# Travel. You are permitted to travel in the U.S. to different cities and states without prior approval from any government agency. You are permitted to use pubic transportation, to have a driver’s license, and to rent a car, within federal and state law and within the business practices of transportation lines and car rental agencies. But remember that when you travel, even in the U.S., you must carry your alien identification and registration documents with you and present them to appropriate law enforcement officers upon request. (See "Domestic Travel" at: http://www.international.duke.edu/fa...l20030515.htm.) Citizens are not required to carry citizen identification documents

 

If you don't remember the statement you can also tell the police officer in a NICE CIVIL way, not being a dick, that he has the right to search your car for HIS protection only and nothing can be used against you from the discovery made durring his search for his safety. This infor comes frist had from two high ranking police officers.

 

And he was arrested.


So what you guys are telling me is that if and officer comes up to you, you have the right to act like this guy? You should read a little farther into your rights. Its called obstruction. You are required to cooperate if it will not incriminate yourself. This guy did nothing wrong, so why not show his I.D.?

 

obstruction? Of what an investigation? If the was told he was going to be charged with something THEN he could/should show his ID. You are not required to have ID on you.

Yes this guy did not do the right thing by acting the way he did but he was within this rights.

 

If an office just walks up asking for your ID, your correct. You don't have to show ID. This office didn't do that. He said that he was investigating a report of a women and man fighting. That changes everything. What, you just expect the cop to just say "Ok, sorry to bother you." and walk away. You have got to be kidding me.
This kind of shit is the reason that people who break the law have more rights then the victims.

 

No he does not you have to be CHARGED with something. He was not driving so ID is NOT required. He is free to question and detain you.

If you haven't been arrested, but a police officer wants to question you about a crime, what should you do? Here are some tips.

Refusing to answer a police officer's questions is not a crime. Of course, people often voluntarily assist the police by supplying information that might help the police make an arrest. But the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of silence." A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions. This means that unless a police officer has "probable cause" to make an arrest or a "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a "stop and frisk," a person approached by the police officer has the legal right to walk away. But the fact that there may be a legal right to walk away doesn't mean this is a wise move. This is because there is no real way to tell what information the officer is using as a basis for his or her actions. In fact, the officer may have information that gives him or her a valid legal basis to make an arrest or to conduct a "stop and frisk," even if the individual is, in truth, innocent of any wrongdoing. If that is the case, an officer may forcibly detain an innocent individual who starts to leave the scene of an interview.

Common sense and self-protection suggest that people who intend to walk away from a police officer make sure that the officer does not intend to arrest or detain them. A good question might be, "Officer, I'm in a hurry, and I'd prefer not to talk to you right now. You won't try to stop me from leaving, right?" If the officer replies that the person is not free to leave, the person should remain at the scene and leave the question of whether the detention is correct to the courts at a later time.

Even though, as a general rule, a person doesn't have to respond to a police officer's questions, this may not hold true if the officer suspects the person of loitering. Laws in effect in many states generally define loitering as "wandering about from place to place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety." Under these laws, if a police officer sees a person loitering, the officer can demand identification and an explanation of the person's activities. If the person fails to comply, the officer can arrest the person for loitering. Therefore, the refusal to answer questions is a problem only if the officer has also observed the person loitering.

Another situation where answers to police questions are usually required is when drivers are stopped for suspected traffic violations. Traffic offenses such as speeding and unsafe lane changes are generally classified as "infractions," for which drivers are given citations in lieu of arrest. However, an officer has the right to demand personal identification -- usually a driver's license and the vehicle registration. A driver's refusal to supply the information elevates the situation to a more serious offense, for which the driver usually can be arrested. The simple refusal to answer questions is not a crime, but the refusal to supply identification, combined with the suspected commission of a traffic offense, is.
Miranda Warnings and Pre-Arrest Questioning
People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn't yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the familiar "Miranda warning" that advises people of their constitutional right to not answer questions and to have an attorney present if they do decide to talk to police officers. In fact, the Miranda warning is required only if the person being questioned is in custody.
Deciding Whether to Answer Pre-Arrest Questions
Whether or not to respond to police questioning generally depends on the person's possible relationship to criminal activity, the person's views of his or her civic responsibilities, and the person's past experiences with the police. If, however, the questioning involves events that may result in criminal charges against the person being questioned, the almost universal advice of defense attorneys is to keep the old mouth tightly shut. Suspects all too frequently unwittingly reveal information that can later be used as evidence of their guilt. The right to not incriminate oneself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is especially powerful in this situation. A person who has reason to believe that he or she is a potential suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney.
The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").

In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule. In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant. In another case the Court ruled that an anonymous tip that a suspect might be armed was insufficient justification for the police to conduct stop and frisk, absent other facts demonstrating the reliability of the tip. (Florida v. J.L, No. 98-1993 (March 28, 2000).)

 

Dude, no1 is going to read that whole post,

There are definately points on both sides of this argument, but .. if it was me I would have showed that police officer my ID so things could go smoothly.

He was obstructing the investigation by not supplying some ID, the police officer was called out to a scene of where some crime was commited, and a party involved was asked to serve up some ID, he refused, he was thrown in the back of a police car ... I don't see the problem here.

 

Are you sure you typed that out correctly? It appears that you are saying that if you give the officer permission to search your car, as long as you specify that it is only for their saftey and that if they do find something they are not allowed to use it against you, then you are covering yourself from legal prosecution. That has to be the dumbest thing i've ever heard!



And i wish the cops that i've been pulled over by were as cordial as those guys. They did nothing wrong and in fact seemed to show more resraint then most.

 

Theshow50h, summed it up nicely. If you have nothing to hide just show your I.D. and you can be on your way. If you don't have I.D. give the officer your name and date of birth and again you will probabaly be on your way, that is unless you have commited a crime or have a warrant. Most officers get very suspicious of people who don't show I.D. because they think that the person is trying to hide their identity.

And Tampamax, I agree with you, tell a cop they can only check your car for their protection and good luck not getting charged with something if they find crack, pot, or whatever other crap people leave in their car

 

So your saying if he finds unregistered guns and narcotics your ok? If this is what your thinking your obviously mistaken.....