text:
Stop and identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
States (colored red) in which Stop and Identify statutes are in effect as of February 20th, 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).[citation needed] 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 felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a 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=800493680"
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
Hidden categories:
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2016
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 13 September 2017, at 22:09.
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

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

value: b

value: sup

value: p

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

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

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

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

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

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2016)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

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

values: Edit section: Interaction with other laws

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

values: Edit section: Recommendations of legal-aid organizations

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

values:
/wiki/Peace_officer
mw-redirect
Peace officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

values: Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law

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

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

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

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

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

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

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

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

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

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

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

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

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

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

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

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

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

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

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

values: 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:
Charmed (season 6)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Charmed (season 6)
DVD cover
Starring
Alyssa Milano
Rose McGowan
Holly Marie Combs
Brian Krause
Drew Fuller
Dorian Gregory
No. of episodes
23
Release
Original network
The WB
Original release
September 28, 2003 (2003-09-28) – May 16, 2004 (2004-05-16)
Season chronology
← Previous
Season 5
Next →
Season 7
List of Charmed episodes
The sixth season of Charmed, an American supernatural drama television series, began airing on September 28, 2003 on The WB. Airing on Sundays at 8:00 pm, the season consisted of 23 episodes and concluded its airing on May 16, 2004. Paramount Home Entertainment released the complete sixth season in a six-disc box set on October 17, 2006.
Contents
1 Cast and characters
1.1 Main
1.2 Recurring
1.3 Guest
1.4 Special Musical Guest
2 Episode list
3 Reception
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links
Cast and characters[edit]
Main[edit]
Alyssa Milano as Phoebe Halliwell
Rose McGowan as Paige Matthews
Holly Marie Combs as Piper Halliwell
Brian Krause as Leo Wyatt
Drew Fuller as Chris Halliwell[a]
Dorian Gregory as Darryl Morris[b]
Recurring[edit]
Jennifer Rhodes as Penny Halliwell
James Read as Victor Bennett
Rebecca Balding as Elise Rothman
Sandra Prosper as Sheila Morris
Eric Dane as Jason Dean
Balthazar Getty as Richard Montana
Christopher Neiman as Sigmund
Betsy Randle as Mrs. Winterbourne
Gildart Jackson as Gideon
Billy Drago as Barbas
Jenya Lano as Inspector Sheridan
Guest[edit]
Melissa George as Freyja
Ivana Miličević as Mist
Evan Marriott as Oscar
Jenny McCarthy as Mitzy Stillman
Rachelle Lefevre as Olivia Callaway
Michael Muhney as Seth
Mako as Potion Sorcerer
Gina Ravera as Mary
Kathryn Joosten as Old Magician's Wife
Keith Szarabajka as Zahn
Marisol Nichols as Bianca
Jake Busey as Nigel
Patrick Cassidy as Allen Halliwell
Eduardo Verástegui as Mr. Right
Sarah Rafferty as Carol
Scott Adsit as Transformed Male Nymph
Ian Abercrombie as Aramis
Ken Page as Adair
Gabriel Olds as Vincent Right / Vincent Wrong
Elaine Hendrix as Clea
David Ramsey as Upper-Level Demon
Special Musical Guest[edit]
Smash Mouth
Steadman
Ziggy Marley
Andy Stochansky
Episode list[edit]
See also: List of Charmed episodes
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
Prod.
code
US viewers
(millions)
112
113
1
2 "Valhalley of the Dolls" James L. Conway Brad Kern September 28, 2003 (2003-09-28) 4301112
4301113 6.3[1]
