Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
-
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.
-
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.
Virginia Requirement To Provide ID To Police?
- Thread starter -C4-
- Start date
imported post
Of course, anyone stopped for speeding or suspicion of drunk driving who has passengers may also have accomplices. For example, encouraging someone to run a yellow light that results in a red light violation is technically conspiracy. Encouraging someone to hurry up is potentially consiracy if the driver exceeds the speed limit. And we all know that friends don't let friends drive drunk.
So being a passenger in a car where the driver is apparently breaking the law makes you a suspect in a conspiracy case. As a suspect, you can be seized, searched, and disarmed. They might even take your gun, your bullets, and your gun permit away forever. Being a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder involves a lot of responsibility. It's about rules, rules, rules.
It's not justabout carrying a gun because your ex-wife is completely crazy and violent. She'll be coming at you with a pair of those Laura Croft guns and you'll have nothing but a slingshot because you were a passenger in a car wheresomeone ran a red light. Lot of responsibility, that gun ownership.
:dude:
Of course, anyone stopped for speeding or suspicion of drunk driving who has passengers may also have accomplices. For example, encouraging someone to run a yellow light that results in a red light violation is technically conspiracy. Encouraging someone to hurry up is potentially consiracy if the driver exceeds the speed limit. And we all know that friends don't let friends drive drunk.
So being a passenger in a car where the driver is apparently breaking the law makes you a suspect in a conspiracy case. As a suspect, you can be seized, searched, and disarmed. They might even take your gun, your bullets, and your gun permit away forever. Being a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder involves a lot of responsibility. It's about rules, rules, rules.
It's not justabout carrying a gun because your ex-wife is completely crazy and violent. She'll be coming at you with a pair of those Laura Croft guns and you'll have nothing but a slingshot because you were a passenger in a car wheresomeone ran a red light. Lot of responsibility, that gun ownership.
:dude:
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
While that may be true, none of the other threads include some of the cases that LEO229 has recently posted (to my recollection). It's these cases that re-peaked my interest in the topic.
vtme_grad98
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
That's not technically correct. You can be charged with it. It just wouldn't hold up in court if your lawyer is even remotely competent. When many of us were in the Norfolk City Council meeting last August because of what happened to Chet, a woman was there complaining about how her son was arrested for obstruction of justice because, after already producing his drivers license, he wouldn't also tell the officer his social security number. To make it worse, the police didn't even have any reasonable suspicion that he had broken any law before they approached him.
It may not be right to charge someone for not producing an ID. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen frequently to people who don't know that it's wrong.
LEO 229 wrote:
That's not technically correct. You can be charged with it. It just wouldn't hold up in court if your lawyer is even remotely competent. When many of us were in the Norfolk City Council meeting last August because of what happened to Chet, a woman was there complaining about how her son was arrested for obstruction of justice because, after already producing his drivers license, he wouldn't also tell the officer his social security number. To make it worse, the police didn't even have any reasonable suspicion that he had broken any law before they approached him.
It may not be right to charge someone for not producing an ID. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen frequently to people who don't know that it's wrong.
imported post
vtme_grad98 wrote:
While the majority of police officers treat the job as just what it is, and behave responsibly, there are still enough JBT's that feel they can throw their weight around no matter what.
We can sue for relief but most don't.
A good point to remember from the 60's and 70's is that you may likely be charged with a nonexistent or unenforceable crime and sue for relief later.
I'm sure Nitrovic will jump in with his copbashing rant now.
vtme_grad98 wrote:
An excellent point. This happens quite often even though the officer does know better.
While the majority of police officers treat the job as just what it is, and behave responsibly, there are still enough JBT's that feel they can throw their weight around no matter what.
We can sue for relief but most don't.
A good point to remember from the 60's and 70's is that you may likely be charged with a nonexistent or unenforceable crime and sue for relief later.
I'm sure Nitrovic will jump in with his copbashing rant now.
imported post
vtme_grad98 wrote:
Obviously... no matter what rules are in place.... "man" can do what he wants... but it may not be allowed.
vtme_grad98 wrote:
Well, just like you cannot murder people. When I say you "cannot"... it simply means you are not supposed to.
