Behavior

[SA Mann]

If you hand a cop your DL they will run it and then harass you if you have a Concealed Carry permit. Been there, done that. I wasn't real crazy with just handing over my DL, but I was told by one of folks that they'd make it hard on us if we didn't. From now on, I'm leaving the goddamn thing in the car, so I won't be lying when they ask to see my license.

[OTPTT]

Originally Posted by SA Mann

If you hand a cop your DL they will run it and then harass you if you have a Concealed Carry permit. Been there, done that. I wasn't real crazy with just handing over my DL, but I was told by one of folks that they'd make it hard on us if we didn't. From now on, I'm leaving the goddamn thing in the car, so I won't be lying when they ask to see my license.

This is exactly what I said in one of my posts above yours. If you give them enough information, whether you hand them hard copy ID or not, THEY WILL RUN AN NCIC CHECK ON THE NAME YOU GIVE THEM regardless of the fact that they may not have either SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE SUSPICION to believe you are ENGAGED IN or ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN criminal behavior. Or in the alternative have PROBABLE CAUSE TO DETAIN OR ARREST YOU upon your giving them identifying information. Before running an NCIC check an officer is supposed to possess at least SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE SUSPICION otherwise the act of the NCIC is without legal justification.

Although I'm not a lawyer, yet, I am currently researching Tennessee law as it relates to the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. For an incredibly thorough background on the Hiibel case check out the information on this website.

It's significant to note that in the Hiibel case the court determined that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and request that Hiibel identify himself.

"(b) The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

A police officer may, like any other person on the street, stop you and begin a conversation. But like any other person on the street you may just ignore that officer and walk away. See Terry vs. Ohio. An officer MUST HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION before s\he may stop and detain anyone and request that the person so stopped identify himself. There is no law requiring anyone to carry hard copy ID on their person. Period. Reasonable suspicion is such that the officer must be able to articulate his suspicions and state specifically what those suspicions are and what criminal activity s\he believes the individual is, or is about to, engage. Reasonable suspicion is suspicion that A REASONABLE OFFICER IN THE SAME SITUATION might also possess and that can be verbalized with specificity. It cannot be some vague "feeling." It must be concrete suspicion that can be articulated to another reasonable officer hence the term SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE SUSPICION or as the cops call it "SAF."

"SAF" falls short of the legal theory of PROBABLE CAUSE where the later is sufficient for arrest. If the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest then the one so accused has the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT regardless of any law requiring identification.

I'll post additional information on this subject after further research into the Hiibel case and what is actually required when one is asked identify himself to a cop. Again there is no law requiring anyone to carry hard copy ID on their person and I will not be carrying any such "papers" on my person during the rally.

T