Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

The REAL POLICE FORUM is a leading community of police officers and law enforcement professionals. The forum includes police chat and restricted areas for police officers only. The ask-a-cop area allows you to ask questions to real police officers and only verified police are allowed to respond. REALPOLICE.com also features law enforcement jobs, news, training materials and expert articles.




View Full Version : Having No ID


rudegyal
10-28-04, 06:42 PM
I called my little sister this morning to see how she was doing, and I got a "omg he arrested me for no reason rant". She had her insurance card, registration to the car, etc. Except her purse since she was " only " running down the road and back to make sure the cars battery was charged. She didn't have her DL on her. The officer arrested her, because he felt she was lying about her identity. She was pulled over for going 4 over the limit. I told her he did have reason, because you're supposed to carry it with you at all times , even if you're a passenger. Anyway she got off the phone mad at me.

:rolleyes:

I'm curious to know how often guys arrest for someone not having their drivers license on them?


JD45
10-28-04, 06:45 PM
I have before, just as the situation you described. If during my questioning I belive he/she may be lying about their identitiy, you're coming with me to the station where I can have you live scanned to see who you really are.

txinvestigator1
10-28-04, 06:48 PM
There is more to this. She had her insurance AND registration? The officer could easily have run her name, dob through the computer to verify her identity.

I wonder what actually happened.


rudegyal
10-28-04, 06:51 PM
That's what she told me. I'm assume she was probably rude to him. I asked her if she gave him her ssn and d.o.b, she said she offered it, and he said you could have memorized someone elses.

tpd_six
10-28-04, 06:56 PM
No way you're getting the whole story. I've never arrested anyone until I knew I could prove they were lying to me.

acreature
10-28-04, 06:58 PM
I have done this for pre-textual stops :)

tpd_six
10-28-04, 07:03 PM
My guess would be she either did somrthing she's not telling you about, or the officer had a good reason to suspect another issue before he would arrest for that.

tpd_six
10-28-04, 07:03 PM
My guess would be she either did something she's not telling you about, or the officer had a good reason to suspect another issue before he would arrest for that.

acreature
10-28-04, 07:03 PM
echo echo

Drew27k9
10-28-04, 07:07 PM
Yeah I think there is a whole lot more to the story than you are getting. First I can't believe that she was pulled over for only doing 4 over the speed limit, that alone don't make any sense.

tpd_six
10-28-04, 07:07 PM
no delete no delete

rudegyal
10-28-04, 07:09 PM
That's what I was thinking, which is why I asked. Something don't seem right about him taking her in for only that, they ended up letting her go from jail with a no dl ticket, and a seat belt ticket.

acreature
10-28-04, 07:13 PM
That's what I was thinking, which is why I asked. Something don't seem right about him taking her in for only that, they ended up letting her go from jail with a no dl ticket, and a seat belt ticket.
Then she wasn't really arrested. Yes, it was a seizure, but she was detained for investigative purposes.

rudegyal
10-28-04, 07:19 PM
She said they let her go with no bail on her " O. R. ".

mcsap
10-28-04, 08:10 PM
Tell her you would like to hear the rest of the story, even if it means asking the officer who stopped her.

Piggy
10-28-04, 09:16 PM
We do it all the time. At the very minimum, if you don't have ID, you come with me to get your picture taken and I'll make a few phone calls. I've been burned too many times by letting someone go without ID just to find out later they gave me a false name because they were wanted.

txinvestigator1
10-28-04, 09:19 PM
We do it all the time. At the very minimum, if you don't have ID, you come with me to get your picture taken and I'll make a few phone calls. I've been burned too many times by letting someone go without ID just to find out later they gave me a false name because they were wanted.


