text:
Sara Harvey (Pretty Little Liars)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sara Harvey
Pretty Little Liars character
Sara at Thornhill, moments prior to the lodge incident.
First appearance
"a dAngerous gAme"
(Season 3, Episode 24)
Last appearance
"Original G'A'ngsters"
(Season 7, Episode 7)
Created by
I. Marlene King
Joseph Dougherty
Portrayed by
Dre Davis
Information
Nickname(s)
Freaky Woman
The Woman in Black
Aliases
"A"[a]
Alison DiLaurentis[b]
Red Coat
The Black Widow
Friend and ally[c]
Gender
Female
Occupation
A
Red Coat
The Black Widow
Family
Mr. Harvey (father)
Mrs. Harvey (mother)
Significant other(s)
Emily Fields (ex-girlfriend)
Residence
Rosewood, Pennsylvania
Courtland (previously)
Status
Deceased
Sara Harvey is a fictional character in the Freeform television series adaption of the Pretty Little Liars book series. She is portrayed by model Dre Davis. Sara is introduced as a false protagonist, only to be exposed as "Big A's" ally during "Game Over, Charles". Harvey is murdered in "Wanted: Dead or Alive" by an unknown assailant and found dead in her hotel room's bathtub by a cleaner. Sara's killer was revealed to be Noel Kahn during "These Boots Were Made for Stalking".
Contents
[hide]
1 Casting
2 Development
2.1 Characterization and introduction
2.2 Personality
3 Storylines
3.1 Background
3.2 Season 3
3.3 Season 4
3.4 Season 5
3.5 Season 6
3.6 Season 7
4 Reception
5 Notes
6 References
Casting[edit]
On March 25, 2015, it was announced that Project Runway alum Dre Davis was cast as Kimberly Brown, the false casting name created to conceal Sara's true identity.[1] The actress originally posted a photo of herself wearing a yellow top similar to the one Ali and Bethany were wearing the night of Bethany's death,[2] causing amongst critics and Pretty Little Liars fans alike speculation that she could be portraying Bethany.[3] In an interview with AfterEllen.com, Davis revealed she had to audition with two scenes—with one of them being a kissing scene leading to speculation that she'd be a romantic interest for Emily Fields, as the other Liars currently had love interests at the time.[4] Prior to her introduction in Season 6, Sara was previously portrayed by stunt double CC Mason during her scene in the Black Widow costume, as well as by Sasha Pieterse for her scenes as Red Coat in the third season finale. An unnamed stock photo woman was used for the photographs of Sara in the fourth season.
Development[edit]
Characterization and introduction[edit]
"She was pretty, poised and perfect and everything she gave you, she took two things away. I mean she's gone but she's not "gone". And we can't get away from her and I'm so tired of being Sara's friend, it just sucks the life out of you."
— Claire, on Sara's personality.[5]
The character was first mentioned in "Who's In The Box?", when Hanna Marin is searching for girls who, not only looked similar to Alison DiLaurentis, but also went missing around Labor Day weekend. In the same episode, Hanna and Emily Fields meet up with Sara's former friends, Claire and Tina. Marin and Field pose them questions in an attempt to learn more about Harvey's past. Claire has mixed feelings about Sara, and is envious of Alison's presumed death. She further confesses to have wished for Harvey's death prior to her disappearance. During the sixth season premiere, "Game On, Charles", Sara makes her first physical appearance at Charlotte Drake's Dollhouse, having allegedly been there for two years.[6][7]
Personality[edit]
Before "A" abducted Sara to an underground bunker, she was described by her entourage of friends as a toxic presence in their lives. While being held in captivity, she became somewhat vulnerable. Harvey also displays fear of being touched by anyone as seen in "Songs of Experience" when Emily reaches out to comfort her and Sara shies away in response. After moving in to the Fields household, Harvey is seen to be less afraid and more open to social interactions with other people. She's also more playful as evidenced by her agreeing to have a night swim with Emily in the community pool as well as her suggestion to get tattoos.
In "Game Over, Charles, it is revealed that Sara had been working all along with Charlotte under the disguises of both Red Coat and Black Widow. This sheds light on the fact that Sara's earlier interactions with Emily and the other Liars were just a facade to lure the girls into complacency. Harvey is shown to have acted the part of an abused captivity victim when in actual fact, she was seemingly working with "A" out of her own free will. In contrast to her previous persona, Sara is duplicitous in nature as she played on the Liars' sympathies for her plight to stop them from questioning her and having suspicions. Furthermore, Harvey is also shown to be manipulative as she seeks out Emily and flirts with her to develop a relationship under the pre-tense of having feelings for her when it is implied that she did that to keep a close eye on the girls. This is also supported by the fact that Charlotte also took advantage of Sara's close proximity to the Liars to prevent them from telling Dr. Sullivan anything by threatening her safety.
However, it should be noted that Harvey tried to get Emily and the other Liars to leave Radley before Charlotte's explosion was scheduled to happen. This insinuates that her feelings for Emily may not have been all just an act. She reassures this in "Wanted: Dead or Alive", persuading Fields that she cares for her safety.
Storylines[edit]
Background[edit]
Sara was one of the main antagonists during the series' third and fourth seasons, dressing up as a decoy Red Coat and the Black Widow.
At her local high school in Courtland, Harvey was a popular girl who lead her own clique. On the summer of 2009, Harvey went missing and was last seen the day after Labor Day by one of her closest friends, Avery. It is unknown what happened to Sara or where she went. However, in 2011, she was hired by Charlotte DiLaurentis some time before the disbandment of the A-Team to assist her schemes.
Season 3[edit]
In "A DAngerous GAme", Charlotte, then known to the A-Team as Red Coat, sent Sara Harvey to pose as a decoy at Thornhill in order to distract the Liars and keep Mona occupied. Charlotte later mentions in "Game Over, Charles" that she kept seeing a blonde girl in a red coat watching over the Liars and deduced the mysterious entity was Alison. So in order to find out, Charlotte organized the lodge party to trap the girls and lure Alison out of hiding, since she knew her sister would only show up if her friends were in grave danger. Nigel Wright was paid to fake a flight plan to Delaware by Charlotte but the plane actually made its way to the lodge since Sara landed it in a nearby field despite the fog surrounding the area. Shana Fring also showed up with Jenna Marshall to find out if the Liars were going to meet Alison at the request of Melissa Hastings, since she too had her own suspicions. However, both plans went awry and while Jenna wasn't noticing, Shana set fire to the lodge since she grew a hatred towards the Liars for blinding Jenna as she later admits to in "EscApe from New York". Sara and Charlotte managed to rescue Aria, Emily and Mona while Alison arrived just in time to save Hanna, giving Charlotte the much needed confirmation that her sister was indeed alive. Wilden was not too far from the Lodge and Charlotte killed him shortly after since he would've never allowed Alison to return to Rosewood; most likely because all his illegal activities would have been revealed.
Season 4[edit]
After killing Wilden, Charlotte sent Sara to attend his funeral during "'A' Is for A-l-i-v-e", dressed as the mysterious woman in a black veil to confirm he was dead.
In "Grave New World", the Liars discover that Alison is alive as they had suspected and dressing up as one of the Red Coat entities to hide from "A", which leads them to look for suspects for the identity of the mysterious Jane Doe buried in Alison's grave. During "Who's In The Box?". Hanna is researching girls who went missing around the same as Alison and comes upon Sara's website set up by her high school friends. Hanna contacts them and they meet up to discuss Sara. Her former best friend, Claire, states that their other friend Avery last saw Sara on Labor Day. Later, Claire divulges to Emily that she had secretly wished for Sara to die even prior to her disappearance because of how horrible of a person she was. Claire says that if Sara gave you something, she in turn took two things away.
Season 5[edit]
After it is revealed during "Miss Me x 100" that Bethany Young is the person buried in Alison's grave, Charlotte sends Sara to gift Bethany's parents a card and flowers, while wearing her black veil disguise.[8]
Season 6[edit]
In "Game On, Charles", a young blonde girl is seen throughout the episode in "A's" dollhouse wearing the infamous yellow top that Alison and Bethany were both buried in. The anonymous figure first appears drawing on the wall of her captivity room and later carries out "Big A's" orders in delivering the girls food. The Liars manage to escape and the police arrive at the scene to find the blonde girl in her room. A police officer approaches her to ask for her identity and she reveals her name to be Sara Harvey. The Liars recognize her since they previously chatted to Sara's friends.
During "Songs of Innocence", Sara runs away from home to Emily's after her mom took her home from the hospital. Pam offers Sara to stay with the two for a while. Throughout the season, Sara and Emily develop a co-dependent romantic relationship with one another.
