• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Providing I.D. to police in Ohio

sindikitjay

New member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1
Location
Fremont,Oh
Hello everyone. I've been visiting this forum for a while now and have learned quite a bit. I have never opened carried before but do conceal carry. My brother is a police officer in a neighboring town and over the holidays we had a debate on if I were to open carry. He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business. I did some slight research on my own and found ORC 2921.29. I guess I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. From the looks of it I would not have to provide any information to a L.E.O. if I'm not committing a crime. Hopefully someone on this forum has run into this issue and can share their experiences. If anyone has anything to share I'd appreciate it.
 

Taclead

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
Hello everyone. I've been visiting this forum for a while now and have learned quite a bit. I have never opened carried before but do conceal carry. My brother is a police officer in a neighboring town and over the holidays we had a debate on if I were to open carry. He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business. I did some slight research on my own and found ORC 2921.29. I guess I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. From the looks of it I would not have to provide any information to a L.E.O. if I'm not committing a crime. Hopefully someone on this forum has run into this issue and can share their experiences. If anyone has anything to share I'd appreciate it.

You are correct. In Ohio, police must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed to demand I.D.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

As OC is legal, there is no basis for a crime.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
None of that, though, is a guarantee that an unlawful detention won't happen. I have twice been unlawfully detained merely for OC.

If you OC, you risk running into an ignorant cop like (I hate to say it, but it's true) your brother. Such events can be painful, profitable, or both.

Send your brother here, we will be happy to give him a few lessons in the law.

Oh, and never ask a cop what the law says. Many (if not most) do not know it, and they have little motivation to get it right. Don't even take our word for the law. Read the code and the court decisions for yourself. When you ask us for the law, use our answers as a starting point to educate yourself.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
You are correct. In Ohio, police must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed to demand I.D.

Not really. There is no Ohio statute that requires anyone csarry IOD, nor could there be per US S. Ct. opinion in Kolender v. Lawsen.

Ohio might have a statute complient with the Hiibel case which requires a person to state their name provided the police have reasonable articulable suspicion that crime is afoot (same standard to seize a person briefly for investigative purposes).

If you don;t carry ID, there is no way for the police to get it. i think that stating your name during police encoutners is a good idea for 2 reasons. 1. Makes you seem reasonable. 2. Provides a way for your name to get into police records so that you can successfully demand recods about your seizure under state open records laws and in subsequent litigation.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Mike, I am not seeing any way in which you are disagreeing with the post you quoted. Am I missing some subtlety?

Interesting take on providing your name--that raises a question: If I give them an alias, like eye95, and they put it in the record, does that mean I now have a right to those records?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
When any of us are carrying concealed we understand that we must inform an officer of our conceal carry status and also have identification on our persons and supply that identification if requested.

When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons. Knowing that the Ohio legislature passed ORC 2921.29.

Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also limited by Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. ORC §2921.29 is unconstitutional as written. ORC §2921.29(A) states in part “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:...” ORC §2921.29 goes well beyond the holding of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:
Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.

The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

ORC §2921.29 states “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth.” The term “or” in Websters dictionary is a conjunction introducing an alternative. Thus, in plain English ORC §2921.29 allows a person to give one of the three alternatives. But, what if an arresting officer charges an Accused with not supplying all three because the officer treated the term “or” as if it meant “and.” According to ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.) the officer is permitted to make such interpretation. The officer's interpretation, however, would be in direct violation of ORC §1.42 which states in part “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Accordingly, the application of term “and” in ORC §2921.29(A) would then be in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”, would be beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment and therefore, ORC §2921.29 would be unconstitutional.

If an Accused gave their name, but was arrested and jailed for not giving his address and date of birth, the arrest and jailing would be under the color of law and in violation of the Accused's constitutional right under the U.S. and Ohio Constitution.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is a "not...or." "Not...ors" in English are ambiguous, even though, in mathematics, through syntax, they can be rendered unambiguous.

The law, to me (and likely to the courts) says that refusal of any one of the three violates the law. The words, “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth," can be logically equated to, "no person shall refuse to disclose the person's name or shall refuse to disclose the person's address, or refuse to disclose the person's date of birth," or to, "no person shall refuse to disclose the person's name or shall refuse to disclose the person's address, or refuse to disclose the person's date of birth," making any one of the actions an offense. Of course for there to be a refusal, there must be a demand. You need only give what the officer lawfully demands.

