509rifas
Regular Member
I've looked over everything I can regarding IDing yourself in MRSC and LEO Digest.
From what I understand as per Terry V Ohio (which I think may have been partially overruled at the federal level but not state) is that when detained, we do not have to show ID:
"[10] Arrest - Detention for Questioning - Refusal To Answer. A person's refusal to disclose his name, address, or other information cannot be the basis of an arrest."
"...a detainee's refusal to disclose his name, address, and other information cannot be the basis of an arrest. Although a person may be briefly detained on the basis of reasonable suspicion "while pertinent questions are directed to him . . . the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest . . ." TERRY v. OHIO, SUPRA at 34 (White, J., concurring). The arrest in the present case was partially based on just that justification condemned in TERRY."
CITE:
97 Wn.2d 92, 640 P.2d 1061
STATE v. WHITE
CAUSE NUMBER: 47543-1
FILE DATE: February 18, 1982
CASE TITLE: The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Allen
White, Respondent.
And also:
State v Williams in LEO Digest clarifies that "Words alone cannot constitute obstruction" Wn 2d 2011 WL 1834259 (2011)
So my question is:
WHEN ARE WE REQUIRED TO SHOW ID???
Is there case law that says we have to if under arrest? Is it a contempt of court issue?
All the case law I can find basically says we are not required to show ID... So when do we have to?
From what I understand as per Terry V Ohio (which I think may have been partially overruled at the federal level but not state) is that when detained, we do not have to show ID:
"[10] Arrest - Detention for Questioning - Refusal To Answer. A person's refusal to disclose his name, address, or other information cannot be the basis of an arrest."
"...a detainee's refusal to disclose his name, address, and other information cannot be the basis of an arrest. Although a person may be briefly detained on the basis of reasonable suspicion "while pertinent questions are directed to him . . . the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest . . ." TERRY v. OHIO, SUPRA at 34 (White, J., concurring). The arrest in the present case was partially based on just that justification condemned in TERRY."
CITE:
97 Wn.2d 92, 640 P.2d 1061
STATE v. WHITE
CAUSE NUMBER: 47543-1
FILE DATE: February 18, 1982
CASE TITLE: The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Allen
White, Respondent.
And also:
State v Williams in LEO Digest clarifies that "Words alone cannot constitute obstruction" Wn 2d 2011 WL 1834259 (2011)
So my question is:
WHEN ARE WE REQUIRED TO SHOW ID???
Is there case law that says we have to if under arrest? Is it a contempt of court issue?
All the case law I can find basically says we are not required to show ID... So when do we have to?