In FrAmed", Detective Linda Tanner is looking through security footage of the Art show the girls attended after Aria's photographs, that were meant to be put on display are switched with Photos of the girls from the Dollhouse. Tanner notices a figure dressed in black, whose face is never caught on camera but they are shown to have short blonde hair. This is believed to be Sara, since she was the only helper Charlotte had left that had hair like that.
In "Game Over, Charles", the Liars as well as Mona manage to break into a restricted room with Sara's aid who remembers a specific date meaningful to A. While the girls enter the room, Harvey suspiciously leaves them behind. As the Liars and Mona discover a hologram which monitors a live feed of Charlotte at Radley telling Alison her story, Sara sets up a bomb to detonate inside of the sanitarium as part of Charlotte's final plan to kill her family along with herself. Charlotte reveals Sara's role as The Black Widow and Red Coat to the Liars, much to the dismay of Emily. The Liars arrive in time to subdue Harvey, while Spencer disables the bomb. Charlotte flees to the roof to jump and Alison begs the Liars to help her stop Charlotte from jumping. Sara tries to escape but Emily grabs her hood and punches Harvey in the face for her betrayal. After Emily knocks her down, something happens to Sara, which puts her in the hospital.
Sara returns to Rosewood during "Of Late I Think of Rosewood" to attend Charlotte's funeral and decides to stick around town, which agitates the Liars since they suspect that she'll leave word about what happened to her at Radley all those years ago.
In "The Gloves Are On", Spencer confesses to Caleb that after Emily punched Sara, she got back up but accidentally put her hands on some electrical cords, which began electrocuting her body, as the Liars watched in shock. This left Harvey unable to use her hands. It is also divulged that after this event, Sara was diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome, having downgraded Charlotte at the court as a horrible person. However, Sara visits Alison at her job during "Do Not Disturb" and apologizes for lying under oath in order to reduce her criminal sentence, stating that she saw Charlotte as an older sister and mentor. Aria and Spencer break into her room at The Radley and find out that she's living in what was once Charlotte's old room while growing up in the infamous sanitarium.[9] They then find a hole in the closet that leads to an underground floor with electric switchboards. The girls deduce those devices were used to torture Charlotte at Radley. They further investigate the alley, which in turn leads out of the Radley.[10] A few days later, Alison, Emily and Hanna head to Sara's hotel room to investigate it as well, only to find out that the hole in the wall had been sealed.[11]
During "Did You Miss Me?", Harvey's helper goes to city hall to get a copy of The Radley's floor plan. He hands it in a tube to her as she suspiciously drives off. Later, Sara encounters Mona and tells her that no matter how many good deeds she does, none of the Liars are ever going to truly trust her. Adding salt to the wound, Harvey states that without games, Mona will remain lonesome.
Season 7[edit]
During "Along Comes Mary", Sara remains living in Rosewood and befriends Jenna Marshall. At the end of the episode, they are having drinks at The Radley when an unknown figure approaches the two and reveals themselves as Noel Kahn, who proceeds to join the duo.
Shortly after Emily Fields confronts Jenna about her connection to Charlotte in the following episode "Wanted: Dead or Alive", Harvey seems to regret forming her newfound alliance with Marshall. Sara is later seen trying to escape from her room after packing her bags. When Harvey opened the door to leave, she was shocked to see someone she recognized on the other side. At the end of the episode, Sara is found dead and laying naked in her hotel room's bathtub by a cleaner.
During "The Wrath of Kahn", Hanna witnesses Noel disposing Sara Harvey's broken phone. He later takes it back when Hanna fails to prove that he's A.D., but warns her to be careful or else she'd end up like Sara.
In "These Boots Were Made for Stalking", Jenna walks into the police station in order to come clean about her actions and interrupts a conversation between Spencer and detective Marco Furey. Marshall reports that after the events that took place at the abandoned school for blind students, she opted to keep a low profile due to fear of being harmed by Noel. According to Jenna, Noel was accountable for Sara Harvey's homicide and she feared to be his next victim. Kahn recruited Jenna with the assertion that Charlotte left enough money in her will to afford Marshall another eye surgery. Nevertheless, Jenna suspected Noel of stealthily plotting to steal the cash all to himself since his parents had financially cut him off. In an attempt to spare her life, Marshall brought a gun to the deserted sight school as an act of self-defense and pretended to hold a grudge against the Liars. After Jenna describes her side of the story, Furey orders one of his associates to escort Marshall to a conference room so she can make an official statement. As Jenna exits the room, Spencer insists to Marco that she's an unreliable narrator but Furey informs her the authorities don't have any evidence against Marshall.
During "Till Death Do Us Part", Spencer's identical twin sister, Alex Drake, is revealed to be the elusive A.D. When Spencer questions Alex about Sara's involvement in the "A" game, she explains that Charlotte told Harvey she hid her greatest treasure at The Radley. Sara deduced it was money, when it was actually Mary's medical file that Spencer and Toby found in the underground alley beneath Sara's hotel room. Alex further clarifies that all Charlotte asked for was a family.
Reception[edit]
The reveal of Sara Harvey as both the third Red Coat and Black Widow received a generally negative reception from fans and critics, with many of them expressing severe discontent over the writers for picking a character that was physically introduced so late into the series.
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ She signed the card to Bethany's parents as "A".
Jump up ^ In the Dollhouse, Sara pretended to be Alison.
Jump up ^ Uses this name while communicating with Charlotte on her birthday.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Gajewski, Ryan (March 25, 2015). "'Pretty Little Liars': 'Project Runway' Alum Heads to Rosewood for Recurring Role". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 25, 2015.
Jump up ^ Burt, Kayti. "Who Is Dre Davis? 6 Things to Know About the New PLL Cast Member". Wet Paint. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Heimbord, Mimi. "'Pretty Little Liars' Season 6 SPOILERS: Model Dre Davis To Play Kimberly Brown; Is She Disguising Herself As Bethany Young?". Design & Trend. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
Jump up ^ http://www.afterellen.com/tv/444009-dre-davis-playing-mysterious-sara-harvey-pretty-little-liars
Jump up ^ http://www.tv.com/shows/pretty-little-liars/community/post/pretty-little-liars-whos-in-the-box-review-season-4-episode-14-138910920054/
Jump up ^ Biedharn, Isabella. "'Songs of Innocence'". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Ferguson, Latoya. "Pretty Little Liars Recap: Girls Discover Charles May Still Be Alive". US magazine. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
Jump up ^ https://twitter.com/BryanHoldman/status/698573141006614529
Jump up ^ Vincenty, Samantha (February 10, 2016). "'Pretty Little Liars' Recap: Do Not Disturb". PopCrush. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Pretty Little Liars recap: 'A' takes some (unnecessarily?) drastic measures". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Pretty Little Liars Recap: "We've All Got Baggage"". Gossip Cop. February 23, 2016. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
[hide]
v
t
e
Pretty Little Liars
Episodes
Season 1
"Pilot"
"For Whom the Bell Tolls"
Season 2
"UnmAsked"
Season 3
"It Happened 'That Night'"
Season 4
"'A' Is for A-l-i-v-e"
"Grave New World"
"Free Fall"
"A Is for Answers"
Season 5
"Miss Me × 100"
"How the 'A' Stole Christmas"
Season 6
"Game On, Charles"
"Game Over, Charles"
"Of Late I Think of Rosewood"
"Charlotte's Web"
"Where Somebody Waits For Me"
"Hush, Hush, Sweet Liars"
Season 7
"Tick-Tock, Bitches"
"Bedlam"
"The Talented Mr. Rollins"
"Hit and Run, Run, Run"
"Along Comes Mary"
"Wanted: Dead or Alive"
"Original G'A'ngsters"
"Exes and OMGs"
"The Wrath of Kahn"
"The DArkest Knight"
"Playtime"
"These Boots Were Made for Stalking"
"Hold Your Piece"
"Power Play"
"In the Eye Abides the Heart"
"The Glove That Rocks the Cradle"
"Driving Miss Crazy"
"Choose or Lose"
"Till Death Do Us Part"
Characters
"A"
Alex Drake
Alison DiLaurentis
Aria Montgomery
Charlotte Drake
Emily Fields
Hanna Marin
Jenna Marshall
Mary Drake
Melissa Hastings
Mona Vanderwaal
Red Coat
Sara Harvey
Spencer Hastings
Sydney Driscoll
Related
Book series
2006 novel
Rosewood, Pennsylvania
Ravenswood
Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists
Pretty Dirty Secrets
Category
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sara_Harvey_(Pretty_Little_Liars)&oldid=823890555"
Categories:
Pretty Little Liars characters
Fictional stalkers
Fictional victims of kidnapping
Fictional lesbians
Fictional characters introduced in 2015
Fictional LGBT characters in television
Hidden categories:
Pages using deprecated image syntax
Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Português
Edit links
This page was last edited on 4 February 2018, at 01:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