Caveat: It is impossible to know for sure that an officer does not have RAS. It may be a lie, but if someone calls and says that you were handling the firearm while arguing loudly with someone, he may well have RAS. So, if you assume he does not, and refuse to identify yourself, you could be committing a crime. I'd consider asking the officer directly, recording his answer, of course: "When you demand that I identify myself, are your making that demand because you are detaining me under the conditions listed ORC §2921.29(A)? If you are, I will comply. If not, I am not required to do so," or something like that. If he refuses to answer, I'll have to assume, for my own legal safety, that the demand is lawful and will answer. However, he will have to answer for his actions too. Both sides of the conversation will have been recorded for posterity.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Mike, I am not seeing any way in which you are disagreeing with the post you quoted. Am I missing some subtlety?

Interesting take on providing your name--that raises a question: If I give them an alias, like eye95, and they put it in the record, does that mean I now have a right to those records?

Mike's just distinguishing an identity document from providing identity info verbally.

Kolender vs Lawson is a SCOTUS opinion where a California statute was shot down because it was too vague as to what counted as credible proof of identity, resulting in a cop having too much discretion to arrest a detainee for not supplying "credible proof". The thing for readers to watch out for is that at least one state worded their statute in a way that satisfies Kolender by specifying which identity documents are required to be supplied if the person has them on him at the time.

If you use an alias, you'll be right up there with Ron "Tater Salad" White. :)
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Legal definitions:

Alias - Term used to indicate another name by which a person is known. Short for “Alias dictus”; otherwise known as (a.k.a.). Being known by another name.

Alias dictus – A fictitious name assumed by a person is colloquially termed an “alias”.

Assume – To pretend.

Ohio Revised Code - 4513.361 Furnishing false information to officer issuing traffic ticket.
(A) No person shall knowingly present, display, or orally communicate a false name, social security number, or date of birth to a law enforcement officer who is in the process of issuing to the person a traffic ticket or complaint.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Notice the law says "false name" not "Alias".

Ohio Revised Code - 2941.03 Sufficiency of indictment or information.
An indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom:
(C) That the defendant is named, or, if his name cannot be discovered, that he is described by a fictitious name, with a statement that his true name is unknown to the jury or prosecuting attorney, but no name shall be stated in addition to one necessary to identify the accused;

Your screen name is an "Alias". If not intended to deceive it is not illegal. Hiding your identity is not illegal.

A maxim of law is you are who you say you are.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
He stated very plainly that he would at that point have the right to demand my i.d. and if I refused he could arrest me for obstruction of official business.
In Ohio, other than for SPECIFIED activities (driving, carrying CONCEALED, etc.) you don't have to HAVE ID.

If he wants to FALSELY arrest me for not having something I have no duty to have in the first place, I say go for it. He'd just better have some way to provide for his family first, because I will be suing him as an individual and NOT settling.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Oh, and never ask a cop what the law says. Many (if not most) do not know it, and they have little motivation to get it right.
Truer words were never spoken.

Just about EVERY time I've heard a cop expound on the "law" it was:

  • wrong
  • a lie
  • an outright attempt to extra-legally compel behavior through deception

Personal experience and observation tells me that you're more likely to find bigfoot eating a romanburger in Cleveland's Public Square at 12:00 noon than to find a cop who knows the law.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I just this morning listened to a retired police officer give absolutely bum information regarding open carry in Ohio. I gently corrected him (we are in a retail environment; no loud disputes here) and subtly gave the customer the URL for OCDO.

But the retired officer was bragging on jacking up an OCer in Huber Heights a few years ago and saying the OC was OK in the countryside, but cities could prohibit it. :banghead:

We provide a copy of the ORC to our customers, but they often ask us the law. I tell them what I know, but always, always, always say, "Don't take anyone's word--not even mine--for what the law says. Read the code and the relevant court decisions for yourself."

