Police can demand ID, high court rules
- Thread starter TheeBadOne
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Frank-
There is zero doubt in my mind that you'd get my vote for Sheriff were you to run here....seriously, I think we all know you're a good cop and I thank you for that. We also know that the percentage of "bad" cops is much lower than the news would have us believe. It's as you said, "reflection of the population at large."
What's being debated here, however, is not how "bad cops" misuse laws. It's how "bad laws", in use by good cops present the same result: abridgment of freedoms with little offsetting benefit to the the people the laws serve. Let's remember the laws should serve the law abiding citizens, not the police or government.
You've posted more than enough allusions to the fact that any cop for any reason (good or bad) can manufacture a Terry Stop without actually lying. I, for one, am unsuspicious of about 2% of the people I come into contact with. I just don't think that should subject them to scrutiny or interrogation.
As to the excuse of "Hey, don't complain to me. Change the law.", this debate is not about a petition to the legislature. It's about a Court ruling which may be judged by each of us as good or bad, despite the fact that it is now law of the land. Terrorist Act, weapons bans, SWAT units in every minor burb, no-knocks, Dynamic Entries, Federalization of local agencies, Terry Stops, Pretextual Stops and Hiibel....these are just a few of the "tools" demanded by the government in very recent years.
The real question is, just how much more is required before good, reasonable cops like you voice the public opinion that enough is enough? We all know your job isn't easy.....each of us have frustrations in our workplace. Each of us would like more "tools" to do our jobs "better". However, there isn't a customer-contact business that can survive without recognizing who it's in business to serve. For those in private industry, it comes from the top down; for those in public service, it must come from the bottom up.
Rich
There is zero doubt in my mind that you'd get my vote for Sheriff were you to run here....seriously, I think we all know you're a good cop and I thank you for that. We also know that the percentage of "bad" cops is much lower than the news would have us believe. It's as you said, "reflection of the population at large."
What's being debated here, however, is not how "bad cops" misuse laws. It's how "bad laws", in use by good cops present the same result: abridgment of freedoms with little offsetting benefit to the the people the laws serve. Let's remember the laws should serve the law abiding citizens, not the police or government.
You've posted more than enough allusions to the fact that any cop for any reason (good or bad) can manufacture a Terry Stop without actually lying. I, for one, am unsuspicious of about 2% of the people I come into contact with. I just don't think that should subject them to scrutiny or interrogation.
As to the excuse of "Hey, don't complain to me. Change the law.", this debate is not about a petition to the legislature. It's about a Court ruling which may be judged by each of us as good or bad, despite the fact that it is now law of the land. Terrorist Act, weapons bans, SWAT units in every minor burb, no-knocks, Dynamic Entries, Federalization of local agencies, Terry Stops, Pretextual Stops and Hiibel....these are just a few of the "tools" demanded by the government in very recent years.
The real question is, just how much more is required before good, reasonable cops like you voice the public opinion that enough is enough? We all know your job isn't easy.....each of us have frustrations in our workplace. Each of us would like more "tools" to do our jobs "better". However, there isn't a customer-contact business that can survive without recognizing who it's in business to serve. For those in private industry, it comes from the top down; for those in public service, it must come from the bottom up.
Rich
FrankDrebin and Rich Lucibella
Frank:
Rich:
So far he has made the following glaringly clear that he has yet to realize a few facts:
a. The Constitution was not written to make his job easier. It was written to make his job harder.
b. Laws are written with the caveat "If you don't follow these rules, we will send armed men to hurt you"; and he is one of those men.
c. His job would be a whole hell of a lot easier if he could simply round everyone up and put them in a fenced compound and then stand outside and keep them there.
d. Anything is acceptable behavior on the part of the police if the seriousness of the crime justifies it.
Frank:
So if the cops had beaten him to death and thrown his dead body into the storm channel that would be okay with you? After all, you couldn' care less what happens to him.
Rich:
You may want to rethink that position based on the above statement.
