Legal requirement to show ID if not driving?

[freesoul]

I did some searches but can't find an answer on this. What is the legal requirement to furnish identification to LEO if one is not driving?

Not speaking specifically about open or concealed carry or opinions on what one should do, I'm looking for the legal requirements.

Thanks in advance

[jerkin]

AFAIK, there is no law that you even need any kind of ID let alone furnish it. This was brought up before and I believe all you need to do is state your name and birthdate. Might need an address as well. This isn't Russia.................yet.

[officer64]

There is no law requiring one to carry ID just walking around or whatever. The license requirement is not so much for ID purposes, but rather to prove that you are a licensed driver.

However, if a LEO requests to see ID for virtually any reason, one is required to produce the ID, if you have any on you at that time.

From a standpoint of legality or Constitutionality, I can see the concern some have, but I'd want to have ID on me at anytime if God forbid something happens. It would be real nice and very helpful if the authorities can ID me if I need medical attention or worse, to be able to notify next of kin.

[anonymouse]

However, if a LEO requests to see ID for virtually any reason, one is required to produce the ID, if you have any on you at that time.

Really? I'm required to produce ID for virtually any reason the LEO decides?

Where is this requirement defined?

[leeam]

IANAL and I've been wrong many times in the past, but I thought you were only required to produce ID if you are Terry stopped, Arrested, or are doing something that requires a license (fishing, concealed carry, driving, etc).

[o1dakota440]

IANAL but i thought a leo could not make you do or show him anything, if you were not doing anything illegal. they can ask you anything they want but you do not have to respond.

[freesoul]

There is no law requiring one to carry ID just walking around or whatever. The license requirement is not so much for ID purposes, but rather to prove that you are a licensed driver.

However, if a LEO requests to see ID for virtually any reason, one is required to produce the ID, if you have any on you at that time.

From a standpoint of legality or Constitutionality, I can see the concern some have, but I'd want to have ID on me at anytime if God forbid something happens. It would be real nice and very helpful if the authorities can ID me if I need medical attention or worse, to be able to notify next of kin.

Thanks for your reply but your first and second paragraphs contradict one another.

And whether or not I choose to carry ID for any reason does not answer my original question on whether I am legally required to furnish it upon demand. Opinions aside I'm hoping for a definitive answer.

thanks

[Pa. Patriot]

...
However, if a LEO requests to see ID for virtually any reason, one is required to produce the ID, if you have any on you at that time.

Please provide a citation to this claim.

Don't bother looking because there is no such requirement in Pa.
In fact, here is a cite to federal case law that establishes you do not need to show paper ID when not engaging in a related (to the ID) activity.
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. (03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

officer64, are you an LEO? (asking due to the screen name) ... If so I would recommend re-familiarizing yourself with the protections the 4th Amendment provides. Requiring someone to produce papers when not required could land you on the wrong end of a civil rights lawsuit. And that would suck for everyone involved and is totally unnecessary

IANAL and I've been wrong many times in the past, but I thought you were only required to produce ID if you are Terry stopped, Arrested, or are doing something that requires a license (fishing, concealed carry, driving, etc).

If one is not required to carry ID, when not engaging in a privilaged (Licensed) activity. How can one produce said not-required ID when "terry stopped" or "arrested"?
Think about it

IANAL but i thought a leo could not make you do or show him anything, if you were not doing anything illegal. they can ask you anything they want but you do not have to respond.

Point of note: You do not have to answer even if you ARE doing something illegal. (5th Amendment). Anyway, answering Q's and being required to show ID are two different animals. You ARE required to produce ID for certain privileged activities required said ID. You are not obligated to talk to (incriminate yourself) a LEO.

[/dev/null]

Am I being detained?

I dont consent to ANY search, but will comply (and if driving the car is conveniently locked with my keys IN the car - if Im asked to step out - of course, Id have to produce a DL for that - now if the window happens to be broken out is sure doesnt look consensual now, does it!)

State my name and shut up.


This stuff has been discussed to death. If one is walking around and an officer requests, you dont have to say anything. Of course you might well BE detained / arrested if they want, but then thats why we all have our voice recorders, right?

IANAL - but after hours of exhaustive reading Ive come to the conclusion one is best to speak as little as possible (like NEVER), and simply state your name - nothing more. LEO's are getting the training to realize that more citizens are defending their rights and actually know the law... stand firm. (and READ Pa. Patriots response above!!)

(of course were all doing absolutely NOTHING illegal now are we... so were all in the clear)

[knight0334]

You cannot make a mute man say his name, nor a man not carrying his ID to provide it. You always have a right to be silent and a right against self-incrimination. You cannot be compelled by physical force to provide something you cannot say, nor give that you do not bear.

Unless you are participating in an act that the law requires you to keep and bear a license or ID, you are under no requirement to present one when asked.