Missouri Stop and ID?

[kcgunfan]

I know with a CCW endorsement, I have to produce my endorsement if I'm carrying concealed, but what's the status on stop and ID laws in general?

The closest I can get is RSMo 84.710 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0840000710.HTM which appears to apply to KC's PD specifically.

 

[9026543]

I know with a CCW endorsement, I have to produce my endorsement if I'm carrying concealed, but what's the status on stop and ID laws in general?

The closest I can get is RSMo 84.710 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0840000710.HTM which appears to apply to KC's PD specifically.

You only have to produce your endorsement if ask by LEO. There is no provision for informing LEO that you have CCW prior to his asking.

 

[ChiangShih]

I'm not sure how varied these laws are from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the areas I frequent you only have to present ID if you are doing something that requires ID. Open carry does not require ID; therefore, you do not have to present an ID. The exception to this is if you are reasonably suspected of committing a crime, suspected of intent to commit a crime, or caught in the commission of a crime. Again, the commonly accepted perspective here is that having or carrying a gun, without any attendant circumstances, does not meet the suspect requirements for a stop and ID.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

That sounds like he's more interested in you are if the officer has no authority to arrest .... which kinda makes sense when you think about it.

 

[cash50]

If trying to remain anyonymous when doing no wrong in the presence of prying LEO's, be prepared to go to jail in Missouri.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

And just what authority is the officer going to use for said detainment?
Where in the legal code is his authority for such action?

You can go to jail for eating a ham sandwich on Sunday to the detriment of public order. That and being convicted of a crime are two different things. Unless an officer can cite authority to demand identification there is more than enough grounds for illegal detainment.

 

[Marc]

Well nobody said that it isnt illegal detainment but basically the rule of thumb around here is expect to go to jail for not producing id and the rest is what you have to fight in court. Been there done that and I wasnt even carrying at the time. I was just cocky and decided the LEO had no right to see my ID. The case was dismissed in court but i still sat in jail for about 5 hours.

 

[cash50]

And just what authority is the officer going to use for said detainment?
Where in the legal code is his authority for such action?

You can go to jail for eating a ham sandwich on Sunday to the detriment of public order. That and being convicted of a crime are two different things. Unless an officer can cite authority to demand identification there is more than enough grounds for illegal detainment.

I've never been able to find a MO Statute that allows LEO's to demand ID when you aren't doing anything. He'll use no legal authority. He'll probably charge "trespassing" or "interfering" or "peace disturbance".

 

[lancers]

After doing a little research, this is from Missouri Supreme Case #SC90978 that was published March 1st, 2011

The existence of "reasonable suspicion" is determined objectively by asking "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a person of [*9] reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." Pike, 162 S.W.3d at 473 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22). While this standard does not rise to that of the traditionally required probable cause, a proper Terry stop must be supported by "some minimal level of objective justification." State v. Johnson, 316 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. App. 2010) (quoting State v. Lanear, 805 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Mo. App. 1991)). "The [reasonable suspicion] that will justify the minimally intrusive 'Terry' stop is present when 'a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.'" State v. Mack, 66 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Mo. banc 2002) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30) (emphasis added).


A Terry stop is more than just a frisk for weapons. It is an investigation hinged upon an officer's reasonable suspicion and, consequently, a Terry stop detainee may be asked "a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicion." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). [*14] To that end, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that "questions concerning a suspect's identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops." See also section 84.710 (if he possesses reasonable suspicion, an officer may demand a suspect's "name, address, business abroad and whither he is going."). "In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)


Yeah, so be ready to ID yourself when you get stopped. If you read the entire case, the Missouri Supreme Court really has no doubts about how they stand on this. If the cop can show "unusual conduct" you have to give up your identity. Is open carrying unusual conduct? That is sure what the cop will say. He will also probably say he was concerned a robbery or shooting was about to occur.

 

[HYRYSC]

Bur first ask, "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?"

 

[kcgunfan]

After doing a little research, this is from Missouri Supreme Case #SC90978 that was published March 1st, 2011

That's a nice fresh decision...

 

[DarenGlock23]

My take...

When I'm "Terry stopped" I first ask if I am being detained. Then it's usually a no. Then I ask "what can I do for you officer?" usually it's a response concerning the pistol on my hip or leg, such as do you have a permit or a ccw and why is it not concealed. And I tell him I have no ccw endorsement so it would be illegal for me to conceal and open carry is legal without any permit. And then they ask for my ID. I usually just give it to him if they've been polite and not press their opinion. However I turn silent when I hear ignorance, or any persecution. Again, not for everyone but I take that route. The only other thing I say to them is I'd like to see your superior on duty. Maybe not for you but I've never had too many problems. I've been illegally disarmed and stormed at gunpoint and this is still my reaction. Calm and polite the entire time. Never been arrested. And usually get a sincere apology.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP After doing a little research, this is from Missouri Supreme Case #SC90978 that was published March 1st, 2011...

I don't see where in the quoted text a detainee can be compelled to answer any questions. Even in Hiibel, mentioned in the quoted text, there was a state statute compelling disclosing identity. The legal issue in Hiibel was whether or not the Nevada stop-and-identify statute that compelled Larry Hiibel to identify himself, which he was charged with violating, was constitutional. The court said the statute was. The key point here being he was compelled by law to identify himself, meaning he was compelled by law to answer the cop's questions, and when he didn't he was open to criminal penalty. There is a difference between a court saying a cop can ask or even loudly demand, and a court or legislature saying the detainee must answer with a penalty for refusing.