You are referring to the operator of a MV and a Driver License, right?

samseed101
10-28-04, 09:52 PM
If I do not believe that the person is giving me theit real name / date of birth, then I can and will take them into custody until I can be certain of their identity. Chances are they will also get summons for failure to produce driver's license upon demand of an officer.

rudegyal
10-28-04, 10:06 PM
Thanks for the replies. I really do feel she is telling me the truth now. I called her back and talked to her. I've never heard of someone actually being arrested for that when they were telling the truth. She had a guy with her that was from Oklahoma that she had gone to high school with. The officer asked him what he was doing in Missouri. So maybe he was just sceptical, and making sure.

scott715us
10-29-04, 12:02 AM
I called my little sister this morning to see how she was doing, and I got a "omg he arrested me for no reason rant". She had her insurance card, registration to the car, etc. Except her purse since she was " only " running down the road and back to make sure the cars battery was charged. She didn't have her DL on her. The officer arrested her, because he felt she was lying about her identity. She was pulled over for going 4 over the limit. I told her he did have reason, because you're supposed to carry it with you at all times , even if you're a passenger. Anyway she got off the phone mad at me.

:rolleyes:

I'm curious to know how often guys arrest for someone not having their drivers license on them?

Technically in our county, if you do not have your DL on you, it's an arrestable offense because I can't prove who you are. Even if you give me your name and DOB and a valid license # comes back, how do I know you're not givin me someone else's? I had this exact scenario a couple of weeks ago. This guy gave me some information, but I didn't believe him. Once I had him hooked up in the back of my car and he knew he was going to jail, he changed his story. Aside from driving on revoked license and an outstanding warrant, I also hit him up with a criminal impersonation charge. ;)

Legoate
10-29-04, 01:02 PM
I've never arrested anyone for no ID unless I thought they were lying about their identity. I generally look up the name they give me, then have them give me the other identifiers. I do, however, put a lot of people with no ID in the back of my car. It's funny how people suddenly remember their correct name once they are in the car. People who lip off while standing on the sidewalk, are usually much nicer sitting in the caged area for a little time out.

Deputy757
10-29-04, 02:21 PM
Then she wasn't really arrested. Yes, it was a seizure, but she was detained for investigative purposes.
Being taken against your will to a police station, no matter what the outcome, is arrest...at least in KY (and unless you're a juvenile). She obviously wasn't free to go and it went way beyond a reasonable detention.

Deputy757
10-29-04, 02:27 PM
Being taken against your will to a police station, no matter what the outcome, is arrest...at least in KY (and unless you're a juvenile). She obviously wasn't free to go and it went way beyond a reasonable detention.
I hate that there is no edit button here. Anyway, I don't disagree with what the officer did. We have a statute that makes No License in Possession an arrestable offense as well and I use it all the time. But it is an arrest.
BTW...along the lines of what TX posted....we are all speaking of situations involving someone driving a MV, not arresting someone simply because we think they may be lying about who they are...right?

rudegyal
10-29-04, 05:09 PM
Being taken against your will to a police station, no matter what the outcome, is arrest...at least in KY (and unless you're a juvenile). She obviously wasn't free to go and it went way beyond a reasonable detention.

She was crying hysterically, and argueing with him saying , yes this is mme why dont you believe me, she didn't understand that she needed to have her ID on her at ALL times

retdetsgt
10-29-04, 06:22 PM
Having her ID on her at all times is a good idea, but not the law as long as she isn't driving a motor vehicle.

Frankly, I never had the time to take someone to the station just because they didn't have a DL on them. That would have been a horrific waste of my time. If they had anything with their name on it I would run them and check the status of their DL and write them a ticket for not having it in their possession.

retdetsgt
10-29-04, 06:24 PM
I guess I should amend that, if it's some guy with jail house tats, three TV's in the back seat and he smells like he just came out of meth lab, yeah, I could find the time to take him down to get ID'd.

In Oregon, no DL isn't a jailable offense anyway.

acreature
10-29-04, 06:27 PM
Being taken against your will to a police station, no matter what the outcome, is arrest...at least in KY (and unless you're a juvenile). She obviously wasn't free to go and it went way beyond a reasonable detention.
I understand what you're saying, and still we may not have the entire story. If she was taken against her will, but not charged..... she wasn't arrested, IMO... possibly a Civil Rights Viol.

