cool hand luke 22:36
New member
I doubt very much that any such law exists in Colorado or any other State.
Could you provide a link to the section of the Colorado Code that makes this requirement.
When do you HAVE to show ID?
- Thread starter Shooter 973
- Start date
I doubt very much that any such law exists in Colorado or any other State.
Could you provide a link to the section of the Colorado Code that makes this requirement.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Generally speaking, there is no legal requirement that you carry any form of identification on you in any US jurisdiction, with some special exceptions for foreign visitors, US military personnel, some government employees while on duty, and etc.
Under some very narrow circumstances, anything that would constitute at least a "Terry Stop," a police officer may ask you to identify yourself. That means you are obligated to truthfully report your name and address. That's it. You're not obligated to produce any paper identification, although the officer may lawfully ask you to voluntarily produce such.
Don't confuse your obligation to identify yourself with an obligation to carry any form of identification
If you are operating a vehicle or if the officer reasonably believes that you recently have been, and if that fact is pertinent to his investigation, he may then lawfully require you to produce an operator's permit such as a driver's license.
Don't confuse operator's permits such as driver's licenses with identification, even though as a practical matter they are used as such.
There is a difference between being asked to identify yourself and being asked for some sort of tangible identification, such as an ID card. My reading of Hiibel is that the Nevada "stop and identify" statute in that case was consititutional. (The Court opinion also referenced an unconstitutional California "stop and identify" statute in Kolender.)
Here are some selected quotes:
To answer the OP's question, generally, the "police need reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with" a crime. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985). Typically, that would happen during a Terry-stop. However, the police can always ask you to voluntarily provide your identity in what's known as an "enounter," under which conditions it's your choice to do so or not.
Here are some selected quotes:
The California law in Kolender required a suspect to give an officer “ ‘credible and reliable’ ” identification when asked to identify himself. Id., at 360. The Court held that the statute was void because it provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with it, resulting in “ ‘virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.’ ”
The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer “credible and reliable” identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name.
In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.
(“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”)
Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
The officer’s request was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.
“[T]o be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 (1988). See also Hubbell, 530 U.S., at 35. Stating one’s name may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. Production of identity documents might meet the definition as well. As we noted in Hubbell, acts of production may yield testimony establishing “the existence, authenticity, and custody of items [the police seek].” Id., at 41. Even if these required actions are testimonial, however, petitioner’s challenge must fail because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
As you can see from the final passage quoted above, the Court addressed the issue of identifying oneself but not the issue of furnishing identity.The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer “credible and reliable” identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name.
In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.
(“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”)
Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
The officer’s request was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.
“[T]o be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 (1988). See also Hubbell, 530 U.S., at 35. Stating one’s name may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. Production of identity documents might meet the definition as well. As we noted in Hubbell, acts of production may yield testimony establishing “the existence, authenticity, and custody of items [the police seek].” Id., at 41. Even if these required actions are testimonial, however, petitioner’s challenge must fail because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
To answer the OP's question, generally, the "police need reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with" a crime. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985). Typically, that would happen during a Terry-stop. However, the police can always ask you to voluntarily provide your identity in what's known as an "enounter," under which conditions it's your choice to do so or not.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I guarantee you that when I was an LEO I could have held you until you did identify yourself very easily if I chose to do so and there would be little legal recourse. All I would have had to do is say you matched the description of a wanted person or a verbal description from a witness to an event and I would get away with holding you until you were identified. Sad, but true.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
No, I assure you, it is the case everywhere in the US that a police officer may lawfully require you identify yourself, as I said: under circumstances rising at least to the level of a Terry stop.
Again, the encounter has to rise to at least the level of a Terry stop, which generally means the "other circumstances" test in the NH statute has been met by the officer.
The section of the New Hampshire statute you cite sets forth the other circumstances:
Any or all of which would give the Officer the reasonable suspicion, articulable and individualized, needed for a Terry stop.
The N.H. statute definition of “circumstances” specifically incorporates the fact pattern of Terry v. Ohio. (casing a storefront: d.)
