Police can demand ID, high court rules

You're falling back on the, "Oh, you guys don't know just how much the world has changed and how dangerous my job is" excuse. Inevitably, you make the argument that each situation, not clearly protected by the BoR needs to be interpreted in favor of the State. In fact, the Constitution is supposed to work just the opposite. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

I don't think so at all. How hard would it have been for them to write: "There will be no warrantless searches and seizures, and warrants will only issue on probable cause" if that's the way they wanted it to be? I don't think I've used the "my dangerous job" excuse at all either. I use the tools and standards that society considers reasonable. I think you guys are in the minority, especially those that say police should not be allowed to do Terry stops and searchesm, with your "reasonableness" standard.

That is what is being debated here.
Click to expand...

What is being debated is "reasonableness". And I think it's reasonable (although admittedly borderline) for the police to be able to know who they're dealing with when they're in someone's 4th amdendment area because of reasonable suspicion.
 
I'd rather save the "cocaine, herion and meth should be legal" argument for another forum though, if that's what you were implying.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's all interrelated. If I don't challenge the position that drugs should be illegal, it's very much harder for me to say that Terry stops/frisks ought to be eliminated. Honest people don't lose much from frisks, and there are baaad criminals that frisks help catch -- drug dealers. If drugs were legal, the scale would tip because there's no advantage to searching people for legal items.

The legality of carrying drugs and weapons is a major part of whether Terry stops are effective. Without drug and weapons laws, the only thing cops can accomplish with a Terry stop (thanks to Hiibel) is to check for outstanding warrants. I think I've made my opinions about that abundantly clear.

Without any of those justifications, Terry stops become useless. So my argument boils down to Terry being useless because drugs and guns shouldn't be illegal, and because the ability to Terry stop to conduct searches and background checks unrelated to a current crime is not worth the social cost involved. As was said earlier, when people are more afraid of running into cops during a trip than of running into criminals, those social costs are substantial. People shouldn't be afraid of or upset at police. When they are, you lose your most valuable asset - fellow citizens.

That may be another aspect of this. Are cops more concerned with arresting criminals than with maintaining good relations with citizens?

Rich, I did veer the thread by going off on an "eliminate Terry" rant.
 
Have you looked at the video tape for the ramifications to the average father who chooses to scold his daughter in the New America?
Click to expand...

I'm about halfway through it....it takes so long to load. I think that if the caller was identified the police have reasonable suspicion to investigate. I don't think there is any doubt that they had reasonable suspicion to think a crime had taken, was taking, or was about to take place. Probable cause, of course not, but definately reasonable suspicion. There was a state law in place that required the cowboy to ID himself. He apparently refused and was arrested (I haven't gotten to that point yet). And now the high court says the law to require him to ID himself under the circumstances on the video (assuming the original caller was identified) is constitutional, and I agree that it is reasonable, although borderline.

I didn't see the part where the female was arrested, but as far as the one cop grabbing her, the police have a right to make an arrest without her interfering. I think it's reasonable to believe that she was on her way to interfere with the arrest of the guy, and reasonable for the police to restrain her from doing so. There sure are a lot of pick-up trucks in those parts. Did the guy have a jury trial on the original charge, or a bench trial?

The legality of carrying drugs and weapons is a major part of whether Terry stops are effective. Without drug and weapons laws, the only thing cops can accomplish with a Terry stop (thanks to Hiibel) is to check for outstanding warrants. I think I've made my opinions about that abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

I've never discovered drugs on a Terry pat-down, MN V. Dickerson notwithstanding. A Terry search of a car, yes, but not a frisk. As far as weapons, a Terry search isn't for the pupose of finding illegal weapons, it's for finding ANY weapons. It's for "safety" reasons. If all guns were to be legalized for carry by all people, Terry searches would have just as much purpose and "reasonableness" as they do now.
 
What is being debated is "reasonableness". And I think it's reasonable (although admittedly borderline) for the police to be able to know who they're dealing with when they're in someone's 4th amdendment area because of reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
And you've already admitted, and Hiibel readily demonstrates that "Reasonable Suspicion" can be as little as an anonymous complaint, even in the face of subsequent information that fails to show any reasonable indication of a crime.

