Open Carry Specific > OC Questions

Showing ID

(1/2) > >>

KelticKowboy:
Can someone please point me to the law that states person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner does not have to show their ID to a police officer when the reason for the qurstioning is because of the openly carried firearm?

northofnowhere:
There is no law for this.  I was unable to locate attorney general opinions either, as I thought there was one.  There is supposedly a Patriot Act portion that requires you to give your name and correct address to an LEO when requested if I recall right.  Again I was unable to find the specific text of that though.  I am confient someone out there will find something more concrete for you in writing that clearly states your duty to provide ID.

I am also curious, as this does frequently come up, and my Google abilities are lacking today.

CoonDog:
There is no duty to provide ID for walking down the street because Michigan doesn't have a "stop-and-id" statute.  Unless the officer has RAS of any crime, you don't have to provide ID.  There are exceptions for when you are engaged in a licensed activity AND the terms of the license requires disclosure.  The LTP license, MCL 28.422, does require disclosure.  The CPL license, does require disclosure in MCL 28.425f.


Side ramblings: laws don't exist to tell you what you're "allowed" to do.  You can do anything legally until there's a statute prohibiting it (and even then most statutes don't actually relate to an injured party -- just a little dig at Michigan legislators).  This isn't to say that a law is required to denote unlawful activity as I'm sure you recognize some activities DO result in injury regardless of whether a law was written or not.

venator:

--- Quote from: CoonDog on June 13, 2010, 11:41:12 PM ---There is no duty to provide ID for walking down the street because Michigan doesn't have a "stop-and-id" statute.  Unless the officer has RAS of any crime, you don't have to provide ID.  There are exceptions for when you are engaged in a licensed activity AND the terms of the license requires disclosure.  The LTP license, MCL 28.422, does require disclosure.  The CPL license, does require disclosure in MCL 28.425f.


Side ramblings: laws don't exist to tell you what you're "allowed" to do.  You can do anything legally until there's a statute prohibiting it (and even then most statutes don't actually relate to an injured party -- just a little dig at Michigan legislators).  This isn't to say that a law is required to denote unlawful activity as I'm sure you recognize some activities DO result in injury regardless of whether a law was written or not.

--- End quote ---

I'm not sure you have to show ID for RAS.  If driving yes, the CPL if concealed requirement yes, but where does it say I have to show ID if walking down the street and some LEO claims to have RAS and can demand ID and I am obligated to provide it?

If arrested they will search you for ID, you may or may not have any on you.  But I don't think there is any obligation to produce ID or answer question when confronted by a LEO.  Anyone have a cite?

Warchild:
This is the latest ruling that I could find...google foo is very weak.
Mich is not a stop and identify state, not even for name unless RAS is proven.

Reference 
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 124 S.Ct. 2541, 2546 (2004), identifies at least 20 states with such statutes.
  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  125 S.Ct. 2451 (2004).
  125 S.Ct. at 2455.
  NRS § 171.123.
  124 S.Ct. at 2458.
Conclusion
In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute. Certainly, it should come as no surprise that the remaining state legislatures might enact similar stop-and-identify statutes. No doubt such enactments provide law enforcement with another important tool to ensure officer safety during brief and seemingly innocuous encounters.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page