Providing LE With Identification

[55chevypost]

my apologies my friend, be safe

[Rattlesnake6.8]

Based JUST on the question given with the infomation, yes, an officer can contact you, (consenual contact) and ask for your ID. BUT, Without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that may occur a foot, the officer can not detain and try to identify you.

It is common practice that LEO like to know who they are talking to, provided that they hope to find something else on you, like warrants,wants, officer safety..etc.

Yes, an officer will use the notion of that you matched a description of person they are looking for, a call from a concerned neighbor and etc is to why they ask for your ID.

Everyone will want more info provided so an answer can be given, but just alone on what is given, the answer is "he can ask, but you are not required to provide anything"

[pitbuljake]

On the opposite end, there's some degree of crime in every neighborhood in America, so when does using local crime to develop reasonable suspicion become an excuse to contact people?

Most patrol officers that have been around awhile know their area(s) well. They know what types of persons/vehicles fit a particular area given the time of day and so on.

They are also in tune with types of crimes and what types of individuals may be responsible. That's what they're paid to do. Spot crimes in progress and prevent others from happening.

It's not an excuse to harass people, it's sniffing out if you will, the good and the bad. Many good traffic stops and or detentions lead to good arrests of really bad people.

OP's friend was simply contacted probably based on a citizen complaint. It's routine to LE. I doubt the officer was attempting to violate the guys rights.

[9mmepiphany]

On the opposite end, there's some degree of crime in every neighborhood in America, so when does using local crime to develop reasonable suspicion become an excuse to contact people?

It doesn't become an excuse, that is what justification is by definition. Legal justification is simply justification within certain established rules

[Ron-Solo]

OP, you asked your question, got an answer you didn't like, but that's life.

Now, it seems like you're just trolling.

Kind of like dealing with kids. If dad says no, just ask mom.

[RedVines]

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.

OP, there is no simple yes or no answer to your question and this is as thorough and articulate of an answer as you're going to get. Every single situation in law enforcement is different and must be explained and articulated by the officer. I will just reiterate that "totality of the circumstances" is the key phrase. Reasonable suspicion is a fluid legal concept that is constantly debated and ruled upon in court. There are certain "guidelines" if you will that have been established via case law regarding reasonable suspicion, but there is never a clear cut yes or no answer.

[Press Check]

OP, you asked your question, got an answer you didn't like, but that's life.

Now, it seems like you're just trolling.

Kind of like dealing with kids. If dad says no, just ask mom.

I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

With the exception of your response, I actually appreciated and liked all of the responses, especially those posted by Eikbyrnir from which I gathered some useful insight.

A follow-up comment or question to a response doesn't mean that I'm being argumentative, or didn't like the response. I'm not anti-cop, but I believe in knowing what your rights are when you come in contact with them.

[Press Check]

OP, there is no simple yes or no answer to your question and this is as thorough and articulate of an answer as you're going to get. Every single situation in law enforcement is different and must be explained and articulated by the officer. I will just reiterate that "totality of the circumstances" is the key phrase. Reasonable suspicion is a fluid legal concept that is constantly debated and ruled upon in court. There are certain "guidelines" if you will that have been established via case law regarding reasonable suspicion, but there is never a clear cut yes or no answer.

Thanks.

Based on the note-worthy responses, I have concluded that there is no clear-cut answer.

[RedVines]

Been a copper north of 20, and I still thank patrol coppers for stopping me or investigating things in my neighborhood. A true law abiding citizen, like the op said his pal is, should thank the copper for what took place. They were doing their job as expected.

OP since i have you here i want to highlight the wisdom in 55chevypost's statement. If you are a law abiding citizen, you ABSOLUTELY want cops in your neighborhood to be stopping people and investigating anything and everything they can. that is them doing their job. Popular opinion is that a "cool" cop is non confrontational, one that lets things slide and don't give you a citation when they pull you over, or better yet, not pull you over at all. that is simply not the standard that a police officer should be measured. No good deed goes unpunished cannot be more true when it comes to police work. We have an unpopular job. People do not like us. Period. But we can't not do our jobs just because people will hate us for it.

