mightymoose
Moderator
Hypothetical scenario:
A police officer makes a traffic stop for a common traffic violation. The driver provides the officer with a driver's license, insurance card, and vehicle registration. The officer, as a matter of habit, asks the driver his name and birthdate, even though he is already holding the ID. The officer, through his many years of training and experience, knows that ID cards are easy to fake, difficult to detect, and he does not accept their validity at face value, even though there does not appear to be any discrepancy with this particular ID. The officer wants the driver to verbally confirm the information on the ID card. The driver, for whatever reason, refuses to speak with the officer despite the officer's many polite attempts to verify the information. The officer proceeds to arrest the driver for refusing to identify himself, which he beilieves is obstructing/delaying an officer, and takes the driver to jail for fingerprinting and identification.
I already know this is bogus, and a very bad arrest. I am curious for some input regarding case law other than Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Humboldt County, if there is anything relevant. This is not quite the same as most "stop and identify" statutes that I am aware of- and I suspect this answer would apply to all states absent a specific state statute that says otherwise.
What this boils down to is whether the driver has any responsibility to provide a verbal answer regarding his identity when a valid state issued ID has already been presented. Certainly the situation is different when an ID is not presented, or is presented and there is reasonable suspicion to believe it is false.
Terry explains that the scope of questioning must be reasonably related to the reason for the contact, so this scenario already is off base at that point.
Hiibel explains the right of the officer under certain circumstances to obtain identification.
Nothing I have found really addresses whether or not an officer can reject a state issued ID as valid identification (absent some reasonable suspicion it is false) and insist upon a verbal response. Of course, the argument being made is that the 5th Amendment doesn't protect non-incriminating questions regarding ID and the driver is obligated to respond.
The bottom line is, what right does an officer have to choose what he accepts as valid identification?
A police officer makes a traffic stop for a common traffic violation. The driver provides the officer with a driver's license, insurance card, and vehicle registration. The officer, as a matter of habit, asks the driver his name and birthdate, even though he is already holding the ID. The officer, through his many years of training and experience, knows that ID cards are easy to fake, difficult to detect, and he does not accept their validity at face value, even though there does not appear to be any discrepancy with this particular ID. The officer wants the driver to verbally confirm the information on the ID card. The driver, for whatever reason, refuses to speak with the officer despite the officer's many polite attempts to verify the information. The officer proceeds to arrest the driver for refusing to identify himself, which he beilieves is obstructing/delaying an officer, and takes the driver to jail for fingerprinting and identification.
I already know this is bogus, and a very bad arrest. I am curious for some input regarding case law other than Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Humboldt County, if there is anything relevant. This is not quite the same as most "stop and identify" statutes that I am aware of- and I suspect this answer would apply to all states absent a specific state statute that says otherwise.
What this boils down to is whether the driver has any responsibility to provide a verbal answer regarding his identity when a valid state issued ID has already been presented. Certainly the situation is different when an ID is not presented, or is presented and there is reasonable suspicion to believe it is false.
Terry explains that the scope of questioning must be reasonably related to the reason for the contact, so this scenario already is off base at that point.
Hiibel explains the right of the officer under certain circumstances to obtain identification.
Nothing I have found really addresses whether or not an officer can reject a state issued ID as valid identification (absent some reasonable suspicion it is false) and insist upon a verbal response. Of course, the argument being made is that the 5th Amendment doesn't protect non-incriminating questions regarding ID and the driver is obligated to respond.
The bottom line is, what right does an officer have to choose what he accepts as valid identification?