Should all adults in the U.S. be required to carry a government-approved ID in public? Should they be required to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer truthfully?

Should all persons in the U.S. over the age of 18 years be required to carry a government-issued and/or government-approved ID at all time in the public?

For example, if you are walking down the street and a police officer stops you and asks for your ID and you don't have one with you, can the police officer legally detain you for not carrying your ID until your ID can be verified?

If the same police officer asks you to identify yourself verbally, should you be required to identify yourself verbally and truthfully? Do you have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions from the police officer?

For example, if a police officer approaches you and asks for your ID and you decline and the police officer asks you to state your name verbally, should you answer truthfully or answer with silence or answer untruthfully ("My name is McLovin")?

Discuss.

Doesn't matter to me, I'm already carrying this stupid DL with me all the time.

You always have the right to remain silence, but at the same time it doesn't give you the right to lie and/or to deceive the officer.

Quote from kharvel : Should all persons in the U.S. over the age of 18 years be required to carry a government-issued and/or government-approved ID at all time in the public?

There is no such requirement.

Quote from kharvel : For example, if you are walking down the street and a police officer stops you and asks for your ID and you don't have one with you, can the police officer legally detain you for not carrying your ID until your ID can be verified?

If the officer has reasonable suspicion or PC that you are involved in criminal activity then you can be legally detained while your identity is determined. Without reasonable suspicion or PC the initial stop would not be made and the point is moot.

Quote from kharvel : If the same police officer asks you to identify yourself verbally, should you be required to identify yourself verbally and truthfully? Do you have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions from the police officer?

With RS and PC, yes and yes.

Quote from kharvel : For example, if a police officer approaches you and asks for your ID and you decline and the police officer asks you to state your name verbally, should you answer truthfully or answer with silence or answer untruthfully ("My name is McLovin")?

Truth might possibly set you free. Silence will result in further detention and answering untruthfully will result in jail.

puddintain ask me again i'll tell you the same.

It seems that I recall this same question and discussion being brought up by the OP back when AZ first brought out SB1070..........

Deja Vu?

Why does everyone think we are so free? We can't drive without a DL and proof of insurance. We can't go any speed we want on the roads. We have to wear seatbelts. We have to stop for red lights. We can't text while driving. We can't drink a beer while driving. We can't drive without a plate or two on the car. We have to get registration updated. We have to get yearly inspections.

What's another card?

Quote from theblackbra : Why does everyone think we are so free? We can't drive without a DL and proof of insurance. We can't go any speed we want on the roads. We have to wear seatbelts. We have to stop for red lights. We can't text while driving. We can't drink a beer while driving. We can't drive without a plate or two on the car. We have to get registration updated. We have to get yearly inspections. What's another card?

And if you don't drive or even have a car?

Quote from nobama : There is no such requirement.

Should there be one?

Quote : If the officer has reasonable suspicion or PC that you are involved in criminal activity then you can be legally detained while your identity is determined. Without reasonable suspicion or PC the initial stop would not be made and the point is moot.

If you cannot be identified because you are either not in the system or more likely because you refuse to speak or submit to fingerprinting, how long can the police detain you? How would detainment reveal your identity if you refuse to speak or provide any ID?

Can any law enforcement authority do anything to you beyond detainment?

Quote : With RS and PC, yes and yes. Truth might possibly set you free. Silence will result in further detention and answering untruthfully will result in jail.

So the best option for anyone who does not have an ID or refuses to carry one and who is questioned by the police is to remain silent and refuse to identify oneself.

Now, in the case of detainment:

1) Do you believe the police should have the power of detainment in these cases?

2) How long do you believe the detainment should be for?

3) Do you trust the police to be competent in their jobs to the extent that you are willing to be detained by the police for RS/PC to "allow" them to do their jobs without losing your right to remain silent, not carry any ID, and continue your merry way after the period of detainment?

Quote from kharvel : Now, in the case of detainment: 1) Do you believe the police should have the power of detainment in these cases? 2) How long do you believe the detainment should be for? 3) Do you trust the police to be competent in their jobs to the extent that you are willing to be detained by the police for RS/PC to "allow" them to do their jobs without losing your right to remain silent, not carry any ID, and continue your merry way after the period of detainment?

1) Yes, only if there's a criminal or suspicious reason that this person is being stopped and asked to produce an ID. If he can't generate an ID at the spot, police has no choice but to detain him and investigate further.

2) 48 hours I think that's the max police can detain someone without a warrant.
If everything checks out before that, he is free to go. I don't know why would anyone invoke 5th and go through this hassle if they are innocent.

3) Yes, I do. (1) I have nothing to hide to police. (2) I can be easily ID'd without an ID because I was already fully FINGERPRINTED when I 'legally' applied for my citizenship. & (3) there are some bad apples but in most part police officers take their oaths to uphold the laws much seriously than the Federal Gov't. I would worry more about the Fed for sending mix messages by selectively enforcing the immigration laws.

