Lovely Day Media wrote:
Suppose you're at home one day minding your own business and not making a whole bunch of noise. A police officer rings your doorbell. When you answer the door, they ask "are you _____________ (whatever your name is)?" You say yes, I am. They ask "can I see some ID?"

Do you A) say yes and hand it to them, B) say no, C) say no but have a good day (while closing the door), D) ask why they want to see your ID, or E) something else that I haven't thought about as yet?

Inquiring minds want to know.

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

*******************
In a free society, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to “show their papers” to police. In fact, in the United States there’s no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
...
As of 2013, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. So one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when … sk-for-id/

There is a ton on this through google.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
You're right ... there is a ton of information on this subject. None of it, though, tells me how an individual will or thinks they will handle this kind of situation.

In that case: I have asked them why I have been pulled over before handing over my id.  I have been stopped while walking and had no id on me.  But they claimed they had a report and I met the description.  Afterward, I went to the store where I was "accused" of shop lifting and talked to the manager.  Then I talked to the cop's superior since the description the cop gave me was substantially different than the one the store gave the cops.  So a whole bunch of cops had to waste a whole bunch of time with me that day.  All of which would have been avoided had the cop just been polite and courteous to begin with.  My general philosophy for the next time, is to be prepared to show ID and inform him that once I show it to him, against my will, I will sue him.  But, ultimately, it would depend on how much I wanted to argue with a cop on that particular day.

There was a you tube video floating around, where a guy in an open carry state was stopped for open carry.   The cops demanded ID and he refused because they approached him over concern about a legal activity.  They tried to trick him into showing ID under the premise that "they had to" check to see if he was a felon.  The ploy failed.  So, sometime, when I really want to waste my day, I will legally open carry and refuse the cop's demand to see ID.

Kev Lawson wrote:
This is a good discussion. Can we avoid it turning soapboxy and getting locked?

Probably not, unless we hold the discussion in a superficial, iintellectually dishonest way.

╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭

Which is always an option.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Suppose you're at home one day minding your own business and not making a whole bunch of noise. A police officer rings your doorbell. When you answer the door, they ask "are you _____________ (whatever your name is)?" You say yes, I am. They ask "can I see some ID?"

Do you A) say yes and hand it to them, B) say no, C) say no but have a good day (while closing the door), D) ask why they want to see your ID, or E) something else that I haven't thought about as yet?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I would politely say: 
Sure Officer, there is no problem.  May I see your ID/credential , and where is your patrol car and partner? 

If he complies with my request.  I will show my ID.  If he does not look legit, I will call 911 for police back up.  We have surveillance cameras all over to document the incident, I would also ask him to smile to the camera and politely ask him refrain shooting me....... hahahahah.

Don Garrett wrote:
The stereotypical Nazi command, by the officials, was, "show me your papers". The police in the U.S. have become WAY too much like our version of the gestapo.
-Don

The little difference being that if your ID showed that you were the "wrong" ethnicity then the Gestapo would haul you off to be exterminated. Showing your ID here results in absolutely nothing (unless you're a criminal on the run).

Don Garrett wrote:
The stereotypical Nazi command, by the officials, was, "show me your papers". The police in the U.S. have become WAY too much like our version of the gestapo.
-Don

I agree, nothing more than an armed branch of the local and state judicial systems that need revenues derived from fines to operate.

Kev Lawson wrote:
This is a good discussion. Can we avoid it turning soapboxy and getting locked?

...well, so much for that wish...

Don Garrett wrote:
Oh, I thought that if you were "the wrong ethnicity" the cop could kill you and never get prosecuted for it, or brought to trial, by a bogus grand jury decision, like is done in this country.
-Don

K E E L I N G wrote:
Not sure why I'd want it to be a secret who I am, so yes I would cooperate fully with them so they can move on and continue doing their job.  If I've done nothing wrong I am in no more danger cooperating than I would be not cooperating, and in fact my guess is I am in much less danger.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

"problems included negligence by criminal justice officials, coerced confessions, "frame ups" by guilty parties, and general overzealousness by officers and prosecutors"

K E E L I N G wrote:
If I've done nothing wrong I am in no more danger cooperating than I would be not cooperating, and in fact my guess is I am in much less danger.

Your logic is airtight. Lets eliminate protections for self incrimination from the 5th Amendment.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

Your logic is airtight. Lets eliminate protections for self incrimination from the 5th Amendment.

There's no incrimination involved in revealing your identity, unless you're you're a fugitive... in which case all bets are off.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Do you A) say yes and hand it to them, B) say no, C) say no but have a good day (while closing the door), D) ask why they want to see your ID, or E) something else that I haven't thought about as yet?.

Seems to me that a request to show ID is not unreasonable.  I'd show it, right away.

Seems to me that a request to see the policeman's ID is also not unreasonable.  I'd ask for it, and if it is shown, I'd want to jot down the ID number.

