PDA

View Full Version : Search / Illegal Search while shooting on legal BLM


Ryan in SD
09-05-2013, 4:42 PM
Plainly put, I dont know my rights when shooting on BLM land.

To what extent can a law enforcement investigate myself or my belongings while shooting on BLM?

Do they still need probably cause to:
-go through my stuff outside my car?
-check my guns?
-ask for ID?

etc etc

Thanks in advance, I need to know this. I prefer not to surrender personal information to the next captain america I meet out there.
Also, they waste the hell out of my time and burn up sun light.

ar15robert
09-05-2013, 8:17 PM
Quickly if its in the open it may get looked at.If you dont want it looked at keep it in the trunk or out of sight.

I got a RAW i take with me.Its all legal but while i shoot on BLM land i will bring it out shoot it then put back in my camper.The rest of guns they will be laying on my table during the day.

I have not had my guns checked out yet for the past 17 years of shooting in the deserts.Have had blm stop by twice but it was more of how are you doing today and see if shooting safely.Guns were in sight but they didnt bother to look them over.

Tincon
09-05-2013, 8:41 PM
Your rights while shooting on BLM land are not particularly different from those you have in any similar public area.

This is good start for what rights you have (and should exercise): https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf

GillaFunk
09-05-2013, 8:48 PM
I don't play search your chit game. i only leave one weapon out at a time. As soon as those fools roll up I discretly put everything away.

I'm not committing any crimes, and I'm not driving, so there is no need for me to show ID. This isn't 1938 Germany, I don't need to show my papers.

saki302
09-06-2013, 12:52 AM
Out of habit, I only take out one rifle at a time. The spread on the table sure looks cool, but I like to have much more direct control over my weapons- safety, who touches what, etc.
Works double duty if someone nosy wants to see what I've got.

-Dave

mound
09-06-2013, 1:05 AM
I don't play search your chit game. i only leave one weapon out at a time. As soon as those fools roll up I discretly put everything away.

I'm not committing any crimes, and I'm not driving, so there is no need for me to show ID. This isn't 1938 Germany, I don't need to show my papers.

Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.

SonofWWIIDI
09-06-2013, 1:28 AM
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.

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.

--via yahoo answers.

mound
09-06-2013, 2:06 AM
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.

--via yahoo answers.

I wouldn't really trust Yahoo Answers, but I did make a mistake in typing a hasty response:

In this situation, where you are shooting on BLM land, you would have to carry ID unless you walked there I guess...the fact that you drove a vehicle over there would necessitate you to have ID on you.

Again, technically, you wouldn't have to. But in practice, an officer could come up with a million reasons why they decided to detain you after that and it would likely hold up in court.

In my experience, it is always better to be friendly with the officer--I assume you have nothing to hide. That is not a reason to give up your rights, so I always refuse consent to searches even if there is nothing illegal on me.


Additionally, I looked up the Hiibel case on Lexis and read it through real quick. Whoever wrote the yahoo answers has slightly but fatally misinterpreted the case. In Hiibel, SCOTUS held that the Nevada "stop and identify" law was constitutional as long as the officer had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (not probable cause, as the yahoo answers author said). Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of suspicion that an officer needs.

But you are correct, California does not have a Stop and Identify statute like Nevada and other states. I remember off the top of my head that DC has a pretty strict one.


Anyway, in a nutshell, there's no real advantage to NOT identify yourself to a police officer or other law enforcement. But you do have a right to privacy and right against illegal search and seizures.

SonofWWIIDI
09-06-2013, 3:02 AM
I wouldn't really trust Yahoo Answers, but I did make a mistake in typing a hasty response:

In this situation, where you are shooting on BLM land, you would have to carry ID unless you walked there I guess...the fact that you drove a vehicle over there would necessitate you to have ID on you.

Again, technically, you wouldn't have to. But in practice, an officer could come up with a million reasons why they decided to detain you after that and it would likely hold up in court.

In my experience, it is always better to be friendly with the officer--I assume you have nothing to hide. That is not a reason to give up your rights, so I always refuse consent to searches even if there is nothing illegal on me.


