Sure, but youre not in a position to know if there is reasonable suspicion since police dont have to tell you the reason for the stop.

mostly true.

but if you're in a car with no drugs, you have no illegal modifications to the car, you didn't commit and traffic violations, weren't speeding, etc. you have a pretty good idea that you're not reasonably suspicious.

we've all been there for the most part, we get pulled over and we dont have an idea what we got pulled over for. you do a mental checklist, recount the last 5 stop signs you were at. remember your speed. check to see if your lights are on. remember if you signaled or not. etc.

i would think that in most cases (and they're rare anyways) that you're denying to show ID you are likely also confused about why you got pulled over in the first place. no one gets pulled over for going 100 mph or rolling through a stop sign then acts like they're shocked they got pulled over.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 18 2019 01:35pm

It doesn't have to be something you did though, you could just be driving the same model car as somebody who they got a report about. There's a lot of ways you could be engaged in a reasonable stop but have no idea why the cop pulled you over.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 18 2019 01:55pm

No, police don't have to tell you the reason you're being arrested (at least until later). A stop on the other hand?

Cops are notorious for fabricating reasons retro-actively for the stop though, especially if you are at some evidence (dash cam body cam) disadvantage.

Uhhh, exactly. The police aren't held to the standard where they are required to tell you why they are reasonably suspicious of you, unless you have a law, court case, etc. that shows they are held to that standard.

yeah most of the reasons a cop would pull you over and then not tell you stem from them being scared you have a weapon, will flee, or both. i think that's the only reason it's not legally codified that they have to tell you why they stopped you, for officer safety. there's just a stark difference in the # of potential reasons you're pulled over versus an officer walking up to you to arrest you while walking. an in person arrest could literally be for anything, in a car traffic violations account for about 99% of the reasons, then there's bunch of stuff like your car or appearance matching an at large suspect.



oh for sure, its just hard to write laws that require them to have more suspicion just for a stop.

and im torn on that, on one hand a stop isnt an arrest, and on the other hand Chris Rock has documented he gets pulled over all the time for basically being a black man driving a benz. it's always a taillight thats not actually off, or "operating over the center line" or w/e.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 18 2019 02:01pm

Yes, which is why Scalia said it's good practice to tell somebody why they are being arrested, but not something they are legally held to account for.

It's also why being required to show your ID before being told why you are being pulled over isn't "a Nazi jackboot over your throat".

from a moral standpoint i dont think anyone should have to show id before being accused of a crime directly. but from a logistical/legal standpoint, and having thought about all the scenarios for the past few hours, i can see why it is like it is.

Without articuable suspicion, requiring an ID is an unreasonable search, therefore the citizen is justified in demanding one.