Fact check: What are the penalties for not carrying identification in states that require it?

1. What the reviewers claimed — Clear, sharp allegations about penalties

The collected analyses assert that several states impose criminal penalties for fake or fraudulent identification and that consequences escalate for repeat offenders. Colorado allegedly allows up to one year in county jail and fines from $500 to $5,000 for first-time fake ID offenders, with later offenses potentially rising to felonies ^[1]. Ohio is described as imposing $250–$1,000 fines and up to six months in jail for a first offense, with increased exposure up to 18 months for repeat violations ^[2]. California is presented as making false ID use a crime under Penal Code Section 470b, with up to six months and a $1,000 fine for misdemeanors and felony treatment for repeat or related crimes ^[3].

2. Federal angle — Immigration rules that mandate carrying documents

Beyond state-level fake ID statutes, the analysis invokes the Immigration and Nationality Act provision requiring certain noncitizens to carry immigration documentation; failure to comply is said to carry a $100 fine or up to 30 days’ imprisonment ^[4]. This federal rule targets a different class of identification obligations and is enforced under immigration law rather than state criminal statutes. The presence of this federal penalty underscores that penalties depend on the legal basis for the ID requirement—criminal statutes against fraud versus administrative immigration mandates ^[4].

3. Comparing severity — Misdemeanor fines, jail time, and felony escalation

Across the state examples, a pattern emerges: initial offenses are commonly treated as misdemeanors with fines and short jail terms, while repeats or use in other crimes trigger felony exposure. Colorado, Ohio, and California analyses align on that escalation path—monetary penalties and incarceration for first offenses, potential elevation for subsequent or aggravated conduct ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The analyses imply that what distinguishes outcomes is the offense’s context: synthetic ID creation, intent to commit another crime, or repeated violations drive prosecutorial decisions ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Gaps and nonanswers — Where available analyses fall short

Several provided items do not directly address penalties for not carrying identification in states that require it; two entries are unrelated or administrative in nature, including a terms/cookie policy and an article on online age verification, which the reviewer marked as irrelevant ^{[5] [6]}. Those gaps show coverage bias toward fake-ID criminality while offering little on civil or administrative penalties for failure to carry valid ID in states with stop-and-identify or Real ID rules. The absent details leave unanswered whether mere failure to produce ID during a stop attracts fines, arrest, or merely detention for verification ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Timing and sourcing — Why publication dates matter to enforcement context

All three state-focused analyses are dated December 31, 2025, and the immigration analysis is dated September 13, 2025, signaling that the material reflects mid-to-late 2025 interpretations and summaries ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The temporal clustering suggests a contemporaneous survey of statutes and reporting, but also that any statutory or case-law changes after those dates are not captured. The unrelated items from October and September 2025 reinforce that contemporaneous policy discussions—such as Real ID implementation or digital age checks—are present but not integrated into penalty descriptions ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Multiple viewpoints — Enforcement, civil rights, and prosecutorial discretion

The provided analyses emphasize criminal penalties and potential escalations, implicitly reflecting law-enforcement and prosecutorial perspectives focused on deterrence and fraud prevention ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The immigration citation reflects federal enforcement priorities regarding noncitizen documentation ^[4]. Missing are viewpoints from civil-rights advocates or courts challenging stop-and-identify practices, which could contextualize how often penalties are imposed in practice versus on paper, or whether enforcement is discretionary or uneven ^{[5] [6]}.

7. Practical takeaway — How to interpret these penalties on the ground

From the sources provided, the dominant factual takeaway is that fake ID offenses are criminalized with variable severity across states, starting with fines and short jail terms and rising to felonies for repeats or aggravating conduct, while a separate federal rule mandates carrying immigration documents with modest statutory penalties for noncompliance ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. However, the absence of direct discussion about simple failure to carry state-required identification during routine stops means that real-world outcomes depend heavily on jurisdictional statutes, officer discretion, and prosecutorial charging choices ^{[5] [6]}.

8. What’s still missing — Research avenues to close the gaps

To fully answer “penalties for not carrying ID in states that require it,” one needs statutory texts and case law from each state, administrative codes on Real ID and stop-and-identify rules, and empirical enforcement data showing charging and conviction rates; those are not provided here. The current materials point to criminal penalties for fraudulent ID use and a federal immigration penalty, but do not supply comprehensive state-by-state statutes or enforcement statistics—so any definitive list would require consulting state codes and recent court decisions beyond these summaries ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.