tag: div

attr: id class

value: mw-page-base noprint

key: html

type: local

value: mw-head-base noprint

tag: a

attr: id class lang

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: th

attr: colspan style

value: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;background: #C9A0DC; color: #000000;

tag: tr

attr: href class title

value:
/wiki/Pretty_Little_Liars_(TV_series)
mw-redirect
Pretty Little Liars (TV series)

tag: i

tag: td

tag: img

attr: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attr: href class

attr: href title

tag: li

tag: ul

value: text-align:center;background: #C9A0DC; color: #000000;

value:
infobox
width:22em;border-spacing: 2px 5px;

value:
/wiki/Fictional_character
mw-redirect
Fictional character

value:
/wiki/Model_(people)
mw-redirect
Model (people)

value: Edit section: Characterization and introduction

value: float: left; clear: left; margin: 0.5em 1.4em 0.8em 0; width:25em; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa; font-size: 88%; background-color: #F9F9F9; padding:8px

value: Wanted: Dead or Alive (Pretty Little Liars)

value:
/wiki/Shana_Fring
mw-redirect
Shana Fring

value:
/wiki/Miss_Me_x_100
mw-redirect
Miss Me x 100

value:
/wiki/Linda_Tanner
mw-redirect
Linda Tanner

value:
/wiki/Stockholm_Syndrome
mw-redirect
Stockholm Syndrome

value: Till Death Do Us Part (Pretty Little Liars)

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: lower-alpha;

