• 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.

Virginia Requirement To Provide ID To Police?

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So have things changed over the past 8 years or is there still no requirement for ID and such.

Nemo
Resurrection of the undead thread. :p

Many of us carry sterile (no ID) when OCing on foot as there is no statutory requirement to "haf your paperz" in Virginia.

Note that OC in a vehicle is acceptable and storing in a glove compartment or console it not considered conceealed. - no cite provided.

When carrying concealed, a CHP gets introduced into the mix with a different set of rules.

Dan Hawes (user on OCDO) had an excellent reply as to what, when, and how but that post eludes me.
 
Last edited:

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
Resurrection of the undead thread. :p

Yes it is resurrected. But with 8 years since the last commentary on it, it is appropriate when who is out there is out there.

I looked this place all over for about all I could find on it. I found nothing related and updated regarding the Old Dominion. I will admit my google fu is on the low side of poor at best.

I was going to add the meme below initially but decided to not do so until and when someone used the R word. So I shall enjoy posting it up on myself!!!

Va_Nemo

8KW526y
 

Attachments

  • thread-necromancy.jpg
    thread-necromancy.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 87
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Resurrection of the undead thread. :p

Many of us carry sterile (no ID) when OCing on foot as there is no statutory requirement to "haf your paperz" in Virginia.

<snip>.

That's good advice for whatever activities you are doing....

Some cops have gone crazy with me when I don't respond to their "Show my your driver's license" demands when I am not traveling.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
Yes it is resurrected. But with 8 years since the last commentary on it, it is appropriate when who is out there is out there.

I looked this place all over for about all I could find on it. I found nothing related and updated regarding the Old Dominion. I will admit my google fu is on the low side of poor at best.

I was going to add the meme below initially but decided to not do so until and when someone used the R word. So I shall enjoy posting it up on myself!!!

Va_Nemo

try this stickied thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94098-Spread-Sheet-County-City-Ordinances-Stop-amp-ID-CHP-Reqs-Airguns-amp-Park-Bans
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
So have things changed over the past 8 years or is there still no requirement for ID and such.

Nemo

I know of nothing that has changed at the state level. The last I knew, there is no state law that requires you to even verbally identify yourself.

However, I have come across a few local ordinances--county and town--that require you to verbally identify yourself to a police officer if he has reasonable articulable suspicion. The penalties for refusing were pretty stiff--one was as a Class I misdemeanor--up to a year in jail and/or up to a $2500 fine.

So, if you are going to refuse to identify yourself verbally to a police officer, you had better be sure of not only the state law, but the local ordinances of the jurisdiction you're standing in at the time you refuse. And, how the devil a fella is going to know with total certainty whether the cop has genuine RAS is beyond me.

For myself, I will verbally identify. Here's why: my personal policy is to file a formal complaint for every contact with a police officer who seems to be investigating me.* So, he is going to learn my name anyway when the formal complaint lands. And, local county supervisor boards and city councils meet monthly; there is no way I can keep up with whether they pass a stop-and-identify ordinance month-by-month.



*That may seem radical, but here are my thoughts. First, I've seen plenty of incidents where cops screwed up even consensual encounters. So, odds are that even during a consensual encounter, the cop is going to hand me something complaint-worthy. Second, the last clause of the First Amendment guarantees your right and mine to petition for redress of grievances. What is a grievance? A complaint. The First Amendment guarantees your right and mine to file a formal complaint against a police officer while seeking redress of the situation. And, nowhere in the First Amendment is there a requirement that the cop violate established law. If it were true that you could only complain if the cop violated case law or statutory law, the government could just legislate your rights away and you could never complain. Thus, you can complain even if the cop's actions merely seem unfair to you. Your right to do so is guaranteed by the last clause of the First Amendment.