In NC, once arrested, you cannot be let go except by a Magistrate.

Possibly differing laws. She was cited and released... confusing. I dunno.

Ranger__101
10-29-04, 06:34 PM
The correct term for what occurred was an investigative detention. Police do have the right to hold some one until it is verified she is who she said she is or they can arrest if she lied about who she is.

When driving a vehicle you are required to have a valid drivers license and from what you are saying that is what the officer needed to verify.

The only valid ID is a State DL or ID card. You said she only had an insurance card. That would not qualify. I also suspect that there was more than your being told. For example in my state, if you don't have your DL you can provide the Officer all the infrmation and provide a signature. If the Officer believes you are who you say you are they can let you go and verify the information later.

Just remember something is fishy!!

rudegyal
10-29-04, 06:35 PM
Guys she was arrested. When they learned she was whom she had said, they let her leave on her OR with a few tickets.

retdetsgt
10-29-04, 07:46 PM
Guys she was arrested. When they learned she was whom she had said, they let her leave on her OR with a few tickets.

It depends on the state. Some states allow for arrest and booking on a traffic violation, some don't. Mine doesn't.

scott715us
10-29-04, 07:56 PM
Folks don't forget that anyone can be arrested for a driving offense (speeding, NO DL, etc). Guys in my department have taken people to jail for refusing to sign a ticket. Don't get me wrong, you'll probably get a mean look from the commissioner if you're just bringin someone in on a traffic offense, but although it is uncommon, it isn't unheard of. Whether ARREST or DETENTION, I think most agree with me, that it was legal. ;)

txinvestigator1
10-30-04, 12:24 AM
Folks don't forget that anyone can be arrested for a driving offense (speeding, NO DL, etc). Guys in my department have taken people to jail for refusing to sign a ticket. Don't get me wrong, you'll probably get a mean look from the commissioner if you're just bringin someone in on a traffic offense, but although it is uncommon, it isn't unheard of. Whether ARREST or DETENTION, I think most agree with me, that it was legal. ;)

True, except in Texas, a person may not be arrested for speeding if the person agrees to sign. If they refuse to sign, they can be booked.

Many departments don't let officers arrest for traffic even if the violator refuses to sign.

acreature
10-30-04, 12:27 AM
True, except in Texas, a person may not be arrested for speeding if the person agrees to sign. If they refuse to sign, they can be booked.

Many departments don't let officers arrest for traffic even if the violator refuses to sign.Wasn't it TX where the arrest for a seatbelt violation occurred? Went to the Supreme Court, and the arrest was ruled not a violation.

txinvestigator1
10-30-04, 12:47 AM
I am not sure. I am not sure what you mean by "the arrest was ruled not a violation".

acreature
10-30-04, 12:49 AM
I am not sure. I am not sure what you mean by "the arrest was ruled not a violation".Sorry. She and her Atty argued that the arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment for the seizure portion. The court ruled that nay violation of the law is arrestable, even an infraction.

I'll see if I can dig it up

acreature
10-30-04, 12:50 AM
Found it, it was TX, Tx ;)

http://www.ifisher.com/arrest.html

acreature
10-30-04, 12:51 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt.

Such arrests do not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search, the court declared Monday. In the 5-4 ruling, which could affect anyone who drives a car, the justices said such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.

Police generally can arrest anyone they see breaking the law, the court said as it barred a Texas woman from suing the officer who handcuffed her and took her to jail.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' A lower court had ruled that Gail Atwater could not sue over her arrest because the officer did not violate her constitutional rights.

Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer who had noticed the three were not wearing seat belts.

Texas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding. The officer arrested Atwater, handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her children and her pickup truck was towed away.

Atwater's mug shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the maximum $50 fine.

Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city and the police officer, saying the arrest violated her constitutional rights.

The high court majority rejected her argument that police should not have arrested her for a crime that would carry no jail time.

"The arrest and booking were inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment,'' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.

