested and taken to the local jail for the purpose of determining your identity.

 

[Shaggy]

No laptop in the ride? How are you gonna post on BARF when you're on duty?

iPhone...

Try what again? That is the law. It is not a crime to ride a bike without ID. Period.

You found a problem with it? Ok, neat, lobby to pass a new law. Until then, that's how it is.

Which is why you won't go to jail for the crime of "not having ID while riding a bicycle." Like it or not, you still might go to jail though.

 

[brichter]

iPhone...

Ok, as long as you got that covered. I'd hate to think you were being deprived...

 

[what]

You are correct, but as stated above... if you are legally detained, you are required by law to identify yourself in a manner that is acceptable. In some cases, verbal may be enough. In some cases, it is not. In any case where you cannot legally be identified during a lawful encounter, you can (and may) be arrested and taken to the local jail for the purpose of determining your identity.

iPhone...


Which is why you won't go to jail for the crime of "not having ID while riding a bicycle." Like it or not, you still might go to jail though.

I think I made these points rather clearly a few posts above yours, maybe you missed it.

Personally, I don't think I have anything to fear from the police and I don't lose any sleep over not carrying a form of ID. I mean the idea has me chuckling a bit right now, really. In any event, I know my rights and I know what the courts hold to be reasonable identification -- perhaps that education is the best preventative measure of all? I feel much more confident carrying knowledge than a mere photo ID