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.

Yeah but your coming at this from one side, had the guy just minded his own business and walked on by nothing would have ever happend. (not saying that to justify what the cops did) Do I think the cops should have treated the situation differently yes, but I wasn't there and I'm not them, I'm more or less generalizing the view of cops.

Well, there is no law in the US that requires citizens to carry ID... Except when driving...

i have seen this a bunch, it is not as much of an abuse of power as people make it seem, cops did not go after dude UNTIL he had stood there and yelled at the for a while.

‎"I have never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn't make it worse."

---Brendan Behan

Last time I checked, being obnoxious isn't illegal. So how is it not an abuse of power when the police detain you when you haven't broken the law? You'll notice that nowhere in the video do the police tell the gentleman why he is being detained.

amen, bluefoxicy. in the words of joe strummer, 'know your rights!'

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-...what-do-if-you

I agree with this statement. By interrupting the officer and cyclist, he lined himself up for obstruction of justice. Once the officer has that on him, his not showing ID is disobeying a lawful request from an officer. If, however, the officer's request was illegal on some grounds then he'd have the right to not show his ID.

Seriously people, learn how the system works so you can avoid being run over by it.

How is it illegal to not show ID when there's no legal requirement to HAVE an ID?

I think it's illegal for you to not identify yourself, but that's not the same thing as producing an ID document. Also the officer can detain you until he can verify your identity if he has some reason why he needs to know who you are (even if it's just "something happened in the area and we want to know who was around at the time).