• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question about Stop and ID laws in Nova...

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Ok, so I can see that Herndon has no statute pertaining to "Stop and ID" but Loudoun does... But for the life of me I can't find an explanaition for what this means to me, the OCer. I've tried finding it in the Loudoun.gov library , even found a link on OCDO to it but that statute won't come up for me to see it. Google hasn't been any help either, which is a first for me.

What is a Stop and ID law and how does it pertain to me, the OCer? How does this change any encounter with LEO?

Sent using tapatalk
 

Sesrun

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Roanoke, VA
If your question is how to view the actual ordinance through Loudoun County's website then:
1) Go to "Loudoun County Ordinances"
2) Click "Part Six: General Offenses (Chapter 602-692)"
3) Click to open "Chapter 654-Offences Against Public Peace and Safety" (PDF)
4) Scroll down to 654.01(d)

It is "unlawful...to fail to identify [one's self] at the request of [an]...officer" when "at a public place or place open to the public." The requirement is "when circumstances indicate that public safety requires such identification."

For previous discussion of Stop & Carry look -> here. The highlights are quoted in that post and the original link to the main thread (5pgs) is there as well.
 
Last edited:

Sesrun

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Roanoke, VA
The validity of the statutes is definitely in question, nevertheless there are a minimum of 12 such local statutes in the State of Virginia. I am sure there is at least 1 cop who would charge you for a violation too. The court battle and whether you would win is another question.

Hibel is regarding Stop & ID statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Where does it describe that local ordinances are invalid?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The validity of the statutes is definitely in question, nevertheless there are a minimum of 12 such local statutes in the State of Virginia. I am sure there is at least 1 cop who would charge you for a violation too. The court battle and whether you would win is another question.

Hibel is regarding Stop & ID statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Where does it describe that local ordinances are invalid?

It doesn't. It states that "stop and ID" is not valid; unless a state has a statute defining it. (to paraphrase).


http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html
The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The unanswered question is whether localities other than a state may enact valid Stop&ID statute under the wording of Hiibel.
 
Last edited:

Sesrun

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Roanoke, VA
It doesn't. It states that "stop and ID" is not valid; unless a state has a statute defining it. (to paraphrase).


http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html



The unanswered question is whether localities other than a state may enact valid Stop&ID statute under the wording of Hiibel.

I see. So the authority of locality to create Stop & ID ordinances is not legally restricted nor authorized at this point. I misunderstood your earlier post.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Note also the emphasis above. IIRC SCOTUS held that any S&I statute MUST be worded to comply with the provisions of 'Terry'; namely 'reasonable, articulable suspicion..of a crime...'

Seems to me the even if a local ordinance/statute is in place, if it does not specify Terry's 'RAS' provisions, then it is unenforceable. See also.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Note also the emphasis above. IIRC SCOTUS held that any S&I statute MUST be worded to comply with the provisions of 'Terry'; namely 'reasonable, articulable suspicion..of a crime...'

Seems to me the even if a local ordinance/statute is in place, if it does not specify Terry's 'RAS' provisions, then it is unenforceable. See also.

That sounds accurate.
But, judging by the text of the Opinion section II, it appears to be a construct from Brown, not Hiibel:

In Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity.

The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual's interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654.
 
Last edited:
Top