Identification Policy

[AFPVet]

Have you guys ever wondered why law enforcement officers ask for identification for some encounters... even at the home? While statutes such as Terry v. Ohio et al. come into play, do you know want to know why we ask for your ID? In some states, you are not obligated to provide ID at all... what if you aren't who you say you are... and the home/lessee owner? That's cool... as long as you state your name, DOB or last four.

The reason why I bring this up is to uncover the reason why law enforcement officers ask for ID. If it was a small town where everyone knew your name... cool... but if we don't know your name, could you tell us so we know you are cool?

This is something that I never actually 'got' after I left the military and law enforcement. I understand that it is your right not to... but I just never understood why you wouldn't tell them who you were even if not required. Any constructive criticism or remarks are welcome.

If you feel that giving your name could be incriminating, by law, you could state this.

[juvanya]

We are asked that because we live in a police state.

We dont want to be asked that because we dont want to live in a police state.

[pcosmar]

Have you guys ever wondered why law enforcement officers ask for identification for some encounters... even at the home? While statutes such as Terry v. Ohio et al. come into play, do you know want to know why we ask for your ID? In some states, you are not obligated to provide ID at all... what if you aren't who you say you are... and the home/lessee owner? That's cool... as long as you state your name, DOB or last four.

The reason why I bring this up is to uncover the reason why law enforcement officers ask for ID. If it was a small town where everyone knew your name... cool... but if we don't know your name, could you tell us so we know you are cool?

This is something that I never actually 'got' after I left the military and law enforcement. I understand that it is your right not to... but I just never understood why you wouldn't tell them who you were even if not required. Any constructive criticism or remarks are welcome.

If you feel that giving your name could be incriminating, by law, you could state this.

How about,
None of your business
.
Period.

Just why would you think police have any business asking? What difference does it make if they do not know?

I personally would like the very concept of "police" stricken from society.

[Pericles]

I'd suggest the real question is what level of "special powers" are given to the police that exceed those of the citizens in general. The last 50 years + have seen more special powers that are not needed. Example - murder is murder, and special punishment provision for the murder of LEOs compared to "civilians". This goes way beyond sound policing principles as articulated by Sir Robert Peel:



The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

So, to directly answer your question. If any member of the public asked for you to ID yourself, would you? Some citizens may legitimately consider it a privacy issue. If an officer were to approach someone and explain what he was doing and why, I suspect there would be much more cooperation than will occur with an order to stop and show ID. Unfortunately, the effect of many laws, especially at the federal level, render certain classes of people seemingly exempt from the laws the majority are to obey. This makes enforcement appear arbitrary, and the public resent that.

[osan]

I'd suggest the real question is what level of "special powers" are given to the police that exceed those of the citizens in general. The last 50 years + have seen more special powers that are not needed. Example - murder is murder, and special punishment provision for the murder of LEOs compared to "civilians". This goes way beyond sound policing principles as articulated by Sir Robert Peel:




The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


So, to directly answer your question. If any member of the public asked for you to ID yourself, would you? Some citizens may legitimately consider it a privacy issue. If an officer were to approach someone and explain what he was doing and why, I suspect there would be much more cooperation than will occur with an order to stop and show ID. Unfortunately, the effect of many laws, especially at the federal level, render certain classes of people seemingly exempt from the laws the majority are to obey. This makes enforcement appear arbitrary, and the public resent that.

Nice.

[AFPVet]

I just know that this didn't happen 20 years ago. When I was told to ask for ID, they told us that it was to make sure that you knew who you were talking to—or of they were really supposed to be in the home and not some burglar or something. I guess it was all just BS political crap to make us go along with it.

[Anti Federalist]

So, to directly answer your question. If any member of the public asked for you to ID yourself, would you? Some citizens may legitimately consider it a privacy issue. If an officer were to approach someone and explain what he was doing and why, I suspect there would be much more cooperation than will occur with an order to stop and show ID. Unfortunately, the effect of many laws, especially at the federal level, render certain classes of people seemingly exempt from the laws the majority are to obey. This makes enforcement appear arbitrary, and the public resent that.

That ^^^^

There's the answer.

If a mundane approached me on the street and barked "Let's see some ID" I'd rightly tell them to pound salt.

I'll do the same thing to a cop, all the while judging how far I want to push it and risk getting tasered or shot or arrested.

Now, if a fellow citizen quickly but politely explained why they needed to be sure I was who I said I was, then I'd be inclined to cooperate, assuming the reason was legit.

Same thing for a cop.

[pcosmar]

I just know that this didn't happen 20 years ago. When I was told to ask for ID, they told us that it was to make sure that you knew who you were talking to—or of they were really supposed to be in the home and not some burglar or something. I guess it was all just BS political crap to make us go along with it.

But that would require you to already know the owner of the property, all their family, any renters or guests that were rightly there.
Someone producing ID would verify none of that if it was not prior knowledge. And if it was prior knowledge, ,,you would recognize them on sight.

or is logic not a requirement?

[AFPVet]

But that would require you to already know the owner of the property, all their family, any renters or guests that were rightly there.
Someone producing ID would verify none of that if it was not prior knowledge. And if it was prior knowledge, ,,you would recognize them on sight.

or is logic not a requirement?

We just looked at the address on the DL to make sure it matched. One problem with this is if you are active duty like I was and my home address was in another state! So, yeah there are serious problems with this logic.

I think that it is really about making something sound reasonable—when in actuality, it is not intended to be reasonable... getting people accustomed to a police state.

[pcosmar]

We just looked at the address on the DL to make sure it matched. One problem with this is if you are active duty like I was and my home address was in another state! So, yeah there are serious problems with this logic.

I think that it is really about making something sound reasonable—when in actuality, it is not intended to be reasonable... getting people accustomed to a police state.

;)
And I am not deliberately trying to be an ass.
Just trying to get would be OathKeepers to Think. To Question why, and what they do.

[LibForestPaul]

California has created a state aristocracy made up of police officers, judges, district attorneys, and other officials. The state’s Confidential Records Program has granted government license plates for their vehicles that hide the identity of the owner from the state’s databases.
Cities in California and elsewhere have been installing photo ticketing. Cameras at street intersections photograph cars and their license plates when they cross an allegedly red traffic light. These red light cameras are owned and operated by private companies, which obtain a share of the loot from the accused offenders. The government hires collection agencies to collect the fines, but they can’t touch the governmental aristocracy.


Nashua PD Shifts Course In Ticket Case in New England; Officers Will No Longer Be Allowed To Try To Fix Tickets NASHUA, N.H. -- City police officers will soon be barred from making calls or otherwise trying to fix traffic tickets.

In Massachusetts, residents may purchase defence sprays only from licensed Firearms Dealers in that state, and must hold a valid Firearms Identification Card (FID) or License to Carry Firearms (LTC).[34][35]

How can I find out if I am on the No Fly List or Selectee List?
The government will not say who is or is not on these lists. People first learn that they are on the lists -- or are mistaken for someone on the lists -- when they encounter problems at the airport. If you are ultimately allowed onto a plane, this means you are not on the No Fly List (although you may be on the Selectee List). Typically, affected people cannot use the internet or the airport kiosks for automated check-in, and instead must report to the ticket counter in person. Airline personnel sometimes, but not always, are willing to tell passengers whether they are on a list or what part of their name matches someone on the list.

May 15, 2007 Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) speaking at DC’s annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the Brady Center says if your name is on the terrorist no fly list you should not be allowed to own a gun.

Are you acting naive or are you naive?