My rule is to consider every stop by a cop as a lawful detention. I immediately ask if I am free to leave. I await a answer.
1. If I receive a affirmative response, I extend a heart felt "good day to you officer" and leave.
2. If no affirmative response to my question is forthcoming, or I receive deflection or obfuscation, I
am being detained.
3. While detained I do not consent to any search or any seizure, I also do not provide any identification documents. I provide my name and address only to avoid a charge of "failure to obey."
4. Citizen believe we must provide a
identification document, no where does it state that a citizen must provide a identification document. Driving a car is different. I will not going down that road again.
SECTION 210.145: FAILURE TO OBEY POLICE
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully and knowingly fail to obey a lawful command of any Police Officer of the City duly authorized in executing or attempting to execute and carry into effect any provision of this Code or other ordinance or order passed or made by the proper authorities of this City, or in serving or attempting to serve any legal writ, warrant, process or order issued by the Mayor or other officer of the City. (R.O. 2006 §210.020; CC 1988 §15-16; Ord. No. 347 §20, 7-2-63; Ord. No. 355 §7-504, 1-8-64)
One of those lawful commands may be to provide identifying information.
Unfortunately the lawfulness of the command will only be determined later, in court.
Example from experience:
Background: A neighbor's daughter was giving my son and her brother a ride home from middle school. She turned into traffic and hit a vehicle (fender bender, no injuries). I got a call from my son and went to pick them both up. I greeted the cop, freely provided my name and relationship to the occupants. We even shook hands. I checked on all threes health then directed them to get their things and ask the officer for permission to ride home with me. I then backed away from the immediate area to my truck and waited for the boys to gather their belongings and get into my truck. The cop then approaches me and the following exchange takes place.
Cop: Excuse me sir, could I see your ID?
Me: Am I being detained officer?
Cop: No sir, I just need to see your ID because you are taking those two boys.
Me: Was not me providing my name, and my son and his friend confirming my identity sufficient to justify my "taking" those two boys with me?
Cop: Well, we have a policy to request ID in this type of situation.
Me: I understand officer. As much as I desire to assist you, and depart your accident scene with my son and his friend, I respectfully request that a supervisor be summoned.
Cop: That will not be necessary sir, asking for ID is nothing more than a matter of policy, you understand. We don't want children to be taken by unsavory types.
Me: With all due respect officer, your request is unlawful, especially so after I identified myself and those two boys asked
you for permission to depart with me, which you gave. Unless you can justify the lawfulness of your command, now or later, I will be on my way or I will await your supervisor to determine the next step in this process.
Cop: (looks peeved) You are free to go.
Me: Thank you officer.
Cop: (walking away) Thanks, have a good day.
I later stopped by the station and requested a brief chat with the chief or assistant chief. I was granted a audience and related my praise for that officer's professionalism and efficiency. I also related my concern regarding the departments' higher-ups training their officers to apply policy that is clearly beyond the scope of the law.
The gravity of that situation was very minor, the implications of that situation are very profound. I am very fond of resolving minor issues at the lowest level possible. This approach rarely results in bruised egos.