Must I carry an ID at all times in Mississippi?

[grndslm]

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Peligroso27]

Yes, you are required by law to have some form of identification on you at all times.

 

[outonbail]

Yes, you are required by law to have some form of identification on you at all times.

I'm not so sure this answer is accurate. If you are driving a motor vehicle you must have your DL on you and you must have valid ID to do certain things, such as buy alcohol or identify yourself if your filling out an application for a loan or getting a library card.

However, if your out cutting your lawn I don't see any reason to sweat not having your ID on you. I didn't research the laws in your state, but perhaps Peligroso did. If so, maybe you can point out the law you're basing your advise on?

If you are asked for ID by an officer of the law while your out walking your dog, you can give him your information orally and he can detain you while he verifies it. Giving false information will of course get you arrested, but there is no crime in providing accurate information.
It would be much better if you had your ID on your person, but like I said, I don't know of any law that requires this

If I'm wrong, then someone will correct me soon I'm sure....

 

[InsaneJane]

Next time write your name on your fore arm and show them that!

 

[justalayman]

Yes, you are required by law to have some form of identification on you at all times.

is this a state specific requirement? Can you support it in either case?

I do not believe you are required to carry ID on your person unless in the situations such as OOB has indicated. You do have to give your name if requested by a LEO though and if you lie, are subject to charges.

one caveat; if you are a sex offender, I believe you must carry ID that identifies you as a sex offender at all times.

 

[Peligroso27]

United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. This case did not fully explain that certain papers, like a DL, are required. The reasoning behind my answer would be that in order to fully identify yourself, a DL or ID is the best way to do so with the least amount of police contact. I thought that would be something the OP would be interested in doing, just judging by his other posts.

 

[justalayman]

United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. This case did not fully explain that certain papers, like a DL, are required. The reasoning behind my answer would be that in order to fully identify yourself, a DL or ID is the best way to do so with the least amount of police contact. I thought that would be something the OP would be interested in doing, just judging by his other posts.

haven't read OPs other posts.

The decision does not requrie ID to be carried. It merely ruled the state specific law in place that required a person to disclose their identity constitutional. Not all states have ID on demand statutes let alone carry ID statutes.

additionally it cited another case (that was ruled unconstitutional) that was based on providing actual identification:

in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ”

Hiibel also did not deal with a statute that required disclosure of an address, just identification of the person.

as a result, based upon Hiibel, there is no requirement to carry any identifying means nor to disclose any address.

I have found nothing in Mississippi statutes that require ID be carried or even idnetity disclosed.

 

[justalayman]

actually, I believe there was a case that specifically dealt with a person being required to carry an ID and it was ruled that a person, unless engaged in an activity that was regulated and required a license or such, could not be required to carry an identification card on them.

I'll try to find it.

edit;

dang, it's the kolender v. lawson case

a short description of the case:

Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man of unusual deportment (he wore his hair in long dreadlocks). Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment when he walked in white neighborhoods. He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed).

Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e),[1] which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. A California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 429, had construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity.

 

[outonbail]

actually, I believe there was a case that specifically dealt with a person being required to carry an ID and it was ruled that a person, unless engaged in an activity that was regulated and required a license or such, could not be required to carry an identification card on them.

Yeah, this is what I thought. Of course it may be any day now that we will all be required to have our papers with us at all times, or get the K-9 like microchip implanted in out neck, but as far as I know, we aren't there quite yet.

 

[CdwJava]

No, you do NOT have to carry ID on you at all times.

Yes, if you are operating a motor vehicle, you have to carry a valid license on you unless your state says you do not.

Yes, in many states you DO have to IDENTIFY yourself if detained. The Hiibel decision does NOT mean you have to carry identification, only that you have to identify yourself. There are, I believe, 24 states that are "stop and identify" states - Mississippi is NOT on this list. However, that does not mean that a creative officer cannot find some other reason to compel someone to identify themselves (such as issuing a citation - an act that would identifying one's self somehow).

- Carl