To answer your question about knowing your rights in such a situation, they are as follows. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" 4th Amendment. Key word here is "unreasonable". If an officer forms reasonable suspicion to make contact with you in public, he/she has a legitimate law enforcement reason to contact. Would showing your ID constitute unreasonable? Seriously. The degree of intrusion into the security of your person associated with showing ID is extremely minimal, and when balanced with the public interest associated with an officer conducting field investigations, the word "unreasonable" really does not seem fitting. So the gist of it is, if what the officer is doing is "reasonable", then your rights are not being violated.

If I may, is there a particular reason you would be reluctant to provide a police officer with your ID? You worried about privacy? Or is it more of a "i just don't want to if i don't have to" type of thing.

[Ron-Solo]

On the opposite end, there's some degree of crime in every neighborhood in America, so when does using local crime to develop reasonable suspicion become an excuse to contact people?

I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

With the exception of your response, I actually appreciated and liked all of the responses, especially those posted by Eikbyrnir from which I gathered some useful insight.

A follow-up comment or question to a response doesn't mean that I'm being argumentative, or didn't like the response. I'm not anti-cop, but I believe in knowing what your rights are when you come in contact with them.

Maybe I'm reading into it, but he first quote summed it up pretty well for me. It was after people gave you the correct answer several times. I chose not to repeat the advice that others gave, because they were correct.

Aloha,

Ron

[Press Check]

OP since i have you here i want to highlight the wisdom in 55chevypost's statement. If you are a law abiding citizen, you ABSOLUTELY want cops in your neighborhood to be stopping people and investigating anything and everything they can. that is them doing their job. Popular opinion is that a "cool" cop is non confrontational, one that lets things slide and don't give you a citation when they pull you over, or better yet, not pull you over at all. that is simply not the standard that a police officer should be measured. No good deed goes unpunished cannot be more true when it comes to police work. We have an unpopular job. People do not like us. Period. But we can't not do our jobs just because people will hate us for it.

To answer your question about knowing your rights in such a situation, they are as follows. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" 4th Amendment. Key word here is "unreasonable". If an officer forms reasonable suspicion to make contact with you in public, he/she has a legitimate law enforcement reason to contact. Would showing your ID constitute unreasonable? Seriously. The degree of intrusion into the security of your person associated with showing ID is extremely minimal, and when balanced with the public interest associated with an officer conducting field investigations, the word "unreasonable" really does not seem fitting. So the gist of it is, if what the officer is doing is "reasonable", then your rights are not being violated.

If I may, is there a particular reason you would be reluctant to provide a police officer with your ID? You worried about privacy? Or is it more of a "i just don't want to if i don't have to" type of thing.

A true law abiding citizen, like the op said his pal is, should thank the copper for what took place. They were doing their job as expected.

I neglected to respond to the post by 55Chevy simply based on the fact that I would have had a difficult time thanking an officer for doing a job that entailed questioning me, temporarily detaining me, and running my name for warrants simply because I parked on the wrong street to have lunch. While the residents of said neighborhood might find the contact reassuring, I certainly would not.

Personally, I have had my vehicle stolen at gun point (vehicle recovered), had a motorcycle (dirt bike) stolen from my garage (never recovered), had my vehicle broken into, and other miscellaneous things over the years. In short, I have been on the receiving end of criminal activity, not engaged in it, but have never become so jaded that I thought law abiding citizens deserve to be questioned or treated like a suspect until the officer concludes that the citizen is not a suspect. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Do I want LE patroling my area? Sure, it sends a message to prospective criminals, but I would not advocate having non-resident citizens subjected to being routinely stopped, temporarily detained, questioned and ran for warrants.

To protect and preserve life with your own life is admirable. I am not one of ones that has a problem with LE, and agree that you do have an exceedingly difficult and unpopular job. Personally, I think a "cool cop" is one that effectively does their job without infringing upon the rights of citizens.

To answer your last question, my reluctance would be based on the circumstances. If the contact was based on "fitting the description," I would be very reluctant and resistant. Yes, it would prolong and complicate the contact, but cooperation is not always in the best interest of the suspect.

[Notorious]

He was inside a car and in control of it. That's enough for me to ask for DL to ascertain he is not going to drive it without a valid DL. If he refuses, I will follow up with how did he get there, did the car drive itself? Did the driver just leave him in the alley? Who's the driver? Where is he coming from? Where is he going? Who owns the car? All sorts of stuff can come out of it.