Spell that "Papers Please".


And I think it's reasonable (although admittedly borderline)....
Click to expand...
Borderline? It's a new low for the 4th Amendment. No different than the demands by Politicians to now do No-Knocks on "Reasonable Suspicion"...eg: an anonymous complaint, in your words.
http://www.barbarahaller.com/noknock.html

Again, I ask if you've read the SCOTUS transcript and still believe they conducted themselves in a "reasonable" manner?
Rich
 
And you've already admitted, and Hiibel readily demonstrates that "Reasonable Suspicion" can be as little as an anonymous complaint, even in the face of subsequent information that fails to show any reasonable indication of a crime.
Click to expand...


??? Would you please cut and paste where I said THAT?? I implied that reasonable suspicion can be as little as a complaint where the caller is NOT anonymous. In another post I said that police are obligated to investigate even anonymous complaints. I didn't say they were obligated to detain anyone based on them, but they do have an obligation to try to corroborate the anonymous information in certain situations, and act on it if the situation warrants.


Again, I ask if you've read the SCOTUS transcript and still believe they conducted themselves in a "reasonable" manner?
Click to expand...

I thought they showed a lot of restraint given the laws they had to work with. They definately dind't act like stormtroopers.
 
I said reasonable suspicion can be as little as a complaint where the caller is NOT anonymous.
Click to expand...
Apologies. My misread. Strike that last about RS based on "anonymous" tips. (See, that's what happens in reasonable debate. When we're wrong, we should simply say so. ;))

Rich: "Again, I ask if you've read the SCOTUS transcript and still believe they conducted themselves in a "reasonable" manner?"
Frank: "I thought they showed a lot of restraint given the laws they had to work with. They definately dind't act like stormtroopers."

Umm, Frank. Is there a synapse disconnect here? For the fourth time, I am not arguing the conduct of the officers (not here, anyway) but the conduct of the Supreme Court as documented in the transcripts available at http://thefiringline.com/Misc/hiibel.pdf

Rich
 
Spell that "Papers Please".
Click to expand...



A temporary “detention” or “stop” is an exertion of authority that is something less than a full blown arrest, but more substantial than a simple “contact” or “consensual encounter.” (Ayarza (9th Cir.1989) 874 F.2d 647) A detention occurs whenever a reasonable–and innocent– person would believe he is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the police and go about his business. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 627-628) Such a belief may result from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by the police which clearly relate to the investigation of specific criminal acts. (Brueckner (1990) 223 Cal.App. 3d 1500, 1505)

In addition, before a detention exists in law, it is also necessary that the person actually submits to the assertion of authority by the police. If a person runs away or fights, for example, there has been no detention and none occurs until and unless the person stops and submits or is forced to submit. In other words, “a person is not ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless he or she is somehow physically restrained or voluntarily submits to a peace officers’ authority.” (Arangure (1991) 230 Cal.App 3d 1302, 1307)

The general purpose of a detention is to resolve whether or not suspicious behavior is “innocent” or relates to a crime. Therefore, “the possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” (Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 891) Detention law “accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people.” However, if, during the detention, “the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probably cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way.” (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 677)

In order for an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have a “reasonable suspicion” that: (1) Criminal activity MAY be afoot; and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 675) “The determination of reasonable suspicion must be base on common sense judgement and inferences about human behavior.” (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 676) “The quantum of proof needed for reasonable suspicion is less than a preponderance of evidence, and less than probably cause. It is merely a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” (Tiong (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 1136, 1140) Remember, however, that even though the court will consider the “totality of the circumstances,” there must be specific facts which can be articulated to a court. The court will then decide if these facts–together with a peace officers’ training and experience– were enough to make the suspicion objectively reasonable. (Wright (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1107) A valid detention cannot be based solely on a hunch, rumor, intuition, instinct or other curiosity. (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 675)

Whether someone is being detained to (1) investigate a “reasonable suspicion” or (2) to issue a cite and release citation, the suspect has an obligation to stop. A suspect has “no right to resist” a lawful detention. (Lloyd (1989) 216 Cal.App. 3d 1425, 1429) If the suspect doesn’t stop or submit to a peace officers’ authority, the suspect has violated section 148 of the Penal Code(Obstructing or delaying a peace officer in the performance of his duties) and is then subject to arrest. A peace officer may use all that force which is necessary but only that force which is necessary to make the suspect stop or submit(Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App3d 1, 12-13 also see California Penal Code sections 835 and 835a)