While we are on the subject of Petitions for Redress of Grievance, permit me to expand slightly. I have heard of a very few cases (2-3?) where a citizen was sued by a police officer for posting a rant on social media or ranting in a complaint to the police department. The first couple I heard about scared me a little. The last one jogged something for me. A woman posted a rant on social media. The cop she ranted against over a (traffic stop?) sued her for defamation. Did the ranter lie? Who knows? The relevant point is that, even if telling the truth, you would have legal fees to defend against the lawsuit, even if you win. It occurred to me that all the ranter had to do was print the exact same rant in a formal complaint titled "Petition for Redress of Grievance" and then post a copy of the formal complaint on social media, and she would have been bullet-proof. Same for any cops who decide to sue you as a counter-tactic for filing a formal complaint. Make it clear your complaint is an exercise of your First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.

Pointer: don't let it be assumed that what you want is for the cop to not do anymore whatever you are complaining about. It is a petition for redress of grievance. You have to expressly state the redress you are seeking: the cop gets retrained on some point of rights law, disciplined, fired, whatever. It is much clearer it is a petition for redress if you actually state the redress you are seeking.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I thought I'd been through this already. I know I wrote it all up somewhere. There are at least three separate questions presented. Easiest first:

If you're doing an activity for which a license (synonym: permit or permission, as opposed to a card certifying the fact) is required may require you to identify yourself to an appropriate officer - a cop can demand your operator's permit while you're operating a motor vehicle (including snoring in the back seat), and a DGIF cop can demand your fishing license while you're fishing. They may demand to see such ID if you're a CHP holder while you're actually carrying, or to decide whether to let you in a courthouse, or in any other situation in which it's your choice to display the ID or walk away.

If you're subject to a summons at the discretion of a cop, or where there's no possibility of jail time for the offense alleged, you must identify yourself to the cop (i.e., tell him your name and address) or be subject to arrest. Unless the offense involves one of the things covered by the paragraph above, no documentation is required.

At common law, a constable had the power to stop and detain a person about at night to ascertain his name, address, and business. By statute, a police officer in Virginia has "all the powers of a constable at common law", but a sheriff does not. But there is statutory authority for anyone to have to identify himself at all other than such things already discussed. Nor is there any authority for counties and towns to require any identification of any kind, and all such regulations are unlawful.

Recent U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions have clearly stated that in the absence of reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is being or has been committed and that the person detained is responsible or a material witness, there is no authority at all for any law enforcement officer to detain anyone, much less demand identification. If a cop stops you, you can ask, "am I free to leave", and if he says, "no", then demand to know why, before anything else happens. If you're not in custody, you can walk away.

Bottom line: there is no legal obligation to identify yourself as a general matter, and no one has the right to compel you to do so.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I thought I'd been through this already. I know I wrote it all up somewhere. There are at least three separate questions presented. of any kind, and all such regulations are unlawful.

Well, now that we're into it this deep. Might as well take it further for new readers or lurkers. This from a Aug. 2012 post I wrote:

Can You Correctly Guess Whether the Cop has RAS?

I am not a lawyer. You will want to verify the information that follows by research or consulting an attorney. If you use the information, you are assuming full responsibility.

RAS means reasonable articulable suspicion, sometimes called just reasonable suspicion. It is a legal term having to do with the threshold for when a cop is legally allowed to involuntarily detain someone while the cop investigates that person. See Terry v Ohio[SUP]1[/SUP]for the beginnings of RAS and the threshold of suspicion the cop needs to meet. Basically, a police officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed before he can temporarily detain that person involuntarily fo rfurther investigation, using reasonable force if necessary to control that person’s movement. The suspicion must be reasonable. It must be based on articulable facts, no hunches allowed. And, the cop can use his experience as a cop to inform his decision to detain someone; meaning, things that might not be suspicious to you and I might be suspicious to him since he deals with criminal behavior regularly.

From time to time you will read some version of, “If the cop doesn’t have RAS, he can’t detain you, and you can ignore him and walk off.” While true from a theoretical standpoint, there are a few problems for the OCer who would just walk away from a police detention after deciding the cops do not have the required RAS. If an OCer walks away from a cop who means to detain him, the consequences can be rough. He may be proned-out and handcuffed. Obstruction may be charged.

The trouble starts with who gets to decide legally whether the cop has RAS. The last paragraph of Terry v Ohio makes it clear that it is the courts who decide whether the cop had RAS. Meaning, it is decided after the detention is over. By the courts. Not the detainee during the detention.

