As we all know, in the U.S. one is not required to carry identification when in a public place. Some states have a “stop and identify” law where a person must state his name and other information upon demand. Let’s assume our hypothetical guy below has done this.
However, let’s supposed that you actually do have identification on your person and a police officer approaches you during a lawful Terry stop. He then requests identification. You refuse.
Have you legally obstructed his investigation into whatever he was investigation solely be your refusal to produce your ID and could then be charged under the (pretty uniform and vague) state law regarding obstruction of a police officer in his investigation?
On one hand, you sort of are obstructing his investigation. He wants to make sure you are who you say you are, and your refusal, at least in a minimal way, obstructs that process.
But, IMHO, more importantly, you have a Fifth Amendment right to stand mute and do nothing. What say ye legal scholars?
Legally, you only need to truthfully identify yourself, not show them an ID unless it’s a traffic stop. Realistically not showing them an ID may make the encounter last longer and that’s rarely a good idea when you are stopped by the police.
Show them the ID card, answer questions in a monosyllabic manner, request that they speak with your attorney if they seem to want to have an in-depth conversation and keep on keeping’ on. Brief encounters with the police are always the best.
There is nothing vague about Hiibel. The SC legalized refusal to ID oneself, per elements of Hiibel If it is a lawful detention under Terry, if that state has a S&I law, if it is violated, then a charge can be made under it. That was the gravamen in Hiibel, whether states could criminalize refusal to show ID when lawfully detained as Mr. Hiibel was. The SC also addressed your 5th AM concern in Hiibel, no violation.
Ohio passed thier S&I law in 2006, 2 years after Hiibel.
Note the Catchphrase;
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:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Logically, for one to commit “Obstruction of Justice”, it would be necessary to fulfill at least two criteria:
The act that you commit constitutes a form of obstruction.
The target of your act (i.e. the thing you tried to act on) was a form of justice.
Since it’s not considered just for a cop to demand to see identification in situations where the law or constitution provides that persons are not required to provide identification (as doing so would constitute a form of injustice), it stands to reason that no, it wouldn’t be Obstruction of Justice. Refusing to comply with an unlawful order to show identification would actually be Obstruction of Injustice! People get medals for that!
But according to the OP, the detainee has “identified” himself:
And I don’t think the gravamen of Hiibel was whether states could criminalize “refusal to show ID”; rather, it was whether states could criminalize refusal to identify oneself: “Certainly officer, my name is John Smith, I live at 123 Elm Street, and I was born on January 1, 1980…My driver’s license? But, officer, as you can see, I’m not driving; I’m walking on the sidewalk. Am I free to go?”
But I have been told in person by a cop in Texas that Hiibel gives them the right to demand ID and if it cannot be produced you have broken the law, the logic? Hiibel says you must identify yourself, and verbal ID is worthless and unverifiable, therefore you must produce ID.
I disagree with this reasoning, but there you go. Oh and cops can charge you with anything they please, even genocide, The question is if it will stick in court.
The level of where this kicks in is not the same around the country but in general for anything serious enough to be put on a warrant a judge must sign off on the probable cause for the warrant. If it is a low enough charge to only be put on a summons in general the officer can charge and the determination of probable cause will be made later.
I could maybe see that if they find you have ID on you and you refuse to produce it, you’re refusing to identify yourself. Maybe.
But the idea that you’re required to carry ID wouldn’t fly in a courtroom even a little bit. It would mean, for instance, that almost every under-16 person in Texas was constantly breaking the law.
As ME stated, Hiibel gives choices, show ID OR give name, etc., if detained under RS. Some people do not have an ID. Reference Brown v. Texas cited in Hiibel for non RS stops demanding ID, no dice.
So no, if a cop told you that, he was scaring someone or was ignorant of the law.