Although a peace officer may take whatever steps are reasonable necessary under the circumstances to ascertain the identity of a person who is lawfully detained(based only on reasonable suspicion), the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a suspect’s failure to identify himself cannot, on its own, justify an arrest. (Martinelli (9th Cir. 1987) 820 F.2d 1491, 1494) This does not apply to driver’s of vehicles where licenses are required or when issuing a citation or after arrest and during booking.
Click to expand...

TBO
 
Umm, Frank. Is there a synapse disconnect here? For the fourth time, I am not arguing the conduct of the officers (not here, anyway) but the conduct of the Supreme Court as documented in the transcripts available at
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that that's going to be too long to read....can you just give me the contentious highlights again??

Oh yeah...way too long...I'm not nearly that interested......I'd rather just concede that you're right than read that whole thing.....Can't you just give me a synopsis of the majority opinion???
 
Oh yeah...way too long...I'm not nearly that interested. [snip] Can't you just give me a synopsis of the majority opinion???
Click to expand...
Do you mean to tell me that thru 8 pages of debate, you've read neither the transcript nor the opinion that you're debating? Don't answer that, you already did. :rolleyes: No, I won't give you a "synopsis"...any more than I'll do your day job for you. ;)


......I'd rather just concede that you're right than read that whole thing
Click to expand...
In light of the previous quote, I think that's a wise course of action.
Rich
 
From an email circling the Internet


Harassed by the Cops..

Recently, California ran an e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being "Community Policing". One civilian e-mail participant posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?" From the "other side" (the law enforcement side) a cool cop with a sense of humor replied:

"It is not easy. In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people. So, one cop is responsible for harassing about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 20,000 or more people a day. A ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and three fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those, which we harass. They are as follows:

PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on a weeknight is, "The kids next door are having a party."

CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration stickers and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap on the harassment when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.

RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.

CODES: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that give ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Codes": Penal, Vehicle, Health and Safety, Business and Professions... They spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I had permission to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because the good citizens who pay the tab, like that we keep the streets safe for them.
 
"The Cops enforce the laws on the books. I understand that. The Courts create the laws."

... Just an aside; but this is not true. Police are investigative, custodial and reporting agencies which bring suspects and evidence before the courts, who in turn enforce the law after a determination of guilt by a jury after the presentation of evidence and witnesses. The term "law enforcement" as popularly applied to police today is erroneous.
Click to expand...
 
Sigh-
Frank-
How can you call it reasonable without reading the dissenting opinions? Kinda like handing out a ticket at an accident after hearing only your cousin's side of the story. ;) However, if you did read only the Majority Opinion, you didn't miss the part about Terry Stops being rooted in Loitering and Vagrancy laws, which you earlier alluded to as pretty much harassment.

Stevens' Dissent, attached for your convenience, is quite instructive. He makes clear that the majority refusal to entertain the 5th Amendment defense against self incrimination is in error. Stevens explains that it is well affirmed that, in Probable Cause cases, there is no ability to compel a name during the course of the investigation. However, now that we've lowered the bar to Reasonable Suspicion, the majority confirms this very right to compel.....producing the following logical absurdities.

- You now must provide your name in cases where the State goal is to escalate the situation from Reasonable Suspicion to Probable Cause in order to effect an arrest. Having established Probable Cause, quite possibly on your admission of name, only then do you have the right to refuse your name. That is now a dead right in cases where the investigation commences as Reasonable Suspicion. Conversely stated, you have a right to refuse your name only if you're a criminal; not if you're innocent!

- If the provision of a name is not providing the State with valuable information that it might use against you (as the Majority asserts), then there is no compelling reason for the State to invade your privacy in that regard.

Also attached for your convenience is the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsberg concurred. Breyer writes a great history of the slide toward increased erosion. A key limitiation of the 1968 Terry ruling was the affirmative statement that the suspect is not required to answer any questions.
Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1,
[Italics added]
Click to expand...
The last landmark case was 1984, in which this precedent was clearly reaffirmed:
Typically, this means that the 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.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984)
Click to expand...