Even though Leo is gone, Piper is in a surprisingly good 'chipper' mood, leading Paige to suspect that Leo altered Piper's memory. However, Paige's spell to restore Piper's memory clashes with Leo's and causes total amnesia. When calling upon Leo for help, Phoebe and Paige discover that he is being held captive on the Island of Valhalla, a mythical place ruled by warrior-maidens known as Valkyries. Phoebe also discovers she is an empath, where she can feel people's emotions, much to the worry of Chris. The Charmed Ones disguise themselves as Valkyries and infiltrate Valhalla to try to rescue Leo. In order for them to get close to him, they must convince the Valkyries that they are one of them. While Phoebe and Paige go to Darryl to borrow his soul, Chris killed a Valkyrie by crushing her heart through his telekinetic power, to possess a Valkyrie's necklace. The sight of Leo causes Piper's pain to come flooding back, prompting her to stay behind on the island to forget the pain while everyone else escapes.
Three fallen warriors follow Paige and Phoebe across dimensions to San Francisco and wreak havoc on the city. Phoebe has to control her new power in order to convince Piper that she belongs with her sisters, not the Valkyries. Meanwhile, Paige takes a job as a dog walker and is amazed when one of her dogs is transformed back into a man. Leo later uncovered evidence that Chris had killed two Valkyries but opted not to use it because Chris had finally earned the Charmed Ones' trust.
114
3 "Forget Me... Not" John T. Kretchmer Henry Alonso Myers October 5, 2003 (2003-10-05) 4301114 5.8[2]
When Wyatt inadvertently brings a dragon to life, the Cleaners, a neutral group dedicated to protecting magic from being exposed, take him away and erase all signs and memories of his existence. Aware that they are forgetting something important but not sure of what it is, Piper, Phoebe, and Paige cast a spell to return their memory. The sisters then set out to expose magic, to strike up a deal with the Cleaners.
115
4 "The Power of Three Blondes" John Behring Daniel Cerone October 12, 2003 (2003-10-12) 4301115 5.4[3]
When three evil sisters magically steal the Charmed Ones' identities and powers, Piper, Phoebe, and Paige must convince Chris that they are the real Charmed Ones in order to get their lives back. Meanwhile, Piper realizes that Wyatt needs time with Leo, who continues on his quest to find out who put him on the Island of Valhalla.
116
5 "Love's a Witch" Stuart Gillard Jeannine Renshaw October 19, 2003 (2003-10-19) 4301116 5.4[4]
When Paige's latest temp job puts her in the middle of an ongoing feud between two magical families, the Montanas and the Callaways, she falls for Richard Montana and urges both families to consider a truce. Paige, Phoebe, and Piper hold a séance with both families and everyone is stunned to learn that Richard's first love, Olivia Callaway, is the one who has been escalating the feud to avenge her death. Paige becomes possessed by Olivia's spirit, and Phoebe and Piper must banish Olivia in order to save Paige and the two families. However, Paige's abduction of Richard while possessed and the near death of his mother, cause the families to end the feud, having decided they want no more death. Olivia's dad and Richard's mom lead Phoebe and Piper to Olivia's grave where Paige tries to attack, but is prevented by Piper. Phoebe and Piper go to vanquish her but are stopped by Paige who felt Olivia's intense pain while possessed by her and Paige and Richard are able to convince her to move on peacefully. Meanwhile, Leo is suspicious when Chris travels to The Underworld in search of a potion and trails him in secret. The potion turns out to be an empath blocking potion, and Piper and Paige are able to use it to block Phoebe's new power on them, however, when they are gone, Chris secretly uses it on himself too.
117
6 "My Three Witches" Joel J. Feigenbaum Scott Lipsey & Whip Lipsey October 26, 2003 (2003-10-26) 4301117 5.5[5]
Worried that the Charmed Ones are drifting apart by putting their personal lives before their "Charmed" duties, Chris tries to teach them a lesson by enlisting the help of the demon Gith, who creates an alternate reality for the sisters by tapping into their secret desires. Piper's secret desire is to live a normal life, Phoebe feels her boyfriend's, Jason Dean, desire, for her to be a famous celebrity and have her own television show, and Paige's is to not have to hide her magic. Chris tries to kill Gith, but is prevented by when he is shot with a Darklighter arrow. Wyatt ends up becoming seriously ill and when Piper tries to get him to the hospital, she ends up in a car crash while Paige gets attacked by multiple demons and insane fans try to kill Phoebe. Chris manages to put Phoebe into Paige's world and together they manage to channel themselves into Piper's. Gith, desperate, transports himself to Piper's world, but Phoebe fights him off. Gith is vanquished when Piper's SVU explodes and he is consumed in the explosion. His vanquish frees the sisters and Wyatt and they discover a near-death Chris. Piper quickly calls for Leo who heals Wyatt of his illness and Chris of his wound and they return home where the sisters have learned their lesson.
118
7 "Soul Survivor" Mel Damski Curtis Kheel November 2, 2003 (2003-11-02) 4301118 5.2[6]
In an attempt to save her boss' soul, Paige goes behind her sisters backs and makes a deal with a demon. Meanwhile, Piper learns that Wyatt has been sabotaging her dates. Phoebe gets a new writing partner, and Chris and Leo accidentally travel back in time.
119
8 "Sword and the City" Derek Johansen David Simkins November 9, 2003 (2003-11-09) 4301119 5.2[7]