So far he has made the following glaringly clear that he has yet to realize a few facts:
a. The Constitution was not written to make his job easier. It was written to make his job harder.
b. Laws are written with the caveat "If you don't follow these rules, we will send armed men to hurt you"; and he is one of those men.
c. His job would be a whole hell of a lot easier if he could simply round everyone up and put them in a fenced compound and then stand outside and keep them there.
d. Anything is acceptable behavior on the part of the police if the seriousness of the crime justifies it.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Jim-
No need for me to rethink. Honest debate demands that both sides dispense with hyperbole and the temptation to take the other's position to an absurd extreme. I've seen nothing in Frank's statements to indicate he falls into the camp you describe, except by using hyperbole or extraordinary stretch.
I do agree that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit police powers and anything done to extend the latter diminishes the former, ultimately with disastrous results.
Rich
No need for me to rethink. Honest debate demands that both sides dispense with hyperbole and the temptation to take the other's position to an absurd extreme. I've seen nothing in Frank's statements to indicate he falls into the camp you describe, except by using hyperbole or extraordinary stretch.
I do agree that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit police powers and anything done to extend the latter diminishes the former, ultimately with disastrous results.
Rich
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I was actually on the fence about the Hillbel thing, but I think it will result in more good than harm. As a matter of fact, I've argued before that there was no way the court would rule in favor of the police on that one. Surprise!! Now that they have, I will certainly make use of it if I feel that someone who is refusing to ID themselves is doing so because they're wanted for a crime.
I have?? I wouldn't say "manufacture" a Terry Stop. A good cop can, as someone else already said, articulate his "hunches". I wouldn't call that "manufacturing" anything. RS is either there or it isn't. It has to stand up in court. I wouldn't waste my time "manufacturing" anything that I didn't think would be viewed as "reasonable" in court.
City fathers give the citizens what they want. They have SWAT teams all over because people want them, and because your average police officer isn't trained to handle "tactical" situations as well as the SWAT team. Also, for years, the mantra for "tactical" type situations was "wait them out". The police would get there, even prior to the SWAT team days, and wait and negotiate. That all changed after Columbine. The police were accused of being cowards for not rushing in with machine guns ready to go because people died. Now people have been programmed to want the police to make immediate entry and take immediate action right away in more situations than before.
I'm not saying it would be OK, but after seeing people killed and mangled by fleeing felons, I'd lose about as much sleep over it as I lost over Saint Rodney.
I thought it was written to balance the rights of the few against the rights of the many.
From what I gather, the case that this decision was based on was
...one that challenged an existing law, like my own state's "Fail To Identify" law. (Penal Code Section 38.02):
Please note: an officer has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offense, or that the person was witness to an offense. Simply deciding that you "need their name just because" doesn't cut it. Just because a guy's ticked off a cop doesn't cut it.
The new SCOTUS ruling does NOT mean that the officer has the right to demand I.D. of everyone he/her meets-- it means that the law requiring a suspect or possible witness must I.D. himself. This ruling mostly just upholds some very old book law.
...one that challenged an existing law, like my own state's "Fail To Identify" law. (Penal Code Section 38.02):
Please note: an officer has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offense, or that the person was witness to an offense. Simply deciding that you "need their name just because" doesn't cut it. Just because a guy's ticked off a cop doesn't cut it.
The new SCOTUS ruling does NOT mean that the officer has the right to demand I.D. of everyone he/her meets-- it means that the law requiring a suspect or possible witness must I.D. himself. This ruling mostly just upholds some very old book law.
