View Full Version : For Ginsue
Police confront guy for open carry, video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4&feature=player_embedded
Aren't you required to present ID when asked? In Colorado you are I thought.
ronaldrwl
03-23-2010, 15:13
I'm ok with these officers. they were calm and knowbody got hurt. I was told you have to show ID
I know you do for a CCW but not sure about OC.
I'm sure I've read something that says that you are required to present ID if an officer asks you. Obviously you can't present id if you don't have any on you though. A lot of time when I went running, I didn't have any id on me. That will obviously change come this spring though.
I think without the camera things would have been a little more heated.
And did you catch them in the LIE?
I have heard that before Officers often lie to get information or????
I think without the camera he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention.
Jumpstart
03-23-2010, 15:28
Police confront guy for open carry, video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4&feature=player_embedded
Awesome. NM is very good about gun laws and individual freedom in relation to guns, still.
Nice vid Mt.Man! Thanks for restoring and reminding me about OUR rights.
iamhunter
03-23-2010, 15:39
Aren't you required to present ID when asked? In Colorado you are I thought.
Um, no.
iamhunter
03-23-2010, 15:42
CRS 42-2-115
(1) No person who has been issued a driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit or an identification card as defined in section 42-2-301 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=42-2-301&sid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0#JD_42-2-301) (2), who operates a motor vehicle in this state, and who has such license, permit, or identification card in such person's immediate possession shall refuse to remove such license, permit, or identification card from any billfold, purse, cover, or other container and to hand the same to any peace officer who has requested such person to do so if such peace officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a violation of article 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 of this title.
bolded for emphasis.
And actually, the first part excludes people who A) Don't have ID
or even B) don't have one in their possession.
You are not required to maintain, or carry an ID card unless your are operating a motor vehicle.
Know your rights guys, the laws are right there online for you to see.
The problem is, when the police approach you, they don't tell you WHY they are approaching you. They don't say, "Hey we got a call out on a guy and you match his description."
Only thing i have found is that: if you are being detained or under the suspicion of a crime, or crimes, or in the possesion of a vehicle being detained for a violation of state vehicular laws, or a person of interest in a crime or crimes, or other offense that requires you to be detained.
Then I guess No you don't have to produce ID
I do know that if you are stopped in a traffic offense you do not have to submit to a car/auto search without a warrant.
iamhunter
03-23-2010, 15:48
Only thing i have found is that: if you are being detained or under the suspicion of a crime, or crimes, or in the possesion of a vehicle being detained for a violation of state vehicular laws, or a person of interest in a crime or crimes, or other offense that requires you to be detained.
Then I guess No you don't have to produce ID
I posted the only statute that provides them with the authority to ask for ID on the previous page.
So I'd say that YES, you are required. How can you argue with what someone suspects? Especially when that person is a police officer.
funkfool
03-23-2010, 15:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a philosophy that opposes aggressive force or coersion. Most voluntaryists regard much of what government does as aggressively coercive, and call for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of anarchist philosophies, voluntaryists support strong property rights which they regard as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion.
The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action.
In the video, both sides are wrong.
New Mexico does have a stop and identify law, just like colorado.
however I don't think carry a firearm openly warrants the attention the guy in the video got.
the officer is a dumbass for feeling threatened by someone open carrying. the guy with the camera is a dumbass for hassling the cops.
the us vs. them attitude of cops is a big part of the reason why many people dislike them so much.
iamhunter
03-23-2010, 16:00
So I'd say that YES, you are required. How can you argue with what someone suspects? Especially when that person is a police officer.
I'm not trying to insult you stuart, but it PAINS me that you can't do the research to know what you are and are not subject to under the law.
That's EXACTLY what makes our rights to easy to erode.
It's not just "suspicion"
It's "reasonable suspicion".
Also, the colorado court has many precedents that CLEARLY define the limits and intents of this law.
The clear intent of this section is simply to permit the officer to demand the license of the driver whose vehicle has been stopped for an otherwise proper purpose. People v. McPherson, 191 Colo. 81, 550 P.2d 311 (1976).
A construction of this section which would give to police officers carte blanche authority in stopping cars would be inconsistent with section 16-3-103 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=16-3-103&sid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0#JD_16-3-103), which specifically limits an officer's authority to stop persons for investigation in the absence of probable cause to arrest. People v. McPherson, 191 Colo. 81, 550 P.2d 311 (1976).
"
There is no requirement that an individual must produce a driver's license when such individual is not the driver of a vehicle. Enright v. Groves, 39 Colo. App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (1977).
Usually I would agree, but if you don't show your id you'll just get your teeth stomped out, then if you win in court, you still have stomped out teeth. And having stomped out teeth isn't worth fighting over the law on the lowest rung of the ladder.
But now you can appear on The Ugliest People Show...
iamhunter
03-23-2010, 16:08
Usually I would agree, but if you don't show your id you'll just get your teeth stomped out, then if you win in court, you still have stomped out teeth. And having stomped out teeth isn't worth fighting over the law on the lowest rung of the ladder.
Well actually, because of the above precedents and the wording of the statutes, the case would be thrown out before it went to court.
Also, I've never seen anyone be arrested for refusing to show ID in a lawful and polite matter, but I've seen plenty of people do it and walk,
and lastly, if you don't stand up for all your rights, you may as well not stand up for any of them, because eventually, they will be gone.
I guess it just depends on the situation.
For instance, one time when I was in high school, I was out driving around at like 1:00 am and saw a bunch of police cars by a bar. I pulled over across the street to watch what they were doing (arresting a guy trying to brake into a tattoo shop). They quickly noticed me sitting across the street watching them and five of the cars pulled around me to ask me wtf I was doing. I can't imagine it would have gone very well if I told them to piss off because I wasn't breaking any laws.