The Lady of the Lake appears before the Charmed Ones, pleading for their help in protecting Excalibur, the legendary Sword in the Stone. A dozen magical beings arrive at the manor to try their hand at pulling the sword from the stone, but it is Piper who pulls Excalibur out, causing a whirlwind that coalesces into a mysterious figure called Mordaunt. Piper is unaware that she is meant to pass it on to Wyatt, heir of Excalibur and the next King Arthur. Richard realizes that Mordaunt cannot be trusted, but before he can intervene, Mordaunt tricks Piper into relinquishing the sword and its power to him.
120
9 "Little Monsters" James L. Conway Julie Hess November 16, 2003 (2003-11-16) 4301120 5.3[8]
After vanquishing a Manticore demon, Piper, Phoebe, and Paige become foster parents to its orphaned half-breed infant, whose human father Derek (Seth Peterson) holds Piper hostage until his son is returned. Upon Chris' plea to vanquish the child, the sisters come to believe that, by raising the child with love, they can change its destiny. Meanwhile, Phoebe surprises her boyfriend Jason when she responds to feelings he has not expressed yet, and Paige gives Darryl a superpower.
121
10 "Chris-Crossed" Joel J. Feigenbaum Cameron Litvack November 23, 2003 (2003-11-23) 4301121 6.0[9]
A mysterious woman from the future named Bianca arrives to take Chris' powers and bring him back with her forcefully. Piper feels that being witches is stopping her sisters from having the life they want, and advises them to move out and follow their hearts. Bianca is revealed to actually be Chris' fiancée who only came back as "he" would have sent someone else if she had not come. Bianca is revealed to have helped Chris come back in time in the first place and apparently met him after the unnamed evil that rules their future sent her to kill him. Chris also reveals some truth about himself after Piper tries to freeze him and Bianca and fails: he is not a true Whitelighter, he is half-Whitelighter, half-witch like Paige and Wyatt. Bianca strips his powers and brings him back to his terrible future where the evil who rules confronts Chris and Bianca alone; an evil Wyatt. Future Wyatt tries to convince Chris to join him, offering to spare his life if he does. Chris refuses and Wyatt tries to kill him, but he is saved by Bianca who switches back to his side to protect him. Using a spell the sisters left in the attic in the present, Chris reclaims his powers and defeats Wyatt temporarily, but Bianca is mortally wounded and dies. Chris manages to open a time portal and escapes as Wyatt recovers, taking the spell with him so that Wyatt cannot send another assassin back in time. In the present, the sisters forgive him and he remains their Whitelighter, but he swears that if he can't prevent Baby Wyatt from becoming evil, then he will stop him permanently.
122
11 "Witchstock" James A. Contner Daniel Cerone January 11, 2004 (2004-01-11) 4301122 5.3[10]
After trying on a pair of her Grams' go-go boots, Paige finds herself transported back in time to an era of free love and free magic. She discovers Grams, a peace-loving hippie, who is on a crusade to rid the world of evil through the magical power of love, preparing for a "magical be-in" at the manor. Meanwhile in present time a magic-sucking slime attacks the manor.
123
12 "Prince Charmed" David Jackson Henry Alonso Myers January 18, 2004 (2004-01-18) 4301123 3.9[11]
After vanquishing a demon from Wyatt's room, Piper has an epiphany and decides to swear off men so that she can devote the rest of her life to raising and protecting Wyatt. Unable to handle Piper's revelation, Paige and Phoebe decide to remind Piper of the importance of love by conjuring up a "Mr. Right" as Piper's birthday present. The Order, a demonic brotherhood, manage to kidnap Wyatt after Chris' meddling with "Prince Charmed's" attractiveness backfires, turning a birthday dinner party into a food fight. The sisters vanquish the Order and with Chris' help restore Wyatt to normal. Doing so apparently earns Wyatt's trust for Chris and Leo confirms later that he still trusts Chris, but Chris needs to earn back the sisters' trust.
124
13 "Used Karma" John T. Kretchmer Jeannine Renshaw January 25, 2004 (2004-01-25) 4301124 4.2[12]
Piper, Phoebe, and Paige inadvertently expose themselves as witches in front of Jason, causing him to leave Phoebe. Richard casts a spell to free himself of his family's negative karma, but accidentally channels the spirit of Mata Hari, a double agent for Germany and France during WWI, into Phoebe. Phoebe decides to get revenge on Jason by arranging for a demonic firing squad to kill him. Meanwhile, Piper and Paige try to vanquish a group of Swarm Demons, the last on Chris' list of the most significant threats to Wyatt.
125
14 "The Legend of Sleepy Halliwell" Jon Paré Cameron Litvack February 8, 2004 (2004-02-08) 4301125 4.8[13]
