Showing ID

[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]

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.

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.

[CoonDog]

Just a note to clarify that the crux of Hiibel revolved around Nevada's existing stop-and-id statute.  While SCOTUS upheld the lower court's ruling that Nevada's statute was constitutional, it's pertinent to note that Michigan does not currently have a similar stop-and-id statute with which Hiibel would apply.

[KelticKowboy]

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.

With the above quote in mind, what do you guys think about the following situation?  I am OCing in a theater and the only reason I am allowed to do so is because I have a CPL therefore if I am approached by an LEO in the theater would I have to show my ID and CPL?

[Bronson]

I am OCing in a theater and the only reason I am allowed to do so is because I have a CPL therefore if I am approached by an LEO in the theater would I have to show my ID and CPL?

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.
Sec. 5f.

(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.

(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:

(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

Bronson

[drtodd]

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.

With the above quote in mind, what do you guys think about the following situation?  I am OCing in a theater and the only reason I am allowed to do so is because I have a CPL therefore if I am approached by an LEO in the theater would I have to show my ID and CPL?

Bronson is absolutely correct BUT the officer can't check w/ LEIN whether you have a CPL, you would probably be charged w/ violating the general no firearm zones. As a CPL holder, you are exempt BUT if you don't even give your name/ dob, there would be no way for them to ascertain that you were exempt.