• 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

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I would argue that Brown V Texas... 443 U.S. 47,99 S.CT 2637 ( 1979)

The supremes ruled that one cannot be charged with a crime for failing to ID.

Regards
CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Those interested in this subject may be interested in the recent Ohio decision in McKee v. McCann, 2017-Ohio-4072 (8th Dist. June 1, 2017) (linked below), which holds that R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2017/2017-Ohio-4072.pdf
I'm thinking you might want to actually read R.C. 2921.29(A)
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) 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:

There is absolutely noting in 2921.29 requiring anyone to carry any sort of identification, nor to produce it. McKee was arrested because he refused to provide even verbal identification, see {¶1}. One will also note that Plaintiff was never charged with a violation of 2921.29 which officers had PC to do so as soon as he refused to provide any identification he was detained under 2921.29 (A) (1).
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Those interested in this subject may be interested in the recent Ohio decision in McKee v. McCann, 2017-Ohio-4072 (8th Dist. June 1, 2017) (linked below), which holds that R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2017/2017-Ohio-4072.pdf
As far as R.C. 2921.29 is concerned in regards to just giving your name as Hiibel determined, this case adds nothing.

As Fallschirmjäger points out, in a round about way, this is another example of Ohio's courts twisting the law and misquoting the law to fit their preconceived outcome.
R.C. 2921.29(A) imposes strict liability for failing to show identification, so Shamblin had a qualified immunity from suit for false arrest.
Yes, it is strict liability, but the statute does not require showing ID. All the statute requires is the disclosure of your name.... not produce a document.

What I don't understand is why the guy just didn't leave.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
As far as R.C. 2921.29 is concerned in regards to just giving your name as Hiibel determined, this case adds nothing.

As Fallschirmjäger points out, in a round about way, this is another example of Ohio's courts twisting the law and misquoting the law to fit their preconceived outcome.
Yes, it is strict liability, but the statute does not require showing ID. All the statute requires is the disclosure of your name.... not produce a document.

What I don't understand is why the guy just didn't leave.
+10000000
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I would also like to point out that just because the cops tell you that you're under arrest for something doesn't necessarily make it so. A police officer may use deception in an investigation so long as the deception doesn't result in coercion sufficient to make someone confess to a crime they didn't commit.
"You're under arrest for refusing to show me a piece of government issued paper" isn't going to coerce anyone into confessing that he refused to do so, especially when it's not a crime for not showing one. If a crime HAD been committed, then what incentive did the officers have for not making an arrest? It's not like they're not getting paid if they take him to jail.
 

member

Newbie
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
2
Location
Ohio
At least under one test, the threshold for arrest is when a reasonable person would understand himself or herself to be arrested. Although police are generally permitted to lie to suspects about a number of things, I think every court would hold that a reasonable person would think himself to be arrested when a police officer tells him or her that he or she is under arrest. At such point, the arrestee is not free to simply leave, and any attempt to do so, no matter how minute, would be a separate crime (fleeing/eluding, resisting). The upshot of all of this is that, no, police probably cannot lie about whether or not you are under arrest, and any person who would act under such a misimpression would do so on penalty of an additional charge, which could stick even if the base charge is disposed of by nolle prosequi or trial on the base charge results in an acquittal.

Is the requirement to produce identifying information triggered when police demand documentary identification rather than asking for the information listed in Ohio's statute? What about when the detainee attempts to give the required information (the police failure to ask for it notwithstanding), but is interrupted or told that he could be lying?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Arrest. - RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
Does Ohio have a similar statute?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"... An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer..."
That's the usual legal definition. IIRC there's a court case that was dependent upon a fleeing suspect NOT being arrested until he had submitted to an officer's "y'all under arrest, boy" when any reasonable person would take the verbal statement of the officer at face value.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
"... An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer..."
That's the usual legal definition. IIRC there's a court case that was dependent upon a fleeing suspect NOT being arrested until he had submitted to an officer's "y'all under arrest, boy" when any reasonable person would take the verbal statement of the officer at face value.

"Arrest" is ambiguous; "seized" is not.

4A law is about being "seized", which means any reasonable person believing they're not free to leave. Words don't even have to be exchanged, if multiple officers are surrounding someone.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
"Arrest" is ambiguous; "seized" is not.

4A law is about being "seized", which means any reasonable person believing they're not free to leave. Words don't even have to be exchanged, if multiple officers are surrounding someone.

+10000000
 
Top