The three sisters are railing at the complications and deleterious impact magic has on their lives when a portal opens in the middle of their stairway landing. An Elder named Gideon, Leo's old mentor at Magic School, calls upon Piper, Phoebe, and Paige to find out who cast the spell of darkness upon the school and conjured up the Headless Horseman, who has been beheading the teachers. While Piper and Paige tackle a group of surly teenagers, Piper becomes the horseman's next victim and become a functioning head on a table. Meanwhile, Phoebe is sent on a vision quest by a student Enola, who is a young shaman, and gets a glimpse into the demon free future, where she discovers she will have a child and she sees an older Wyatt and a brunette boy. Piper refers to the brunette as Wyatt's little brother. The little boy asks her for help and the vision ends and she sees Chris asking the same question which gives her a revelation. Questioning whether such a future is even possible, she is told she must be herself and accept her bad with the good about who she is and then it can happen—the advice the three sisters give the youth terrorizing the teaching staff. It is revealed that Zachary, a desperately unhappy telepath, is behind the attacks by using his power to tap into others powers. The sisters vanquish the Headless Horseman and convince Zachary to stop. Later at P3, Phoebe confronts Chris about who he really is and asks is he is really Wyatt's brother and thus Piper and Leo's son. For once Chris doesn't lie and confirms this,but only if he can get Piper and Leo back together in time.
126
15 "I Dream of Phoebe" John T. Kretchmer Curtis Kheel February 15, 2004 (2004-02-15) 4301126 4.1[14]
Phoebe frees a genie, Jinny (Saba Homayoon), from a bottle, only to find that Jinny is a demon that has tricked her into becoming a genie herself. Anxious to get Leo and Piper back together so he can be conceived, Chris uses Phoebe to make his wish come true, but she takes his instructions too literally. When Chris reveals to Paige that he made the wish to make Piper and Leo sleep together, she calls him a pervert, and he reveals to her that Piper and Leo are his parents and that Piper needs to get pregnant within a few weeks or he will perish. Feeling that he is losing Paige, Richard opportunistically covets the genie's magic and steals the bottle so he can wish Paige back into his life. Paige and Richard reconciled to permanent separation, but Richard must drink a power-stripping potion for his own good.
127
16 "The Courtship of Wyatt's Father" Joel J. Feigenbaum Brad Kern February 22, 2004 (2004-02-22) 4301127 5.0[15]
A Darklighter named Damien sends both Leo and Piper into a trap on the ghostly plane where they are without powers and wounds Leo with his Darklighter crossbow, leaving Phoebe and Paige to fear that they are dead. Meanwhile, Chris is obsessing over the fact that he is out of time, for he must be conceived by Piper and Leo sometime in the next day before he disappears forever having never been conceived. An Angel of Death comes for Chris even as he begins fading but he manages to resist and make a communication bridge between Phoebe and Piper.. The two consult with Gideon who is convinced Leo is doomed, provides a way to access the dimension to rescue Piper thinking Leo will be dead. At the end he convinces Leo to act as an Elder and sunder himself from his family, and Gideon is revealed to have plotted the cross dimensional attack to rid himself of Leo, and to have ill intentions towards Wyatt, his real target. By being trapped on the ghostly plane causes Piper and Leo to temporarily rekindle their relationship and sleep together, conceiving Chris. Piper learns at the end of the episode that Chris is her son and that she is pregnant from Phoebe and Paige who realize what happened as Chris returns to existence.
128
17 "Hyde School Reunion" Jonathan West David Simkins March 14, 2004 (2004-03-14) 4301128 4.8[16]
While preparing for her high school reunion, Phoebe's wild teenage personality takes over her body when she inadvertently casts a spell on herself reading a rhyme she had inscribed in her high school year book. At the reunion, aggravated by an old rival, the teenage Phoebe persona takes over, reconnects with her former gang and finds herself following a suggestion to use her magic to visit another old gang member Rick, who is in jail awaiting trial. Rick, takes advantage of their visit to break out of jail, and uses Phoebe's magic to aid his plans of fleeing justice. Meanwhile, Scabber demons requiring the Power of Three to vanquish are closing in on Chris. Earlier that evening, Piper being increasingly concerned that Chris is staying distant, had asked her father Victor to talk to him. Chris explains that Piper dies when he turns fourteen, and he has been distancing himself from his mother because he believes that to bond with her only to return to a future where she is dead would be too painful. Victor convinces Chris that he needs to spend as much time with Piper as possible so he has more fond memories of her when he goes back. All the while Phoebe is under the dual pressures of knowing one high school friend is seriously, perhaps even grievously wounded, and Rick has hidden one of their female classmates where no-one can ever find her. Both parties arrive back at the manor where Paige casts the appearance changing spell to make him look like Chris. The Scabber Demons spit their acid at what looks like Chris and Rick is melted, but not before he gives up the information on where to find the others.
129
18 "Spin City" Mel Damski Andy Reaser & Doug E. Jones April 18, 2004 (2004-04-18) 456006 3.8[17]
Piper is kidnapped and cocooned by the Spider Demon, a creature that emerges every hundred years to feed off a powerful magical being. During the attack, Chris is infected with the demon's venom, causing him to mutate into a spider demon himself. In need of desperate help, Paige calls Leo. Phoebe then reveals to Leo that Chris is his son. While trying to save him, Chris attacks Leo and starts repeatedly punching Leo, yelling that Leo does not know him. Later, Leo finds Chris on the Golden Gate bridge and begs him to tell him why he hates him so much. Chris replies that Leo was never there for him, but he was there for Piper, Wyatt, and half the world. Leo tells him that maybe he did not come back just to save Wyatt, but to save their relationship as well.
