I don't have to give you my name!
May 31, 2018 12:37 PM Subscribe
Is there ever any advantage to refusing to identify yourself to a police officer?
From googling, it looks like it's not clearcut when one is required to either provide an ID or verbally identify yourself to police: varies by state, depends on whether they have probable cause (which I'm guessing most people aren't particularly expert at determining), etc. But it does seem like a lot of the current viral videos start out with the person in question stating some version of "I don't have to tell you my name" and events going downhill from there.
Assuming you are quite sure you don't have any warrants outstanding (and even then) is there ever any good reason not to just tell the cop your name and hand over your license? What advantage would you ever get out of refusing to identify yourself?
From googling, it looks like it's not clearcut when one is required to either provide an ID or verbally identify yourself to police: varies by state, depends on whether they have probable cause (which I'm guessing most people aren't particularly expert at determining), etc. But it does seem like a lot of the current viral videos start out with the person in question stating some version of "I don't have to tell you my name" and events going downhill from there.
Assuming you are quite sure you don't have any warrants outstanding (and even then) is there ever any good reason not to just tell the cop your name and hand over your license? What advantage would you ever get out of refusing to identify yourself?
I seem to recall that the US Supreme Court upheld stop-and-identify laws (Utah v. Strieff). And, per the Wikipedia page, about half the US appears to have one of those laws. If you're in such a place, then at a minimum you're more likely to avoid the unpleasantness that happens to people in those videos if you give your name. If you're not a white male, then you ought to be pretty highly motivated to avoid such unpleasantness -- it can quickly turn fatal.
You generally need not do anything beyond such identification, though your appetite for refusal may (also) depend on your sex and skin color.
If you're driving when accosted, then I would guess you're required to provide your license on request, even in non-stop-and-identify states. If you're not driving, then I'm not sure you have to do any more than provide your name orally -- it's possible you can't be compelled to show your license, and it's certainly not illegal anywhere not to have a license.
posted by spacewrench at 1:10 PM on May 31, 2018
You generally need not do anything beyond such identification, though your appetite for refusal may (also) depend on your sex and skin color.
If you're driving when accosted, then I would guess you're required to provide your license on request, even in non-stop-and-identify states. If you're not driving, then I'm not sure you have to do any more than provide your name orally -- it's possible you can't be compelled to show your license, and it's certainly not illegal anywhere not to have a license.
posted by spacewrench at 1:10 PM on May 31, 2018
Best answer: I think it depends on the state and whether it has an applicable statute. SCOTUS upheld a Nevada state statute that required individuals to give their name to a police officer if the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (which I believe would extend to something as minor as a traffic violation).
Edited to add - reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.
posted by Aubergine at 1:12 PM on May 31, 2018
Edited to add - reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.
posted by Aubergine at 1:12 PM on May 31, 2018
[oops, my bad, the Strieff case was about stop-and-ID going too far, whereas the Hiibel case that Aubergine links is the one I intended to reference for the proposition that stop-and-ID laws are OK in the US.]
posted by spacewrench at 1:15 PM on May 31, 2018
posted by spacewrench at 1:15 PM on May 31, 2018
Why would you NOT identify yourself? There is NO valid reason. Why piss off the cop? Attitude is everything.
posted by patnok at 2:13 PM on May 31, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by patnok at 2:13 PM on May 31, 2018 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I deal with this as a teacher at school when requesting to see a student's ID (for various, but mostly security reasons), I don't WANT to ask, I HAVE to ask because it's my job. Police officers are just doing their job, no reason to not identify yourself. As I'm sure with police, my situations with students unfortunately always escalate when students refuse. (Like seriously students, just let me see your ID, I don't want to have to write you up for insubordination because you refused, seriously, I have better things to do with my time, just comply and we can both get on with our days).
posted by NoraCharles at 2:27 PM on May 31, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by NoraCharles at 2:27 PM on May 31, 2018 [2 favorites]
Alternately, them having your name and address might not be the best thing if you're not required to provide it. If they're pissed off, but not going to arrest or otherwise detain you. If they're sexually harassing you. If they think you "might be up to no good" and "want to keep an eye on you". etc. I can think of many advantages to not identifying yourself to a group that has the power to fuck you over for life.
Now, whether the cop in question is going to take no for an answer is another question. You might only be "required" to give your name and not physical ID, but you might feel unsafe doing so. If you're a nicely dressed white guy you can get away with a lot more than if you're not.