UnforgivenII
New member
I know that this is a hot topic and what I have said has been stated and restated and staed again until it sounds like a Parrot got into this thread but for this ruling to apply you Must Have RS. There is no way around it. If I walk up to someone walking down the street at lunchtime and demand his name...guess what, the ruling does not apply. What if some one was outside your house kneeling down behind the shrubs right next to a window, wouldn't you want the POlice to find out who that was and what they were doing there? What if it was you? We were just checking to make sure everything was ok. If it was a BG, waiting till I passed until he broke into your house to steal/kill/rape you? Police Officers are just like every single one of us.We're not all out to get you. Matter of fact, we're out to protect you. I have to say, I can understand people getting concerned about this ruling when they take a look at it.Sounds Scary. Sounds like the beginning of a police state. Truth is there are thresholds and lawsuits and courts and...well...there is enough fail safes to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Individual Officers can be sued for violating your civil rights.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I don't think the Hibble case said anything about "possible witnesses". I think it's unconstitutional to require witnesses to ID themselves. I think if someone challenged a state law like that in federal court, they'd win. Michigan's constitution says that if the police illegally sieze a gun, it can not be excluded at trial. Unconstitutional as hell, but that's what the law here says.
I know that this is a hot topic and what I have said has been stated and restated and staed again until it sounds like a Parrot got into this thread but for this ruling to apply you Must Have RS. There is no way around it.
Actually, there's a couple of very easy ways around it for your less scrupulous coworkers around the country - either intimidate the person into thinking that they do have RS when they don't, or proceeding as they wish without RS and counting on the fact that the person doesn't have the time, energy, or money to bring a civil rights lawsuit.
The Manchester Police Department is using tactic B in my case.
Actually, there's a couple of very easy ways around it for your less scrupulous coworkers around the country - either intimidate the person into thinking that they do have RS when they don't, or proceeding as they wish without RS and counting on the fact that the person doesn't have the time, energy, or money to bring a civil rights lawsuit.
The Manchester Police Department is using tactic B in my case.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Guys.....c'mon-
Terry dropped the standard from "probable cause" to reasonable suspicion". ( Unforg, the guy hiding under my bushes probably meets the test for "probable cause". You don't need Terry for that and arguing that it's Terry that makes me more safe in that instance is fallacious.)
Court history has already expanded what is allowed to pass as "reasonable suspicion". See United States v. Colon, 111 F.Supp.2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) regarding Frank's previous statement that RS is not generated by an anonymous call to the police by a third party.
How 'bout your neighborhood or travel itinerary?
And now Hiibel allows you to be found guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of whether that "reasonable suspicion" leads to charges or not.
For our LEO's:
- Do you really believe the average citizen can be expected to learn the criteria for when they can button up and how much info they're required to provide? Of course not...most of us are not even certain.
- What's the conversation going to look like when a Cop stops me and I ask the question, "Do you have reasonable suspicion that I may be involved in a crime? If so, can I ask what that suspicion is?" You know it's gonna go downhill fast from there as I'm asking you to relinquish some authority to me and that is dangerous for you in the encounter. However, unless the Police are compelled by the exact same type criminal statute and consequences, to provide that information, how am I to determine for myself that refusal to provide my name will be defensible.
It's an extraordinarily unlevel playing field, made worse by Hiibel, with the only possible looser being those who take a stand on principle. That's a bad thing.
Rich
Terry dropped the standard from "probable cause" to reasonable suspicion". ( Unforg, the guy hiding under my bushes probably meets the test for "probable cause". You don't need Terry for that and arguing that it's Terry that makes me more safe in that instance is fallacious.)
Court history has already expanded what is allowed to pass as "reasonable suspicion". See United States v. Colon, 111 F.Supp.2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) regarding Frank's previous statement that RS is not generated by an anonymous call to the police by a third party.
How 'bout your neighborhood or travel itinerary?
And now Hiibel allows you to be found guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of whether that "reasonable suspicion" leads to charges or not.
For our LEO's:
- Do you really believe the average citizen can be expected to learn the criteria for when they can button up and how much info they're required to provide? Of course not...most of us are not even certain.
- What's the conversation going to look like when a Cop stops me and I ask the question, "Do you have reasonable suspicion that I may be involved in a crime? If so, can I ask what that suspicion is?" You know it's gonna go downhill fast from there as I'm asking you to relinquish some authority to me and that is dangerous for you in the encounter. However, unless the Police are compelled by the exact same type criminal statute and consequences, to provide that information, how am I to determine for myself that refusal to provide my name will be defensible.