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value: For Whom the Bell Tolls (Pretty Little Liars)

value: The Darkest Knight (Pretty Little Liars)

value: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value: Category:Fictional victims of kidnapping

value: Category:Fictional characters introduced in 2015

value: Category:Fictional LGBT characters in television

value: Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax

value: Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Sara_Harvey_(Pretty_Little_Liars)
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Sara_Harvey_Pretty_Little_Liars rootpage-Sara_Harvey_Pretty_Little_Liars skin-vector action-view


text:
Stop and identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
States (colored red) in which Stop and Identify statutes were in effect as of February 20, 2013.
"Stop and identify" statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. If there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in "Stop and ID" states. In the case of Utah v. Strieff (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer's stop of Edward Strieff and his demand for identification from Strieff was unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence collected pursuant to the stop was admissible due to the determination that Strieff was subject to a pre-existing arrest warrant. Therefore, the pre-existing warrant "attenuated" the unlawful stop-and-identify.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Police–citizen encounters
1.1 Consensual
1.2 Reasonable Suspicion
1.3 Arrest
2 Obligation to identify
2.1 Variations in "stop and identify" laws
2.2 Interaction with other laws
2.3 Interpretation by courts
2.4 Recommendations of legal-aid organizations
3 Other countries
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links
Police–citizen encounters[edit]
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to police upon request.
Consensual[edit]
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"[7][8]
Reasonable Suspicion[edit]
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada "stop and identify" law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some "stop and identify" laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]
As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name, however some states such as Arizona have specifically codified that a detained person is not required to provide any information aside from their full name.
Arrest[edit]
Main article: Arrest
A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest.[14] But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.
Whether an arrested person must identify himself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him, they are required to inform the person of his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a "stop and identify" law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give his name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
Obligation to identify[edit]
States with "stop and identify" laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) & Tit. 28, §1595
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. [1]§ 5-71-213 - Loitering
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri (Kansas City Only) Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
States not listed do not have a requirement to show Identification to law enforcement officers. Some states listed have "Stop and ID" laws which may or may not require someone to identify themselves during an investigative detention.
While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 353-54 (1995). Annotations for Wisconsin §968.24, however, state "The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so", citing Hiibel as authority. Hiibel held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Henes v. Morrissey that "A crime is made up of two parts: proscribed conduct and a prescribed penalty. "The former without the latter is no crime. ... In this case no statute penalizes a refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and no penalty is set forth in the statute for refusing to identify oneself. This statute is part of Chapter 968 entitled "Commencement of Criminal Proceedings. By its very terms sec. 968.24 empowers a law enforcement officer to stop and question "in the vicinity where the person was stopped." The statute does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest." Additionally Henes v. Morrissey held that a detained person not providing their name isn't on its own a violation of 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer as the act of not identifying ones self isn't a false statement with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty.
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Second District Appellate Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers. The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself or herself.[20]
By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop “shall identify himself.” The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional.
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[21] and 24 states have done so.[22] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[23] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[24] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[25] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
The wording of "stop and identify" laws varies considerably from state to state.
Noncompliance with a "stop and identify" law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer".
State courts have made varying interpretations of both "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws.
Variations in "stop and identify" laws[edit]
Four states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
Fifteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
In Montana, police "may request" identifying information;
In Ohio, identifying information may be required "when requested"; an obligation exists only when the police suspect a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, is witness to a violent felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a violent felony offense;
In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police "may demand" identifying information. Of note, though, in New Hampshire for example (RSA 594:2), statutory language authorizing a 'demand' for identity does not establish a legal requirement to provide documentation of identity (ID), or even a requirement to respond in the first place. Further, a law enforcement officer is authorized to make such 'demand' only of individuals for "whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime."
Identifying information varies, but typically includes
Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado). Ohio does not require the person's intended destination. Ohio requires only name, address, or date of birth. Date of birth is NOT required if the age of the person is an element to the crime (such as underage drinking, curfew violation, etc...) that the person is reasonably suspected of.[26] Indiana requires either name, address, and date of birth, or driver's license, if on the person's possession, and only applies if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation.[27]
Arizona law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s "true full name".
Nevada law, which requires a person to "identify himself or herself", apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
Texas law requires a person to provide their name, residence address and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information, however it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)
In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interaction with other laws[edit]
In states whose "stop and identify laws" do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer". For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibels refusal to identify himself[28] constituted a violation of Nevada "obstructing" law.[29] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).
Interpretation by courts[edit]
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[30][31] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[32]
Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.[33] Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.[34][35]
Wording and interpretation by state courts of "obstructing" laws also varies; for example, New York "obstructing" law[36] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;[37][38] likewise, a violation of the Colorado "obstructing" law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the "totality of the circumstances" that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[39] Utah "obstructing" law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a "lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention";[40] a divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.[35]
It is not universally agreed that, absent a "stop and identify law", there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California "stop and identify" statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long,[41] decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer’s demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant’s wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however, the author of the Long opinion had apparently concluded in a 1980 case that failure to identify oneself did not provide a basis for arrest.[42] Nonetheless, some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.[43] Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.[44]
Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979)[45] and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987)[46] have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia (2006) strongly disagreed.[47]
Recommendations of legal-aid organizations[edit]
Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.[48]
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.[49]
Other countries[edit]
Main article: List of national identity card policies by country
Many countries allow police to demand identification and arrest people who do not carry any. Normally these countries provide all residents with national identity cards, which have the identity information the police would want to know, including citizenship. Foreign visitors need to have their passport available to show at all times. In some cases national identity cards from certain other countries are accepted.
For example, in Portugal it is compulsory to carry the state ID card at all times. This card named Cartão de Cidadão - Citizen Card is an electronic card which includes biometric information, id number, social security number, fiscal information, place of birth, etc. Police can only ask for the ID card in public or a place open to public and only if there is a reasonable suspicion the person committed a crime. A certified copy of the ID card can be presented in such situations. If a citizen does not carry the ID card or its certified copy, the police will escort the person to the police department to remain detained until clear identification can be obtained.[50]