I'd strive to maintain a polite & cooperative tone.  Save the confrontations for later.  I'd also not plead my "case" to a policeman -- he's not a judge, jury, or lawyer and may not have the flexibility to make decisions.

Look -- that knock on the door might be for important reasons, like someone else representing himself with your ID. 

Note:  I live on the top 2 floors of a duplex, and there is an intercom by the front door (ground floor) -- our conversation would be over the intercom -- it would take me a minute or two to get down there, and if I didn't know to bring my ID, I'd have to come back upstairs for it.

What's the big deal?

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
There's no incrimination involved in revealing your identity, unless you're you're a fugitive... in which case all bets are off.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you need the 5th amendment?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

If you have nothing to hide, why do you need the 5th amendment?

To protect us when we DO have something to hide.

If you get pulled over for speeding, it's still best to remain silent about your reason for speeding if the reason is that you're getting away from the bank you just robbed down the street. You can remain silent and let them figure it out on their own.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
To protect us when we DO have something to hide.

If you get pulled over for speeding, it's still best to remain silent about your reason for speeding if the reason is that you're getting away from the bank you just robbed down the street. You can remain silent and let them figure it out on their own.

This is great news, because it means anyone who invokes it must have something to hide. So invoking the 5th amendment to avoid self incrimination actually causes self incrimination. That makes everything much more simple!

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

This is great news, because it means anyone who invokes it must have something to hide. So invoking the 5th amendment to avoid self incrimination actually causes self incrimination. That makes everything much more simple!

Actually, the protection to you in the case I mentioned would be that unless they had read you your rights, they would not be able to use your admission of robbing the bank in a trial against you. Sure it would help them find other evidence, but the constitution would protect you from what you said to them during that stop.

The Grey Forest wrote:
Directly from a law attorneys mouth who is specialized in this field:
"never talk to police"

I was once doing up a contract with someone else. We decided we better have a couple lawyers look at it. By the time we were all done, we were pretty much where we had started, but with a lot of steamed discussion, table-pounding, and a few thousand dollars down the tubes.

A lawyer can be useful and helpful. Sometimes too much so. For instance following the scenario described by this lawyer just may result in the cop on the other side of the door saying to his partner, "Screw it. We won't return little Fido to him. Let's just take it to the pound."

I and the common person have a great deal of respect for law enforcement, however ...once your witness this type of police abuse, it forever changes your perspective.

Maybe. I've been treated inappropriately by ersatz artists/models, lawyers (see above), law enforcement officers, drive-through cashiers, delivery services, merchants, food service types, clients, and so on.... but I still continue to work with all of these types as the occasion demands. You adjust your outlook and expectations for the issue at hand.

The Grey Forest wrote:
Wow, well I for one are truly amazed that you are a "Forum Guide" Justin.

Well, I always wanted to be amazing.

your analogy on the contract is regarding a civil - not a Criminal matter.

The analogy just had to do with excess officiousness muddying up waters that otherwise just might be fairly clear.

2nd, the list of other samples of inappropriate behavior by 'others' are not all applicable: nor do they come knocking at your residence and demand ID under the color of law or have the power to arrest/detain you.  It in fact does change a persons initial glossed perspective until they educate themselves further at the sheer type of power over another by the wearing of a uniform/badge.  The power of incarceration and violation of personal rights and personal property is a very serious one trumps all other frivolous samples you provided.

That's fine.

I've had cops come to the door. They've asked for information to help them out, which I provided. I've witnessed accidents and talked to cops about what I saw and gave them my name and number. If I were terribly concerned about the same things that you are, they wouldn't have gotten the information that I had, but that sure would've been my right to not give it.

So to return to the lawyer example, if I listened to the lawyer refrain about never talking to cops, they would not have gotten information from me that helped them in their duties. But for my part, I just see that as being too extreme in self-protection.

The point of my second example is that one bad experience can sure sour our view on things (I wish I had a quarter for every time I heard someone say, "I'm done with men/women"), whether that experience and the people involved are trivial or profound. For me, that one experience isn't going to sour me. For others, it will. Mileage varies by driver.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
In this case, it doesn't matter what color you are because it doesn't matter what the police do. This is all about your action or reaction to the problem. They've asked if you're ________ and now they want proof (they don't believe you).

But not necessarily. If they're telling you about the unfortunate incident with Uncle Bob, and you were an emergency contact, they may need to establish your identity. If, as described above, they're returning Fido, but Fido is a rare shih tzu/great dane hybrid, they may want to make sure Fido's going to the right person. If they have heard you were a witness to a malicious act of graffiti, they may want to be sure they can say in their report, "I established the identity of the witness."

If I need to have something notarized, the notary might ask me, "Are you Justin?" I say yes. The notary says, "May I see a photo ID?" It's not because the notary disbelieves me, necessarily. It's because establishing identity is a part of the notary's job.