It's an extraordinarily unlevel playing field, made worse by Hiibel, with the only possible looser being those who take a stand on principle. That's a bad thing.
Rich
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Or the guy wanted for murder who gets arrested for either refusing to give his name, or giving a false one and then being found out at the station when his prints come back. Or the guy who is arrested for armed robbery after a warrant is issued because the cops ID'd him when they had enough cause to detain him, but not arrest him until talking to witnesses or evaluating evidence. That's a good thing.
Funny story: A guy blows by me doing 60 in a 30mph zone, no headlights at night and I stop him. He says "Can I ask you why you STOPPED me?!?!" and I said "Yes" and stood there. After a short uncomfortable silence, he says "WELL?!!? Can I ask you why you STOPPED me?!?!" And I said....."Yes." And he did it again...."WELL CAN I ASK YOU WHY YOU STOPPED ME?!?!?!" And I said; ".......Yes"..... And he finally fairly screamed "Well why did you stop me?!?!?!?!" And I said..."Speeding".
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Frank-
Please. That's the argument that's made for every single infringement of Civil Liberties, "If we could just save one child...." :barf:
How about the counterbalance argument from the days when we believed in personal responsibility and refused to punish many for the crimes of some:
In evaluating these types of laws you have one of two choices:
1) Evaluate in terms of the Bill of Rights and its original message, intent and framers.
2) Surrender to the concept, "But the world has changed since 200 years ago...the Founding Fathers never envisioned [fill in the blank]." Where do we most often hear that line of reasoning, Frank?
Rich
Please. That's the argument that's made for every single infringement of Civil Liberties, "If we could just save one child...." :barf:
How about the counterbalance argument from the days when we believed in personal responsibility and refused to punish many for the crimes of some:
In evaluating these types of laws you have one of two choices:
1) Evaluate in terms of the Bill of Rights and its original message, intent and framers.
2) Surrender to the concept, "But the world has changed since 200 years ago...the Founding Fathers never envisioned [fill in the blank]." Where do we most often hear that line of reasoning, Frank?
Rich
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I think they intended the courts to interpret the law. Look how short the 4th amendment is. They didn't make it that short because they couldn't envision conflicts with it. I also think the exceptions to the search warrant rule are reasonable.
Ben Swenson
New member
Actually ... in that case, they'd have the 5th Amendment argument going for them that Hiibel lost on because he didn't really "have anything to hide".
Example of how this is a good law:
I was a rookie cop working deep nights. At 3:00AM one morning, I saw a pickup pulling out of the entry to our little elementary school. I stopped the truck, asked for identification and what they were doing on the school property, and let the two teenaged boys in the pickup go, as I saw no obvious crime other than that they had cut through the property, and that they were on school property well after-hours. I suspected that they were up to some kind of attempted burglary issue, but didn't know what. I wrote up a call sheet at the P.D.
The next afternoon, the Chief called me and asked about the stop. He watched the mobile video. He then made some calls to the kids, and did some followup.
Sure enough, they had burgled our High School, down the road. My quick stop and I.D. made the difference. We cleared the call, we caught some young criminals before they could go on to be old experienced criminals (we've had few problems from them since), and nobody's rights were deprived.
+ + +
Another one:
Our officer arrives at the scene of an accident (truck vs private property). A guy is just getting into the truck to drive it away. Our officer asks where he's going. The guy says that HE didn't drive the truck into the railroad crossing arms causing $20k worth of damage and risking other people's lives-- it was his buddy, who'd just left to call the police. Where is he now? Dunno. What was his name? Bob something, don't recall. The officer asks the guy what HIS name is. Not telling-- I didn't do anything wrong. So the officer places him under arrest for Fail To Identify. He claims he WAS at the scene of the accident (riding in the vehicle), and thus was a witness. At the jail, the guy realizes that he's going to get printed, and 'fesses up his name. It's the name of the guy the truck is registered to, and this guy has warrants for: You guessed it-- Hit and Run. We serve the warrant, and clear that call.
