And here I was thinking that all 'yall south of the border enjoyed some civil liberties that we did not. Up here, you don't have to identify yourself unless an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you've committed an offence or if you're driving.

Also, police officers can't legally take you into custody without telling you why - and yes, they need a reason, and no, not any reason will do.

What I saw in that video sickened me, even if the guy who was getting arrested was a ******nozzle.

Correct -- there is no legal requirement in any state to carry identification papers. Indeed, there's no legal requirement to own official identification papers of any kind.

But you may, in certain circumstances, be required to identify yourself to the satisfaction of the police.

If you do not have official ID, or if they suspect your ID has been forged or altered, they can detain you to verify your identity. If your local police have good mobile I.T. and you have an ID that you simply aren't carrying, they can run your identifying information and pull your picture. If they aren't quite that well-equipped, they can at least call in your information by radio and see if it matches a known ID. There are a number of databases that could be used, including driver licensing, court records, ICE databases if they suspect you're not in the country legally, etc.

Of course, the police have some discretion on when they're satisfied with your identity, and their discretion may be influenced by your attitude. It's perfectly legal not to have ID on your person, but if they ask you to identify yourself, either give them your ID or give them the information they need. If you think it's an unjustified stop, you're generally better off filing a complaint later than arguing with an officer along side the road.

ok, now wait. I was under the impression that a state issued ID was not your property... on the back of my DL it states this is property of the state of Arizona and MUST be surrendered upon request... sow how does that fit into illegal search invasion of privacy etc...

Did you need to pay a fee when you got it?
Pretty hard to claim it is the property of the state if they charged you for it.

In Soviet Russia ... no, wait ... in modern America ...

read em and weep:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/j...cion?_s=PM:LAW

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ourt_of_Nevada

You guys that think you can refuse to show a cop your i.d. and be on your merry way are living in a dream world. Regardless of whatever the law says.

just because you pay a fee does not mean you own something, the fee is for processing not for purchase

Yep, that's the reality. Try running the 'Soviet Russia' rationale past the arresting cop at a future traffic stop and see what he tells you. :rolleyes:

Here is the US Supreme Court - Hiibel case that establishes that a cyclist is only required to provide basic verbal identifying information if stopped by police:

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-5554

Here is the bottom line on cyclist and ID Cards. The Hiibel US Supreme Court case firmly establishes that if a cyclist is stopped by police either for investigation or arrest, all the cyclist must do, is verbally provide their correct name and birth date. No state laws can override this. So no state can legally compel cyclist to carry or present an ID Card to police.

If a cyclist wants to carry an ID Card for emergencies, fine, but cyclist are not required to so. Cyclist can also put an emergency contact number into their cell phone under ICE (standing for ‘‘In Case of Emergency’’) which would also allow police or EMTs to quickly contact someone who knows you, and may know any special medical conditions you have.

Now if you are in a state like California (Colorado is similar), that has a law that a citizen who has committed a traffic infraction (which is a criminal offense in CA and CO) and if that citizen is willing to show a valid ID Card and sign a promise to appear, then the police must release the citizen with a citation and cannot take such citizen into custody; then it might be a good idea to carry a valid ID Card with you, IF you plan on breaking traffic laws. If you have broken a traffic law in these states and do not have an ID, then you will likely be taken into custody and searched; and if you are also carrying illegal drugs, weapons or other illegal items on you, your in deep trouble. In such a case, the ID Card might be a get out of jail free card for the illegal drugs, weapons or other illegal items. For those of us that do not break the traffic code and do not carry illegal drugs, weapons or other illegal items; NOT carrying the ID Card when cycling has no legal impact.

Choosing to either carry an ID Card or NOT carry an ID Card is YOUR legal choice when cycling.
You cannot be arrested for not carrying and presenting an ID Card to police when cycling.

Everyone is always giving cops a hard time, they are just people as well, and make mistakes.

I have been stopped both cycling and jogging before, not shown any ID, just given name and birthdate and ended up going on my merry way.

Why weep? If you read the actual case and not rely on what CNN claims, the case clearly states that you only have to tell the cops your name and birthdate. Hiibel refused to tell the cops his name.

This guy is obviously trying to goad the cops on - but its a good demonstration of not having to show ID*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4


* Unless reasonably suspected or legally detailed.

On the topic of the original vid. The cop obviously got butt hurt. But as they say "you can beat the rap, but you cant beat the ride."

I stand corrected.

When cops make mistakes, other people end up paying for it. That guy will now have to pay lawyer fees, court costs, ticket costs, etc. just because he had the audacity to crack a joke.

did you even read the citation you put up or the more definitive wikipedia article? The ruling is the opposite of what you claim:

"
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to identify himself.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating."

If you had actually read Hiibel, you'd know you are wrong here.

Someone is always going to pay for a mistake no matter who does it, had the guy just minded his own business he wouldn't have had a problem. I'm not defending all cops I've met my fair share that are dicks as I'm sure everyone has, but people always judge cops too harshly IMO.

If you actually paid attention when reading Hiibel you would understand your error. Justice Kennedy makes it clear in the court opinion that producing an ID card is NOT required. He makes it clear that telling the police your name (with possibly a birth date - referred from cited case law) verbally or by other means of communication is sufficient.

Well, I can agree with that. I've known some cops and they're not all bad, but the cops in the vid just took it too far. They could've just told the guy to move along instead of strong-arming him.

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Hiibel arguing that asking for Hiibel to identify himself did not violate 4th and 5th amendment rights:
"In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) ("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs."

I think they just let the heat of the moment get to them, I just hate when a cop makes a mistake the whole world at the blink of an eye suddenly comes down strong on cops

That's the key word there, State issued ID card are state property you're not buying them, just paying a fee to have one issued.

I think one of the reasons for that is that they're perceived to back each other up even if one of them has made a mistake. There were quite a few cops at the scene in the video. If the 'heat of the moment' got to one of them then one of the others could have pulled him aside and calmed him down. But none of them did that and the situation escalated.