Police can demand ID, high court rules

[jimpeel]

FrankDrebin

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."

Then you are saying that you set the bar for "unreasonable" higher than that for "reasonable" which makes more searches "reasonable" than not. The problem I have with that is your acceptance of same as being a good thing. You see it as one more thing to make the job of the authorities easier; but you ignore the fact that it takes one more notch out of the right of the citizen to refuse to interface with the authorities.

Prior to this ruling, a citizen had the right to refuse to answer, nod, look at, or even acknowledge the presence of the authorities. Now they have to answer. They have to acknowledge. They have to present their papers.

The authorities now have the power, not the people; and they can exercise that power for good or bad depending on their mood and can detain and jail anyone they deem "uncooperative". This is NOT a good thing! The founders would have told you a thing or two about yourself that you would not like hearing.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Prior to this ruling, a citizen had the power, not the police; and they could exercise that power for good or bad depending on their mood. This is NOT a good thing! The founders would have told you a thing or two about yourself that you would not like hearing.

 

[Al Norris]

NIce cut and paste, TBO... So what you are really saying is that you are happy that the citizen can no longer do as he pleases?

 

[Kilrain]

Roadkill Coyote said:

"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."

YES! That is what my previous post said. California is the same way, no such statute exists at this time therefore Hiibel does not "create" new law. You and I are on the same page.

Antipitas, I am curious as to whether you agree with my interpretation of the ruling or not? I understand you are in Idaho? I am unaware of their statutes regarding detentions, if any.........

 

[Marko Kloos]

TheeBadOne,

that was a pretty selective cut-paste-and-reword job. You omit the fact that the guys with the badges have the power to use force on the citizen, not the other way around. I cannot detain or jail police officers if I deem them "uncooperative". They can do it to me.

 

[FrankDrebin]

You omit the fact that the guys with the badges have the power to use force on the citizen, not the other way around. I cannot detain or jail police officers if I deem them "uncooperative". They can do it to me.

In many states, you can legally resist an unlawful arrest. I know you could in MI, unless they changed that one in the last few years. Cops' careers are ruined on a regular basis, and/or they go to prison for unlawful use of force. And the police can't detain you "if they deem you to be uncooperative". There are elements of the crimes that must be met that go way beyond them "deeming" a lack of cooperation. As far as your law enforcement authority: You can legally arrest as many felons as you want. How many have you bagged so far?

 

[FirstFreedom]

I know that I'd LOVE to stop a cop for speeding (without lights on, which means that by definition, it must not be an emergency justifying the speeding), and make a citizens arrest for same, applying OC as necessary if resistance is met, but I haven't gotten around to doing this yet. The citizen's arrest law says I would have to present him to a magistrate - problem is, the city court magistrate's are behind locked doors, so I don't know how I'm supposed to do this. :dunno:

 

[FrankDrebin]

I know that I'd LOVE to stop a cop for speeding (without lights on, which means that by definition, it must not be an emergency justifying the speeding),

Speeding isn't felony. You could be out there right now locking up felons. Instead you want a pound of flesh from the cops because they get to speed in front of other cops and you don't. Interesting. Better look up your definitions. I don't know of any laws that say the police can't exceed the speed limit without lights on.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Hey, I've got an idea....
Why don't we take a debate about a Supreme Court decision regarding the Bill of Rights and turn it into a vapid Us vs Them contest between LEOs and non-badged civilians.

We could narrow our frames of reference to our individually parochial existence and speak to each other as though we know something they don't. We could each allude to the other as "Jack Booted Thugs" or "Bliss Ninny Liberals", as the case requires. Then, when the Staff comes along and locks the thread, we could all be equally outraged by the violation of "our First Amendment Rights" and start a whole new thread about that.

That'd be novel.
Rich

 

[alan]

Rich:

The following might not be in the least learned, erudite or knowledgeable, however I do believe that we will not come to "meeting of the minds" on this one.