Obviously... no matter what rules are in place.... "man" can do what he wants... but it may not be allowed.
imported post
peter nap wrote:
peter nap wrote:
I actually agree to a point. And no, it doesn't happen "quite often". How long have you been a cop and how many times have you charged that code section? You are speaking as if you know that police charging obstruction without any basis happens "quite often". It's not cop bashing on your part, just ignorance. The truth of the matter is the officer should not charge the Obstruction code in the instance given (a murder suspect stopped by description only), however, that person is under investigative detention.vtme_grad98 wrote:An excellent point. This happens quite often even though the officer does know better.
While the majority of police officers treat the job as just what it is, and behave responsibly, there are still enough JBT's that feel they can throw their weight around no matter what.
We can sue for relief but most don't.
A good point to remember from the 60's and 70's is that you may likely be charged with a nonexistent or unenforceable crime and sue for relief later.
I'm sure Nitrovic will jump in with his copbashing rant now.
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
But in reading it... the charge did not fit. But the guy giving the class advised that in his neck of the woods it was golden.
Well, Now it appears that it is not.
I have never tried nor did I consider using the charge for people not providing their ID. I would love a stop and ID law as this would help me in my job identify peopleI know are criminals but I have nothing on them. (No need to bash me for my opinion)
But till then.... you get to walk unless I have something to hold you for.
nitrovic wrote:
I recall getting training by someone from down near Norfolk and he had mentioned charging for Obstruction.
But in reading it... the charge did not fit. But the guy giving the class advised that in his neck of the woods it was golden.
Well, Now it appears that it is not.
I have never tried nor did I consider using the charge for people not providing their ID. I would love a stop and ID law as this would help me in my job identify peopleI know are criminals but I have nothing on them. (No need to bash me for my opinion)
But till then.... you get to walk unless I have something to hold you for.
imported post
peter nap wrote:
http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=Peter &last=Nap
peter nap wrote:
Your butt's gonna be the first to go after the election!
http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=Peter &last=Nap
JosephMingle
Regular Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
peter nap wrote:
Thanks, I appreciated the laugh.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Attention all Activists:
There are some localities in Va that have stop and identify laws.
Don't assume that because there isn't a state wide law that there are not some localities that require you to identify yourself. Municode is a great place to research stop and identify and other local laws. This is what I found in 10 minutes:
Norfolk:
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a)Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b)A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10121&sid=46
Virginia Beach:
Sec. 23-7.1. Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
(Ord. No. 1570, 12-16-85)
Virginia Beach Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10122&sid=46
Chesapeake:
Sec. 46-209. Providing identification to law enforcement officers.
It shall be unlawful and a class 1 misdemeanor for any person to refuse to identify himself by name at the request of a law enforcement officer, or to provide false information in response to such request, if the surrounding circumstances are such that the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
(Ord. No. 98-O-020, 2-10-98; Ord. No. 04-O-133, 9-14-04)
Editor's note: Prior to its reenactment by Ord. No. 98-O-020, § 46-209 had been repealed by Ord. No. 94-O-075, adopted May 17, 1994. The former § 46-209 had pertained to obstructing justice by threats or force and derived from an ordinance adopted March 5, 1963; Code 1970, § 17-41; an ordinance adopted Nov. 11, 1975; and an ordinance adopted Nov. 15, 1997.
Chesapeake Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10529&sid=46
LEO 229 wrote:
nitrovic wrote:I recall getting training by someone from down near Norfolk and he had mentioned charging for Obstruction.
But in reading it... the charge did not fit. But the guy giving the class advised that in his neck of the woods it was golden.
Well, Now it appears that it is not.
I have never tried nor did I consider using the charge for people not providing their ID. I would love a stop and ID law as this would help me in my job identify peopleI know are criminals but I have nothing on them. (No need to bash me for my opinion)
But till then.... you get to walk unless I have something to hold you for.
Attention all Activists:
There are some localities in Va that have stop and identify laws.