So while there are certainly advantages, the disadvantages would probably outweigh them if the police officer in question really wants you to provide your ID.
posted by ODiV at 2:40 PM on May 31, 2018 [9 favorites]
Now, whether the cop in question is going to take no for an answer is another question. You might only be "required" to give your name and not physical ID, but you might feel unsafe doing so. If you're a nicely dressed white guy you can get away with a lot more than if you're not.
So while there are certainly advantages, the disadvantages would probably outweigh them if the police officer in question really wants you to provide your ID.
posted by ODiV at 2:40 PM on May 31, 2018 [9 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks all for your thoughts. It's seemed so obvious to me that refusing to tell a cop your name is an exercise in silly pointlessness, regardless of whether it's legally required, that it's taken me aback to learn so many people seem to take it as some kind of point of pride or self-righteousness or think they're getting one over on the cop not to. Or that it somehow diminishes them to be asked.
posted by Gnella at 2:59 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Gnella at 2:59 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
"If your intent is innocent, why make him wonder harder?"
Why should I sacrifice my liberty to make his job easier, a job I don't agree with funding to begin with? The real answer to these questions is that police are authorized to use violence against you in addition to other tools they have to inconvenience you. Telling them your name may (or may not) reduce the violence or hassle the officer brings you.
posted by GoblinHoney at 3:38 PM on May 31, 2018 [25 favorites]
Why should I sacrifice my liberty to make his job easier, a job I don't agree with funding to begin with? The real answer to these questions is that police are authorized to use violence against you in addition to other tools they have to inconvenience you. Telling them your name may (or may not) reduce the violence or hassle the officer brings you.
posted by GoblinHoney at 3:38 PM on May 31, 2018 [25 favorites]
Or that it somehow diminishes them to be asked.
Well, yeah. If you believe you weren't doing anything wrong, then you may very well think someone exerting power over you unnecessarily is a bridge too far. We generally think we pay police to protect us. If we feel we're not the ones being protected, but instead, being unduly stopped, harassed, questioned, or otherwise bothered, we may well want to not answer any questions because this person should *not* have authority over people not breaking laws. It just depends on how severe the repercussions you may face might be and if you're willing to risk it.
I'm not saying I'd risk it. But man, I get why people would. I feel the same way about showing your receipt when leaving a store with merchandise. Stores decided that it was cheaper to employ one person to check receipts at the door than hire a team of people and install equipment to protect against shoplifting. But there are plenty of people (I've done it) who refuse to wait in that line, and just leave. Unless I've stolen something, I'm not doing anything wrong. If they want to accuse me, stop me, and call the cops to search me, they can. And I'll sue. But they're not going to do that with no evidence. It's a risk I take. Yeah, I have a problem with authority that I didn't sign up for. But I'm white, so I have a bunch of privilege there.
posted by greermahoney at 3:39 PM on May 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
Well, yeah. If you believe you weren't doing anything wrong, then you may very well think someone exerting power over you unnecessarily is a bridge too far. We generally think we pay police to protect us. If we feel we're not the ones being protected, but instead, being unduly stopped, harassed, questioned, or otherwise bothered, we may well want to not answer any questions because this person should *not* have authority over people not breaking laws. It just depends on how severe the repercussions you may face might be and if you're willing to risk it.
I'm not saying I'd risk it. But man, I get why people would. I feel the same way about showing your receipt when leaving a store with merchandise. Stores decided that it was cheaper to employ one person to check receipts at the door than hire a team of people and install equipment to protect against shoplifting. But there are plenty of people (I've done it) who refuse to wait in that line, and just leave. Unless I've stolen something, I'm not doing anything wrong. If they want to accuse me, stop me, and call the cops to search me, they can. And I'll sue. But they're not going to do that with no evidence. It's a risk I take. Yeah, I have a problem with authority that I didn't sign up for. But I'm white, so I have a bunch of privilege there.
posted by greermahoney at 3:39 PM on May 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
You are making the assumption that everyone has a valid, government-issued ID but not everyone does. For someone who is undocumented, this is a nightmare because the risk of being arrested, separated from your family, and then deported is so incredibly awful and real in the US today.
posted by smorgasbord at 3:54 PM on May 31, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by smorgasbord at 3:54 PM on May 31, 2018 [12 favorites]
I'm unfortunately reminded of a "humorous" anecdote I heard from a friend of a friend who was a police officer. There was a law on the books where they were (motor vehicles must have a trash receptacle within reach of the driver) that was never enforced unless the person in question "got attitudinal" to the officer who'd stopped them. I imagine there are plenty of similar laws in other jurisdictions that aren't normally enforced, but which a police officer who thinks you aren't being suitably deferential could use to make your life difficult.