There is another angle to RAS. The Terry court recognized that the circumstances observed by the cop that led him to detain someone will be different from the circusmstances giving rise to another detention. In the last paragraph of Terry, the court said each situation will have to be judged on its own set of circumstances as to whether genuine RAS existed. Since Terry was written, appellate courts have been churning out decisions as to whether this set of circumstances or that set of circumstances observed by a cop amounted to genuine RAS. There are numerous decisions at both the state and federal level.

And, those court decisions are only the ones that were appealed. Each trial judge gets to make his own determination if the question is raised during a pre-trial hearing. And, unless overturned on appeal, the trial judge’s decision about whether the cop had genuine RAS is the one that will count for the OCer who ends up in court.

Another problem for the OCer is that the cop is not required to inform the detainee ofhis RAS. I’ve never seen a court decision that requires the cop to inform the detainee of the circumstances that led the cop to be suspicious.[SUP]2[/SUP] A related problem is that cops are allowed to lie. Look up permissible deception. And, I know of no reason why a cop couldn’t tell an OCer only part of the RAS, not all of it, for example to see if the detainee will say something that is contradicted by something the cop already observed.

Thus, if an OCer wants to just up and walk away from a detention because he thinks the cop does not have RAS, the OCer has to correctly:


  • Remember whether his circumstances have been ruled as RAS or not RAS by an appeals court in his jurisdiction.
  • Guess how his trial judge will rule on the circumstances that made the cop suspicious of the OCer.
  • Guess whether the cop honestly told him all the circumstances behind the cop’s RAS.
  • Guess whether there is something in the cop’s experience with criminals that allows him to be suspicious of the OCer.


Sounds like a pretty tall order to me.

However, some might argue, “Well, what if the circumstances are all known to the OCer and are fairly straightforward?” For example, the OCer is walking his dog in a park where OC is legal, and cop on patrol notices the OCer and decides to pester the OCer a bit? The OCer can see all the same things the cop could see—guy walking his dog in a park where OC is legal during daylight. No big deal, right? But, what if there was a 911 call and radio dispatch about a man with a gun and a dog in a park? A 911 call that was just a little bit hysterical or ambiguous? Or, maybe contained some embellishment or exaggeration? Or, maybe the dispatcher misreports by honest mistake to the cop. (Its what the cop observes or is told by dispatch, not what the OCer thinks).

I’m not saying the situation can never occur where the OCer knows all the RAS during the detention, and can correctly figure out whether the circumstances are genuine RAS. I am saying the probability is rather low. Certainly, a lot less likely than might be thought by the guy who tells you, “If the cop doesn’t have RAS he can’t detain you and you can just walk away.”

And, with all that said, there may be law that prevents the OCer walking away, even if he guessed correctly. For example, in VA we have a court decision, Commonwealth vs Christian, that says in so many words that the right to resist a false arrest does not extend to an unlawful temporary investigative detention. So, in VA, even if the OCer gets it right and starts to walk away, if the cop grabs him, and the OCer fights back to free himself from an unlawful detention, he still gets charged and probably convicted for assaulting a police officer. Even though the detention was illegal (not based on genuine RAS)! Other states may have similar.

So, keep the foregoing in mind when somebody writes, “If the cop doesn’t have RAS, you can…”

Citizen 8/7/12



1. Terry v Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html

2. Recently a West VA appeals court decision was quoted on the forum that said a person could not be charged with obstruction for refusing to identify himself during a detention unless the cop informed him why the cop was demanding identity as part of his official duties. This implies that maybe in WV a cop does have to tell a person the RAS if the cop wants to be able to charge obstruction. If you are from WV and want to know more, see post #89 at this thread: http://ww.opencarry.org/forums/showt...-police/page4&
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I think someone missed the part about "ask whether you're free to leave". You don't need to know whether or why the cop thinks he has reasonable suspicion, all you need to know is whether you're free to leave. If the cop says, "no", and doesn't actually have reasonable suspicion, then he's subject to a civil suit for false arrest. "Arrest" by the way, is a Norman French word that simply means "stop" or by extension "detain". If you're not free to leave, then you're under arrest. There are three levels of legal arrest, but for our purposes all you need to know is that you are not required to identify yourself in Virginia. And no, it is not obstruction of justice to refuse to identify yourself, either. In order to be found guilty of obstruction, you have to have actively done something to obstruct the cop in the performance of his duty. The failure to do something is not the same as the doing of something. And, by the way, I am an attorney and questions like these are within the scope of my normal practice.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think someone missed the part about "ask whether you're free to leave". You don't need to know whether or why the cop thinks he has reasonable suspicion, all you need to know is whether you're free to leave.