The Majority has now reversed this tradition....Today, the State "needs" just a "little" more power to invade.

Breyer summed it up as follows:
The majority presents no evidence that the rule enunciated by Justice White and then by the Berkemer Court, which for nearly a generation has set forth a settled Terry-stop condition, has significantly interfered with law en-forcement. Nor has the majority presented any other convincing justification for change. I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions.
I consequently dissent.
Click to expand...

These are not long opinions, Frank. I suggest you read them. It'll become clear that the only way you can support this ruling is through the liberal reasoning that the world has changed so much in the past 20 years, we need to give up a "bit" more of our freedoms to secure a "bit" more safety.

Did you feel that "unsafe" on the eve before this Watershed Decision? I didn't.

TBO-
Are you still thinking this thread is about Police Behavior? Now, for the Fifth time...it's about Police Powers. Please stay on track; One subject is apparently hard enough for some to follow! :D
Rich
 

Attachments

Antipitas, you said:

"Kilrain, as Rich remarked (and implied) to Roadkill, if your State has a Terry Law, then you now have Hiibel. You detain, based upon reasonable suspicion and the suspect refuses to ID, then probable cause (for obstruction) kicks in and you arrest the suspect. It's clear and simple.

The Hiibel decision is not just about a Nevada statute. It broadly redefines the terms of Terry Stops. It is this that is now a nationwide reinterpretation of that original ruling."

YES! I agree except in this second paragraph, you are missing, IMO, some important caveats. Your sentence should read:

"The Hiibel decisoin is not just about a Nevada statute, it is about all states with similar statutes that are undecided as to their constitutionality. It broadly redefines the terms of Terry Stops in states where the requirements and duties of a citizen to identify himself or herself during a Terry Stop are codified by state statute."

That, IMO, is what the Hiibel decision says.
 
To repeat myself, no that isn't the case here in Colorado. There is no state statute that allows me, as an officer to arrest someone who fails to provide identification during a Terry stop. I've discussed it with our local District Attorney, and explained it to new hires with my agency more than once. In Colorado, Obstructing requires the threat/application of violence or the creation of a physical obstacle.

A traffic stop is, of course entirely another matter.
 
I watched the video and the guy seemed very antagonistic. No crime in that but he almost immediately demands to be taken to jail. His repeating of "Big man", "Big men", etc makes him sound drunk. His rantings prior to the arrest make him seem so also.

Since nothing places him behind the wheel of the vehicle, no crime was committed. What we have here is a soon-to-be far reaching SCOTUS ruling that was instigated by still one more "concerned citizen" with a cell phone butting into someone else's business with resultant effect to the entire nation.

That person will never know how much they had to do with the eventual fall of this nation.
 
FrankDrebin

... and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
Where was the warrant to arrest this man?

Where was the description of the person to be seized?

Where was the oath or affirmation that a crime had been committed sufficient to allow the seizure of this person?

You are correct. It is but a simple one sentence right; but it is a right. The courts have parceled the thing into many sentences all of which have different meanings and interpretations. This one sentence right no longer exists because it has been tempered by rulings and interpretations not in keeping with the desires of the founders.
 
Jim-
You've digressed into the question of whether the bust was in "good faith". The rest of us were talking about whether the bust was legal....big difference. But, let's play your argument for a second:

I'll agree that he appeared intoxicated. (And 96% of the rest of the population only appears terminally ignorant, which is not politically incorrect....today.) You'll agree that he was never aggressive, nor did he break the law, except refusing his name.

Issue on the floor:
If Hiibel comported himself as a College Professor, complete with Saab and bow-tie, having asserted his rights and, eleven times, refused his name, would the outcome have been any different?

If the answer is "No", you may have just identified yourself in an everyday situation, not of your choosing.
Rich
 
Where was the warrant to arrest this man?
Click to expand...

You don't need warrant for every seizure or every search. #4 says that you can't get a warrant without probable cause and you can't make "unreasonable" searches or seizures. It does NOT say "no seizure or search shall occur without a warrant."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top