130
19 "Crimes and Witch Demeanors" John T. Kretchmer Henry Alonso Myers April 25, 2004 (2004-04-25) 4301130 3.4[18]
When Phoebe and Paige are caught on tape using their powers by SFPD Inspector Sheridan, the Cleaners, beings who prevent the exposure of magic, cover up the situation by implicating their friend, Detective Darryl Morris, as a murderer and in a huge time jump, end up sending him to death row to cover up the exposure of magic. The Halliwells fight to have the outcome reversed, initially summoning the Cleaners by deliberate acts that would expose magic if left unfixed. Their confrontation proves inconclusive, and they learn that their only recourse is to have a hearing in front of the mysterious Tribunal, which is a council that oversees all magic and made up of demons and Elders with Barbas (Billy Drago) empaneled as the prosecutor. He turns the proceedings around on their head and puts the sisters on trial for recklessly abusing their powers.Meanwhile, Inspector Sheridan, nudged magically by Barbas, takes aim at the sisters with her partner Inspector Miles and begins looking into the trail of disappearances and odd happenings over the last half decade starting with the collection of unsolved homicides SFPD Internal Affairs had harassed Andy Trudeau about. Meanwhile, Leo and Chris work together to help free the sisters and Darryl, but the outcome leaves Phoebe stripped of her active powers as penance for occasional lapses in the past where she used magic to benefit herself.
131
20 "A Wrong Day's Journey into Right" Cameron Litvack May 2, 2004 (2004-05-02) 4301131 4.1[19]
With Piper away at Magic School and Phoebe without her powers, an overworked Paige re-conjures "Mr. Right" for stress relief, but unknowingly releases his evil twin, a demon called Vincent who immediately hatches a plot to separate the sisters while sending assassins after witches. Appealing to Paige's dark side, Mr. Wrong / Vincent uses his pheromones to trick her into realizing that the only way to achieve her secret desire is to be free and use her magic without fear of consequence, eventually killing her sisters. Chris accidentally gets arrested for stealing a car to chase Vincent and Darryl will not cover. To prevent Paige from executing his plan, Phoebe goes undercover as one of Mr. Wrong's Demonatrix assassins. Paige and Phoebe try to keep Piper out of the situation, but that backfires when Paige, under Vincent's control, kidnaps her so that the Demonatrix assassins can kill her. Phoebe regains confidence in herself when she makes Mr. Right real to test a potion that will make Vincent real so he can be vanquished and infiltrates the Demonatrixes. As the Demonatrixes are about to kill a confused Piper, Phoebe saves her and together they vanquish them. They go after Vincent who is confident they cannot harm him as they do not have the potion to make him real, but Phoebe takes the chance that making Mr. Right real will turn him real too. She proves to be right and Vincent is easily vanquished which breaks his hold over Paige. Later, Leo erases the memory of the car dealership manager to save Chris from having to go to jail.
132
21 "Witch Wars" David Jackson Krista Vernoff May 9, 2004 (2004-05-09) 4301132 2.7[20]
Aware that Piper, Phoebe and Paige are on the verge of discovering that he is after Wyatt, Gideon conspires with two demons to make the girls part of Witch Wars, a new demonic reality television show where demon contestants compete to hunt down the Charmed Ones, with the winning demon acquiring the witches' powers. Gideon makes the girls believe that the game masters, Corr and Clea, are the ones after Wyatt in order to protect himself and his own agenda. In the end they find out, but the two demons grow extremely powerful due to them absorbing the powers of vanquished demon contestants. Phoebe comes up with a plan to vanquish them without the Power of Three as they do not want to risk Piper. Leo vanquishes Clea with a power-sucking athame and Phoebe takes Clea's powers for herself. Using her new powers, Phoebe shimmers to the attic and vanquishes Corr with an energy ball. She then shimmers to a demonic bar where demons have been watching Witch Wars and vanquishes many with energy balls to make a point while the rest flee before she returns home. Paige stabs her with the athame to remove the demonic powers. Later, the group celebrates the victory and believe the threat to Wyatt over. Meanwhile, Gideon's assistant has second thoughts about their plan and goes to tell the sisters the truth, but is murdered by Gideon before he can.
133
134
22
23 "It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad World" Jon Paré Jeannine Renshaw
Curtis Kheel May 16, 2004 (2004-05-16) 4301133
4301134 4.7[21]
Under the guise of sending Chris back to the future, Gideon creates a portal that puts Chris and Leo in a mirrored world where evil prevails. Phoebe and Paige travel to the parallel universe to rescue Chris and Leo, only to find themselves in a battle with their evil counterparts. Unable to vanquish one another, both sets of sisters realize that Wyatt is unprotected and in danger from Gideon.
