What is the state law on producing I.D. on demand from law enforcement

[caliberbob]

Really? Sovereign citizens now? Wow, another nutty extremist post in this forum. Shocker.

Sovereign has the same number of letters as Qanon1234. And people think it’s just coincidence. Who’s the nutty one now my guy!?!?!

 

[trekrok]

Really? Sovereign citizens now?
Wow, another nutty extremist post in this forum. Shocker.

Plenty that lack a sarcasm meter too.

 

[okcBob]

You slipped that one by me.
But in my own defense, with all the crazy posts here, it’s not a stretch to think someone here would fall for that crap. Well done.

 

[caliberbob]

You slipped that one by me.
But in my own defense, with all the crazy posts here, it’s not a stretch to think someone here would fall for that crap. Well done

I have a good friend. Loved him through his Qanon phase. He was 100% convinced there were going to be military tribunals and 150k indictments on elitist leftists. Rosanne bar was just on timcast IRL and she still thinks the tribunals are coming and that there won’t be an election. My friend in the other hand doesn’t talk to me about Qanon. I remember him asking “why don’t you believe this stuff man? The evidence is all there”. And I said something to the effect of “look, I don’t believe in Bigfoot either. But if they find a real bigfoot I’d be like, cool!”

 

[AKguy1985]

Sure it is, booming right down the shitter.

Amen to that!!

 

[AKguy1985]

I have a good friend. Loved him through his Qanon phase. He was 100% convinced there were going to be military tribunals and 150k indictments on elitist leftists. Rosanne bar was just on timcast IRL and she still thinks the tribunals are coming and that there won’t be an election. My friend in the other hand doesn’t talk to me about Qanon. I remember him asking “why don’t you believe this stuff man? The evidence is all there”. And I said something to the effect of “look, I don’t believe in Bigfoot either. But if they find a real bigfoot I’d be like, cool!”

Q predicted this.

 

[dennishoddy]

This is the correct answer. The way it should work is the officer approaches, identifies themselves and states the reason for the contact. If they state a valid reason for the stop, whether it be a traffic code violation or a crime, you’re required to ID yourself. If you do not have a government issued ID on you, then you’re required to give your full name and d.o.b.

If they’re just making contact because you’re “acting suspicious” or “they got a call”, then no, you’re not legally required to ID yourself. Absent RAS, PC or an official, valid criminal trespass complaint, there’s no requirement for you to ID, simply because they want to put a name on their report.

With all that said, that’s not always how it works and so-called “1st Amendment auditors” learn this every day. It’s easy to turn a casual contact into a pissing match that wasn’t necessary.

Now if they’re actually on a fishing expedition or attempting to do the old Kansas Two-Step, you need to know when to politely decline to answer any more questions, refuse any searches and then stfu till they go away.

I recently learned of the Kansas two step. That department is under investigation from the feds and has some court ordered changes the department needs to enforce.

 

[dennishoddy]

So you are OK with a cop accusing you of being a thief, that was the reason for the stop, no crime was committed, no traffic infraction, just a cop looking at you thinking yup hes a thief better stop him.

It's a gotcha question that is common for LEO on stops. Vehicle in a felony matches the description of yours, and so on.
Walking up to the vehicle with the wind at their back saying I can smell alcohol,
Have you been drinking, are you impaired by drugs, and so on. I've heard them all as once again I have a lead foot. Innocent of all.
It's a method to see if one gets nervous and exhibits the reaction if they actually are guilty of and so on.

 

[1shott]

It's a gotcha question that is common for LEO on stops. Vehicle in a felony matches the description of yours, and so on.
Walking up to the vehicle with the wind at their back saying I can smell alcohol,
Have you been drinking, are you impaired by drugs, and so on. I've heard them all as once again I have a lead foot. Innocent of all.
It's a method to see if one gets nervous and exhibits the reaction if they actually are guilty of and so on.

True but I think its a BS reason.

 

[AKguy1985]

Adair cop pulled my girlfriend's son over, said he "smelled weed" in his car, son smokes black and milds. If you cannot tell the difference between pipe tobacco and marijuana you need your nose examined. I wonder if my great grandfather ever was accused of smoking weed when he smoked a corn cob pipe every day with Prince Edward tobacco.


This is the same cop: