I have developed My OWN Response to a LEO, hopefully I'll never need to repeat it, but IF I do, I'll let you know the outcome.... AFTER I Get BAILED OUT :exclaim::question: :shocker: :exclaim::question:
"Excuse me Sir, but what am I being charged for that requires any inquiry necessary of an ID ? Unless I am being Officially Detained, may I Please leave now ? Thank You Sir & Have A Nice Day."
Police have a proven track record of dodging questions. I am not a lawyer, but I should think declaring your refused consent/unwillingness to have an encounter is a more positive and unmistakeable method of conveying your desire to be left alone. Or, you could just say, "No offense officer, but I want to be released right now." If you ask, "May I please leave?" the cop can just ask another question, probably a typical cop question, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you object to talking to us?"
Also, I've read perhaps dozens of 4th Amendment court cases and summaries. I've never come across one that required the cop to disclose his suspicion or the circumstances that gave rise to his suspicion.
This is the difference between knowing the law, and knowing how to apply it. You gotta watch out for the pitfalls.
Basically, when a cop demands identity, you will have no way to know for sure whether he has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). And, even if he does mention some sort of suspicion circumstances, how are you going to know whether the courts in your jurisdiction will later agree that those circumstances were enough for RAS. Then there is the whole question of whether your jurisdiction has a statute or local ordinance compelling you to identify yourself to a cop. And, whether your courts have ruled that refusing to identify amounts to obstruction of a police officer.
In short,
he has to have RAS before making an identity demand, but I've never seen anything that said y
ou are entitled to know the RAS and make your own determination
during the encounter itself.
I live in an area where there a numerous local jurisdictions. I cannot keep up with the ordinances of all of them, much less the changes that arise from monthly council meetings for each jurisdiction--meaning even if I learned all their ordinances about identifying to a cop, I can't possibly keep up with whether they added a new one when I wasn't looking. So, for myself, to play it safe, if a cop demands identity, I will give it to him while refusing consent. Then I'm covered against a citation in case the particular locality made a stop-and-identify ordinance when I wasn't looking. And, if I later find out he didn't have RAS, I've got another point for my internal affairs complaint or lawsuit.