+ + +
Another one:
I get a call a "Suspicious Person" on the railroad tracks. Since long before 9/11/01 (and this call was in 2000), it's been against the law to walk on RR tracks in our state. The railroads own 'em, so they call it private property and say you can't be on 'em, nor even on the right-of-way on either side of 'em. Hey-- it's theirs (whether they own it rightfully is a whole 'nother issue for discussion), they can say who gets on the tracks. I arrive and find a lone man standing on the edge of the right-of-way (which ran adjacent to the highway, right next to the tracks. He meets the description given, and there's no one else for miles on the tracks right-of-way. Now, technically, he's guilty of Criminal Trespass just for being on the right-of-way. But to make and arrest or issue a citation for that is so feather-legged it would smell. So I ask the man his name and D.O.B. He asks if he's being arrested. I said that he was not. He asked me what cause I had to demand his identification. I explain the call, and he ejaculates loudly that this is utter bullstuff. He demands that I point out the precise spot where the RR right-of-way begins. Well, I'm not a civil engineer nor surveyor, and there are no flags indicating this. I have no intention of arresting him, but if something is found to be wrong with the tracks later, I want to be able to know who it was I found at the tracks. He opens his wallet, shows that he has a state-issued I.D., and says, "So you want to know who I am? Well, sir, I don't have to tell you."
I reached out, took his identification from open wallet, wrote down the name and DOB, and returned it to him. I then asked him to stay off the RR R.O.W., and drove off to write it up in a quick call sheet.
Did I violate his rights? I personally don't believe so. I used no physical force on him. I identified him without depriving him of his liberty. I answered a call for service in which I had good corroborating evidence to give me reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanor crime had been committed. I found his behavior suspicious. I identified him, and left. Did I detain him unnecessarily? I don't believe so. Not only was he not actually GOING anywhere, but I was investigating a call. No charges were filed, nor should they have been.
I was a rookie cop working deep nights. At 3:00AM one morning, I saw a pickup pulling out of the entry to our little elementary school. I stopped the truck, asked for identification and what they were doing on the school property, and let the two teenaged boys in the pickup go, as I saw no obvious crime other than that they had cut through the property, and that they were on school property well after-hours. I suspected that they were up to some kind of attempted burglary issue, but didn't know what. I wrote up a call sheet at the P.D.
The next afternoon, the Chief called me and asked about the stop. He watched the mobile video. He then made some calls to the kids, and did some followup.
Sure enough, they had burgled our High School, down the road. My quick stop and I.D. made the difference. We cleared the call, we caught some young criminals before they could go on to be old experienced criminals (we've had few problems from them since), and nobody's rights were deprived.
+ + +
Another one:
Our officer arrives at the scene of an accident (truck vs private property). A guy is just getting into the truck to drive it away. Our officer asks where he's going. The guy says that HE didn't drive the truck into the railroad crossing arms causing $20k worth of damage and risking other people's lives-- it was his buddy, who'd just left to call the police. Where is he now? Dunno. What was his name? Bob something, don't recall. The officer asks the guy what HIS name is. Not telling-- I didn't do anything wrong. So the officer places him under arrest for Fail To Identify. He claims he WAS at the scene of the accident (riding in the vehicle), and thus was a witness. At the jail, the guy realizes that he's going to get printed, and 'fesses up his name. It's the name of the guy the truck is registered to, and this guy has warrants for: You guessed it-- Hit and Run. We serve the warrant, and clear that call.