A lower federal judge had thrown out Atwater's lawsuit. A three-judge appellate court reinstated it, but the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she could not sue.

The appeals court said the arrest was reasonable because the officer had reason to believe Atwater violated the law and the arrest was not carried out in an ``extraordinary manner.''

The states have widely varying policies on whether police can arrest people for minor offenses. Some states allow officers to arrest people for offenses punishable only by a fine, while others prohibit it. Some states let officers arrest someone they witness committing a misdemeanor offense only if the offense is considered a breach of peace.

During arguments at the Supreme Court last December, Atwater's lawyer said the Fourth Amendment restricts the use of arrest for minor offenses. The case would be different if someone were stopped for drunken or reckless driving, which could cause danger for others on the road if they were released, her lawyer said.

O'Connor, writing for the minority, said Atwater's arrest was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It does not make sense for the majority to say both that Atwater's arrest served no state purpose and also to say that it passed constitutional muster, O'Connor wrote.

`"Because the court's position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent,'' she wrote.

The city's lawyer had argued that police are allowed to make an arrest if they witness someone violating the law. Police often don't have enough information to know if someone's actions are a misdemeanor or felony, the lawyer said.

The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

txinvestigator1
10-30-04, 12:52 AM
Sorry. She and her Atty argued that the arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment for the seizure portion. The court ruled that nay violation of the law is arrestable, even an infraction.

I'll see if I can dig it up


We don't have infractions. One can be arrested for a seat belt violation.

acreature
10-30-04, 12:54 AM
We don't have infractions. One can be arrested for a seat belt violation.Pre-Payable non-active offense.

Deputy757
10-30-04, 01:05 AM
The correct term for what occurred was an investigative detention. Police do have the right to hold some one until it is verified she is who she said she is or they can arrest if she lied about who she is.
Can you clarify this? Are you speaking generally or just in a case where someone does not have their drivers license with them while operating a motor vehicle? As mentioned before...this is going to vary from state to state. In KY, if I "hold" someone in the manner that the original poster talks about...I've actually arrested that person no matter what I'm calling it.

Ranger__101
10-30-04, 03:24 AM
I'm speking in the most general of terms in a best case senario. This specifically relates to the driver of a vehicle who does not have their license with them.

In my state they need to have their DL with them but if they provide enough information and I am pretty sure they are who they say they are and can verify a vailid DL I can let them go.

If they don't have a DL and I can't verify who they are I can detain them long enough to verify who they are and if I'm satisifed I can release them and it would not be an arrest.

Now like the other officers are saying.. If I would have to take the time to transport some one to verify their ID there would more than likely be citations issued for some violation. Probibally failure to ID or something along those lines.

From reading the posts and the questions it is comming back to the "definition of arrest" and how it's looked at by Officers and the Public.

Arrest -- your movement is restricted and you are getting a citation and or booking.

Investigative Detainment -- Some thing is not right. I am not sure if a law has been violated. Your movements are temporarily restricted until I can be sure that a law has or has not been violated.

Here's a questions to the other officers on the board. How does your definition of Arrest and Investigative Detainment differ from mine??

scott715us
10-30-04, 02:29 PM
Sounds about right to me. For driving without a DL, whether you arrest them or detain them, it is not a violation of their rights, because even in a detention scenario, you are soldifying the identity of the person you stopped. If you are not sure of who they are, you have every right to detain them until you do. I'm not saying it's a law to have ID, but it is a law to have a DL while driving. There is your reason for the detention.

It's easier for us folks that have the particular No DL ON PERSON law where it is a bookable offense. Hell, it even says it on my traffic book "must arrest on this offense." I don't necessarily do it if they can prove who they are, but I will definitely follow through if I feel they're lying. ;)

Johninaustin
10-30-04, 05:29 PM
This is the edited Cliff notes version. Ask her for the full text.:)

I arrest for Failure to ID fairly often, however it's usually transients that turn out to have parole violations. I've never ticketed for no DL in possession.