In RI, Do I need to provide ID to the police if they ask what are my rights.

[Daveedothegreat]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Rhode Island

 

[CdwJava]

That depends ... what happened? Why were they asking for your ID?

In some circumstances you will be lawfully required to provide ID and in others, no. The facts matter.

Here is the law in RI (which, by the way, was EASY to find using Google):

§ 12-7-1 Temporary detention of suspects. – A peace officer may detain any person abroad whom he or she has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination; and any person who fails to identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer may be further detained and further questioned and investigated by any peace officer; provided, in no case shall the total period of the detention exceed two (2) hours, and the detention shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention period the person so detained shall be released unless arrested and charged with a crime.​

 

[justalayman]

No, you are not require to SHOW a form of identification. As cdwjava posted you must identify yourself to the peace officer IF there is reasonable suspicion (a legal threshold that must be met) you are involved with a crime. Mind you, that threshold is not a very high hurdle to leap over but none the less, the cop must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion in order to lawfully make the demand.

Some states require one to present an actual form of identification if the circumstances within that state's laws are met but many simply require one to disclose their name and possibly their address to an officer who has reasonable suspicion you are involved in a crime. Your state falls into the latter.

I would have to look to verify this statement but most likely the only time you are required to actuslly show identification is if you are driving a motor vehicle and the detention involves some aspect of driving where you are required to possess an operators permit.

 

[TigerD]

And the police officer is not required to explain his or her reasonable suspicion to your satisfaction.

TD

 

[I'mTheFather]

Since OP posted in the "Speeding and Other Moving Violations" sections, I'm sure he is required to produce a valid drivers license if stopped.

 

[CdwJava]

Of course, if one is required to identify themselves and the verbal ID is not to the satisfaction of the officer, the contact might escalate. This is why presenting actual ID is far preferable to verbal identification.

 

[justalayman]

Of course, if one is required to identify themselves and the verbal ID is not to the satisfaction of the officer, the contact might escalate. This is why presenting actual ID is far preferable to verbal identification.

I was simply answering the question asked and putting that in context with the law you posted. Of course if a cop has probable cause to arrest a person failing to provide a physical identification card may cause the cop to effect the arrest (yes, that is a joke) but if all the cop has is reasonable suspicion, the cop cannot arrest the party as long as they comply with the law to identify themselves. Making an arrest without probable cause is in fact illegal and we all know no cop would ever knowingly violate the law.

 

[justalayman]

Since OP posted in the "Speeding and Other Moving Violations" sections, I'm sure he is required to produce a valid drivers license if stopped.

That would be an answer based on supposition. In court that will get your response objected to as it answers a question not asked.

I, on the other hand, answered the question as asked.

 

[CdwJava]

I was simply answering the question asked and putting that in context with the law you posted. Of course if a cop has probable cause to arrest a person failing to provide a physical identification card may cause the cop to effect the arrest (yes, that is a joke) but if all the cop has is reasonable suspicion, the cop cannot arrest the party as long as they comply with the law to identify themselves. Making an arrest without probable cause is in fact illegal and we all know no cop would ever knowingly violate the law.

Read the statute and note where it says that the person otherwise lawfully detained under the law is required to "identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer" ... that does not mean that the officer must accept, "My name is Mickey Mouse and I was born on January 30th, 1955," as satisfactory identification.

It may come as some surprise to you, but people lie to us! It's kinda dumb to simply take someone's word for it. While the officer can choose to accept a verbal ID, the way the statute is written would indicate that they do not have to.

 

[justalayman]

Read the statute and note where it says that the person otherwise lawfully detained under the law is required to "identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer" ... that does not mean that the officer must accept, "My name is Mickey Mouse and I was born on January 30th, 1955," as satisfactory identification.

It may come as some surprise to you, but people lie to us! It's kinda dumb to simply take someone's word for it. While the officer can choose to accept a verbal ID, the way the statute is written would indicate that they do not have to.

Im not even going to bother researching this as I have no doubt the law demands the cops satisfaction must be based on a reasonableness standard. A cop is not going to be allowed to say; I just didn't believe he was not Mickey Mouse so we sat there for 3 days until the suspect handed over a physical id proving his statement

 

[CdwJava]

Im not even going to bother researching this as I have no doubt the law demands the cops satisfaction must be based on a reasonableness standard. A cop is not going to be allowed to say; I just didn't believe he was not Mickey Mouse so we sat there for 3 days until the suspect handed over a physical id proving his statement

Just saying that we are not required to accept someone's word for their ID. In my state we have no recourse for a detention - absent a traffic stop. In states where they have statutes like this one, the officer must be satisfied that the identification is truthful. While this may be satisfied with matching the name ad DOB with a license or ID card through the DMV, when there is no match or some reason to think that the identification is fishy and of another person(yeah, surprising, that happens, too), then the verbal identification may not be satisfactory.

I don't suppose you'd be keen on getting an arrest warrant because someone used YOUR name and DOB when talking to an officer during a detention. I would think you would prefer the officer exercise some due diligence to make sure he had the correct name. People using other's names and info is not an uncommon occurrence. Brothers, sisters, friends, etc. It happens. So, we exercise due diligence - or should. While it might be rare that an officer would enact that a verbal identification fails to meet some satisfactory standard, it can happen and the statute permits it.

 

[justalayman]

While I would not prefer a person used my name and dob, I still object to a cop continuing a detention without a reasonable belief the detainee is being untruthful. Our entire legal system is based on the single word; reasonable. If the cop can articulate a reasonable belief the detainee is being untruthful, then the law allows for the denial of acceptance BUT then you go to the next step; what does the law allow the cop to do if he reasonable believes the detainee is lying?

The law explicitly defines the actions available. The detention can continue for a period of up to two hours. Since the detainee is not obligated to act in any way and obviously the cop has no right to get out the thumbscrews, I see a long and silent ensuing 2 hours after which the cop is compelled by law to release the detainee.