Arrested

[A330FO]

In my state, refusing to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer who is conducting an investigation in good faith (regardless of whether an actual crime has been committed, such as if (s)he were responding to a complaint called in by a third party) you could open yourself up to a misdemeanor charge of Obstructing Official Business, especially if there is an attempt to conceal your identity through a false name. I agree with Mr. Van Gervan that it will at the very least cost you time and money, which to me is avoidable. If you have an issue with being questioned, it's never a bad idea to comply at the time, and file a complaint with the department. In today's world, de-escalation is ever wise, and would lessen the chance of wearing linked bracelets.

I'm not familiar with the original story, but I prefer taking an approach toward people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with drones and their legal use as an ambassador. Winning the hearts and minds through education will ensure our retaining legal use of drones. Confrontation can lead to legislation written to further limit areas where we can enjoy this hobby.

This is my opinion, not meant to be argumentative.

Very well said!

 

[CAG]

To put this is legal court terms. This entire thread is "asked and answered". It is a repeat of the original, include various takes on laws for identifying one's self.

 

[SxSmith]

I’m sure this case is older than the new law in place. And the test hasn’t been defined yet, but it will be later this year. So now you’ll be having to ID yourself to any law enforcement under federal law. So prepare thyself. It’s coming.

Section 349:
“The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.”

 

[Jim Cap]

In my state, refusing to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer who is conducting an investigation in good faith (regardless of whether an actual crime has been committed, such as if (s)he were responding to a complaint called in by a third party) you could open yourself up to a misdemeanor charge of Obstructing Official Business, especially if there is an attempt to conceal your identity through a false name. I agree with Mr. Van Gervan that it will at the very least cost you time and money, which to me is avoidable. If you have an issue with being questioned, it's never a bad idea to comply at the time, and file a complaint with the department. In today's world, de-escalation is ever wise, and would lessen the chance of wearing linked bracelets.

I'm not familiar with the original story, but I prefer taking an approach toward people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with drones and their legal use as an ambassador. Winning the hearts and minds through education will ensure our retaining legal use of drones. Confrontation can lead to legislation written to further limit areas where we can enjoy this hobby.

This is my opinion, not meant to be argumentative.

Very well Written and the Same in my state, California.

 

[EJRoberts]

Cooperation with the authorities should be a given! As long as the cooperation is within the legal boundaries of the law. For example, in a public area, a member of the LE community cannot just come upon you and demand ID for no other reason then to identify you without cause. If you are not being detained (in almost every state in the USA), you are free to depart at your will. Detainment infers you have A) committed a crime, B) are committing a crime, or C) will be committing a crime. Terry Stop!!! Reasonable Articulated Suspicion (RAS) is required for detainment, not just a “show me ID because I’m a cop”. To blatantly go along is to submit to unlawful detainment. There are, unfortunately, many in the LE community that do need further education on public relations. Should anyone reading this, I encourage you that you should be fully aware of the laws concerning STOP and ID within your state!

I am not saying you are wrong on what you say, but rather there is an alternative.

All this is true, but why wouldn’t you identify yourself if you A) have not committed a crime, B) are not committing a crime, or C) are not going to commit a crime. LEOs have a difficult job, and surely overstep their bounds from time to time. But de-escalation by not being confrontational or aggressive back to the officer is preferable to “proving a point”. It seems that if respect is given, is is more likely to be received in the end

 

[A330FO]

All this is true, but why wouldn’t you identify yourself if you A) have not committed a crime, B) are not committing a crime, or C) are not going to commit a crime. LEOs have a difficult job, and surely overstep their bounds from time to time. But de-escalation by not being confrontational or aggressive back to the officer is preferable to “proving a point”. It seems that if respect is given, is is more likely to be received in the end

Well said! I wish more of the "rebels" on this forum understood that.

 

[Olav van Gerven]

The question (for the US at least) about identifying when flying a drone, if requested by a LEO is solved: The FAA requiers it, so there is no reason to discus it in context of flying.

In all other cases, you are right, if not obligated by law, why should one?

 

[AMann]

All this is true, but why wouldn’t you identify yourself if you A) have not committed a crime, B) are not committing a crime, or C) are not going to commit a crime. LEOs have a difficult job, and surely overstep their bounds from time to time. But de-escalation by not being confrontational or aggressive back to the officer is preferable to “proving a point”. It seems that if respect is given, is is more likely to be received in the end

It hasn’t happened for a long while since I’ve stopped speeding like an idiot, but during that time in my youth when I used to do that, I received far more verbal warnings than tickets I did deserve just by being sincerely polite. Win.

 

[hiflyer201]

everything about that post and letter have the distinct mark of a prank. ..

 

[beejAMG]

All this is true, but why wouldn’t you identify yourself if you A) have not committed a crime, B) are not committing a crime, or C) are not going to commit a crime. LEOs have a difficult job, and surely overstep their bounds from time to time. But de-escalation by not being confrontational or aggressive back to the officer is preferable to “proving a point”. It seems that if respect is given, is is more likely to be received in the end

^^^THIS!
Life can be so simple. Some ladies just wants to complicate things coz they feel sooooo entitled.

