| Author | Post |
|---|
Beau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 03:38 am |
|
I know this has been brought up before. I am still confused on the issue though.
Say you are walking down the street and you are stopped by LE. They demand, not request, that you show them ID. Are you required by law to do so?
If you do not have ID on you are you required to give name, address etc..?
Add to this scenario that you are openly carrying a firearm. The same questions apply with the addition of are you required to produce your LTCH?
The only IC I can find on this is:
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
I understand this to mean that it only applies if an infraction has been committed. If no infraction was committed than the charge of failure to identify would be dropped.
Now add to it this:
IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
I understand this to mean that an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If stopped and you do not identify yourself it is still not a crime to refuse to identify unless you have actually committed a crime.
per
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Now as far as producing your LTCH I can find nothing in IC that states you must do so when asked. The only thing I have found is this statement, "A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit". This statement comes from the ISP website at this link, http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf.
Unlike everything else in the firearms FAQ it does not have an IC source to go with it.
So with the information I have found the questions I am left with are these.
Does openly carrying a firearm provide LE with reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed? In this case the supposed crime being carrying a firearm without a license.
If the answer is yes would refusing to provide your LTCH be a crime?
If the answer is yes would refusing to provide another form of ID be a crime?
My take on it with the information I have found is that openly carrying a firearm does not provide RAS that a crime is being committed. If stopped I do not have to provide either my LTCH or ID to LE.
So I leave it to the good people of OCDO to provide additional facts. Preferably facts that cite Indiana code. Biased and un-biased personal opinions are also welcome.
|
Section32
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 01:57 am |
|
| It appears that you are technically correct. However, I'll bet that the typical LEO who gets a refusal to answer basic ID questions will be happy to slap the cuffs on you until he figures it out. As the saying goes, "you get a lot more with honey than vinegar". It may be that nothing will stop an aggessive cop intent on causing you problems, but being non-cooperative on such simple things as providing ID certainly won't further your cause.
|
Beau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:10 am |
|
Section32 wrote: It appears that you are technically correct. However, I'll bet that the typical LEO who gets a refusal to answer basic ID questions will be happy to slap the cuffs on you until he figures it out. As the saying goes, "you get a lot more with honey than vinegar". It may be that nothing will stop an aggessive cop intent on causing you problems, but being non-cooperative on such simple things as providing ID certainly won't further your cause.
Go along to get along is that it? 
Your traffic stop will take a lot longer if you refuse the search. Why give them reason to hassle you more. You have nothing to hide. Right?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:37 am |
|
Last edited on Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:46 am by Citizen
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:40 am |
|
Beau wrote: SNIP Go along to get along is that it?
Your traffic stop will take a lot longer if you refuse the search. Why give them reason to hassle you more. You have nothing to hide. Right?
Right. Something over a million Americans casualties have defended our freedoms. Just so we could cave to a search request for the sake of a few minutes convenience.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:42 am |
|
Last edited on Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:45 am by Citizen
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:51 am |
|
Beau wrote: SNIP IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
I understand this to mean that an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If stopped and you do not identify yourself it is still not a crime to refuse to identify unless you have actually committed a crime.
I don't think this is an ID statute. I think this is a minor offense catch-and-release statute.
The part about the "officer believes in good faith that a person has committed" is essentially talking about probable cause.
The last line says "allow the person to execute a notice to appear." Basically sign a citation promising to appear in court.
If the person did not provide identifying information, the state wouldn't not be able to track down those who didn't appear.
I'm betting that refusing to give identifying info is interpreted as an intention not to appear, and gets you arrested and carted off to make sure you make your appearance, not unlike refusing to sign a traffic ticket.
We have a report from a VA police officer that refusing to provide actual ID for the top two misdemeanor tiers is interpreted as an intention to not appear, resulting in arrest.
It sounds like this IC statute is just telling police they have the statutory option of writing a ticket during a foot encounter, just get the identity info.
In a traffic stop, the driver is handing over his driver's license, so there is less question whether the state knows against who to issue the warrant for failure to appear.
Last edited on Wed Oct 14th, 2009 04:17 am by Citizen
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:55 am |
|
Beau wrote: IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
I understand this to mean that it only applies if an infraction has been committed. If no infraction was committed than the charge of failure to identify would be dropped.
Wouldn't this sort of be like doubling down your bets?
Meaning, if the cop can't convince a court you did the deed, then you also escape the failure to identify charge; but if the cop is believed, then you get convicted for both the offense that triggered the stop AND the failure to identify.
And on an "infraction or ordinance violation", to whom do you think the court will give the most credibility? You or the cop?
Last edited on Wed Oct 14th, 2009 04:21 am by Citizen
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: Beau wrote: IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
And on an "infraction or ordinance violation", to whom do you think the court will give the most credibility? You or the cop?
Hopefully the judge believes the audio recording of you stomping down the sidewalk,
and asking what 'crime' you are suspected of committing?
I would state that you will comply with Sec 3.5 (2) at start of your encounter
so the judge can hear you comply with offering to show DL if you had it with you.
That and the inventory search at the station house showing you had no license
and so complied with the section should do the trick. 
That or keep the id in the holster, you can't show him he took it from you already.
|
Current time is 07:31 am | |
|