See also[edit]
Brown v. Texas
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Kolender v. Lawson
Miranda v. Arizona
Loitering
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Although police and police officer are used throughout this article, most "stop and identify" laws use the term peace officer (or sometimes law enforcement officer). In general, peace officers are state civil officers charged with preserving the public peace and granted the authority to do so. Peace officers normally include police officers, sheriffs and sheriffs' deputies, marshals, constables, and often many other persons; those included vary among the states.
Jump up ^ In upholding Hiibel's conviction, the Court noted,
In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.... As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. — 542 U.S. at 190
But the Court did leave open the possibility of different circumstances:
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here. — 542 U.S. at 191
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Justice Kennedy stated,
Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer "credible and reliable" identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. — 542 U.S. at 184–185
Justice Kennedy continued,
As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a drivers license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. — 542 U.S. at 185
Writing for the Nevada Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., Chief Justice Young said,
The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. — 118 Nev. 868 at 875
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren stated,
And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. — 392 U.S. at 21
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Florida v. Royer 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Justice White stated,
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. — 460 U.S. at 497–498
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) Justice Stewart stated,
Our conclusion that no seizure occurred is not affected by the fact that the respondent was not expressly told by the agents that she was free to decline to cooperate with their inquiry, for the voluntariness of her responses does not depend upon her having been so informed. — 446 U.S. at 555
Jump up ^ The ACLU publication Know Your Rights When Encountering Law Enforcement states,
You can say, "I do not want to talk to you" and walk away calmly. Or, if you do not feel comfortable doing that, you can ask if you are free to go. If the answer is yes, you can consider just walking away. Do not run from the officer. If the officer says you are not under arrest, but you are not free to go, then you are being detained.
Jump up ^ If the encounter is consensual, a person approached need not actually leave to terminate the encounter, but may simply ignore police. In Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988), Justice Blackmun explained the Court’s holding that Chesternut had not been detained, stating that the police conduct "would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business." — 486 U.S. at 569
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) Justice Stewart stated:
We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. — 446 U.S. at 554
Jump up ^ In a concurring opinion in Terry v. Ohio, Justice White stated that a person detained can be questioned but is "not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest." This opinion, in turn, was cited in many later cases, including Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
Jump up ^ In describing the split authority among the federal appellate court circuits in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court stated:
In Oliver v. Woods, [209 F.3d 1179, 1190 (10th Cir. 2000)] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board [279 F.3d 873, 881 (9th Cir. 2002)], the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because " ‘the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification [might] provide a link leading to arrest.’ "
Jump up ^ In Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the issue of identification in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), at 53 n.3 ("We need not decide whether an individual may be punished for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements."); and Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), 361–62 n.10 (holding that a California statute was unconstitutional on vagueness grounds, but refusing to consider whether the statute violated the Fourth Amendment).
Jump up ^ Texas does not require a detainee to identify himself unless he has been lawfully arrested, but does make it a crime to provide a false name. Texas Penal Code § 38.02 reads, in relevant part,
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
Jump up ^ California Penal Code § 841, states, in relevant part,
The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it . . .
Jump up ^ In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990), the Court cited the Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n. 2 [CA8 1989]),
the questions fall within a "routine booking question" exception which exempts from Miranda coverage questions to secure the "'biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.'" — 496 U.S. at 601–602
Jump up ^ The Fifth Amendment prohibits only communication that is testimonial, incriminating, and compelled; see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), at 34–38. Hiibel held that, in the circumstances of the case, a person’s name is not incriminating, and consequently is not protected by the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. — 530 U.S. at 34–38
Jump up ^ Texas Penal Code, Title 8, §38.02(a), reads
A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
Giving false information is a related, and usually more serious offense (under Subsection [b], noted above), and applies to detainees as well as arrestees.
Jump up ^ In People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, the Court held that refusal to disclose one’s identity following a felony arrest constituted obstructing an officer:
These statutory provisions lead to the conclusion that a refusal to disclose personal identification following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction cannot constitute a violation of [California] Penal Code section 148. . . . Section 148 can reasonably be construed as applying to nondisclosure of identity following arrest for felonies, but not minor offenses, if this exception applies to the provisions cited above dealing with arrests for minor offenses. — 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 970
Similar refusal following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction did not violate the statute because the Legislature had "established other ways of dealing with such nondisclosure".
Jump up ^ In Burkes v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), Case No. 97-00552, the Court, in affirming the appellant’s conviction for violation of § 843.02, Florida Statutes, "Resisting officer without violence to his or her person", stated:
The most compelling argument we discern for answering this question in the affirmative is that the right to remain silent means just that and has no exceptions. We, nevertheless, conclude that after an individual has been lawfully arrested, he must provide his name or otherwise identify himself when asked by law enforcement officers.
Jump up ^ http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/2ndDistrict/December/2100473.pdf
Jump up ^ The Hiibel Court held, "The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop." — 542 U.S. at 187
Jump up ^ The opinion in Hiibel included a list of 21 states with "stop and identify" laws. For some reason, the Indiana law was not included in the list; the Arizona and Ohio laws have been enacted since Hiibel was decided. The Texas law only applies to arrested persons.
Jump up ^ "Constitutional" means that the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. See Hiibel.
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Hiibel, Justice Kennedy stated, "the source of the legal obligation [to identify oneself] arises from Nevada state law". — 542 U.S. at 187
Jump up ^ In Hiibel, Justice Kennedy stated, "In other States, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.″ — 542 U.S. at 183
Jump up ^ "Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information". State of Ohio Codes.
Jump up ^ Assembly, Indiana General. "Indiana Code 2016 - Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session".
Jump up ^ The opinion noted that Hiibel was asked to provide identification, which the Court understood as a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification, 11 different times; however, it did not indicate that Hiibel was ever asked simply to identify himself.
Jump up ^ NRS §199.280 provides a penalty for a person who "willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office"
Jump up ^ California stop-and-identify law in Penal Code §647(e) was repealed several years after 1983 and the sub-sections re-lettered, so the current Penal Code §647(e) is what used to be Penal Code §647(f). Also, do not confuse Penal Code §647(e) with Penal Code §647e.
Jump up ^ (voided in Kolender v. Lawson), read, in relevant part,
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.
Jump up ^ In voiding California Penal Code §647(e) in Kolender v. Lawson, Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, noted that
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute. — 461 U.S. at 358
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in People v. Love, 318 Ill.App.3d 534 (2000), rev'd on other grounds, People v. Love, No. 90806 (2002), Justice O’Brien stated,
The State next argues that the officer’s order was a justifiable means of compelling defendant to state her name pursuant to section 107-14, which provides that an officer making a Terry stop may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions." 725 ILCS 5/107-14 (West 1992). However, while section 107-14 states that an officer may "demand" the defendant’s name, it does not provide that the officer may compel a response. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated in the context of a Terry stop: "[T]he officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." (Emphasis added.) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 334, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150 (1984).