Don't assume that because there isn't a state wide law that there are not some localities that require you to identify yourself. Municode is a great place to research stop and identify and other local laws. This is what I found in 10 minutes:
Norfolk:
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a)Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b)A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10121&sid=46
Virginia Beach:
Sec. 23-7.1. Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
(Ord. No. 1570, 12-16-85)
Virginia Beach Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10122&sid=46
Chesapeake:
Sec. 46-209. Providing identification to law enforcement officers.
It shall be unlawful and a class 1 misdemeanor for any person to refuse to identify himself by name at the request of a law enforcement officer, or to provide false information in response to such request, if the surrounding circumstances are such that the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
(Ord. No. 98-O-020, 2-10-98; Ord. No. 04-O-133, 9-14-04)
Editor's note: Prior to its reenactment by Ord. No. 98-O-020, § 46-209 had been repealed by Ord. No. 94-O-075, adopted May 17, 1994. The former § 46-209 had pertained to obstructing justice by threats or force and derived from an ordinance adopted March 5, 1963; Code 1970, § 17-41; an ordinance adopted Nov. 11, 1975; and an ordinance adopted Nov. 15, 1997.
Chesapeake Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10529&sid=46
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
imported post
To me the whole thing is best handled like this
LEO : May I see your ID please ?
Joe citizen: I'm I being detained, and if so under what reasonable articulately suspicion ?
There is no getting around that for a cop, they either have RAS or they don't. Trying to fudge RAS gets pretty risky for the street cop.
If you are being detained immediately ask for the officers business card and that a supervisor be called to the scene. If they refuse call 911 and demand it ( if you believe you are being detained illegally).
Cut law enforcement zero slake in this area, it's basic human rights that must be protected.
To me the whole thing is best handled like this
LEO : May I see your ID please ?
Joe citizen: I'm I being detained, and if so under what reasonable articulately suspicion ?
There is no getting around that for a cop, they either have RAS or they don't. Trying to fudge RAS gets pretty risky for the street cop.
If you are being detained immediately ask for the officers business card and that a supervisor be called to the scene. If they refuse call 911 and demand it ( if you believe you are being detained illegally).
Cut law enforcement zero slake in this area, it's basic human rights that must be protected.
taurusfan
Regular Member
imported post
no carry permit ? wrote:
If you said that I think they would probably respond, "what?"
How about this...
Leo: "I see you have a concealed weapons permit, are you armed?"
Citizen: "I have no duty to inform under Virginia law."
I was stopped by a Henrico cop once and issued a warning for making a u-turn where a sign prohibited it (was late at night and no one around).
Thinking he might know about my permit I volunteered to say I was not armed I will never do that again.
no carry permit ? wrote:
If you said that I think they would probably respond, "what?"
How about this...
Leo: "I see you have a concealed weapons permit, are you armed?"
Citizen: "I have no duty to inform under Virginia law."
I was stopped by a Henrico cop once and issued a warning for making a u-turn where a sign prohibited it (was late at night and no one around).
Thinking he might know about my permit I volunteered to say I was not armed I will never do that again.
imported post
glockfan wrote:
glockfan wrote:
You can say whatever you want, but you may not like the response you get. Why not just advise the officer if you are armed or not? I think your response to being stopped was appropriate. I agree with questioning the detention aspect of a stop, I just don't get the ""I have no duty to inform under Virginia law" response.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
I don't get why the officer would ask, what would he do differently if the permit holder was armed, or wasn't, or lied about it?
I don't get why the officer would ask, what would he do differently if the permit holder was armed, or wasn't, or lied about it?
taurusfan
Regular Member
imported post
I'm not going to volunteer anything again, and I'm not going to create any tension, either.
:lol:
I'm not going to volunteer anything again, and I'm not going to create any tension, either.
:lol:
imported post
longwatch wrote:
longwatch wrote:
I've actually never got that either. I've observed that while backing other officers on traffic stops. It pops up on the computer (MDT) that the citizen has a CC permit and the officer's first question is,"sir, do you have your weapon on you"? Unless that CC citizen was a suspect in a brandishing or other weapons related offense, why would it matter?
Taclead
Regular Member
imported post
Post Deleted
Post Deleted