Is there some state statute or court decision that compels the detainee to answer identity questions?

PS: Wonders of the modern age. Larry Hiibel's police encounter that ended up before the US Supreme Court is available on YouTube. Just type his name into the search feature.

 

[lancers]

I don't see where in the quoted text a detainee can be compelled to answer any questions. Even in Hiibel, mentioned in the quoted text, there was a state statute compelling disclosing identity. The legal issue in Hiibel was whether or not the Nevada stop-and-identify statute that compelled Larry Hiibel to identify himself, which he was charged with violating, was constitutional. The court said the statute was. The key point here being he was compelled by law to identify himself, meaning he was compelled by law to answer the cop's questions, and when he didn't he was open to criminal penalty. There is a difference between a court saying a cop can ask or even loudly demand, and a court or legislature saying the detainee must answer with a penalty for refusing.

Is there some state statute or court decision that compels the detainee to answer identity questions?

PS: Wonders of the modern age. Larry Hiibel's police encounter that ended up before the US Supreme Court is available on YouTube. Just type his name into the search feature.

Where officers entertain a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot they may stop the suspected person, identify themselves, require the suspect to identify himself, and make reasonable inquiries concerning his activities. State v. Rankin, 477 SW2d 72, 75

From State v. Lasley, 583 S.W.2d 511:
Where police officers entertain a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, they may stop the suspected person, identify themselves as police officers, require the suspect to identify himself, and make reasonable inquiries concerning his activities. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612, 92 S. Ct. 1921 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); State v. Rankin, 477 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Mo. 1972) (per curiam); State v. Johnson, 566 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Mo. App. 1978).

I'm exhausted and don't really have the energy to really dive into these cases too deeply right now, but they seem to be pretty consistent. While they are from the late 70's, I would take that last case I posted from a few days ago as agreeing with those decisions. "Demand" in that case seems to be used interchangeably with "require".

So unless you have warrants, you are probably best identifying yourself. You could at first try asking them right away, "why do you need my ID, do you think I'm doing something illegal?" They may say, "no". Then you can tell them then if they don't have reasonable suspicion, they don't need your ID. Of course this is all much better if you are recording it for later, but getting them to admit on the spot they don't really think (or can't come up with at the time) anything you are doing illegal or might be doing illegal, will make it that much more difficult for them in court. If you don't go through all of that and end up getting arrested, you give them lots of time to talk with their supervisors and to come up with a story about why they had reasonable suspicion.

 

[DarenGlock23]

...

Yea... That's just wrong.

 

[REALteach4u]

A student has asked me this question of late and I was unable to provide anything solid, but promised I'd research it. Here's what I've found to be primary, likely just adding to what others have already posted.

Terry v. Ohio
Hibel v. Nevada (2004, in the 6th Judicial District Court)
Municipal codes may be present that also make it unlawful (Springfield's is 78-36 and/or 78-192)

I am not a lawyer folks, this is just what I've found so far on the matter.

Reasonable suspicion must be present. Then the LEO can ask you to identify yourself to ensure their own safety, check warrants, and rule the individual out for other crimes.

An example given to me by local PD was this: Person walking down the sidewalk, no reasonable suspicion, person tells cop to get bent (in a more vulgar way), LEO can ask for ID but the person can refuse and nothing can be done. BUT, if that person had been J-walking, reasonable suspicion exists at that point, LEO can ask for ID and the person can still refuse but it could be a criminally chargeable offense. This was under Hibel v. Nevada, US Supreme Court ruling.

The Hibel case harshly reemphasizes the Terry v. Ohio decision that reasonable suspicion must exist. The State v. Rankin case also adds to the issue folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html (see section III)

Here's the State v. Waldrup case (2011) that was posted above.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/d51dca8d91764792862577c100726f43/$FILE/SC90978_Waldrup_reply_brief.pdf

 

[lancers]

A student has asked me this question of late and I was unable to provide anything solid, but promised I'd research it. Here's what I've found to be primary, likely just adding to what others have already posted.

Terry v. Ohio
Hibel v. Nevada (2004, in the 6th Judicial District Court)
Municipal codes may be present that also make it unlawful (Springfield's is 78-36 and/or 78-192)

I am not a lawyer folks, this is just what I've found so far on the matter.

Reasonable suspicion must be present. Then the LEO can ask you to identify yourself to ensure their own safety, check warrants, and rule the individual out for other crimes.

An example given to me by local PD was this: Person walking down the sidewalk, no reasonable suspicion, person tells cop to get bent (in a more vulgar way), LEO can ask for ID but the person can refuse and nothing can be done. BUT, if that person had been J-walking, reasonable suspicion exists at that point, LEO can ask for ID and the person can still refuse but it could be a criminally chargeable offense. This was under Hibel v. Nevada, US Supreme Court ruling.

The Hibel case harshly reemphasizes the Terry v. Ohio decision that reasonable suspicion must exist. The State v. Rankin case also adds to the issue folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html (see section III)

Here's the State v. Waldrup case (2011) that was posted above.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/d51dca8d91764792862577c100726f43/$FILE/SC90978_Waldrup_reply_brief.pdf

I completely agree. The only thing is, if the cop sees the guy J-walking, he has probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. It's incredibly easy for a police officer to get reasonable suspicion.