Some so-called “PILOTS” need to know that they cant physically ride their drones and should get off their “high drones”.

Police: can i see some identification please.
“PILOT”: i dont need to show you ****!! Im a “PILOT” and i know my rights!

FFS, everything would have been de-escalated if you would have reached into your back pocket or most cases in this forum, your “MAN PURSE”, and showed your ID.

 

[CAG]

“MAN PURSE”,

Murse

 

[CAG]

In all other cases, you are right, if not obligated by law, why should one?

Probably because it would deescalate and make a much shorter visit by the LEO. You don't have to, but what does it hurt and why make an issue of something so simple, unless, you happen to be one of those Posse Comitatus dudes and are looking for a fight

Generally, I did not ask for it if there was not a legitimate reason and the question was not backed by law or PC but, that does not mean that I could not ask, it just means that if the above does not apply, you don't have to produce. So we moved on from there. If I think you are directly involved in the call that has sent me there we are in a different ball game.

 

[Roc Rat]

In Colorado you are not required to show ID unless the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has / is being committed. There are lots of ignorant (about the law) cops out there who are badge heavy..but being respectful ALWAYS gets you further that being hostile. ( You should have represented yourself in court...maybe!)

 

[CAG]

In Colorado you are not required to show ID unless the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has / is being committed.

You might want to recheck that law. Most "produce ID" requirement are related to the officer "investigating" a call and believing that the person whom he/she is requesting ID from is related to the call. It generally does not have to be a crime per se but rather a reason to believe that person is involved or can produce information helpful to the investigation. PC is the best but "founded suspicion" which is the next step below that can come to play. So in most cases there may not be a crime yet, but the officer is trying to determine whether there was.

And BTW those are court decisions (case law) not written law in some state statute book. It goes all the way back to Terry V Ohio and there have been several ruling since that old case.

 

[BamaBomber]

Great, but I’d like to hear the rest of this story. And what’s the deal with “repurposing” your bond??? I assume it didn’t apply to your case but that sounds like a serious Takings Clause issue. What state is this? If you’re not guilty of anything you should get the whole bond back.

(Also, he should have said “I appreciate YOUR letting us....” but most lawyers don’t understand the genitive case these days).

Yes, gotta love those guys.. Mr Shakespeare had a valid point huh

 

[BamaBomber]

Very well said!

I’m a drone enthusiast and a cop. What you have to understand about police officers is they’re not attorneys, and don’t know the statutes like an attorney does. But if you refuse to show me ID, you’ll get to employ your attorney. It’s ALWAYS best to produce an ID when asked. This is one method that we in law enforcement keep ourself safe by knowing what may be around the corner. I know that some states have let politics change this fact, but I disagree with not allowing a cop to see your ID. It puts cops at risk, and we’re not all bad.

 

[CAG]

It puts cops at risk, and we’re not all bad.

We as LEO's still have to abide by the Constitution. Terry V Ohio and cases that followed simply say that your protection under the 4th Amendment only go so far when you are asked to product ID. Both the LEO and the citizen need to know where that line is and if the LEO doesn't it is going to cause a bad arrest, a dismissed case, and perhaps a law suit against the officer and agency.

We as LEO's need to know when not to ask as much as when to ask.

And I politely disagree. I probably know the law better than some lawyers and I don't get to drag out the law book and research it for hours.

 

[rider29206]

There is no judgement according to the message of the attorney. The charge(s) was (were) dropped by the SA.

In the US, failing to identify is in many states a secondary charge. The first thing that is requiered is, that there has been a legal arrest for another crime. Then you are requiered to identify. If not arrested, you don't have to identify, although IF you decide to give details, zhey must be correct. The "failing to" charge is often used as a kind of "contempt of cop" charge. They know the charges will get dropped, BUT through the system in the US, it will cost you a lot of time and money.

Under Part 107 you are required to show you 107 license when asked by any law enforcement officer.

 

[DroningOn]

if you refuse to show me ID, you’ll get to employ your attorney

Exhibit A of what many of us are talking about here. The “keep us safe“ justification does not apply in every situation. Just because a cop is “curious” doesn’t give them the legal right to demand a person to identify themselves. It’s one thing to stop a meth head at 2 AM in front of a 7-Eleven but it’s another thing to detain a person in a park in the middle of the day who is committing no crime. Thankfully, cops all over the country are finally realizing that such tactics can result in a nightmare of administrative backlash by way of official complaints and public scrutiny.

Newsflash! People do not have to talk to law enforcement if they don’t want to... ever.

Now... to all those “if you aren’t guilty of anything” people out there. People need to understand the world today. What do you think happens when LE gets your ID and walks back to his car? You think he grabs his mic and calls in “wants and warrants” like an old TV show? No. Your information and circumstances of the interaction is entered into a database that is retained and distributed among countless law-enforcement and various other government agencies.
To those of you who do not care about such things, more power to you but stop demonizing those of us who do feel it is important and value our privacy.

 

[Maviac]

Yes, gotta love those guys.. Mr Shakespeare had a valid point huh

Well, I am one, so I can’t agree with you entirely (unless you are referring to the actual point of the Shakespeare passage, which was that the criminals wanted lawyers gone). But we probably could use fewer of us.