Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 14474236)

You are so off track.

First, cops can easily check your identification with just your verbal name and birth date. The in car computer can look it up, including address, arrest and warrants in just a few seconds.

You are only required to carry a drivers license if you are operating a MOTOR vehicle. NO ID card is required for riding a bicycle. Cops cannot legally confiscate your bicycle for not having an ID card on you.


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, that has a law that a citizen who has committed a traffic infraction 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 and you are also going to carry illegal drugs, weapons or other illegal items on you. 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.

Folks, if you are truly interested in the ID Card subject and confirming for yourself that a cyclist is only required to provide basic verbal identifying information if stopped by police, please read the Hiibel case. It is long and may be a little hard to follow, but it is worth while to understand your rights.

Originally Posted by Pain (Post 14474517)

Could'nt you get a State ID card separate from your drivers license so bicycle violations don't impact your insurance rate?

Originally Posted by Burton (Post 14474581)

"Hiibel was tried in the Justice Court of Union Township. The court agreed that Hiibel's refusal to identify himself as required by §171.123 "obstructed and delayed Dove as a public officer in attempting to discharge his duty" in violation of §199.280. App. 5. Hiibel was convicted and fined $250."

Originally Posted by mcrow (Post 14469540)

A traffic ticket isn't an arrest, however, in practically every state all adults are required by law to carry legal ID. In mos states you are breaking the law by not having ID, so when you get stopped by a Cop they can arrest you for not providing ID.

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 14469828)

As you said:
"However, in some states they can't arrest you for not IDing yourself but it gives them probably cause to arrest you so either way it ends the same if the cop wants it that way"

When did Americans become so willing to give up their rights? I'm truly astonished.

Originally Posted by Burton (Post 14474581)

While technically that may be true, being obliged to spend a ridiculous amount of time in court to try to protect those 'rights' seems like a really big waste of time to me. Is it socially unacceptable to co-operate with your local police force? Maybe you'd rather co-operate with your local street gangs - oooooops - they wouldn't be the least concerned about your 'rights'.

And lets not forget about this part of that case that you linked to:

"Hiibel was tried in the Justice Court of Union Township. The court agreed that Hiibel's refusal to identify himself as required by §171.123 "obstructed and delayed Dove as a public officer in attempting to discharge his duty" in violation of §199.280. App. 5. Hiibel was convicted and fined $250."


Nothing apparently changed that.

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 14481738)

What are you dribbling about? Hiibel refused to even verbally give the police his name or date of birth. That is the only thing the Supreme Court stated he did wrong. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Hiibel was not required to show a picture ID in the case, since he was not driving at the time.

As to your garbage about supporting cops or gangs, when cops fail to follow the law in performing their duties, then they have become the worst kind of gang.

Originally Posted by Burton (Post 14481812)

Actually the only thing he did wrong was refuse to co-operate with the authorities - you're just so caught up in the details of HOW he did that - it went over your head.

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 14482727)

Details of a Supreme Court ruling are not important to the case - is that what you are really claiming?

Or is this just an amateur attempt to ignore how wrong your prior post are?

Originally Posted by Burton (Post 14482755)

I'd take that personally except that I've noted that your posts in general indicate you seem to believe everyone is an idiot except you. Too bad. Based on the general responses I've seen you post - I personally have serious doubts about the state of your mental health.