Noting Berkemer v. McCarty (and Justice White’s concurring opinion in Terry that Berkemer quoted), the Hiibel Court stated, "We do not read these statements as controlling" (542 U.S. at 187), so Love is probably weakened to the extent that it relies on Berkemer.
Jump up ^ In Cady v. Sheahan (7th Cir. 2006), the Court stated,
In Hiibel, the Supreme Court held that states are permitted to statutorily authorize the demand for identification during a Terry stop, and to require compliance with such demand. 542 U.S. at 188, 124 S.Ct. 2451. Cady’s identity was relevant to the purpose of the stop and the officers did not exceed the scope of the stop by requesting identification. [footnotes omitted]
^ Jump up to: a b Writing for the Court in Oliver v. Woods, 209 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2000), Judge Brorby stated,
Section 76-8-305 does not require the use of force; mere refusal to perform any act required by a lawful order necessary to effect the detention is sufficient to constitute a violation of § 76-8-305. Moreover, an individual who merely refuses to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention violates this section. . . . Thus, Officer Woods gave a lawful order when he told Mr. Oliver to present identification and to remain in the parking lot while he conducted the investigation. By refusing to present identification, Mr. Oliver refused to perform an act required by lawful order, necessary to effect the detention.
Jump up ^ New Yorks "obstructing" law, NY Consolidated Laws Penal (PEN) §195.05, reads, in relevant part,
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act
Jump up ^ In People v. Offen, 408 N.Y.S.2d 914, 96 Misc.2d 147 (1978), Judge Hertz stated,
An essential element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration, to be charged in an information, must be an act of either (1) intimidation or (2) physical force or interference or (3) an independently unlawful act.
Plainly, ignoring an officer’s request for identification is not a crime, nor does that act supply any such element. Though it is clear that such conduct risks pursuit and arrest, no crime has been charged here. — 96 Misc.2d at 150
Jump up ^ See When Do You Have to Give Your Name at the RNC Protests? under External links for an analysis of New York "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws by Just Cause Law Collective lawyer Katya Komisaruk.
Jump up ^ Colorado "obstructing" law, Colorado Revised Statutes §18-8-104(1), reads, in relevant part,
A person commits obstructing a peace officer . . . when by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority.
Jump up ^ Utah "obstructing" law, Utah Code §76-8-305, reads as follows:
Interference with arresting officer.
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(1) use of force or any weapon;
(2) the arrested person’s refusal to perform any act required by lawful order:
(a) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(b) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(3) the arrested person’s or another person’s refusal to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
Jump up ^ In People v. Long (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 77, Justice Agliano wrote,
The voluntary display of identification is a routine experience for most of us. Measured against the obvious and substantial need for police recording the identity of a person suspected of having committed a crime, we find reasonable the minimal intrusion involved here in requiring the production of identification. In addition, defendant’s oral statement of his name was suspect when he insisted he had no identification while appearing to carry a wallet and, in addition, he seemed intoxicated. — 189 Cal.App.3d at 88
Jump up ^ In In re Gregory S. (1980), 112 Cal.App.3d 764, Justice Agliano wrote
We find no authority to support the court’s legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest.
The Legislature has required citizen self-identification in prescribed situations. Vehicle Code section 40302 calls for the production of a driver’s license or identification upon arrest for a violation of that code; Vehicle Code section 12951 requires production of a driver’s license by the driver of a motor vehicle upon the request of an officer. Penal Code section 647, subdivision (e) imposes a duty to identify oneself when such person loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business, and the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate that the public safety demands identification. Section 647, subdivision (e) was held valid in People v. Solomon (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 429 [108 Cal.Rptr. 867], in which strong consideration was given to the legislatively declared governmental purpose to be served by identification when the conditions described in the statute exist. (Id, at p. 436; see also California v. Byers (1971) 402 U.S. 424 [29 L.Ed.2d 9, 91 S.Ct. 1535].) None of the statutory conditions requiring identification existed in this case. — 112 Cal.App.3d at 779
Note: Penal Code 647, subdivision (e) was voided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson (1983).
Jump up ^ Shortly after Hiibel was decided, the Alameda County (California) District Attorney's Office provided a case analysis (PDF) maintaining that refusal to identify oneself and provide written identification (if available) constitutes a violation of Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. The topic is further discussed in the 2010 edition of Point of View.
Jump up ^ The California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook ("CPOLS"; written by the office of the California Attorney General) maintains that failure to identify oneself does not constitute a violation of California Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer:
Unlike Nevada and other states, California does not have a statute mandating that a detainee identify himself, and that obligation cannot be read into Penal Code section 148. . . . Hiibel does not provide a means of arresting someone for failing or refusing to identify himself. (Revision 176, 9/15/2014, p. 2.14a; page last revised 1/10)
Jump up ^ In State v. Flynn (1979) 92 Wis.2d 427 [285 N.W.2d 710, 718], cert. den. 449 U.S. 846, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Terry limitation of a search "to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." (392 U.S. at 29) was limited to the specific circumstances of Terry. Chief Justice Beilfuss wrote,
It is clear from the language itself that the court’s holding in Terry was limited to the precise situation before it. The court did not say that the sole justification for any search on less than probable cause is the protection of the police officer and others, but that that was the sole justification of the search in the situation then before it. The situation before us is significantly different.
Jump up ^ In People v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996, Justice Low stated,
Neither case [Kolender v. Lawson or Brown v. Texas] could be interpreted to prevent a police officer from demanding that a Terry suspect produce proof of identification. Further, nothing in those or other cases cited by defendant prevents an officer from seizing a wallet found during a lawful patdown search after that suspect has lied to the officer that he had no identification. — 195 Cal.App.3d at 1003
Justice Low noted the similarity to Flynn, and continued,
We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of identification. Nor do we hold that each time an officer conducts a Terry stop he may immediately conduct a search for identification. The rule we announce does not provide officers with unfettered discretion and does not open citizens to harassment. — 195 Cal.App.3d at 1004
Jump up ^ In People v. Garcia (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 782, Justice Yegan, noting State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979) and State v. Wilcox (N.J. 1981), stated,
We need not look to other jurisdictions to decide this case. We would have to indulge in legal legerdemain to justify a patdown search for identification. In fact, it would require a rewriting of Terry v. Ohio, supra, which we could not and would not undertake even if we were so inclined. Here, the record is devoid of any concern that appellant was armed and dangerous. The sole reason for the patdown was to gather evidence of identification.
A fair reading of Terry v. Ohio, and its reference to the lower court opinion in State v. Terry show that the "frisk" allowable upon a proper showing was " ‘. . . only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.’ " (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 16, fn. 12 [20 L. Ed. 2d at p. 903, fn. 12.) Our own Supreme Court has unanimously so held. (People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 161 [pat-down search "only" for weapons].) If stare decisis means anything (and it does) and if the word only means only (and it does), the trial court was required to grant this suppression motion as a matter of law. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.) — 145 Cal.App.4th at 788
Jump up ^ "Know Your Rights! What to Do if Questioned by Police, FBI, Customs Agents or Immigration Officers" (pdf). National Lawyers Guild, S.F. Bay Area Chapter; ACLU of Northern California; American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. August 2004. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
Jump up ^ "Your Rights and the Police". ACLU of Northern California. Retrieved 2014-07-10.
Jump up ^ www.view.pt), VIEW. (info@view.pt -. "Um cidadão traz habitualmente consigo apenas uma fotocópia do cartão de cidadão ou do bilhete de identidade. Se a autoridade lhe exigir a identificação, pode estar descansado? - Direitos e Deveres dos Cidadãos".
External links[edit]
ACLU "Bust Card" What To Do If You’re Stopped By The Police
ACLU Know Your Rights When Encountering Law Enforcement
10 Rules for Dealing with Police from FlexYourRights.org, a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization.
California Codes
Colorado Revised Statutes
Nevada Revised Statutes
New York Legislature Source for New York State Laws
Stop-and-Identify Laws from Police Chief magazine
Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves from Police Chief magazine
The Identity Project: Hiibel
When Do You Have to Give Your Name at the RNC Protests? An analysis of New York's "stop and identify" law.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_and_identify_statutes&oldid=825175566"
Categories:
U.S. state criminal law
Search and seizure case law
United States Fourth Amendment case law
United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
日本語
Edit links
This page was last edited on 11 February 2018, at 22:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attr: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attr: class style