Additionally, I looked up the Hiibel case on Lexis and read it through real quick. Whoever wrote the yahoo answers has slightly but fatally misinterpreted the case. In Hiibel, SCOTUS held that the Nevada "stop and identify" law was constitutional as long as the officer had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (not probable cause, as the yahoo answers author said). Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of suspicion that an officer needs.

But you are correct, California does not have a Stop and Identify statute like Nevada and other states. I remember off the top of my head that DC has a pretty strict one.


Anyway, in a nutshell, there's no real advantage to NOT identify yourself to a police officer or other law enforcement. But you do have a right to privacy and right against illegal search and seizures.

I don't really trust a lot of stuff on the Internet. However, a simple google of the referenced decision should clear up any doubt. Plus, I didn't say not to be friendly or polite. My point is this (which happened to come up in another thread about not having anything to hide), I have nothing to hide, I make all attempts to follow the letter of the law and obey the BS that our unconstitutional overlords spew from their overpaid, overindulged minds. I do not, however, relinquish my constitutional rights just because I have nothing to hide.

I do not, nor would I ever consent to a search of my person or property. Yes, if a LEO chose to, he/she could come up with a lot of reasons to "claim" probable cause, and jam me up, but, on video, would be hard pressed to support said PC in court. Yes, I know lots of money/time/effort out on my end, hopefully it won't come to that.

:)

the86d
09-06-2013, 5:11 AM
"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

mofojoe
09-06-2013, 6:02 AM
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.

twinfin
09-06-2013, 6:53 AM
In regards to the question of having an identity document, it is clear that California does not have a stop and identify law so you can not be compelled to produce an ID with only a few and very limited exceptions. If you are driving a car, you are required by law to produce a drivers license when asked by a peace officer. If you are to be charged with a crime, you must then truthfully state your name and you may be taken to jail briefly until your identity can be verified. This is where having an ID can result in being cited at the scene and released (to appear in court later) instead of being carted of to jail temporarily until your identity can be verified.

One of the missing parts of this common conversation about interacting with law enforcement officers is tact, style and diplomacy. Once you know your rights under the law, you need to be able to assert those rights in a tactful and diplomatic manner that keeps your interaction with the police from becoming and emotion charged event.

By keeping calm but assertive, you can diplomatically stand your ground without overly ruffling the feathers the law enforcement folks asking you questions. In short, don't be a jerk about standing your ground, be a diplomat.

Diplomacy takes practice and the best way to practice is during all the little confrontations in life. For example, when asked at the doctor's office during routine history taking if you have any guns; this is an opportunity to politely stand up for yourself and decline to answer the question and even remind the doctor that if he wants to talk about gun safety, it's not necessary to know whether or not you own a gun.

When you make it a habit of politely engaging people when they ask you to do things you do not have to do, it becomes easier and less stressful to assert your rights calmly to the police and doing it with style and tact.

The ultimate goal should be your stand up for yourself and the cops go away feeling like everyone's still friends. That's where style, tact and diplomacy pays off.

GillaFunk
09-06-2013, 7:15 AM
My understanding to this question is thus;

One has driven to BLM land to legally shoot in an area deemed an area for shooting. One has one or more rifles out. LEO arrives on site and begins asking questions and wanting to see your stuff.

He doesn't need to see my ID because parking a car on BLM land is not illegal. Me being on BLM land is not illegal. Unless he detains me for something (such as investigating a crime) I do not need to tell him who I am.

I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.


"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

"You want me to identify myself? Am I being detained? Then no thank you"

"You want to search my property without at warrant? No thank you"

"You want me to answer your questions? No thank you"

I'm not committing any crimes so I have no reason to talk to them or help them find evidence to arrest me.

GillaFunk
09-06-2013, 7:15 AM
My understanding to this question is thus;

One has driven to BLM land to legally shoot in an area deemed an area for shooting. One has one or more rifles out. LEO arrives on site and begins asking questions and wanting to see your stuff.