None of the guys can correctly explain carry in a car, no matter how many times I have quoted the law. :banghead:

Over time THAT will change. I won't make them get up to speed on the current law on that matter, since it is changing, but the day it changes, they will be required to correctly explain it or to defer to someone who can.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP i think that stating your name during police encoutners is a good idea for 2 reasons. 1. Makes you seem reasonable. 2. Provides a way for your name to get into police records so that you can successfully demand recods about your seizure under state open records laws and in subsequent litigation.

Just because it gives me an opportunity to mention my ideas for the consideration of newer readers;


I plan on giving the cops my identity info verbally when asked. Several reasons that can be taken additional to Mike's.

First, my policy is to write a formal complaint for all police investigative encounters about my gun. Even consensual investigative encounters. Such an investigative encounter, even a consensual encounter, says the officer thinks exercising an enumerated human right is somehow suspicious or worthy of investigation. This is intolerable.

Also, cops seem to have a real knack for screwing up even consensual encounters. Its a good bet that I will have more than the gun suspicion to include in my formal complaint.

So, since the cop is gonna learn my name anyway when the formal written complaint arrives, I don't particularly mind giving it to him during the encounter.

And, in my state, although we do not have a state stop-and-identify statute, we do have some localities with stop-and-identify ordinances. I pass through a number of different local jurisdictions frequently and just can't keep up with whether each of them has a stop-and-identify ordinance. And, even if I did know which didn't have such ordinance, the ordinances can change pretty quick with a board of supervisors or council meeting. It would require a good memory and research twice a month to keep up to date on it.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
....And, in my state, although we do not have a state stop-and-identify statute, we do have some localities with stop-and-identify ordinances......
And Hiibel only requires your name and only if RAS exists. Anything more would violate the Supreme law of the land.
 
Last edited:

Ohio Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
346
Location
Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
And Hiibel only requires your name and only if RAS exists. Anything more would violate the Supreme law of the land.
I understand your opinion is that name OR address OR date of birth is required if asked. I also understand that others have argued that all three are required. Furthermore, there has not been a "test case" if I understand correctly.

Call me a sell out, but to be safe, I will provide all three if asked.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I understand your opinion is that name OR address OR date of birth is required if asked. I also understand that others have argued that all three are required. Furthermore, there has not been a "test case" if I understand correctly.

Call me a sell out, but to be safe, I will provide all three if asked.

I'm only resiting the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. They're the ones that said name only, not me.

I have no say in what you choose to do or not do. You are free to drop your drawers and bend over for the officer if that makes you happy of makes him happy.


By the way, that argument was made in court. The person was acquitted of not violating ORC 2921.29 when he only gave his name. The state chose not to appeal.
 
Last edited:

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
I'm only resiting the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. They're the ones that said name only, not me.

I have no say in what you choose to do or not do. You are free to drop your drawers and bend over for the officer if that makes you happy of makes him happy.


By the way, that argument was made in court. The person was acquitted of not violating ORC 2921.29 when he only gave his name. The state chose not to appeal.

You should also realize that Hiibel limited its analysis to the Nevada statute which required only a name. It did not set an upper limit on the information which could be demanded, so long as the person was not required to produce identification documents or other information which would be covered under the vague requirement of "credible and reliable" identification (Kolender). Note that no Ohio court has found unconstitutional the three types of information required under R.C. 2921.29(A). In fact, given the commonality of some names, a court could easily uphold a requirement of name and date of birth under the Fourth Amendment, but if the offense reasonably suspected was underage consumption of alcohol, that court might then need to consider the Fifth Amendment question which the court declined to address in Hiibel.
 
Last edited:

jimcavoli

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
1
Location
Hudson, Ohio
but if the offense reasonably suspected was underage consumption of alcohol, that court might then need to consider the Fifth Amendment question which the court declined to address in Hiibel.

For Ohio at least, ORC 2921.29(D) makes a clear exception for exactly that case:
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

Which is exactly why you need to ask under suspicion of what crime you're being investigated, since it determines what you must provide. This isn't to say you won't be arrested, charged, or humiliated/abused in the process by a frustrated bully LEO if you're unlucky, but it does mean that you won't be punished by the courts as their failure to establish that premise to you, properly argued, creates a very large amount of "fruit of poison tree" which then covers almost the entire encounter, essentially making the case a charge based on the greetings you exchanged, which no one will try.
 
Top