+ + +
Another one:
I get a call a "Suspicious Person" on the railroad tracks. Since long before 9/11/01 (and this call was in 2000), it's been against the law to walk on RR tracks in our state. The railroads own 'em, so they call it private property and say you can't be on 'em, nor even on the right-of-way on either side of 'em. Hey-- it's theirs (whether they own it rightfully is a whole 'nother issue for discussion), they can say who gets on the tracks. I arrive and find a lone man standing on the edge of the right-of-way (which ran adjacent to the highway, right next to the tracks. He meets the description given, and there's no one else for miles on the tracks right-of-way. Now, technically, he's guilty of Criminal Trespass just for being on the right-of-way. But to make and arrest or issue a citation for that is so feather-legged it would smell. So I ask the man his name and D.O.B. He asks if he's being arrested. I said that he was not. He asked me what cause I had to demand his identification. I explain the call, and he ejaculates loudly that this is utter bullstuff. He demands that I point out the precise spot where the RR right-of-way begins. Well, I'm not a civil engineer nor surveyor, and there are no flags indicating this. I have no intention of arresting him, but if something is found to be wrong with the tracks later, I want to be able to know who it was I found at the tracks. He opens his wallet, shows that he has a state-issued I.D., and says, "So you want to know who I am? Well, sir, I don't have to tell you."
I reached out, took his identification from open wallet, wrote down the name and DOB, and returned it to him. I then asked him to stay off the RR R.O.W., and drove off to write it up in a quick call sheet.
Did I violate his rights? I personally don't believe so. I used no physical force on him. I identified him without depriving him of his liberty. I answered a call for service in which I had good corroborating evidence to give me reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanor crime had been committed. I found his behavior suspicious. I identified him, and left. Did I detain him unnecessarily? I don't believe so. Not only was he not actually GOING anywhere, but I was investigating a call. No charges were filed, nor should they have been.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Once again, that's specious circular reasoning. This thread is about whether we, as citizens, think this law conforms to the Constitution. Your response is that it must conform, because the framers provided for a Court system. Circular. Specious.
It's well known by lawyers that, in questions of the law, one must return to the original statements made in the drafting...whether those be legislative discussions, committee reports or judicial rulings. You argue the Fourth Amendment is too short for us common folk to understand in light of a refusal to provide our name (when there is not even reasonable cause to assume a crime). One might ask Thomas Jefferson's opinion, though I know how tedious it sounds when someone falls back on those old guys to make a point:
Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
LongPath-
No one is arguing that more laws and greater infringements don't assist you in arresting more bad guys. What we're arguing is that they also result in greater punishment and fear for the good guys.
Surely, if LEO's could issue their own non-specific warrants to search cars, homes, offices and bank accounts, you'd catch even more bad guys. I think the framers contemplated such police powers, rejected them out of hand and specifically crafted the Bill of Rights to make certain there would never be any question. It's unfortunate that, today, just such questions are being debated. It strikes at the foundation.
Like Frank, you're an American before you're a Cop. There's no end to the the rights I might relinquish to you which will help you "catch more bad guys". But again, that's the mating call of the Liberal Left and I simply don't subscribe. It doesn't make you a bad guy or a Member of the Left. But it does make you "wrong".
Rich
No one is arguing that more laws and greater infringements don't assist you in arresting more bad guys. What we're arguing is that they also result in greater punishment and fear for the good guys.
Surely, if LEO's could issue their own non-specific warrants to search cars, homes, offices and bank accounts, you'd catch even more bad guys. I think the framers contemplated such police powers, rejected them out of hand and specifically crafted the Bill of Rights to make certain there would never be any question. It's unfortunate that, today, just such questions are being debated. It strikes at the foundation.
Like Frank, you're an American before you're a Cop. There's no end to the the rights I might relinquish to you which will help you "catch more bad guys". But again, that's the mating call of the Liberal Left and I simply don't subscribe. It doesn't make you a bad guy or a Member of the Left. But it does make you "wrong".
Rich
"LawDog"?!? Dang, Rich, we've only known each other for 5 years+!
Here's the deal, though: This ruling is NOT going to get you stopped significantly more. Just about every single stop that this would affect, the cops already had the ability to demand you to identify.
Now, does this give a cop the right to I.D. a black man walking in a white neighborhood at night? NO!
But he "looks suspicious!" Giving you suspicion that he's committed or is committing what crime? You must articulate a reasonable suspicion.