He doesn't need to see my ID because parking a car on BLM land is not illegal. Me being on BLM land is not illegal. Unless he detains me for something (such as investigating a crime) I do not need to tell him who I am.

I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.


"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

"You want me to identify myself? Am I being detained? Then no thank you"

"You want to search my property without at warrant? No thank you"

"You want me to answer your questions without my lawyer present? No thank you"

I'm not committing any crimes so I have no reason to talk to them or help them find evidence to arrest me. Im not going to make their job easier by giving them reasons to feck with me.

the86d
09-06-2013, 8:34 AM
...
I guess I'm just jaded because I have had less than positive interactions with forest service LEO's who refuse to be informed on laws they clearly know nothing about. I am always as respectful as they are with me.


This seems to be the consensus of dealing with them, so I would not consent to any searches, unless they could give me a specific P.C. to search my belongings, and I agreed that I did something wrong, which I NEVER do. :)

I was once pulled over and detained while a dog searched my car, and the dog PISSED all over said car, after the "Officer" put a bag of what appeared to be white power(/crystals?) in my glove box, and then said "look what we have here..." I was guilty of nothing, I assume he was just power-tripping, and playing games. NEVER AGAIN! I assume he was using my car as a training-aid, at the expense of canine-urine and slobber all over my property...

This was in Temecula, CA.
"I DO 'NOT' CONSENT TO 'ANY' SEARCHES..."

Ryan in SD
09-06-2013, 5:46 PM
Thanks guys, this is useful stuff.

I think out there on BLM land the law enforcement is use to overstepping their bounds by people that arent aware of the rights we have.

I figured before it was no big deal. But they are such a pain in the *** to deal with. Its like I have to prove my innocence everytime I see them, which is what I imagine anne frank felt like. That is not a good way to live. Does not feel like free america to me.

-edit

So, here is a situation that I think may be difference as far as their reason to want to search.

If I have a russian firearm that is commonly known to have steel core OR bimetal jacket ammo. Or the officer sees steel case ammo near me that matches the caliber of my firearm. DOES THAT give them the right to search my stuff to check for illegal ammo usage.
Some of you may not know this, but in my area it is illegal to shoot steel core OR EVEN bi-metal jacket ammo on BLM land due to fire concerns.
(total crap law imo, I think that responsibility is up to the shooters good judgement and not to be shooting at or in close proximity to dry brush)

taperxz
09-08-2013, 8:13 PM
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.



Wrong! Not in this state! Please refrain from spewing FUD!

You DL is only required to be shown if you are in fact in the act of driving. Other than that, there is no requirement to carry ID or to show ID.

You really shouldn't use the word "dick" unless you are sure of what you spew.

POLICESTATE
09-08-2013, 8:22 PM
"I do NOT consent to ANY searches..."

"What's your P.C. for this search, and under what justification do you think you need to search my belongings for?"

Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.

Doheny
09-08-2013, 11:47 PM
You really shouldn't use the word "dick" unless you are sure of what you spew.

You really shouldn't use dick and spew in the same sentence...

the86d
09-10-2013, 11:06 AM
Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.

If you request his P.C, you can still refuse an unconstitutional search.

I have done this a few times, and they got even MORE polite... but I wasn't an azz about it.

robcoe
09-10-2013, 11:34 AM
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.

"you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

For a more complete answer as to why not show them, because, stupid as it sounds, cops are not required to know the law. They can, will and HAVE arrested people for things that are perfectly legal.

Example 1 (http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=360)

Example 2 (http://www.ammoland.com/2012/12/calguns-foundation-defends-gun-owner/#axzz2eWJFwaPH)

Stepanian
09-10-2013, 11:58 AM
One of the missing parts of this common conversation about interacting with law enforcement officers is tact, style and diplomacy. Once you know your rights under the law, you need to be able to assert those rights in a tactful and diplomatic manner that keeps your interaction with the police from becoming and emotion charged event.

By keeping calm but assertive, you can diplomatically stand your ground without overly ruffling the feathers the law enforcement folks asking you questions. In short, don't be a jerk about standing your ground, be a diplomat.

