What would happen if you refused to give the cops your name?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

In the US, there is no law saying you are required to carry a form of ID on you at all times, unless of course you're operating a motor vehicle.

Let's hypothetically say I was approached and questioned by police while not operating a moving verhicle, and had no form of identification or anything on me which gave the slightest clue as to who I was or where I lived or worked. I was ultimately arrested and taken in for questioning in connection with some crime being investigated by the police. But no matter what they told me, I absolutely refused to tell them anything useful, including even my name.

What would be the eventual outcome of this? If I was never formally charged, i.e. there was no material evidence linking me to the crime in question, would they eventually just release me? What if there was enough evidence to charge me?

Are US cops known to use obvious forms of torture, physical or psychological, to get people to talk and identify themselves in cases like this? I'm not asking if this is legal, I'm asking if it happens IN PRACTICE. What is the legal limit for the amount of time they can hold someone in custody in a case like this?

 

[dtugg]

If you are detained by a police officer you must give them your name. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is constitutional.

This is how I see it going down if you absolutely refuse to give them your name if you are lawfully detained. You will be arrested and charges with "refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained." They would take you to jail and see if they could find out who you are. If they couldn't, you would be in jail until your arraignment (usually the next day, or Monday if it happened on Friday or Saturday). At the arraignment, the judge would order you to identify yourself. If you didn't, you would be found in contempt of court and the judge would order that you stay in jail until your identity can be determined. Judges don't like to be disobeyed and they can hold you in jail until you comply with their orders.

As for the original crime that they are investigating, if they have probably cause that you committed it you would be charged, if not you wouldn't be.

I don't think the police would use any kind of torture against you. They would just let you sit in jail until they figured out who you are. And like I said before, you can be held indefinitely if a judge finds you in contempt of court.

If a police officer asks for your name, just give it to them. Otherwise you're just making it worse for yourself. They'll figure out who you are eventually anyway.

 

[Missykins]

Well, it depends.

There are stop-and-identify statutes that describe under what circumstances a citizen must identify his or herself to a police officer. If an officer approaches you without any evidence linking you to an alleged crime and would like to obtain evidence by speaking with you, you are not obligated to identify yourself ("contact" category). However, if you are detained ("detention"), you must (maybe?) identify yourself, and if under arrest, self-identification is required.

None of this information came from my time at Yale (lol) but from everyone's friend Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Just seeing a police officer is torture for me.

 

[TheWalrus30]

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to have a state law that requires one to identify themselves if asked by a law enforcement officer. The Court has also stated that in many situations, the failure to identify oneself when asked by a police officer can be enough to give the officer probable cause to arrest you (such as if the police are investigating a crime that just happened, or if you're in a high crime area at night and appear very nervous; it doesn't take much folks).

So, as others have said, have ID with you, and if a cop asks who you are, you should probably respond truthfully if you don't want to end up in jail (even if it's just for a night). Do I necessarily like this? Nope. But I understand it to a degree...still don't agree with it, but them's the breaks.

 

[jam uh weezy]

What would be the eventual outcome of this? If I was never formally charged, i.e. there was no material evidence linking me to the crime in question, would they eventually just release me? What if there was enough evidence to charge me?

No they cannot charge you for the crime in question if there is no evidence directly linking you to the crime.

When a cop stops you randomly and asks you for your id, you do not have to give it to him unless you are being detained. Its probably smart if you don't have any reason for him to worry about knowing your name to just tell them. Usually they'll ask your name and where you're going/coming from and let you go.

Acting suspicious around cops makes them suspicious.

They need 'reasonable suspicion' to place you under detention.

 

[garuda]

You all respond with "carry ID", what if you do not have any? There is no law in the US that you must have or carry a government ID, so not everyone has one or is obligated to carry it. So if you truthfully do not have ID but do identify yourself verbally what would be the outcome? Since it is not a crime to not have or carry ID what could you be held on?

 

[jam uh weezy]

^Usually they will only ask you to verbally indentify yourself. Even if you have no ID they can't really do anything unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are doing something illegal.

 

[zomg]

^Usually they will only ask you to verbally indentify yourself. Even if you have no ID they can't really do anything unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are doing something illegal.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a very broad term. Reasonable suspicion can mean many things.

 

[Johnny1]

Can anyone give the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion," with support?

 

[jam uh weezy]

I would like to know if their is any set legal definition as well...cops can use pretty much anything to justify that claim...

 

[Banquo]

A person can be briefly detained based on reasonable suspicion. A brief detention is not the same as an arrest.

Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is a legal term with an objective definition. If exists where a person has been or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. A hunch, on the part of a police officer, is not enough. It is a lower standard than probable cause, where there must be a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. See Terry v. Ohio.

 

[gomakemeasandwich]

In the US, there is no law saying you are required to carry a form of ID on you at all times, unless of course you're operating a motor vehicle.

Let's hypothetically say I was approached and questioned by police while not operating a moving verhicle, and had no form of identification or anything on me which gave the slightest clue as to who I was or where I lived or worked. I was ultimately arrested and taken in for questioning in connection with some crime being investigated by the police. But no matter what they told me, I absolutely refused to tell them anything useful, including even my name.

What would be the eventual outcome of this? If I was never formally charged, i.e. there was no material evidence linking me to the crime in question, would they eventually just release me? What if there was enough evidence to charge me?

Are US cops known to use obvious forms of torture, physical or psychological, to get people to talk and identify themselves in cases like this? I'm not asking if this is legal, I'm asking if it happens IN PRACTICE. What is the legal limit for the amount of time they can hold someone in custody in a case like this?

