[mytailorisrich]

Thanks, very informative.

> "In the UK you don't have to provide ID when asked"

Well if you are suspected of a crime they can arrest you if you refuse to identify yourself. I 'suspect' that being flagged by this system counts as such if you match someone who is wanted or similar.

[grepnork]

You can't make an arrest on the basis of refusal to verify identity, unless a specific law is in play, or the Police officer has proof you are lying.

If the police have probable cause to suspect you've committed an actual crime, then you have to ID yourself, you are entitled to know what crime you are suspected of. Yes, facial recognition does count, but it has to be a high confidence match >0.7, verified by a police officer personally, after the match is made, and verified again on arrest.

If you are suspected of Anti-Social Behaviour then you have to ID (Section 50 of the Police Reform Act)

If you are arrested, then you have to provide your name and address (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2000).

If you are driving, you have to ID (Section 164 of the Road Traffic Act).

Providing false information or documents is a separate criminal offence.

Essentially, police can't just rock up, demand ID, and ask questions without a compelling reason.

[quibono]

> You can't make an arrest on the basis of refusal to verify identity, unless a specific law is in play, or the Police officer has proof you are lying

> If the police have probable cause to suspect you've committed an actual crime, then you have to ID yourself, you are entitled to know what crime you are suspected of

It's always been my impression that this kind of ambiguous phrasing combined with the power imbalance gives the public absolutely no protection whatsoever. Let's say you don't want to provide ID: the copper could come up with some vague excuse for why they stopped you / want your ID. Good luck arguing with that

[grepnork]

>the copper could come up with some vague excuse for why they stopped you / want your ID.

In which case, their sergeant will tear them a new one, right after the custody sergeant has finished tearing their own hole because the careers of both of those people rely on supervising their coppers and supervising their arrests. If the custody sergeant has to release someone because the copper can't account for themselves, that is a very serious matter. The sergeant's can smell a bad arrest a mile away.

The copper has to stand up in a court of law, having sworn an oath, and testify on the reasonable suspicion or probable cause they had. If they are even suspected of lying, that's a gross misconduct in a public office investigation.

Assuming they weren't fired over that, any promotion hopes are gone, any possibility of involvement in major cases or crime squads, hope of a firearms ticket, advanced driving, or even overtime are gone. Their fellow officers will never trust them to make an arrest again.

It's not consequence free, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or that some officers rely on you not knowing your rights, but it is a serious matter.

[extraisland]

The police will protect their own first. The blue code of silence is a thing that happens in the UK.