The passage you cite is there to make it clear that a police officer cannot simply question someone as to their identity absent a compelling reason
Last edited:
So is an apology forthcoming to anyone who was condemned for "cop bashing" if they talked about "testilying" or other forms of abusive, corrupt police behavior in violation of the individual rights they were sworn to uphold?
One fellow here in New Hampshire was detained and questioned and had his identification papers demanded of him (he refused) only because he was carrying a firearm openly in broad daylight on a public sidewalk - in other words, breaking no law, rule, or regulation whatsoever. A situation which patently did NOT rise to the level of a Terry stop.
I think under certain circumstances police can be held personally liable for violation of civil rights.
Sadly, constitutional violations happen with great frequency, sometimes because the perpetrator doesn't realize it or makes a mistake of law, sometimes deliberately. Usually, the person whose rights were violated does nothing about it, sometimes because he doesn't realize what has happened or shrugs it off or figures he can't prove it or doesn't want the hassle or doesn't care. In short, violations happen; whether anything is done about it is a different and separate question.
If the fellow in your example was falsely arrested, I imagine he'd have the basis for a civil rights law suit. If he was not arrested, I doubt he'd have a sufficiently strong case to pursue, in that he would not have suffered any measurable harm, unless he could prove a pattern of harrassment against either himself or similarly situated individuals. Assuming no arrest and no pattern of harrassment, it might still be worth his filing a complaint so that if he is hassled again, he might then have a foundation to show a pattern by either the LEO or the organization.
A particular LEO who has a history of such complaints is flirting with unemployment and worse; not only is he making himself vulnerable to a law suit, he is also putting his organization at risk because it will have knowledge (via the complaints) that he is a problem child. Some organizations are willing to take such risks - witness the NYPD - because they believe they are safe (maybe they have things wired behind the scenes with judges and whatnot, I don't know). Other organizations are overly sensitive about such things and will cut someone loose for the slightest reasons.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yup, when I became an LEO you had to have a 4yr degree or be within so many months of completing one. A lot of places have had to relax their policies to recruit enough officers.
Unfortunately, the field tends to attract a lot of people with ego disorders, severe authority issues, and inferiority complexes simply because of the nature of the job.
No, it is not. Even if you are stopped for reasonable suspicion, note below, the words "if available". There is no state that requires a person to carry any identification card unless they are engaging in an activity which requires a permit or license such as driving or concealing a firearm.
Walking down the street, unless an individual is being detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime committed or about to be committed, it has been determined to be unconstitutional to be required to prove identity by providing proof. The simple question of "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?"... if the answer is no, your are not being detained or yes, you are free to go, then there is no legal basis to require producing an identification card of any type.
It is perfectly legal, however, for LEO to determine if a proper license exists for activities that require a license such as driving or concealed carry. Then a request for the appropriate ID to determine if the proper license is present is legal.
Colorado revised statutes:
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
As a blanket statement, that is incorrect.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I was a legal officer during part of my Navy service. As others have pointed out, the police can legally demand some form of identification from you regarding certain activities such as driving (driver’s license). But in general, the police cannot legally demand that someone identify himself or provide a form of identification unless they have a suspicion the particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing.
For a Terry Stop, the officer needs articulable facts that support reasonable suspicion. Such facts include your presence at the scene of the crime, that you fit a general description of a suspect, that you are engaging in suspicious activity, and a whole host of other things. The Terry Stop is where the stop-and-identify statutes come into play, but even there I’m not aware of any that require you to carry a form of identification, unless whatever you’re doing at the time requires some sort of license, or you are an immigrant (lawful permanent resident but not a citizen) or a non-immigrant alien.
The officer might begin by talking with you in an “encounter,” which is considered a voluntary exchange between you and the officer and is perfectly constitutional. If something you say or do creates suspicion in his mind, he can then turn the encounter into a Terry Stop. For example, he might ask you, “Do you live here?” You reply, “No, I’m visiting with my Aunt and Uncle.” He then asks, “Where do they live?” You say, “I don’t know.” He then asks, “What’s their phone number?” You say, “I can’t remember.” You have likely failed the encounter by giving implausible answers and have given the officer the reasonable suspicion he needs to conduct a Terry Stop.
