does arizona have stand identify law ?

[Ca Patriot]

i need to know

 

[March Hare]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

-MH

 

[FreeInAZ]

i need to know

Well hello, Welcome, Nice to meet you too! Now tell me everything about CA law ASAP!

Just kidding -

Okay I am not a expert but the answer(s) is NO & yes.

AZ is not a stand and identify state, however if you look like you may have come from another country south of the boarder it is possible that you may be asked to identify yourself http://www.phoenix.gov/police/faq1070_english.html


Snip:

Q: When can police ask me for identification?
A: Arizona law requires a person to provide his/her true full name to a police officer if a person is lawfully detained for a crime. A person is also required to carry identification while operating a motor vehicle. This was required prior to SB1070. The new laws have not changed the current requirements for people to carry identification when operating a motor vehicle or truthfully identify themselves when detained.
Although not always required, it is always a good idea to carry some form of identification for emergency purposes.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Sorry I should have been more clear.

I was having a debate with a friend over the new law that Arizona passed and also any laws before SB1070 as far as identifying yourself to law enforcement.

I guess I just wanted a basic overview of the states identification laws and how things have played out since the new law was passed.

She is an ultra liberal and claims all brown looking people are being detained and forced to show ID.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Sorry I should have been more clear.

I was having a debate with a friend over the new law that Arizona passed and also any laws before SB1070 as far as identifying yourself to law enforcement.

I guess I just wanted a basic overview of the states identification laws and how things have played out since the new law was passed.

She is an ultra liberal and claims all brown looking people are being detained and forced to show ID.

Hey send her the link above, it should clear it up for her. I'd say you won this debate.

 

[The Trickster]

Unless law enforcement has probable cause to detain you via reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that you have committed a crime, am comitting a crime, or will commit a crime, then no, they cannot force you to identify yourself. I would imagine that most cops in Arizona are familar enough with OC to know that it is perfectly legal and therefore does not give them any RAS to investigate you. However, keep in mind that a cop could always ASK you for identification, but again, they would be asking and not demanding, which means that you do not have to comply. To date, I have never heard any credible accounts of someone getting harassed by law enforcement in Arizona for OCing. Not to say that it hasn't happened, of course.

Where the issue gets murky in my opinion is determining how far is a person willing to take it. In the end, even if a cop does not have RAS, he/she could always just make it up. I believe and would hope that the overwhelming majority of LEOs out there would have enough integrity not to do so, but every orchard has a few rotten apples.

I'm not a lawyer, FYI, so take my words for what they're worth.

 

[MKEgal]

Yes, AZ has a famous stop & identify law, but...

Wasn't Hiibel in AZ? (Answered my own question - no. Thanks for that correction. It's a DUH! moment.)
Here's part of the Nevada Supreme Court's published opinion:

A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

a Terry stop must be justified at its inception and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop.

I think this last part is effed up beyond all belief:

While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

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.

It requires that the officer have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.

To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and … reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ”
United States v. Sharpe

“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”
Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985)

In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a “nonthreatening character,” among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop “is not obliged to respond” to questions.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984)

More places to read about Hiibl:
http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hiivsix
SCOTUS agreed with the AZ Supremes. :uhoh:

The lasting significance of the Hiibel opinion wll be to alter the direction of the law of Terry stops. A long line of concurring opinions and dicta had indicated that, while police officers were entitled to detain and question individuals during a Terry stop, the individuals were not obligated to answer those questions, including identification. Whatever influence that dicta once held is now vanished...

A little different slant: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'.
Dudley asked a simple question: why?
"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.
"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.
"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.

The deputy was responding to a (false) report of battery. A passer-by claimed to have seen Dudley hit his daughter Mimi. In reality, she hit him. She pulled over & let him out of the truck when he said to. They were talking when Dove arrived.
He didn't check to see if she was OK, or ascertain IF any assault had happened.
He just went right to the man standing outside the truck (not the girl sitting in the driver's seat) & demanded his ID.
In fact, nobody asked the girl anything until she had been thrown to the ground by another LEO & handcuffed.
There's a link toward the bottom of that page to "the rest of the story", and that next page links to video of the "incident".
Love the picture of the deputy. Reminds me of the song "Walk Like an Egyptian".

On a different note, the WI Supremes decided that not providing a name is not justification for being arrested for obstruction.

 

[FreeInAZ]

It's official:

MKEgal now has the longest forum post in the WORLD!

Nicely done Krysta.

 

[JoeSparky]

Sorry, MKEgal but Hibel was in NEVADA not Arizona.... but this doesn't change the analysis!

 

[Phoenix David]

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

So only your name is required, this doesn't take into account while driving a motor vehicle you have to have a license in your possession and surrender it upon request.

This is more along the lines if you walking

 

[MKEgal]

13-2412.Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

So we have to rely on the cop's word, & his/her knowledge of the laws, to tell us we've been lawfully detained & are required to give up our 4A & 5A rights?
Anyone else see something wrong with this, knowing the problems so many officers have with knowing laws which pertain to LACs? (I'm not even going to get into the bald-faced lies.)

(And hey, that post is nowhere near the longest single post I've seen on OCDO.)

 

[Get2DahChopper]

I think he was just kidding with you MKEgal. It appeared to be a tounge and cheek post to me.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Now tell me everything about CA law ASAP!

YES SIR! Guess some people have no googlese ...