Show your ID

[suthdj]

http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/47/case.html

[03Lightningrocks]

Didn't this situation come up a few months back when a home owner didn't want to show proof of ID when an officer was responding to a possible burglary situation? If I remember right, Odumbell used it as a publicity stunt after he stuck his foot in his mouth.

[Drewthetexan]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQpTNuLiA8k[/youtube]

I'm sorry, I know this is off topic, but I couldn't help posting this.

[03Lightningrocks]

OH MAN!!!!!! That is great!!!!

[A-R]

But the special cases are not relevant to the OP. When you are in your own home, you are not required to answer the door, open the door, talk to the officer, or show the officer any ID. If he has a warrant (or probabale cause and the right exigent circumstances) he will force the entry or answers, but without that, you do not have to cooperate at all.

Steve, great informative post as usual. One question though about portion quoted above. While I agree all these "special cases" don't likely apply to the OP, they could in fact apply to someone in their home if ...

a) their home is within the boundaries of a university (a person who lives full-time year-round in on-campus housing. While this is not common, it does happen with certain upper-classman and post-undergrad students. Of course, in this special case you also have that wonderful Catch-22 of being prohibited from possessing a gun in your own home because it is a premises of a school (or not, who really knows on that one ).

b) their home is on acreage in an unicorporated area and a Game Warden is investigating a complaint related to hunting violation on the property. I was told in my hunter's education class that a Game Warden has the right to search a home if they have probable cause to believe you or someone else on the propery was violating hunting laws (e.g. a dead deer with bullet wound found out of season on your property within line of sight of your house)

as usual, IANAL, and above is just certain scenarios as I understand them. Feel free to enlighten me as to why I am wrong.

[Beiruty]

I seem no harm IDing yourself AND/OR presenting DL and CHL when a "verified" LEO asks for ID. What it is the harm?

[marksiwel]

I seem no harm IDing yourself AND/OR presenting DL and CHL when a "verified" LEO asks for ID. What it is the harm?

I see no harm in the Government going through your emails, or making you register your guns.

[Beiruty]

I seem no harm IDing yourself AND/OR presenting DL and CHL when a "verified" LEO asks for ID. What it is the harm?

I see no harm in the Government going through your emails, or making you register your guns.

Both of those "No Harm" government acts do happen daily. The First thanks to President George Bush and the Patriot act. Then second each time you purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer.

[marksiwel]

I seem no harm IDing yourself AND/OR presenting DL and CHL when a "verified" LEO asks for ID. What it is the harm?

I see no harm in the Government going through your emails, or making you register your guns.

Both of those "No Harm" government acts do happen daily. The First thanks to President George Bush and the Patriot act. Then second each time you purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer.

Are you happy about it? I know I'm not. Thats part of the reason I joined the NRA, and another reason I've been known to Bash Republicans who dont respect my privacy.

[stevie_d_64]

Without quoting chapter and verse, I believe the original poster on this thread did fine...He made contact with a Law Enforcement Officer, who asked him who he was...

Sure, produce the DL, and since that was in question, a state issued ID like the CHL sure does back up the whole issue if you ask me...

No harm, no foul...

Anyone have a TWIC card??? That might work too...

[srothstein]

While I agree all these "special cases" don't likely apply to the OP, they could in fact apply to someone in their home if ...

a) their home is within the boundaries of a university (a person who lives full-time year-round in on-campus housing. While this is not common, it does happen with certain upper-classman and post-undergrad students. Of course, in this special case you also have that wonderful Catch-22 of being prohibited from possessing a gun in your own home because it is a premises of a school (or not, who really knows on that one ).

This is a very special case and might be the very test case to look for. The problem of course is the law specifies a school or educational institution and does not define it. Having a gun on campus itself is not a crime, but inside most of the buildings is. Is a school owned house on campus banned for being part of the school? I would not think so, but I can see a school trying to push it in some cases. Of course, this is probably why I will never end up as a tenured professor - I like my guns and do not have a liberal enough attitude.

b) their home is on acreage in an unicorporated area and a Game Warden is investigating a complaint related to hunting violation on the property. I was told in my hunter's education class that a Game Warden has the right to search a home if they have probable cause to believe you or someone else on the propery was violating hunting laws (e.g. a dead deer with bullet wound found out of season on your property within line of sight of your house)

This one is actually easy to clear up since it is a misstatement of the law. First, if the game warden or any other officer has both probable cause and exigent circumstances they can enter of course. But I am guessing the people who think this are not talking about emergencies and will address where the myth comes from. Section 12.103 of the Parks and Wildlife Code gives game wardens the authority to enter onto any land or water where fish or wildlife are known to stray. It does not allow entering into any structures and not even into all of the land in the state. It does go further to restrict how the information gained can be used if the warden enters onto private property.

Hope that helps clear up the second question. it will take a court to truly clear up the first.