I watched a YouTube video recently which depicted the following situation, and I'd like to learn more about what peoples' rights are and what an officer's obligations are in a situation like this:
A filming crew flew a drone above property to photograph a private business operation.
The security for that private business followed the filming crew down the road, and soon a police vehicle showed up, passed the security vehicle and pulled over the crew.
The initial encounter went as follows:
Officer: "Good morning folks, (identification), just trying to- had some people ask questions why you're flying a drone over their property."
Officer: "You guys got any ID on you?"
Driver: "Why am I being stopped?"
Officer: "You're being stopped because people identified your vehicle as flying a drone over the top of their property and we're just trying to figure out what you guys are up to."
Driver: "That's illegal?"
Officer: "Well they just wanted to know who you were, they couldn't identify who you were. Do you guys have any identification on you?"
Now, the easiest thing to do here is obviously show ID. But my question is: Has the officer fulfilled the conditions necessary in order to demand ID at this point?
My concern is this: The officer could be friends with the owner of the facility they were photographing and helping his pal out by going get the name of the people photographing their operation. The law (in most US states) states that an officer can only demand you show ID if you're suspected of committing a crime. Right? That's to keep officers from being able to pull over and annoy anyone they don't like or have a personal or monetary motive to harass. Right?
So it seems to me the officer couldn't identify a specific crime the driver had broken, and would be required to name the specific law broken. But I don't know that for sure, which is why I'm here. Is the officer obligated to name the specific law the driver broke before demanding ID, if the driver requests to know which law they broke?
To continue the transaction where it left off:
Driver: "So because they wanna know who we are, you're going to tell them?"
Officer: "Well I'm just going to ask you- I'm asking if you have any identification."
Driver: "I do. What crime am I suspected of committing?"
Officer: "Well, I'm just asking to see your identification Sir. I'm trying to identify you.
Driver: "I'm telling you no."
At this point the officer has failed to name a specific law the driver is suspected of breaking. Does he need to in order to demand ID? The officer doesn't seem to know what law he suspects the driver of breaking, so he goes back to his squad car and presumably investigates. He claims to speak to his supervisor. Presumably, at this point the supervisor would look up a specific law to suspect the driver of breaking right? So it seems to me like the officer has two options: Return to the vehicle and say
"You've been suspected of X (specific law broken) crime, I need to see your ID"
"You're free to go".
Anyway, that doesn't happen. The detainment goes on for an hour and the driver continues to request to know what crime he's suspected of and refuse to show ID until the officer identifies the crime he's suspected of committing. At one point another officer even states "There is no crime." in response to the driver asking "Why can't you tell me what the crime was?" This continues until the officers place the driver and passengers under arrest and bring them to jail.
I see these kinds of videos often, and often times its clear the driver is just trying to cause unnecessary drama, but in a few cases, like this one, it seems to me like the driver is genuinely trying not to forfeit rights designed to protect citizens from harassment.
I'm no legal expert though, and I'm not claiming to be right. I'm asking for an expert explanation of what rights a person has in this situation, what obligations the officer has, and whether or not this encounter was ultimately a legal / illegal detainment and arrest.