This isn’t exactly correct. being detained and being under arrest are 2 different things. Which is why I posted to ask both. One can be detained without being under arrest. And when one is under arrest one is under arrest, not just detained.
In the UK a police officer has the right to stop and search: "A police officer has powers to stop you at any time and ask you: what you’re doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going
However, you don’t have to answer any questions the police officer asks you. (In practice not answering is provocative)
Stop and search: police powers
A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying: illegal drugs, a weapon,stolen property or something which could be used to commit a crime, eg a crowbar. They do not have to be in uniform, and 'reasonable grounds, is a matter for them.
A car driver is in the same position and does not have to prove his identity or carry a driving licence. However, if the police think that a driver is not who he says he is, he may have to go to a police station until the matter of identity is resolved.
An individual who is ‘asked’ to go with a PC can refuse and there is not a lot the police can do apart from arrest them. As in the US, the clock starts ticking at the time of an arrest so they don’t like doing it if they can avoid it.
And therein lies the crux. You have only as many rights as you (and your family) can afford to pay the cost of enforcing. The police are always right, unless you can afford to prove them wrong.
United States. East Coast
In the real world, if a cop asks you for ID, even though he has no legal right to do so, refusing to show an ID will most likely result in your arrest. You must identify yourself, but by law you are not required to carry papers. This will not matter.
The real reason for the arrest will be a made up charge. It will probably end when the officer does not show up for court. You still will have been arrested, spent time in jail, and be required to post a bond, or at the very least show up for a court date.
Unless of course you are a well off white person, and you quickly identify yourself by name, birth date, social and address, which the LEO can quickly verify. Your picture will actually show up on their computer now.
But refusing to comply in the US can end very badly, and very quickly.
It’s not street lawyering to answer the police officers question and excuse yourself from the scene if you can do so without coming off as an ass. It really depends on why he is stopping and asking you for your identity. Maybe he needs to know if you witnessed something. Maybe someone pointed you out as a suspect in something. Maybe he wanted to thank you for being a good citizen. The key is not to be an asshole to a cop if he stops and talks to you. Same rule applies to anyone who stops and ask you something.
Don’t be an asshole works pretty well everywhere.
I understand they are different, but for the purpose of the line of questioning, my point is the difference is of no consequence. I think we may be talking past each other. When you ask if you are being detained, the answer will be yes if you are either under arrest or simply detained because when you are under arrest that is also a form of detention. There is no difference from the perspective of the person doing the asking because the result will be the same regardless of whether you are under arrest or just being detained.
It wouldn’t make sense for a person to ask, “Am I being detained” and the officer answers, “No. But you are under arrest!”
Since this is GQ I’ll just go with the old standby. Cite? The classics are always the best.
COMPLETELY legal.
Amigo said he gave him his name, so how can the officer take him in for not doing so?
A DEMAND can only be made under the Hiibel case. Now, a request can seem/appear to be a demand, at times there is a fine line in language to consider whether it is a seizure or consensual encounter.
The thing to say is “Am I under investigation per the Hiibel case”? If the answer is NO, then it is definitive, you do NOT have to show ID.
Agreed. The gravamen of a citizen consensual encounter with police is that the citizen is free to disregard the police inquiry and go about his business.
Depends on how dark your skin is according to the subjects of King Mayor Bloomberg. This is an area of law that used to be clear, but the stop and frisk policies of New York and cities following it seem to be successfully undermining that.
“Show me some ID”.
“Of course, officer, if you want to follow me home then wait outside while I fetch some for you.”
Not denying I have ID (would that be obstruction?) but I can always walk/amble home to get my passport. They can’t make you walk faster or make you ride in the squad car, I assume…
The legal distinction is that the police can stop and ask anyone questions in a general way just like you could stop and ask somebody questions.
The police also have the power to detain people - the person being asked questions legally has to stay. Obviously, a civilian doesn’t have this power. But it’s not a universal power - the police officer has to have a reason why he’s detaining somebody.
So when you ask a police officer “Am I being detained?” or “Am I free to go?” or “Can I leave now?” you’re basically forcing him to make a decision about whether or not he has sufficient grounds to detain you. If he says no, you can walk away. If he says yes, you have to stay but you now have grounds to sue the police department if you can establish he did not have sufficient grounds to detain you.
I’ve been told by more than one police officer in HPD(Houston police department) that it is illegal to not produce a state ID or driver’s license when requested to by a cop. Texas does have a stop and identify statue that only requires you to identify yourself, the reasoning the cops gave was that the law requires a person to identify themselves and the only verifiable way to do that is with ID. I was never arrested however for failing to produce ID, only threatened with the possibility.
I also located a police forum where a Texas cop repeated that same faulty reasoning.
Don’t ask for a cite because like I said the law says one thing, cops on the street say another. I am not contending that you are required to produce ID by law, only that some police officers have the mistaken belief you are.
I wonder what those cops think of the furor over voter ID laws, given that the one of the complaints is that the poor frequently don’t have state-issued ID (because it’s a PITA to get). I also wonder how those cops deal with kids under the driving age, who (obviously) don’t have driver licenses, and hardly ever have state-issued ID cards.
But outside a very few limited situations, a civilian doesn’t have the right to “stop” anyone in the USA. If I’m walking along, and someone asks me to stop and answer a few questions, I have no legal, ethical, moral, or social obligation to stop. If they wish to walk with me and ask questions, I have no legal, ethical, moral, or social obligation to respond, or even to acknowledge their existence. If they attempt to stop me by physical contact, they’ve committed assault. Is all that true for a police officer?
I didn’t ask you for a cite. The guy I did ask said:
I thought GQ had a higher standard than that. The above is false and shouldn’t stand in GQ without a cite. You of course are correct, some officers get the law wrong. Just like in every profession there are varying levels of competence.
I don’t know about the law in Texas but we do not have a similar one here. In my 15 years on the job I have not seen anyone arrested for not having an ID. It just isn’t done. Not having ID is such a common occurrence it would be ridiculous to do so.
One thing I liked about the show The Wire. It showed that cops are like most people in every job. Most don’t want to have to do more work than they have to. No reason to arrest random people for no reason. Just more paperwork. Who wants more paperwork?
Texas’ stop-and-identify statute (Tex. Pen. Code §38.02 includes no such requirement.