The thread discussion is about whether one must provide identity to a cop. Functionally, the discussion is also then about stop-and-identify. Whether the cop has genuine reasonable suspicion (RAS) is the crux of the immediate discussion. My post handed out explanations about how one could not know for sure whether the cop had genuine RAS for a detention. The same applies to the case-law requirement* that a cop have genuine RAS before he can demand identity. Thus, the same RAS uncertainties about walking away from a detention also apply to refusing to identify.

*Brown vs Texas. The US Supreme Court said in so many words that a person could not be convicted for refusing to identify himself to police on just any old demand for identity by a cop. The court said, in so many words, that the cop must first have reasonable, articulable suspicion against the suspect before demanding identity, and the Texas statute under which Brown was initially convicted did not require the cop to have RAS.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think someone missed the part about "ask whether you're free to leave". You don't need to know whether or why the cop thinks he has reasonable suspicion, all you need to know is whether you're free to leave. If the cop says, "no", and doesn't actually have reasonable suspicion, then he's subject to a civil suit for false arrest. "Arrest" by the way, is a Norman French word that simply means "stop" or by extension "detain". If you're not free to leave, then you're under arrest. There are three levels of legal arrest, but for our purposes all you need to know is that you are not required to identify yourself in Virginia. And no, it is not obstruction of justice to refuse to identify yourself, either. In order to be found guilty of obstruction, you have to have actively done something to obstruct the cop in the performance of his duty. The failure to do something is not the same as the doing of something. And, by the way, I am an attorney and questions like these are within the scope of my normal practice.

This is absolutely not true.

I have personally read on MuniCode the (Stafford County? Spotsylvania County?) ordinance requiring a person to identify himself to an LEO. My knowledge on this was prompted by a story appearing in the press. One of the charges was refusing to identify. Prior to the story in the press, it had never occurred to me that a locality could have stop-and-identify ordinance. My hair stood on end; I checked the ordinance, which if I recall was also my first exploration into MuniCode.

Later, I came across another. Some locality in Norfolk, or Suffolk, or VA Beach--that end of the state.

Now, you as an attorney and constitutional scholar, may hold that the workings of state law may prevent a locality from validly enacting a local stop-and-identify ordinance; but, that only gets settled after arrest and legal fees. Thus, unless something has changed in the last few years with the General Assembly pre-empting or forbidding local ordinances on this point about which I am unaware, it is not "all [readers] need to know."
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Have been advised that User will be on vacation in WVA for the just over a week. He likely will not respond prior to his return.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Va Beach Stop and Identify law

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)
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Chesapeake Stop and Identify Law

Chesapeake Law: 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
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Norfolk Stop and Identify Laws

Sec. 29-73. - Loitering and prowling so as to threaten the safety of persons or property.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
(b)
Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object.
(c)
Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure, or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
(d)
A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(e)
Definitions:
(1)
The phrase "to loiter" means to stand idle, to loaf, to saunter, to delay, to linger, to lag behind, or to walk about aimlessly.
(2)
The phrase "to prowl" means to rove or wander about in a stealthy manner; to pace or to roam furtively.
(3)
The phrase "circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity" means circumstances where specific and articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant a finding that a breach of the peace is imminent or the public safety is threatened.
(Ord. No. 39,288, § 1, 8-18-98; Ord. No. 41,881, § 2, 6-14-05


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)
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Roanoke Stop and Identify Law

Sec. 23-2. - Refusal to identify self upon request of officer.
It shall be unlawful for any person, at a public place or place open to the public, to refuse to accurately identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable person that the public safety requires such identification
 
Top