Are some cops going to try to abuse this? Probably. And it'll get shoved right down their throats in court, too.
An example of how this works correctly:
It's 4:AM, and you're out of town, when the local police responds to an alarm call at your house. As our boy in blue pulls into the cul de sac your house is on, he sees a van pulling away from the curb near your house, about to pull out of the cul de sac. No view of the driver, and the plates are obscured or are paper temporary dealer tags or come back to a rental, or are out of state-- whatever.
Now, the cop who arrives is a one-man unit. He doesn't have another man to run check the house. If he's going to have any chance of clearing that (possible) burglary at your house, he needs to identify the occupant of the van. Maybe there are 6 houses on your cul de sac. No other traffic.
Taking the time and place and situation, I think that it would be good and proper to quickly stop with the van, ask for identification, release the van, and then check the house. This detains them for the minimum amount of time, and allows you to reach them, should the cop then find that the house really has been knocked over. Other option? Call another officer to come sit with them, while the initial officer checks the house. This increases the time of detention, and the danger that something bad will happen, if they really ARE the burglars.
But I can guarren-damn-tee you, that if the cop writes in his report that as he arrived he saw a "late model white van, L.P. unavailable" leaving your cul de sac as he arrived to the scene of your gunroom burglary, you're gonna be ONE STEAMED HOMEOWNER!!
Here's the deal, though: This ruling is NOT going to get you stopped significantly more. Just about every single stop that this would affect, the cops already had the ability to demand you to identify.
Now, does this give a cop the right to I.D. a black man walking in a white neighborhood at night? NO!
But he "looks suspicious!" Giving you suspicion that he's committed or is committing what crime? You must articulate a reasonable suspicion.
Are some cops going to try to abuse this? Probably. And it'll get shoved right down their throats in court, too.
An example of how this works correctly:
It's 4:AM, and you're out of town, when the local police responds to an alarm call at your house. As our boy in blue pulls into the cul de sac your house is on, he sees a van pulling away from the curb near your house, about to pull out of the cul de sac. No view of the driver, and the plates are obscured or are paper temporary dealer tags or come back to a rental, or are out of state-- whatever.
Now, the cop who arrives is a one-man unit. He doesn't have another man to run check the house. If he's going to have any chance of clearing that (possible) burglary at your house, he needs to identify the occupant of the van. Maybe there are 6 houses on your cul de sac. No other traffic.
Taking the time and place and situation, I think that it would be good and proper to quickly stop with the van, ask for identification, release the van, and then check the house. This detains them for the minimum amount of time, and allows you to reach them, should the cop then find that the house really has been knocked over. Other option? Call another officer to come sit with them, while the initial officer checks the house. This increases the time of detention, and the danger that something bad will happen, if they really ARE the burglars.
But I can guarren-damn-tee you, that if the cop writes in his report that as he arrived he saw a "late model white van, L.P. unavailable" leaving your cul de sac as he arrived to the scene of your gunroom burglary, you're gonna be ONE STEAMED HOMEOWNER!!
Long Path, I think it's interesting that vehicles were involved in the two cases where there was a crime. In the teenage b&e case, only one of them was driving, but I suspect just getting ID from that one would have been enough to clear the case.
There are already rules that say that drivers must id themselves essentially upon request. I may not like those rules either, but that's not what Hiibel is about.
Hiibel is about Terry stops. If someone's driving a car, that's another ball game.
There are already rules that say that drivers must id themselves essentially upon request. I may not like those rules either, but that's not what Hiibel is about.
Hiibel is about Terry stops. If someone's driving a car, that's another ball game.
So I assume, then, that if firearms were banned, cops were going house-to-house, free speech was outlawed, and the government took over the presses, your suggestion would be "complain to your legislators?"FrankDrebin said:
Some solution. That's why we have a constitution, to prevent these sorts of abuses. If the courts won't stand up and stop this nonsense, we might as well not have a Constitution. Pure representative democracy, here we come!