tag: b

tag: sup

tag: p

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 392

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542

value: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

value:
/wiki/Criminal_activity
mw-redirect
Criminal activity

value:
/wiki/N.Y._Crim._Proc._Law
mw-redirect
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law

value:
nofollow
external text
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

value: border:1px solid #CCCCCC; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-top: 1ex; margin-bottom: 2ex;

value: Edit section: Variations in "stop and identify" laws

value: Edit section: Interaction with other laws

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461

value: Edit section: Recommendations of legal-aid organizations

value:
/wiki/Cart%C3%A3o_de_Cidad%C3%A3o
mw-redirect
Cartão de Cidadão

value:
/wiki/Peace_officer
mw-redirect
Peace officer

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 460

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 446

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 486

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 468

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 443

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 496

value: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 530

value:
nofollow
external text
http://cryptome.org/rnc-rights.htm

value:
/wiki/Alameda_County_(California)
mw-redirect
Alameda County (California)

value:
nofollow
http://le.alcoda.org/
external text

value:
nofollow
external text
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/index.php

value:
/wiki/California_Attorney_General
mw-redirect
California Attorney General

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
nofollow
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
external text

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfm

value: Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law

value: Category:United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law

value:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Stop_and_identify_statutes rootpage-Stop_and_identify_statutes skin-vector action-view