If you've got nowhere better to be for... some unspecified time that could be longer than you like, and if your life wouldn't be disrupted by being detained or even arrested, sure, stand on principle and refuse to show your ID. If you don't have the kind of social capital that makes that possible, it may be inadvisable.
posted by Lexica at 3:55 PM on May 31, 2018 [4 favorites]
If you've got nowhere better to be for... some unspecified time that could be longer than you like, and if your life wouldn't be disrupted by being detained or even arrested, sure, stand on principle and refuse to show your ID. If you don't have the kind of social capital that makes that possible, it may be inadvisable.
posted by Lexica at 3:55 PM on May 31, 2018 [4 favorites]
If you don’t have ID with you, what’s to stop you giving someone else’s name? It’s not like they’ll know?
posted by Jubey at 4:45 PM on May 31, 2018
posted by Jubey at 4:45 PM on May 31, 2018
I've had success being deferential, identifying myself, then asking in a friendly way if I'm being detained or if it would be alright if I go.
I'm a white male. YMMV.
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'm a white male. YMMV.
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
I don't know; why does anyone ever give a damn about not knuckling under to arbitrary (in non-stop-and-ID states) exercises of state authority? I find the assumptions of some here that the cop must have a good reason to be asking or is "just doing their job" positively farcical. What universe do you folks live in--besides, obviously, a super white one?
posted by praemunire at 4:52 PM on May 31, 2018 [33 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 4:52 PM on May 31, 2018 [33 favorites]
You might be interested the story of Terry Bressi, who says he has been stopped 383 times with no probable cause.
When he refuses to provide identification, things tend to go less pleasantly for him.
posted by clawsoon at 4:55 PM on May 31, 2018 [5 favorites]
When he refuses to provide identification, things tend to go less pleasantly for him.
posted by clawsoon at 4:55 PM on May 31, 2018 [5 favorites]
The advantage to not identifying oneself is that it’s proof we do not live in a police state and one does not need to carry one’s “papers” at all times or risk arrest. There are situations where valid ID is expected (a driver is supposed to have a license), but in the case of people being stopped while walking, shopping, in parks, etc., there’s no reason for them to have to identify themselves. What seems like simple cooperation to people never asked to ID themselves is much more oppressive to those asked to ID themselves frequently.
posted by epj at 4:56 PM on May 31, 2018 [25 favorites]
posted by epj at 4:56 PM on May 31, 2018 [25 favorites]
>It's seemed so obvious to me that refusing to tell a cop your name is an exercise in silly pointlessness,
Many of us would not like to live in a place where anybody can be stopped and questioned at any time, for any reason or no reason. This seems to me like a basic element of personal freedom with nothing remotely silly about it.
The question, unfortunately, is not whether you're being a big silly by asserting your basic right to be out in public, but whether you can afford to risk getting arrested, getting the hell beaten out of you, or worse, for asserting your rights.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:03 PM on May 31, 2018 [19 favorites]
Many of us would not like to live in a place where anybody can be stopped and questioned at any time, for any reason or no reason. This seems to me like a basic element of personal freedom with nothing remotely silly about it.
The question, unfortunately, is not whether you're being a big silly by asserting your basic right to be out in public, but whether you can afford to risk getting arrested, getting the hell beaten out of you, or worse, for asserting your rights.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:03 PM on May 31, 2018 [19 favorites]
I view it as an act of selflessness. You're risking bad things happening to you in order to (hopefully) gain a bit of extra freedom for the rest of us.
posted by clawsoon at 5:22 PM on May 31, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 5:22 PM on May 31, 2018 [10 favorites]
Plausible reasons an innocent person would not want to identify themself: you’re doing something legal but embarrassing and do not want it on record. You know that someone with your name is on a Homeland Security list and don’t want to deal with this thing again. You don’t want your abusive cop ex to know your whereabouts by searching the database. You’re trans, pre-legal-name-change, and know that revealing that will increase the chances of harassment and abuse. You’re a DREAMer and are not 1000% sure of your status. You are a legal immigrant and are afraid that the tiniest black mark will get you deported. You fear being put on some McCarthyite list of undesirables for a broken tail light. You’ve done nothing wrong and see no reason to have your right to privacy infringed upon.