On the other hand, if instead your first response is something like, “I don’t want to talk with you. Am I free to go?” and he says, “No,” he will need some other basis (under a “totality of the circumstances test”) for reasonable suspicion before he can legally turn the encounter into a Terry Stop.
All of the above deals with what can legally happen, which was the OP’s question. “No” is the correct answer to the OP’s narrow question of “Do you have to show ID to the police just because they ask for it? Not in response to a traffic stop or any other possible infration, just because they ask?”
But what about what can illegally happen? Can a police officer lie about the basis for reasonable suspicion? Sure. He puts himself and his department at risk for doing so. How big is that risk? Depends on how far he pushes things, how much harm you suffer, how willing you are to do something about it, and the likelihood you can prove your case. Even then, you are not legally required to provide a form of identification; whether you can prove his request was not legal is a different story.
I wasn't JAG either, but I worked with JAG-Offs (officers) on a regular basis. 
My understanding is that non-immigrant aliens - which include foreign tourists, students, some types of workers, etc. - and LPRs (legal permanent residents) are required to have a form of identification with them at all times. The identification has a name, but I can't remember what it is called.
As for the state LEOs issue, the states are the states, and the feds are the feds, and ne'er the two shall meet. States and federal government are different sovereigns. That the states might not enforce federal laws has no bearing on whether the feds can issue such laws (and enforce them with federal personnel). My understanding is that immigration law as it relates to the state-federal relationship is currently in flux over this very issue, in that the feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law.
Note added: I think the required document is their visa. That's why illegals are sometimes called "undocumented," but that's not the official term. An immigrant is someone who intends to legally become a citizen. A non-immigrant is an alien who is in the U.S. legally but does not intend to become a citizen. Illegals don't fall into either category, which is why they are called "illegal aliens."
My understanding is that non-immigrant aliens - which include foreign tourists, students, some types of workers, etc. - and LPRs (legal permanent residents) are required to have a form of identification with them at all times. The identification has a name, but I can't remember what it is called.
As for the state LEOs issue, the states are the states, and the feds are the feds, and ne'er the two shall meet. States and federal government are different sovereigns. That the states might not enforce federal laws has no bearing on whether the feds can issue such laws (and enforce them with federal personnel). My understanding is that immigration law as it relates to the state-federal relationship is currently in flux over this very issue, in that the feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law.
Note added: I think the required document is their visa. That's why illegals are sometimes called "undocumented," but that's not the official term. An immigrant is someone who intends to legally become a citizen. A non-immigrant is an alien who is in the U.S. legally but does not intend to become a citizen. Illegals don't fall into either category, which is why they are called "illegal aliens."
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Life is too short.
Cop wants to see my ID, here ya go Occifer, hey and by the way, I have a CCW and a gun dude, what would you like me to do? OK, no problem, have a great day and thanks for your working so hard to keep us safe...
I'll save the rants and agida for UPS when they don't deliver on time, Kimber, when they don't stand behind their products, Taurus, for the crap they put out, Wolf Ammo, X, when they don't have Y in stock. the Klan, the Nazis, the Freedom of Speech police in canada and my local Walmart.
Call me sheep-le, I say baaaaaaaaaa, hey it's a beautiful day.
WilddontsweatthelittlethingsAlaska ™
Cop wants to see my ID, here ya go Occifer, hey and by the way, I have a CCW and a gun dude, what would you like me to do? OK, no problem, have a great day and thanks for your working so hard to keep us safe...
I'll save the rants and agida for UPS when they don't deliver on time, Kimber, when they don't stand behind their products, Taurus, for the crap they put out, Wolf Ammo, X, when they don't have Y in stock. the Klan, the Nazis, the Freedom of Speech police in canada and my local Walmart.
Call me sheep-le, I say baaaaaaaaaa, hey it's a beautiful day.
WilddontsweatthelittlethingsAlaska ™