I'm in favor of using some sort of biometric (not fingerprint) ID system for gov't but that's a whole different topic. If Mickey Mouse can force us to use this system today, so should the gov't.

Yes ...

And let's put RFID's into the ID's, so every time you walk down the street or go into a shopping mall, you can get scanned and picked up by the cops for not having your ID or for any warrant. That way, the government can erase you in an instant.

Then we'll put cameras in your home to make sure you're having sex the right way. It's for your own good.

Quote from kharvel : Should there be one? If you cannot be identified because you are either not in the system or more likely because you refuse to speak or submit to fingerprinting, how long can the police detain you? How would detainment reveal your identity if you refuse to speak or provide any ID? Can any law enforcement authority do anything to you beyond detainment?

Until you are identified. No.

Quote from kharvel : So the best option for anyone who does not have an ID or refuses to carry one and who is questioned by the police is to remain silent and refuse to identify oneself. Now, in the case of detainment: 1) Do you believe the police should have the power of detainment in these cases? 2) How long do you believe the detainment should be for? 3) Do you trust the police to be competent in their jobs to the extent that you are willing to be detained by the police for RS/PC to "allow" them to do their jobs without losing your right to remain silent, not carry any ID, and continue your merry way after the period of detainment?

Logic not found. The best option is to obtain an ID.

Certainly if one is engaging in suspicious behavior, they should be indefinitely detained until they are identified in order to prevent further suspicious behavior.

Quote from shop77 : I don't know why would anyone invoke 5th and go through this hassle if they are innocent.

So you approve of police tactics that obligates you to prove your innocence in order to "avoid the hassle"?

Quote : 3) Yes, I do. (1) I have nothing to hide to police.

So you approve of police states in which everyone is asked for papers and should happily submit to police requests and detainment simply because they have nothing to hide?

Quote : (2) I can be easily ID'd without an ID because I was already fully FINGERPRINTED when I 'legally' applied for my citizenship.

A) What if you were born in the U.S. and was never fingerprinted?

B) Even if you were fingerprinted due to your naturalization, you would still have to voluntarily submit your fingerprints to the police in order for them to check your ID. Can the police force you to submit your fingerprints? Should the police be able to force you to submit your fingerprints?

Quote : there are some bad apples but in most part police officers take their oaths to uphold the laws much seriously than the Federal Gov't. I would worry more about the Fed for sending mix messages by selectively enforcing the immigration laws.

Who said anything about the federal government or immigration laws? I am asking whether in this "land of the free", one should be accommodating the police for ID and detainment or whether one's anonymity and freedom are more important.

Quote : I'm in favor of using some sort of biometric (not fingerprint) ID system for gov't but that's a whole different topic. If Mickey Mouse can force us to use this system today, so should the gov't.

What did you mean by "Mickey Mouse can force us to use this system"? Not sure I understand the reference.

As for the national biometric ID, why are you in favor of this if this country was founded on the basis of "the government cannot and should not be trusted"?

Quote from kharvel : Should there be one?

No, however every state should have "stop and identify" laws, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop...y_statutes

Quote from kharvel : If you cannot be identified because you are either not in the system or more likely because you refuse to speak or submit to fingerprinting, how long can the police detain you? How would detainment reveal your identity if you refuse to speak or provide any ID? Can any law enforcement authority do anything to you beyond detainment?

Are you basing your questions on a subject stopped only for the purposes of asking for ID or on a subject being investigated for a crime with RS or PC? The former is illegal and in the case of the latter, the individual, if arrested for the crime that he was initially detained for, would be brought before a judge at the first appearance or arraignment and the judge would determine further disposition. Each case is different and the outcome would vary depending on the circumstances of the individual case.

Quote from kharvel : So the best option for anyone who does not have an ID or refuses to carry one and who is questioned by the police is to remain silent and refuse to identify oneself.

Not in all states....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop...y_statutes

Quote from kharvel : Now, in the case of detainment: 1) Do you believe the police should have the power of detainment in these cases? yes if RS/PC exists to connect the individual with the commission of a crime 2) How long do you believe the detainment should be for? Until identity is established if RS/PC exists to connect the individual with the commission of a crime, or until released by a judge. 3) Do you trust the police to be competent in their jobs to the extent that you are willing to be detained by the police for RS/PC to "allow" them to do their jobs without losing your right to remain silent, not carry any ID, and continue your merry way after the period of detainment?

Many individuals detained for RS/PC are not "willing to be detained" for any reason, and it's not a matter of trust.

Do you honestly believe that an individual who is detained by police by RS/PC for a crime can cause the police to ignore the crime and release the individual scot-free simply because he would not open his mouth when they have RS for the stop or PC for arrest? No way Jose....

In the absence of a stop and identify statute, the individual would be arrested on PC for the crime that is under investigation regardless of whether or not he identified himself. If PC for an arrest is not present and he refused to identify himself, then he would be the intense focus of an ongoing investigation until he is either cleared or arrested.

Here's some reading material for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop...y_statutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiib..._of_Nevada

http://www.policechiefmagazine.or...egory_ID=3