[RedVines]

Presumption of innocence is a legal concept that applies in criminal proceedings. It has nothing to do with field investigations. In fact, police officers don't make any presumptions in the field. That would get us killed.

To put it bluntly, a police officer who detains, questions and IDs a law abiding citizen does nothing to infringe upon that citizen's 4th amendment rights. There's nothing in the bill of rights that says citizens have the right not to be detained by the police unless they commit a crime. The citizen may not like it, which seems to be your case, but believe me there are no rights being violated. You seem to equate being asked for ID with being treated like a suspect. for a lack of better terms, that is your perception, an opinion, an emotion. We can't control how people perceive us and they way we do our jobs. We certainly should not change the way we do our jobs based that either.

You are also right in that cooperation is not in the best interest of the suspect, so when we encounter someone who doesn't want to cooperate with a simple request such as providing ID, all it does is add to our suspicion and make us intensify an investigation.

Without sounding disrespectful, you will never truly and fully understand police work, what's effective and what's not and how it's done, simply because you aren't a police officer. So trust me when I say this. Conducting terry stops on people, law abiding citizens included, is the bread and butter of good police work. The police officer that detains you and asks for your ID is doing nothing to infringe upon your rights, he is doing his job the way it's supposed to be done.

[North Bay Guy]

That's happend to me before. My friend and I who live only a 1/4 mile from each other we're sitting in my car talking between our two homes. LEO walks up and very politely says we had a neighbor call about a strange car parked here. I'm just here to make sure everything is ok. LEO asked what are you guys doing and we said nothing just talking catching up. He said do you guys live around here and we both said yes. LEO says where, we respond X street and A street. LEO says ok thanks for understanding, have a good night and drive safe. He never asked for our ID's or drivers license. Maybe a cool cop, maybe he didn't feel he needed to, or he didnt have a reason to check our ID's. IDK

[Falconis]

I neglected to respond to the post by 55Chevy simply based on the fact that I would have had a difficult time thanking an officer for doing a job that entailed questioning me, temporarily detaining me, and running my name for warrants simply because I parked on the wrong street to have lunch. While the residents of said neighborhood might find the contact reassuring, I certainly would not.

Personally, I have had my vehicle stolen at gun point (vehicle recovered), had a motorcycle (dirt bike) stolen from my garage (never recovered), had my vehicle broken into, and other miscellaneous things over the years. In short, I have been on the receiving end of criminal activity, not engaged in it, but have never become so jaded that I thought law abiding citizens deserve to be questioned or treated like a suspect until the officer concludes that the citizen is not a suspect. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Do I want LE patroling my area? Sure, it sends a message to prospective criminals, but I would not advocate having non-resident citizens subjected to being routinely stopped, temporarily detained, questioned and ran for warrants.

To protect and preserve life with your own life is admirable. I am not one of ones that has a problem with LE, and agree that you do have an exceedingly difficult and unpopular job. Personally, I think a "cool cop" is one that effectively does their job without infringing upon the rights of citizens.

To answer your last question, my reluctance would be based on the circumstances. If the contact was based on "fitting the description," I would be very reluctant and resistant. Yes, it would prolong and complicate the contact, but cooperation is not always in the best interest of the suspect.

and the flip side is, if something happens, everyone and their mother will be screaming why didn't the cop do anything. Cops have a right and duty to investigate. Despite perceptions at large and especially here on the boards, it doesn't equate to your rights being violated.

You want to use the reasonable person standard, ok I'm a reasonable person. I wonder what the hell people are doing all the time, and if it's a residential neighborhood and someone calls, yeah I think it's reasonable for the cop to talk and investigate the person. Eating lunch in a neighborhood like that does happen I admit, but it's not something that is common by any means. If you or your friend wants to eat lunch in piece, try a park with a parking lot or some other similar location. You park in front of someone's house, that person will probably call the cops.

The reason you were probably being called a troll or whatever is this has gone on for 2 pages now. You don't seem happy with any answer unless its the cop should have left the guy alone and driven on with a wave and a smile. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you are trying to educate yourself.

To answer your original question, hey your buddy was in a car and was the sole occupant. Everything after that is open to interpretation and I'll give that benefit to the cop. All biases aside.