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:28 PM on May 31, 2018 [14 favorites]
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:28 PM on May 31, 2018 [14 favorites]
It's seemed so obvious to me that refusing to tell a cop your name is an exercise in silly pointlessness
That is a privileged position. It's fine if you have it but it's pretty clear you are not someone whose last name is, say, Islamic and you live somewhere where the police are failing to follow up on harassment of people coming out of your place of worship. Or if your legal name doesn't match the gender on your ID (or the way you look) and the cops on your town are known for harassing GLBTQ people. Basically as tchemgrrl says above. Maybe it's not your choice and maybe you think activists who are doing it to monkeywrench are doing so for reasons you don't agree with, but there's a difference between "Doing this is pointless for everyone, always" and "Doing this would be pointless for me" and "I don't share the value system of the people who do this."
I'm a cishet middle aged white lady. The cops generally speaking serve and protect people like me in the US. I tend to ID myself when asked, but I think it over each time. I risk basically nothing doing that. But I don't kid myself that other people are treated the same way I am by the police. And I respect that they live different lives and may choose to make different choices. They're their police too. And it's nominally a free country.
posted by jessamyn at 6:45 PM on May 31, 2018 [14 favorites]
That is a privileged position. It's fine if you have it but it's pretty clear you are not someone whose last name is, say, Islamic and you live somewhere where the police are failing to follow up on harassment of people coming out of your place of worship. Or if your legal name doesn't match the gender on your ID (or the way you look) and the cops on your town are known for harassing GLBTQ people. Basically as tchemgrrl says above. Maybe it's not your choice and maybe you think activists who are doing it to monkeywrench are doing so for reasons you don't agree with, but there's a difference between "Doing this is pointless for everyone, always" and "Doing this would be pointless for me" and "I don't share the value system of the people who do this."
I'm a cishet middle aged white lady. The cops generally speaking serve and protect people like me in the US. I tend to ID myself when asked, but I think it over each time. I risk basically nothing doing that. But I don't kid myself that other people are treated the same way I am by the police. And I respect that they live different lives and may choose to make different choices. They're their police too. And it's nominally a free country.
posted by jessamyn at 6:45 PM on May 31, 2018 [14 favorites]
If you don’t have ID with you, what’s to stop you giving someone else’s name? It’s not like they’ll know?
I keep my driver's license in my car, since that's the only place I need it -- any time I'll need it for ID, I take it with me.
Once last year, when on my bicycle, I was stopped by the police. The situation was ambiguous and I could've received a citation but he let me go. However, he put me in handcuffs (and called for backup) until he finally located my profile in his database, sorting things out to his satisfaction. I'm sure I would've been taken down to the station if I hadn't been forthcoming about my real name.
posted by Rash at 7:35 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
I keep my driver's license in my car, since that's the only place I need it -- any time I'll need it for ID, I take it with me.
Once last year, when on my bicycle, I was stopped by the police. The situation was ambiguous and I could've received a citation but he let me go. However, he put me in handcuffs (and called for backup) until he finally located my profile in his database, sorting things out to his satisfaction. I'm sure I would've been taken down to the station if I hadn't been forthcoming about my real name.
posted by Rash at 7:35 PM on May 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
Because if we don't exercise our freedoms we'll lose them.
The police aren't judge, jury, executioner or God. They aren't a law unto themselves, and they aren't entitled to make or break laws, nor will I help them normalise the harassment of myself and my fellow citizens.
If you want something a little less abstract, consider computer-assisted "crime prevention" programs. I believe I read about this here on mefi.
If you're stopped and give your name, it's entered into their database. Which makes you and people associated with you via data analytics more likely to be stopped again as a probable criminal.
Of course, the initial stop is just as likely to be due to the officer's prejudices or because someone you know is in their system as to be due to legitimately suspicious behaviour. And of course there are negative practical and psychological consequences to constantly being stopped by police.
In addition, having my name gives a police officer access to almost any information about me. Not all police officers are nice or sane people. Why should I give someone that I have no reason to trust access to any more information about me than is required by law?
I live in a society that punishes me and other people like me for existing, just because of what we look like. Police harassment and unneccessary stops are part of that punishment.