text:
Subsistence agriculture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Like most farmers in Africa, this Cameroonian man cultivates at the subsistence level.
Subsistence agriculture is a self-sufficiency farming system in which the farmers focus on growing enough food to feed themselves and their entire families. The output is mostly for local requirements with little or no surplus trade. The typical subsistence farm has a range of crops and animals needed by the family to feed and clothe themselves during the year. Planting decisions are made principally with an eye toward what the family will need during the coming year, and secondarily toward market prices. Tony Waters[1] writes: "Subsistence peasants are people who grow what they eat, build their own houses, and live without regularly making purchases in the marketplace."
However, despite the primacy of self-sufficiency in subsistence farming, today most subsistence farmers also participate in trade to some degree, though usually it is for goods that are not necessary for survival, and may include sugar, iron roofing sheets, bicycles, used clothing, and so forth. Most subsistence farmers today reside in developing countries, although their amount of trade as measured in cash is less than that of consumers in countries with modern complex markets, many have important trade contacts and trade items that they can produce because of their special skills or special access to resources valued in the marketplace.[2]
Subsistence agriculture also emerged independently in Mexico where it was based on maize cultivation, and the Andes where it was based on the domestication of the potato. Subsistence agriculture was the dominant mode of production in the world until recently, when market-based capitalism became widespread. Subsistence horticulture may have developed independently in South East Asia and Papua New Guinea.
Subsistence farming continues today in large parts of rural Africa,[3] and parts of Asia and Latin America. In 2015, about 2 billion people (slightly more than 25% of the world's population) in 500 million households living in rural areas of developing nations survive as "smallholder" farmers, working less than 2 hectares (5 acres) of land.[4] Subsistence agriculture had largely disappeared in Europe by the beginning of World War I, and in North America with the movement of sharecroppers and tenant farmers out of the American South and Midwest during the 1930s and 1940s.[1] As recently as the 1950s, it was still common on family farms in North America and Europe to grow much of a family's own food and make much of its own clothing, although sales of some of the farm's production earned enough currency to buy certain staples, typically including sugar; coffee and tea; petroleum distillates (petrol, kerosene, fuel oil); textile products such as bolts of cloth, needles, and thread; medicines; hardware products such as nails, screws, and wire; and a few discretionary items such as candy or books. Many of the preceding items, as well as occasional services from physicians, veterinarians, blacksmiths, and others, were often bought with barter rather than currency. In Central and Eastern Europe subsistence and semi-subsistence agriculture reappeared within the transition economy since about 1990.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Types of subsistence farming
1.1 Shifting agriculture
1.2 Primitive agriculture
1.3 Nomadic herding
1.4 Intensive subsistence farming
2 See also
3 References
4 Further reading
Types of subsistence farming[edit]
Shifting agriculture[edit]
Main article: Shifting cultivation
In this type of agriculture, a patch of forest land is cleared by a combination of felling and burning, and crops are grown. After 2-3 years the fertility of the soil begins to decline, the land is abandoned and the farmer moves to clear a fresh piece of land elsewhere in the forest as the process continues. While the land is left fallow the forest regrows in the cleared area and soil fertility and biomass is restored. After a decade or more, the farmer may return to the first piece of land. This form of agriculture is sustainable at low population densities, but higher population loads require more frequent clearing which prevents soil fertility from recovering, opens up more of the forest canopy, and encourages scrub at the expense of large trees, eventually resulting in deforestation and land erosion.[6] Shifting cultivation is called Dredd in India, Ladang in Indonesia, Milpa in Central America and Mexico and Jhumming in North East India.
Primitive agriculture[edit]
While this 'slash-and-burn' technique may describe the method for opening new land, commonly the farmers in question have in existence at the same time smaller fields, sometimes merely gardens, near the homestead there they practice intensive 'non-shifting" techniques until shortage of fields where they can employ "slash and burn" to clear land and (by the burning) provide fertilizer (ash). Such gardens nearer the homestead often regularly receive household refuse, the manure of any household chickens or goats, and compost piles where refuse is thrown initially just to get it out of the way. However, such farmers often recognize the value of such compost and apply it regularly to their smaller fields. They also may irrigate part of such fields if they are near a source of water.
In some areas of tropical Africa, at least, such smaller fields may be ones in which crops are grown on raised beds. Thus farmers practicing 'slash and burn' agriculture are often much more sophisticated agriculturalists than the term "slash and burn" subsistence farmers suggest.
Nomadic herding[edit]
In this type of farming people migrate along with their animals from one place to another in search of fodder for their animals. Generally they rear cattle, sheep, goats, camels and/or yaks for milk, skin, meat and wool. This way of life is common in parts of central and western Asia, India, east and south-west Africa and northern Eurasia. Examples are the nomadic Bhotiyas and Gujjars of the Himalayas. They carry their belongings, such as tents, etc.., on the backs of donkeys, horses, and camels. In mountainous regions, like Tibet and The Andes, Yak and Llama are reared. Reindeer are the livestock in arctic and sub-arctic areas. Ships, goats and camels are common animals and cattle,horses are also important.
Intensive subsistence farming[edit]
In Intensive subsistence agriculture, the farmer cultivates a small plot of land using simple tools and more labour. Climate, with large number of days with sunshine and fertile soils permits growing of more than one crop annually on the same plot. Farmers use their small land holdings to produce enough, for their local consumption, while remaining produce is used for exchange against other goods. It results in much more food being produced per acre compared to other subsistence patterns. In the most intensive situation, farmers may even create terraces along steep hillsides to cultivate rice paddies. Such fields are found in densely populated parts of Asia, such as in The Philippines. They may also intensify by using manure, artificial irrigation and animal waste as fertilizer. Intensive subsistence farming is prevalent in the thickly populated areas of the monsoon regions of south, southwest, and east Asia.
See also[edit]
Cash crop
Commercial agriculture
Extensive agriculture
Hoe-farming
Industrial agriculture
Opium replacement
Subsistence fishing
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Tony Waters. The Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture: life beneath the level of the marketplace. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. 2007.
Jump up ^ Marvin P Miracle,"Subsistence Agriculture: Analytical Problems and Alternative Concepts", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1968, pp. 292-310.
Jump up ^ Goran Hyden. Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured Peasantry. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1980.
Jump up ^ Rapsomanikis, George (2015). "The economic lives of smallholder farmers" (PDF). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. p. 9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-05-04. Retrieved 2018-01-11. About two-thirds of the developing world’s 3 billion rural people live in about 475 million small farm households, working on land plots smaller than 2 hectares.
Jump up ^ Steffen Abele and Klaus Frohberg (Eds.). "Subsistence Agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe: How to Break the Vicious Circle?" Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe. IAMO, 2003.
Jump up ^ "Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON)". Soil erosion from shifting cultivation and other smallholder land use in Sarawak, Malaysia. 4.42.
Further reading[edit]
Charles Sellers. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846. New York: Oxford University Press. 1991.
Howard, Sir Albert. (1943) An Agricultural Testament. Oxford University Press.
Waters, Tony (2010). "Farmer Power: The continuing confrontation between subsistence farmers and development bureaucrats"/
Marvin P Miracle, "Subsistence Agriculture: Analytical Problems and Alternative Concepts,American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, 1968, pp292-310. it is growing crops only for families
[hide]
v
t
e
Simple living
Practices
Barter
Cord-cutting
DIY ethic
Downshifting
Dry toilet
Forest gardening
Freeganism
Frugality
Gift economy
Intentional community
Local currency
Low-impact development
Minimalism
No frills
Off-the-grid
Permaculture
Self-sufficiency
Subsistence agriculture
Sustainable living
Sustainable sanitation
Veganism
Vegetarianism
War tax resistance
WWOOF
Religious and spiritual
Asceticism
Aparigraha
Cynicism
Detachment
Distributism
Jesus movement
Mendicant
Mindfulness
Monasticism
New Monasticism
Plain dress
Plain people
Quakers
Rastafari
Temperance
Testimony of simplicity
Tolstoyan movement
Secular movements
Back-to-the-land
Car-free
Compassionate living
Environmental
Hippie
Slow
Small house
Transition town
Open Source Ecology
Notable writers
Wendell Berry
Ernest Callenbach
G. K. Chesterton
Duane Elgin
Mahatma Gandhi
Richard Gregg
Tom Hodgkinson
Harlan Hubbard
Satish Kumar
Helen Nearing
Scott Nearing
Peace Pilgrim
Vicki Robin
Nick Rosen
Dugald Semple
E. F. Schumacher
Henry David Thoreau
Leo Tolstoy
Modern-day adherents
Mark Boyle
Jim Merkel
Suelo
Thomas
Media
"Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral"
Escape from Affluenza
The Good Life
The Moon and the Sledgehammer
Mother Earth News
The Power of Half
Small Is Beautiful
Walden
Related topics
Affluenza
Agrarianism
Anarcho-primitivism
Anti-consumerism
Appropriate technology
Bohemianism
Consumerism
Deep ecology
Degrowth
Ecological footprint
Food miles
Green anarchism
The good life
Global warming
Hedonophobia
Intentional living
Itinerant
Low-technology
Nonviolence
Peak oil
Sustainability
Work–life balance
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subsistence_agriculture&oldid=821728509"
Categories:
Agriculture
Tropical agriculture
Agricultural labor
Agricultural economics
Simple living
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
Alemannisch
العربية
Català
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
Gaeilge
Galego
हिन्दी
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Norsk
Português
Русский
Simple English
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 January 2018, at 07:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: Edit section: Types of subsistence farming

value: Edit section: Intensive subsistence farming

value: Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras

value: Fertilizer Subsidies in Sub Saharan Africa

value:
/wiki/Commercial_agriculture
mw-redirect
Commercial agriculture

value:
/wiki/Extensive_agriculture
mw-redirect
Extensive agriculture

value:
/wiki/Industrial_agriculture
mw-redirect
Industrial agriculture

value:
/wiki/Subsistence_fishing
mw-redirect
Subsistence fishing

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5251e.pdf

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol22.pdf

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
/wiki/Testimony_of_Simplicity
mw-redirect
Testimony of Simplicity

value:
/wiki/Small_house_movement
mw-redirect
Small house movement

value: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value:
/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: زراعة الكفاف – Arabic

value: जीविका कृषि – Hindi

value: Agricultura de subsistência – Portuguese

value: Потребительское сельское хозяйство – Russian

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Subsistence_agriculture rootpage-Subsistence_agriculture skin-vector action-view