Upon returning to their own world, Phoebe and Paige realize that their world is now too good, and every little infraction is a capital offense. The shift between universes causes Piper's memory to be erased, and Gideon tricks Piper into casting a spell on Phoebe and Paige so that they too, forget Gideon's evil intentions. With the Charmed sisters under the spell, and Piper having a complicated delivery, only Leo and Chris are left to stop Gideon from completing his plan. When Chris is left alone with Wyatt in the attic, Gideon attacks just as Chris goes to orb Wyatt out after suspecting something was not right. Gideon summons an athame and disappears. Chris rushes to grab Wyatt, but Gideon reappears and he stabs Chris in the stomach. While Chris lies there wounded, Gideon takes Wyatt to the Underworld. Chris calls out to Leo. When Leo arrives he tries to heal him, but Chris tells him that it will not work because it was Gideon's magic and only he can stop it. He tells Leo to find Gideon and save Wyatt. Unfortunately, Chris dies, sending Leo into a rage. He discovers the inter-dimensional mirror, meets with his analog self and realizes to return balance, a great evil needs to be done in the Charmed One's universe, and when he goes to save Wyatt he kills Gideon while his other self looks on through the mirror which at the end they both destroy, so the universes cannot be linked again in the future. Wyatt is safe, and though future Chris is dead, baby Chris is born healthy.
Reception[edit]
In 2016, Gavin Hetherington of SpoilerTV ran a series of Charmed articles in the run-up to the 10th anniversary of the series finale. The sixth was a complete season review of season six, in which Gavin comments that the season is his "least favourite".[22] Critical of the season as a whole, Gavin did note the importance of the inclusion of Chris, who called him an "exceptional addition to the cast", and he "helped make a sucky season a lot better".
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Fuller is only credited for the episodes he appears in.
Jump up ^ Gregory is only credited for the episodes he appears in.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday September 28, 2003". TvTango. Archived from the original on 2014-03-28.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday October 5, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday October 12, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday October 19, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday October 26, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday November 2, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday November 9, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday November 16, 2003". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "CBS, UPN show growth, other b'casters stumble". Variety.com. 2003-11-25. Retrieved 2011-07-24.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday January 11, 2004". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday January 18, 2004". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday January 25, 2004". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday February 8, 2004". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Tv Ratings: Sunday February 15, 2004". TvTango.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-02-24. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-03-16. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-04-20. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-04-27. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-05-04. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ "Weekly Program Rankings". ABC Medianet. 2004-05-11. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
Jump up ^ Weekly Program Rankings Archived July 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.. ABC. May 18, 2004. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
Jump up ^ Hetherington, Gavin (May 7, 2016). "Charmed – 10th Anniversary Special – Season 6 Review: "A Son From the Future"". SpoilerTV. Retrieved May 7, 2016.
External links[edit]
List of Charmed episodes on IMDb
List of Charmed season 6 episodes at TV.com
Charmed at epguides.com
hide
v
t
e
Charmed
Awards and nominations
Series
Episodes
Season 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Comics and novels and short stories
Season 9
10
Characters
Prue Halliwell
Piper Halliwell
Phoebe Halliwell
Paige Matthews
Darryl Morris
Leo Wyatt
Cole Turner
Billie Jenkins
Coop
Henry Mitchell
Kyra
Barbas
Christy Jenkins
Episodes
"Something Wicca This Way Comes"
"All Hell Breaks Loose"
"Charmed Again"
"Forever Charmed"
Other media
Board games
Merchandise
Video game
Music
"How Soon Is Now?"
The Soundtrack
The Book of Shadows
Related topics
Power of Three
Book of Shadows
Magical beings
Charmed (2018 TV series)
Category:Charmed (TV series)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charmed_(season_6)&oldid=854680937"
Categories:
Charmed (TV series) episodes
Charmed (TV series)
2003 American television seasons
2004 American television seasons
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
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
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Português
Русский
Slovenčina
Edit links
This page was last edited on 13 August 2018, at 02:20 (UTC).
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