Why on earth would I cooperate with it any more that I have to? What would I get out of helping them hurt me?
posted by windykites at 7:49 PM on May 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
The police aren't judge, jury, executioner or God. They aren't a law unto themselves, and they aren't entitled to make or break laws, nor will I help them normalise the harassment of myself and my fellow citizens.
If you want something a little less abstract, consider computer-assisted "crime prevention" programs. I believe I read about this here on mefi.
If you're stopped and give your name, it's entered into their database. Which makes you and people associated with you via data analytics more likely to be stopped again as a probable criminal.
Of course, the initial stop is just as likely to be due to the officer's prejudices or because someone you know is in their system as to be due to legitimately suspicious behaviour. And of course there are negative practical and psychological consequences to constantly being stopped by police.
In addition, having my name gives a police officer access to almost any information about me. Not all police officers are nice or sane people. Why should I give someone that I have no reason to trust access to any more information about me than is required by law?
I live in a society that punishes me and other people like me for existing, just because of what we look like. Police harassment and unneccessary stops are part of that punishment.
Why on earth would I cooperate with it any more that I have to? What would I get out of helping them hurt me?
posted by windykites at 7:49 PM on May 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
Response by poster: Thank you all for your thoughts. I didn't mean to start a discussion. I honestly was wondering if there was some generally accepted principle of the law I had missed that recommended not giving your name as a tactic and rule of thumb if an officer asks for it in the same way that if you are actually arrested on a serious charge you are not required to answer questions and should not. I feel like I have my answer.
posted by Gnella at 3:06 AM on June 1, 2018
posted by Gnella at 3:06 AM on June 1, 2018
In some places in the U.S. police have begun asking for DNA samples during stops. If you provide your name you're giving up further information which may be put in a database with the DNA and the same situation exists if the police officer is wearing a video camera; a facial recognition profile—one more comprehensive than could be obtained from a straight-on still photo—can be matched to your name.
It seems like those of us who can afford the risk should at least ask what these representatives of our government are going to do with the information, so that if they regularly lie about it those lies are on record. They ought to be at least as accountable as email spammers are supposed to be.
posted by XMLicious at 7:27 AM on June 1, 2018
It seems like those of us who can afford the risk should at least ask what these representatives of our government are going to do with the information, so that if they regularly lie about it those lies are on record. They ought to be at least as accountable as email spammers are supposed to be.
posted by XMLicious at 7:27 AM on June 1, 2018
It has not yet been mentioned, but it is the first step in not volunteering information.
Very often (almost always) there will be a battery of additional questions, none of which you are obligated to answer. "Where are you going?" "Why are you here?" "What are you doing tonight?" blah blah blah. This is a FISHING EXPEDITION, to find some reason to further fuck you up, arrest you, detain you for more detailed questioning.
Almost always these Q and A sessions are "voluntary"... "hey, we are just chatting". Free country, police are free to ask whatever they want.
By stopping the talk later, that is suspicious. Wait, why were you willing to tell me your name, and address, but not where you are going? What are you hiding?
By stopping at square one you are asserting your rights. You are also making it clear you are not just voluntarily having a friendly chat, that you do not want to provide any info at all and want to be done with the interaction.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:40 AM on June 1, 2018 [9 favorites]
Very often (almost always) there will be a battery of additional questions, none of which you are obligated to answer. "Where are you going?" "Why are you here?" "What are you doing tonight?" blah blah blah. This is a FISHING EXPEDITION, to find some reason to further fuck you up, arrest you, detain you for more detailed questioning.
Almost always these Q and A sessions are "voluntary"... "hey, we are just chatting". Free country, police are free to ask whatever they want.
By stopping the talk later, that is suspicious. Wait, why were you willing to tell me your name, and address, but not where you are going? What are you hiding?
By stopping at square one you are asserting your rights. You are also making it clear you are not just voluntarily having a friendly chat, that you do not want to provide any info at all and want to be done with the interaction.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:40 AM on June 1, 2018 [9 favorites]
« Older Insurance company runaround in Canada. Advice... | The lights will flicker on and off... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
That said, it's true that you don't have to carry a license with you, or have one at all if you're not intending to do the thing that requires the license. But even in that case, telling an officer that you left it at home, or simply don't have one, could result in a trip to the station to take down your particulars. The officer is already wondering about you, or he wouldn't have stopped you in the first place. If your intent is innocent, why make him wonder harder?
posted by ubiquity at 1:07 PM on May 31, 2018 [3 favorites]