Diplomacy takes practice and the best way to practice is during all the little confrontations in life. For example, when asked at the doctor's office during routine history taking if you have any guns; this is an opportunity to politely stand up for yourself and decline to answer the question and even remind the doctor that if he wants to talk about gun safety, it's not necessary to know whether or not you own a gun.

When you make it a habit of politely engaging people when they ask you to do things you do not have to do, it becomes easier and less stressful to assert your rights calmly to the police and doing it with style and tact.

The ultimate goal should be your stand up for yourself and the cops go away feeling like everyone's still friends. That's where style, tact and diplomacy pays off.

I have to agree with this completely. I don't have the negative run-ins with LEO that others do, and I interact with them fairly frequently.

I can't see a reason to not tell them my identity; if they're going to arrest me, that little tidbit is going to come out eventually. I'm only making that part hard on myself. Ditto for the ticket vs. custody thing...if you're that adamant that you'd like to take a ride down until they can verify your identity, you go for it. Some people try this route, and when not arrested, they use it as proof that it's the law. It's not...the LEO just didn't want to bother the hassle you're causing vs. the payoff.

For not consenting to a search, it's pretty easy to be tactful, even funny when asked: "Mind if I take a look in your trunk real quick?" "Oh man...I would, but that thing is like my underwear hamper; you have no idea how bad that smells, so let's not do that today. " Said with a smile, this type of banter will often get you a chuckle. If they push, you can just get professional and say "I'm not confortable with you searching so I'm not giving consent."

I've been asked to search my truck, my trailer, etc and all have been casually deflected.

Also keep in mind that "Mind if I take a look..." is about as normal/automatic for them as us saying "How have you been/What have you been up to?" after we say hello to someone. It's a way that they use to get a look for safety reasons, but also to find violations to correct.

<shrugs> I can only speak from my own experience.

GillaFunk
09-10-2013, 12:36 PM
I have a good number of city police, sheriff, fish and game, US marshal buddies. I know they are all excelling officers and do what is right. I feel those turd LEO's brought this upon themselves. Don't sweet talk me because the ONLY reason you are talking to me is to arrest me or someone else, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

"No thank you"

The best part about it is, when they get PISSSED, after all that effort because they cant actually find you breaking any laws.

Whiterabbit
09-10-2013, 12:41 PM
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.

This. That's why I don't object to body cavity searches at the TSA every time I want to fly for an hour. I have nothing up my arse, so they are free to strip me naked in public and look up there with a flashlight.

I have nothing to hide!

johnny1290
09-11-2013, 1:07 AM
The game is rigged in favor of the house. Play accordingly.

kel-tec-innovations
09-11-2013, 2:26 AM
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.

Even though you've done nothing wrong they can try to incriminate or confiscate something of your illegally.

I had an encounter with the rangers that claims my AK74 featureless was illegal and a felony and that I will go to prison and will take away the rifle etc. Sure I DID NOTHING WRONG but I spent the next two hours explaining why its legal and my BLM trip was cut very short to sun set.

Everything I explained he tried to find other things to incriminate me and try to intimidate me. The only way I was finally left alone after two hours was citing and reading and explaining every code in the law and defining every part of the gun.

*the ranger was reported for his behavior and lack of knowledge of laws*

So JUST BECAUSE YOU DONE NOTHING WRONG doesn't do you any good.

Worse advice to give someone just cause you done nothing wrong that there is nothing to worry.

If I didn't know all the law and carried all sorts of paper I'd be sitting in cuffs in a jail holding cell with other inmates until its all sorted out, pictures taken, finger printed, gun abused and molested and getting the rifle back would be a pain.

GillaFunk
09-11-2013, 7:43 AM
Even though you've done nothing wrong they can try to incriminate or confiscate something of your illegally.

I had an encounter with the rangers that claims my AK74 featureless was illegal and a felony and that I will go to prison and will take away the rifle etc. Sure I DID NOTHING WRONG but I spent the next two hours explaining why its legal and my BLM trip was cut very short to sun set.



