Pickaway County Sheriff

[JustaShooter]

As I understand it, if the officer has RAS then they can ask & you have to provide name, address & DOB.

We don't need RAS to ask a simple question. We only need RAS to charge that person with giving false information, etc.

Of course you can always ask, but they don't have to answer unless you have RAS of a crime or that they have witnessed specific crimes. See ORC 2921.29

[Vex]

As I understand it, if the officer has RAS then they can ask & you have to provide name, address & DOB.

We don't need RAS to ask a simple question. We only need RAS to charge that person with giving false information, etc.

Of course you can always ask, but they don't have to answer unless you have RAS of a crime or that they have witnessed specific crimes. See ORC 2921.29

That's what I said.

[JustaShooter]

That's what I said.

Our frequencies must be out of phase, sorry. Thought you were saying something else.

[Rocky31186]

So people in here are stating you dont have to show your ID. While others are saying you do have to show id, which is it?

How can one say don't show id, and the next saying you must give CHL? It doesn't sound to me like everyone is on the same page.

[JustaShooter]

It is less of a situation where we aren't on the same page as dealing with specific circumstances. Here is how I understand things:

If you have a CHL and are carrying concealed, you must have your CHL and ID on you. When stopped by a law enforcement officer (LEO) for a law enforcement purpose you must notify the officer that you have a CHL and are armed. The law does not say (anywhere I can find, at least) that you must present the CHL or ID to the officer, but it is my position that I would do so if asked because at the very least it is implied that you must do so. See ORC 2923.126.

Other than that, you are not required to show ID to a LEO. You are only required to identify yourself if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) that you have committed a crime or witnessed one, and then you are only required to give your name, address, and date of birth. See ORC 2921.29

If I were not armed (and I am armed anywhere it is legal for me to be) I would have to consider the circumstances if asked by a LEO to identify myself and decide if I would do so or not. Some hold a very firm position that they will not ID themselves unless they are being detained (which would mean the office at least claims to have RAS) others are willing to provide ID whenever they are asked to speed themselves and the officer along. I'm somewhere between those two positions.

[pirateguy191]

So, in the OP's situation, since the Sheriff had no RAS, was the interaction really for law enforcement purposes?

[djthomas]

So, in the OP's situation, since the Sheriff had no RAS, was the interaction really for law enforcement purposes?

How do we know that the deputy had no RAS? The OP already admitted that folks were illegally parked and we can surmise that others were probably jaywalking. As minor as that may be it's still evidence of a crime. The problem with RAS is it isn't what he can convince you of on the side of the road, it's what he can convince the judge of down the road. Even if he does articulate his RAS to you you're now well past the "promptly" part.

To be clear I think this whole thing was a bit over the top but then again this was kind of an unusual situation. I disagree with some of the tactics that were used but can't say that the ones that were used were per se unlawful.

Since RAS need not be articulated on the side of the road I think it's really splitting hairs (and dangerous) to make assumptions about whether one must notify in situations like this. My rule is if it's anything other than "Hey folks, nice bunch of cars you got... have a great evening" then assume notification is necessary.

[JustaShooter]

So, in the OP's situation, since the Sheriff had no RAS, was the interaction really for law enforcement purposes?

How do we know that the deputy had no RAS? The OP already admitted that folks were illegally parked and we can surmise that others were probably jaywalking. As minor as that may be it's still evidence of a crime. The problem with RAS is it isn't what he can convince you of on the side of the road, it's what he can convince the judge of down the road. Even if he does articulate his RAS to you you're now well past the "promptly" part.

To be clear I think this whole thing was a bit over the top but then again this was kind of an unusual situation. I disagree with some of the tactics that were used but can't say that the ones that were used were per se unlawful.

Since RAS need not be articulated on the side of the road I think it's really splitting hairs (and dangerous) to make assumptions about whether one must notify in situations like this. My rule is if it's anything other than "Hey folks, nice bunch of cars you got... have a great evening" then assume notification is necessary.

I agree - "Law enforcement purpose" does not require RAS - for example, going through a sobriety checkpoint you must notify and I'm sure there are many others.

[WY_Not]

So basically the OP was the only one who had to notify and give info? He was the only one carrying with a CHL.

Others there that night were under no obligation to notify or give info. Not carrying with a CHL and no RAS?

[KnightHawk67]

Back when I had my '67 Chevelle, a bunch of us used to park like that, near where Georgesville Rd used to dead end. Cops usually cruised by slow, just looking at things, but we had one powertripper stop & start getting IDs & registrations & generally being an butt. Threatened to haul us all in and impound the cars, for "Conspiring to Drag race on a city street". Someone asked him if he threatened all car shows with that, he got flustered & mad, started calling for more units & we bugged out in 20 different directions. Luckily I was only about 2 minutes from my Aunts house, lol. She kept asking me why I wanted to put my car in her garage for an hour or so. lol

[BobK]

See ORC 2923.126.

Other than that, you are not required to show ID to a LEO. You are only required to identify yourself if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) that you have committed a crime or witnessed one, and then you are only required to give your name, address, and date of birth. See ORC 2921.29

If I were not armed (and I am armed anywhere it is legal for me to be) I would have to consider the circumstances if asked by a LEO to identify myself and decide if I would do so or not.

Here is one hole in your argument.

The officer has no duty to tell you why he is asking for identification. The only time the officer needs to explain the reason(s) for the request is in court or preparing for court. He needs to explain himself to the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury if needed, but he has zero requirement to explain anything to the citizen at roadside.

If someone decides, "he has no reason to ask me that" and refuses, they can still be convicted of a crime. For just one example of many, the officer may end up testifying, "There was a "be on the lookout" (BOLO) for a Sam Spade who resembled this person. Once Mr. Kent identified himself, then I knew it was not the person I was looking for. However the refusal to provide identification was still a crime and Mr. Kent could be convicted.

The point is, the person at roadside is standing there thinking, "I didn't do anything wrong, therefore he cannot have a valid reason to ask for identification." That has no bearing on what is going on in the officer's mind. He could be looking for a specific person and want to rule you out, or he may think you were simply a witness.

Either way, refusing at roadside is a very risky strategy. The place to fight whether or not it was a valid request is afterwards through administrative channels or in the courtroom.