If you're arrested, they have probable cause and it doesn't matter if you give them your name or not, they will find out. I find it highly unlikely that any cop is going to torture you for your name. You may not be able to take a piss or get water at your convenience, but they aren't going to tie you to a chair and beat you until you tell them your name in most cases. Than again, there are always sporadic stories like the guy in New York City who was sodomized by a broom handle, so you might want to give them your name just in case.

Further, if you're arrested, they likely have enough evidence to charge you with something, so the question is moot. You would likely at least see a preliminary hearing. Under the 5th Amendment, you're not legally bound to say anything (except for booking purposes after you're arrested, but you could still stay silent), but it's possible you could then be charged with hindering an investigation, obstruction of justice or something related. This could still happen even if charges are eventually dropped, but if they are dropped, I doubt any cop would pursue it, and certainly doubt that any DA would take it.

If you're detained because of reasonable suspicion, you are also not required to give them your name, but not doing so will only make things harder for you. Not giving your name is not probable cause for arrest either (by itself), but expect to be hassled quite a bit. You also must be told that you are being detained for reasonable suspicion, as a side note. And can only be detained for a limited amount of time. Detained can be anything from four cops surrounding you to being handcuffed to even being put in a police car. Regardless, you must still be told when your detainment turns into an arrest (Miranda warning).

Reasonable suspicion means that a "reasonable person" would believe that you have either committed a crime or are about to. For example, if you're loitering outside of a convenience store near closing time, the police could stop and detain you (they would likely just talk to you first) to find out what you're doing. If you're detained and refuse to give your name, in many states that is a violation of law and the police then may have probable cause to arrest you (this varies by state however and refusal to give your name cannot be the only reason for probable cause in many cases).

As for how long they could hold you, that would depend on the charge.

 

[dtugg]

If you're detained because of reasonable suspicion, you are also not required to give them your name.

Depends what state you live in. Many states have laws that explicitely require you to identify yourself if detained during a Terry stop. And the Supreme Court has ruled this constitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

 

[thugpassion]

You have to give your name, otherwise thell try to add on some bullshit charge, and if you try and lie and give them a fake/wrong name.................boy watchout!!!!

 

[Animal Mother]

If you are detained by a police officer you must give them your name. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is constitutional.

This is how I see it going down if you absolutely refuse to give them your name if you are lawfully detained. You will be arrested and charges with "refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained." They would take you to jail and see if they could find out who you are. If they couldn't, you would be in jail until your arraignment (usually the next day, or Monday if it happened on Friday or Saturday). At the arraignment, the judge would order you to identify yourself. If you didn't, you would be found in contempt of court and the judge would order that you stay in jail until your identity can be determined. Judges don't like to be disobeyed and they can hold you in jail until you comply with their orders.

As for the original crime that they are investigating, if they have probably cause that you committed it you would be charged, if not you wouldn't be.

I don't think the police would use any kind of torture against you. They would just let you sit in jail until they figured out who you are. And like I said before, you can be held indefinitely if a judge finds you in contempt of court.

If a police officer asks for your name, just give it to them. Otherwise you're just making it worse for yourself. They'll figure out who you are eventually anyway.

You forgot to add the part that about how once they have you in jail, they are going to make absolutely no attempt to find out your name because they don't care anymore. People some times spend years in county getting dicked around by the system.

 

[tobala]

You have to give your name, otherwise thell try to add on some bullshit charge, and if you try and lie and give them a fake/wrong name.................boy watchout!!!!

From what I've read in the previous posts, this may or may not be true; it depends on the status of your interaction with LE: is it at the stage of no suspicion/curiosity, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or actual detainment? It also seems that state jurisdictions play some part.

Re the second half of your post: agreed, lying to LE is probably a bad idea in just about any circumstance.

You forgot to add the part that about how once they have you in jail, they are going to make absolutely no attempt to find out your name because they don't care anymore. People some times spend years in county getting dicked around by the system.

When I was arrested for Criminal Contempt in March of 2008, my prints were scanned electronically. If I had been convicted as charged, the print scans would have remained in the database.

So I would imagine that if that had been the case, LE could identify me on any future arrest without any compliance on my part--all they would have to do is run my prints through the computer and it would match the prints in the database and in a fraction of a second--there my identity would be.

So times have changed, my friends. If you have any priors and your prints are in the system--well they don't even need to see your ID--because you're already carrying it on your fingertips. The questions now are:

1. How centralized will the print database become?
2. For what offenses will prints be entered into the system?
3. How long will the prints stay in the system?
4. Will the day come when ALL adult citizens be required to give print scans to Big Brother?
5. How long will it be before print scans become obsolete--to be replaced by retinal scans? Or a DNA profile?

These questions may be a little off-topic, but nonetheless invariably arise as tangential to the original topic's relationship to emerging LE technologies.

 

[gomakemeasandwich]

Depends what state you live in. Many states have laws that explicitely require you to identify yourself if detained during a Terry stop. And the Supreme Court has ruled this constitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Read my post--I already explicitly said that.

If you're detained and refuse to give your name, in many states that is a violation of law

Even if it is law, he's not required to give his name. I also explicitly mentioned in my post (if you bothered to read it) that it was a crime not to in many states during detainment and could contribute to probable cause for an arrest. Can you read my posts before you respond to me? Thanks.

It's also not required in every state, as every state does not have a law requiring you to give your name during detainment. If you are arrested and don't give your name during booking, that's a different story.

And please, save Wikipedia, for someone else.