Providing LE With Identification

[Press Check]

My friend called me and told me this happened to him today.

He left work on a break, grabbed a burger, and parked on a residential street to have lunch and make a few calls. 15 minutes later, he was approached by LE, asked for his ID, and questioned.

My question is, since he was simply sitting there and not driving, was he obligated to provide LE with his ID?

Thanks,

[AragornElessar86]

I think that as long as you're in the car the vehicle code applies.

INAL

[RedVines]

Short answer: it depends.

[Samuelx]

My friend called me and told me this happened to him today.

He left work on a break, grabbed a burger, and parked on a residential street to have lunch and make a few calls. 15 minutes later, he was approached by LE, asked for his ID, and questioned.

My question is, since he was simply sitting there and not driving, was he obligated to provide LE with his ID?

Thanks,

What RV said. Depends on the nature of the contact and not nearly enough info provided to give a definite answer.

[Eikbyrnir]

It depends on a lot of information we don't know. How many burglaries have been committed on that block, in that particular neighborhood. Drug use in the area, was there a known drug house across the street from where your friend was parked. You see how many things can lead to an officer requesting your friends identification?

[Press Check]

I have not left out ANY information. After he explained what transpired, I played 50-questions with him, and he was simply sitting there, eating a burger and making phone calls. He was not playing loud music, having an argument on the phone, pitching trash onto the street, or doing anything that would draw attention.

This was residential street, lined with nice homes, not crack-houses. As far as burglaries, I cannot answer that, but is that enough to demand ID, demand that someone identify themself, or harrass someone who happens to be parked on a street where a home was burglarized in the past? Regardless, wouldn't LE need to have reasonable suspicion that he just commited a crime, was about to commit a crime, or was involved in some sort of criminal activity?

Unless something has changed, unless you are in fact driving, there is no law that says you are required to have an ID or DL on your person, nor is there a statute that requires you to identify yourself when approcahed by LE.

Unless there is something I am missing, I ask again, are you required to provide LE with ID, or even give them your name under those circumstances?

[Samuelx]

My friend called me and told me this happened to him today.

He left work on a break, grabbed a burger, and parked on a residential street to have lunch and make a few calls. 15 minutes later, he was approached by LE, asked for his ID, and questioned.

WHAT WAS HE QUESTIONED ABOUT? WHAT WAS THE EXACT CONVERSATION THAT TRANSPIRED?

My question is, since he was simply sitting there and not driving, was he obligated to provide LE with his ID?

Thanks,

embedded

[Samuelx]

I have not left out ANY information. After he explained what transpired,

WHAT TRANSPIRED EXACTLY?

I played 50-questions with him, and he was simply sitting there, eating a burger and making phone calls. He was not playing loud music, having an argument on the phone, pitching trash onto the street, or doing anything that would draw attention.

This was residential street, lined with nice homes, not crack-houses. As far as burglaries, I cannot answer that, but is that enough to demand ID, demand that someone identify themself, or harrass someone who happens to be parked on a street where a home was burglarized in the past? Regardless, wouldn't LE need to have reasonable suspicion that he just commited a crime, was about to commit a crime, or was involved in some sort of criminal activity?

Unless something has changed, unless you are in fact driving, there is no law that says you are required to have an ID or DL on your person, nor is there a statute that requires you to identify yourself when approcahed by LE.

Unless there is something I am missing, I ask again, are you required to provide LE with ID, or even give them your name under those circumstances?

Sorry, nope, you left out PLENTY of information. AND there is PLENTY of information that neither you nor we know as well.

Sure does seem like you've got a chip on your shoulder or an axe to grind. Since you already seem to THINK you KNOW the answer, then why even ask?

Go call the agency who contacted your friend and let them explain to you why they did what they did...

[Press Check]

Sorry, nope, you left out PLENTY of information.

Sure does seem like you've got a chip on your shoulder or an axe to grind. Since you already seem to THINK you KNOW the answer, then why even ask?

Go call the agency who contacted your friend and let them explain to you why they did what they did...

What more do you need, his ethnicity, the make and model of the car, the time of day?

When someone is aware of what their rights are, why is that always misconstrued as having a chip on ones shoulder, or having an axe to grind?

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking.

[Eikbyrnir]

I have not left out ANY information. After he explained what transpired, I played 50-questions with him, and he was simply sitting there, eating a burger and making phone calls. He was not playing loud music, having an argument on the phone, pitching trash onto the street, or doing anything that would draw attention.

This was residential street, lined with nice homes, not crack-houses. As far as burglaries, I cannot answer that, but is that enough to demand ID, demand that someone identify themself, or harrass someone who happens to be parked on a street where a home was burglarized in the past? Regardless, wouldn't LE need to have reasonable suspicion that he just commited a crime, was about to commit a crime, or was involved in some sort of criminal activity?Unless something has changed, unless you are in fact driving, there is no law that says you are required to have an ID or DL on your person, nor is there a statute that requires you to identify yourself when approcahed by LE.

Unless there is something I am missing, I ask again, are you required to provide LE with ID, or even give them your name under those circumstances?

Okay there seems to be a bit of confusion in what constitutes reasonable suspicion to people who come to this forum. What is reasonable suspicion? I'm going to paraphrase a little, just to get the points I'm trying to get across, out.