Jumpstart
03-23-2010, 16:19
I guess it just depends on the situation.
.I can't imagine it would have gone very well if I told them to piss off because I wasn't breaking any laws.
Probably not. It is still good that you could have legally though, and it is definitely good to judciously remind law enforcement that THEY are also bound by law.
Well, they would have probably roughed me up and then used the fact that I didn't have a front plate and that is against the law. I'm patriotic, but I don't know EVERY law, and to steadfastly declare that I am not breaking any laws at any given point in time seems dangerously arrogant to me. We are all about protecting ourselves by carrying firearms, but then and go pick fights (that you will lose every time) with the police? I try to stay out of all forms of trouble.
Like I said, it depends on the situation. If I'm open carrying and am asked to be searched, the answer will be NO. If I'm pulled over and asked if my car can be searched, the answer will be NO. If I'm asked to show some id and know that if I do I'll likely be on my way in more time, with more teeth, and without being tazered, then I'll show ID. I can always file a complaint later.
Jumpstart
03-23-2010, 16:38
Well, they would have probably roughed me up and then used the fact that I didn't have a front plate and that is against the law. I'm patriotic, but I don't know EVERY law, and to steadfastly declare that I am not breaking any laws at any given point in time seems dangerously arrogant to me. We are all about protecting ourselves by carrying firearms, but then and go pick fights (that you will lose every time) with the police? I try to stay out of all forms of trouble.
Like I said, it depends on the situation. If I'm open carrying and am asked to be searched, the answer will be NO. If I'm pulled over and asked if my car can be searched, the answer will be NO. If I'm asked to show some id and know that if I do I'll likely be on my way in more time, with more teeth, and without being tazered, then I'll show ID. I can always file a complaint later.
Yep, that's why I typed judiciously.
Yep, that's why I typed judiciously.
Oh, I just thought you were being racist. ;)
SA Friday
03-23-2010, 16:47
iamhunter is correct on all accounts so far.
The video is interesting too. The cops handled it well and the guy made his point. Many may not like that the cop followed him and then talked to him, but he did approach the cop while at a stop. They determined the guy wasn't a threat or nut or potentially dangerous through their discussion and the guy went his way.
The guy who made the video was well educated in what was and what wasn't a crime, what his rights were, and was well mannered during the conversation. The cops were likewise well mannered and didn't over-react at all.
Here's a shocking news flash for everyone though. Cops lie, and do so intentionally. [Shock] Despite how you feel about this, there's nothing unethical or illegal about it. Lying to test an allegation, defuse a situation, ellicit a confession... all been tested in court and found reasonable. And it is reasonable when you understand the criminal justice system. In this case they were testing the guy to determine what and who they were dealing with. I suspect if he would have turned over an ID, the situation would have ended pretty much the same way as long as the guy didn't have any outstanding warrants for arrest.
The ACLU put out a film years ago about knowing your rights. I've seen it, and it's corney but a really good film. It's YOUR responsibility to know your rights, not the courts, lawyers, or cops to educate you on them. The Supreme Court even said so in their ruling on US v. Dickerson. This was the case that incorportated Miranda warnings into the 5th ammendment. They also said said the only reason it was incorporated into the 5th was because the Miranda ruling had been around for so long and engrained into our society, and it does no harm when comparing confession rates before and after the ruling, that it should remain. It had nothing to do with edification of the masses.
So, when I finished this recording, I thought to myself, "What's the big deal? Everyone's doing what they should be doing."
Jumpstart
03-23-2010, 17:36
Oh, I just thought you were being racist. ;)
lol...
ryanek9freak
03-23-2010, 20:36
No, in Colorado, you are NOT required to show ID when OC'ing, but for your sake, It would go alot easier on you if you complied. It would probably make the officer feel better as well.
great video, I need to get some sleep and will read all this tomorrow!
theGinsue
03-24-2010, 01:46
Mtn Man - thank you for this thread and the video. It reminded me of the best way to respond official questions.
Lots of great comments everyone.
It's not just "suspicion"
It's "reasonable suspicion".
I agree with everything you've said, but this statement concerns me. When confronted by LEO's, a citizen doesn't know whether the LEO just has "suspicion" or "reasonable suspicion", this won't typically get determined until the case goes to court.
Bailey Guns
03-24-2010, 07:21
Well, I gotta say, I think the guy could've handled the situation a little better. I also think the officer(s) could've handled it a little better.
Here's my take:
The officer was conducting what was, by all indications, a lawful traffic stop. Once the guy approached as closely as he did, armed with a visible deadly weapon, he diverted the officer's attention from the traffic stop and thus his duties. The officer was acting under the color of law and in CO (I don't know about NM) could've made a good argument that he was obstructed in the performance of his duties by the cameraman. Even if he was wrong he's still given a lot of leeway while acting under color of law.
In my opinion, once the officer completed the traffic stop he had every right to conduct a Terry stop on the cameraman based on an articulable argument of obstruction. At that point, if he explained what he was doing (which he didn't...he just stumbled about with his words and couldn't provide a valid explanation to the cameraman why he wanted his ID) he has every right to demand identification...whether that's a driver's license, ID card or verbal identification. I think this could've been a lawful Terry stop had the officer better been able to explain his actions. At that point the cameraman would've been obligated to ID himself to the officer.
I also thought the cameraman was an idiot for approaching that closely to the stop. Seriously...he walked up to within a few feet of the car, armed with a deadly weapon, while an officer was conducting business that didn't involve him. That's just STUPID and even if OC is legal he's asking for trouble. If he wants to film it from across the street, no problem. But by walking right up to the stopped vehicle and basically confronting the officer conducting other business he was just being a jerk and hoping for some sort of confrontation. Aside from that, I have no problem with what he did.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.