These days, you NEED TO KNOW THE LAW. Next time some LEO who doesn't gives me ****, I'll response 'Go ahead. Arrest me. Once this gets to court the charges will be dropped, you and your department will face a lawsuit for unjustifiably arresting me, and harassing me, a law abiding citizen. I will then use thesettlement money to buy a few more rifles. Meanwhile, you waste time here over a totally legal firearm, where somewhere else a citizen is out there who needs your help, or a real criminal is committing a real crime. I will not answer any more of your questions without a lawyer present." Meanwhile, the whole interaction has been recorded because I have a camera and recorder documenting everything.

If you don't know the law, don't try to 'enforce it'.

AKEVERYDAY310
09-11-2013, 8:22 AM
"you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

For a more complete answer as to why not show them, because, stupid as it sounds, cops are not required to know the law. They can, will and HAVE arrested people for things that are perfectly legal.

Example 1 (http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=360)

Example 2 (http://www.ammoland.com/2012/12/calguns-foundation-defends-gun-owner/#axzz2eWJFwaPH)

Not only that, they like to make up a lot of crap. My brother, Example 2, got pulled over more recently with the same locked container/ loaded mags setup. One Hawthorne P.D. officer tried to say he seen the mag inside the gun.
Don't forget to donate to the Calguns Foundation!

GillaFunk
09-11-2013, 8:49 AM
I have the california code that identifies what a loaded wepon is, as well as regulation about transporting weapons taped to my black box.

Want to verify why chit is not loaded....'No Thank you'. better have a warrant in your pocket. Am I under arrest? No? Then see ya.

tackdriver
09-11-2013, 11:48 AM
Don't engage in conversation, just stick with the refusal to consent to a search.

If asked "why not, do you have something to hide?" just say "No, but I do not consent to any searches."

You don't have to give them a reason why not, and their reasons for wanting to snoop are irrelevant anyway. A lot of people get themselves into trouble with LEOs just by talking too much.

If you are asked this question, be sure to ask if it is ok if you come over to his house and go thru his closet and dresser drawers. After all,,, IF he has nothing to "hide"......

The Geologist
09-11-2013, 8:44 PM
Not to be a dick or anything but actually, you are required by law to carry identification at all times so they can ask for it.

Illegal Search and Seizures:

They must have probably cause or, if in a motor vehicle, reasonable suspicion to search.

I am not a lawyer.

But your best bet is always:

"I do not consent to a search."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to leave?"

What they do from there is up to them. If you feel like they've illegally searched and/or seized you, you can follow up with an attorney later. Any evidence found in violation of your rights is generally not admissible in a court of law.

Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.

twinfin
09-12-2013, 8:32 AM
Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.

Allow me to correct your mistake. Nevada does not have a law requiring you to carry an identity document. Their law only requires you to state your name when asked and nothing more.

Nevada was the source of the Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada where the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Nevada's stop and identify law could be satisfied by the person being detained simply stating their name. The Court did not rule that an identification document must be carried or produced on demand of a peace officer.

huntercf
09-17-2013, 6:21 PM
Why not show them unless you're trying to hide a machine gun.
I cant think of any reason to be afraid of them if you're not doing anything wrong.

I hope that is sarcasm. :facepalm:

There was a thread on here just a few days ago where someone was shooting on private land and some LEO's pulled up and did a search. They confiscated his legal AR pistol because it didn't have a S/N and they didn't know the law.

Be nice and calm, if they ask for your name give it to them. If they ask to search your vehicle tell them politely "I don't consent to a search but thank you for the offer".

USMC0621
09-17-2013, 6:32 PM
wow. op my best advice is not to listen to any of these clowns posting on ur thread for starters. your better off asking a lawyer.

USMC0621
09-17-2013, 6:33 PM
Not in California. Not required to show ID, but you need to tell them who you are or there might be issues. Some States like Nevada require that you show them ID though.

yup. you don't need to have ID but you need to identify yourself. if not, the police may take you in to custody until you can be identified.