Is one obligated by Law to answer questions/show papers to Law Enforcement at Random Checkpoints in the U.S.?

[gilleabart]

-
http://www.policemisconduct.net/roadblocks-checkpoints/
-
Roadblocks and Checkpoints
July 17, 2012 @ 12:00 PM by Tim Lynch


It’s a common police trick–fudge a statement so the citizen thinks he just heard a police command, but, technically, it was only a request. Here the police say “Do me a favor … and go over to secondary screening.” Most of us think, “Oh well, something I have to do … don’t want to disobey the police.” The driver doesn’t fall for it–he is quick to reply, “No thanks – I want to be on my way.” The police try to up the pressure–after all, it works all the time!–but here it fails. Knowing they don’t have a valid legal basis for a detention, the police let this citizen go on his way.

The root of the problem in this situation is the policy, not the police officers caught on camera. The police in the video were told to set up a checkpoint and screen drivers and passengers for citizenship. They were professional and followed their training. When their training trick didn’t work, they gave up fairly quickly. (Tho one officer, at the beginning, crossed the line and tried to coerce a response by saying, “if you don’t answer, we can detain you”). It is good that this driver is asserting his rights and showing others how to do so.
-


For additional background, go here.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/immigration-law-up-close/
-
The police are going to ask questions and request to see papers in a variety of circumstances — whether they have reasonable suspicion or not. From a legal, constitutional, and practical perspective, the key issue is this: What are the consequences, if any, for the person who stands his ground and declines to answer questions or declines to produce identification papers? If a person declines, will the police back off and say, “Well, that is your right, sir, you may go” or will the police escalate the situation by ordering the person to answer questions, ordering the production of identification, detaining the person, or threaten the person with arrest on bogus charges?

The police are trained to blur the line between “voluntary” interactions with people (perfectly lawful) and “involuntary” interactions with people (where police power is limited by the Constitution). So, for example, if a police agent says, “Okay pal, let’s see what’s in the backpack!” it is unclear whether the officer just made a request (lawful) or issued an order (for my purposes here, unlawful). The onus here is on the layperson to speak up if he does not wish to voluntarily consent to a search: “Officer, I don’t consent to any searches.” Upon hearing that, the officer will either (a) retreat; (b) clarify that he was ordering, not asking; (c) press the person some more to consent. A dishonest officer can just lie and deny what you said — and if that matter goes to court the outcome will depend on who the judge believes. That’s a severe practical disadvantage for laypeople.

[arber47]

No. One is not obligated to show papers.

You have the right to not comply with an unlawful order.

If you know your rights, and make sure others know their rights, this will cut down on such abuse of the perception of their authority.

[scirwode]

Different states has different laws that govern this, go locate them and come back and post them, OK ?