Reasonable Suspicion is base on "specific and articulable facts' taken together with rational inferences from those facts." Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard. It depends on the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, EVEN if each is individually innocouous.

NOW. What does that mean? If ONE officer, or person, feel's that the officer had reasonable suspicion, then he had reasonable suspicion. It's up the the officer to articulate that though. No where does it say that an officer has to explain himself to a subject he detains.

I ask, has there been a higher than usual amount of burglaries on that street, has that officer caught burglars in the past on the street. Does that officer have experience with burglaries. Do people sit in their cars and case houses, watching when residents come and go. Do people find a house and call for people to come assist them commit a burglary? Has that officer experienced all of that and come to a reasonable conclusion that your friend could have been casing a house or preparing to burglarize a house? Does any of that sound reasonable to you?

I could go into the same tangent with drug use. Does a neighborhood have have to have not nice homes and crack houses to have drug houses? It goes on. It's what that officer can articulate and if people feel that he came to a reasonable conclusion, then he has reasonable suspicion.

[Press Check]

By the way, to specifically answer your question, LE pulled up behind him, approached his vehicle, asked him what he was doing there, to which he responded, eating my lunch and making a few calls on his break. In response, LE asked if he was a resident of on that street, and when he said no, they asked him for his ID, took it back to their patrol car, came back in 10 minutes, and thanked him for his cooperation.

He didn't ask why he was approached or questioned. He simply continued to eat his lunch, and left about 5 minutes later.

[Samuelx]

By the way, to specifically answer your question, LE pulled up behind him, approached his vehicle, asked him what he was doing there, to which he responded, eating my lunch and making a few calls on his break. In response, LE asked if he was a resident of on that street, and when he said no, they asked him for his ID, took it back to their patrol car, came back in 10 minutes, and thanked him for his cooperation.

He didn't ask why he was approached or questioned. He simply continued to eat his lunch, and left about 5 minutes later.

Much Ado About Nothing.

[Press Check]

Okay there seems to be a bit of confusion in what constitutes reasonable suspicion to people who come to this forum. What is reasonable suspicion? I'm going to paraphrase a little, just to get the points I'm trying to get across, out.

Reasonable Suspicion is base on "specific and articulable facts' taken together with rational inferences from those facts." Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard. It depends on the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, EVEN if each is individually innocouous.

NOW. What does that mean? If ONE officer, or person, feel's that the officer had reasonable suspicion, then he had reasonable suspicion. It's up the the officer to articulate that though. No where does it say that an officer has to explain himself to a subject he detains.

I ask, has there been a higher than usual amount of burglaries on that street, has that officer caught burglars in the past on the street. Does that officer have experience with burglaries. Do people sit in their cars and case houses, watching when residents come and go. Do people find a house and call for people to come assist them commit a burglary? Has that officer experienced all of that and come to a reasonable conclusion that your friend could have been casing a house or preparing to burglarize a house? Does any of that sound reasonable to you?

I could go into the same tangent with drug use. Does a neighborhood have have to have not nice homes and crack houses to have drug houses? It goes on. It's what that officer can articulate and if people feel that he came to a reasonable conclusion, then he has reasonable suspicion.

Thanks for the great response, but people pull over all the time to make a call, respond to a text message, or as noted above, grab a quick bite to eat on a break, so if someone happens to pull over on a street where a home has been burglarized, does that mean that non-residents of that street are subject to being temporarily detained until LE concludes that the person is not casing a home, watching residents come and go, etc?

I know that my Mother routinely leaves work, grabs lunch, and finds a shady spot to park and eat lunch. On occasion, I have done that myself in the past.

[Samuelx]

What more do you need, his ethnicity, the make and model of the car, the time of day?

When someone is aware of what their rights are, why is that always misconstrued as having a chip on ones shoulder, or having an axe to grind?

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking.

You don't know ALL the circumstances of the incident. You don't know LE work. You don't know the answer. YET, for some strange reason, you refuse to accept that no one here (unless they were the officers who made contact) knows enough to give you an answer. Btw, because you don't know all the circumstances, you don't know what your rights would have been either - you could have had the right to tell the officer to take a flying leap or, on the other end of the spectrum, you could have been rightfully given a ride to the station, in custody.

[Samuelx]

Thanks for the great response, but people pull over all the time to make a call, respond to a text message, or as noted above, grab a quick bite to eat on a break, so if someone happens to pull over on a street where a home has been burglarized, does that mean that non-residents of that street are subject to being temporarily detained until LE concludes that the person is not casing a home, watching residents come and go, etc?

I know that my Mother routinely leaves work, grabs lunch, and finds a shady spot to park and eat lunch. On occasion, I have done that myself in the past.

AGAIN, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFO!!!

It would not surprise me if one of the residents had called the police about a suspicious person in a vehicle in front of their or a neighbor's home. It would not surprise me if the residents in that neighborhood had some legitimate reason to watch out for strange vehicles or persons.

In 1 minute, I could come up with probably half a dozen possible scenarios where in it would have been perfectly normal for LE to have contacted your friend.

Why don't you try looking at it from a resident/neighbor's point of view...

Btw, this contact could also have been a felony contact at gunpoint give you orders hands in the air walk back to me kneel down handcuff and detain the back seat for a bit - and it could have been perfectly justified, even though all your friend was doing was "sitting there and not driving"...

And again - MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! sheesh