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: i

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

values: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;background: #B30713; color: white; padding: 0.25em 1em; line-height: 1.5em;

value: tr

value: img

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

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: colspan style

attrs: scope style

values:
row
white-space: nowrap

attrs: href title

value: li

values: text-align:center;background: #B30713; color: white; padding: 0.25em 1em; line-height: 1.5em;

values:
/wiki/Paramount_Home_Entertainment
mw-redirect
Paramount Home Entertainment

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Chris_Halliwell
mw-redirect
Chris Halliwell

values:
/wiki/Darryl_Morris
mw-redirect
Darryl Morris

values:
/wiki/Penny_Halliwell
mw-redirect
Penny Halliwell

values:
/wiki/Victor_Bennett
mw-redirect
Victor Bennett

values:
/wiki/Elise_Rothman
mw-redirect
Elise Rothman

values:
/wiki/Sheila_Morris
mw-redirect
Sheila Morris

values:
/wiki/Jason_Dean_(Charmed)
mw-redirect
Jason Dean (Charmed)

values:
/wiki/Inspector_Sheridan
mw-redirect
Inspector Sheridan

values:
/wiki/Mako_Iwamatsu
mw-redirect
Mako Iwamatsu

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em;

values:
description
8
border-bottom:solid 3px #B30713

values:
/wiki/Andy_Trudeau
mw-redirect
Andy Trudeau

values:
description
7
border-bottom:solid 3px #B30713

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

values:
nofollow
external text
http://epguides.com/Charmed

values: List of awards and nominations received by Charmed

values: List of Charmed novels and short stories

values:
/wiki/Henry_Mitchell_(Charmed)
mw-redirect
Henry Mitchell (Charmed)

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:2003 American television seasons

values: Category:2004 American television seasons

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

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

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

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

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

values:
/wiki/Charmed_(season_6)
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

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

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

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

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

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

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

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

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

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

values: Episodi di Streghe (sesta stagione) – Italian

values: Lijst van afleveringen van Charmed (seizoen 6) – Dutch

values: Lista de episódios de Charmed (sexta temporada) – Portuguese

values: Зачарованные (сезон 6) – Russian

values: Zoznam častí seriálu Čarodejnice (6. séria) – Slovak

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

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

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

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Charmed_season_6 rootpage-Charmed_season_6 skin-vector action-view