Police can demand ID, high court rules

No. What's unreasonable is going digging into any random person's past based on reasonable suspicion -- which is essentially a hunch that doesn't require clear evidence of any crime. I got terry stopped for jogging at 1am. sevenpoint62mm got terry stopped for chatting with friends in a private parking lot at 2am.

If seriously shady characters were the only ones being terry stopped, this wouldn't be much of an issue. That's not the case, however. Terry stops are used very liberally.

If you're so concerned about people getting away with failing to appear for traffic tickets, why don't you find some random people with outstanding warrants, go to their home, and arrest them? Don't pick on people such as myself or 7.62mm just because you police are too lazy or afraid to do things properly by targetting known guilty parties instead of detaining random people to conduct fishing expeditions.
 
TBO-
It may not be random, but it's still a fishing expedition based on hunch. The Fourth requires "Probable Cause"; Terry dropped that to Reasonable Suspicion; Hiibel adds a crime for being indignant, even if you know you've done nothing wrong.

Reread the post Tyme referenced and filter it, Pre-Terry and Post Hiibel:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88196
Pre-Terry:
Three guys sitting on the hood of a car at 2 AM drinking something and eating from a bag.
Cop asks, "Hey guys, what's doin'?"
"Nothin'. Just shootin' the breeze."
"That you're car?"
"Yup"
"You're not drinking, are you?"
"Nope"
"What's in the bag?"
"Peanuts. Want some?"
"No thanks. What's your name, son?"
"Buzz off. I haven't done anything wrong and I'm not gonna give you my name."

It ends there, unless the cop is willing to break the law.

Post Terry
Same conversation, except the kid gets busted for his refusal. The reasonable suspicion?
2 AM. Bad neighborhood. They were passing something from a paper bag to each other when the cops pulled up. One popped a handful of whatever was in the bag. Another dropped a bunch of same to the ground. Reasonable suspicion that there was narcotics involved.

The arrest: Failure to provide the cop your name. Kid now has a Mis-D Criminal record, when he'd broken no law to start with.
-----------
Now lemme ask y'all something: How, in God's name, can one know if you're within your rights to refuse your name, when something perfectly innocent and ordinary might have given rise to "Reasonable Suspicion" (spell that "hunch" or "fishing expedition")? So, you have to make your decision blind, only later to find that your legal actions gave rise to a situation where your rightful indignation gains you a criminal record.

For the life of me, I can't see how anyone can believe this ruling is sensible, in context of law abiding citizens' basic rights.
Rich
 
No. What's unreasonable is going digging into any random person's past based on reasonable suspicion
Click to expand...

TBO already answered that one.

If you're so concerned about people getting away with failing to appear for traffic tickets, why don't you find some random people with outstanding warrants, go to their home, and arrest them?
Click to expand...

Sometimes we do. We go through orders from judges that command us to take people into custody for drunk driving because they didn't bother to come to court after posting bond, and we arrest them after the judge commands us to do so.

As far as the peanut scenario, I don't see how that equates to reasonable suspicion unless the cop is lying as to the reasonableness, in which case he could do that pre Hibble or post Hibble, pre Terry, or Post Terry. A reasonable police officer can tell the difference between some people in a bad neighborhood eating peanuts vs. some people in a bad neighborhood doing a hand to hand drug transaction.

Just wondering though: If you paid a half million for a house and saw some Latin Counts sitting in front of your house at 2:00am on the hood of their lowrider and you called the police because you though they were suspicious and the police said "We're not going to send anyone out, we already checked them out and they told us they were just eating peanuts. Just stay up all night and watch them yourself, and if you see any actual drugs or guns, give us a call back", what would you think of your local police department?
 
Frank-
As to the Latin Counts. It'd be OK with me....cops ran the plate on the lowrider. They don't live here. I'm certain the cops told them they'd have to move on or face a loitering charge.

Next case?
Rich
 
No. What's unreasonable is going digging into any random person's past based on reasonable suspicion -- which is essentially a hunch that doesn't require clear evidence of any crime. I got terry stopped for jogging at 1am. sevenpoint62mm got terry stopped for chatting with friends in a private parking lot at 2am.
Click to expand...

"based on reasonable suspicion..." Um, Thyme, I don't guess we're using the same terms, bud.
The definition that I was taught in police academy, and at university:

"Reasonable Suspicion:Facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed."

Without "reasonable suspicion," the detention is no good. You misstate the issue when you say that it is "essentially a hunch that doesn't require clear evidence of any crime." R.S. specifically is more than a hunch. Otherwise, cops could simply detain anyone they "had a 'hunch' about." It's not that way. As it is, many courts seem to be raising the bar to "probable cause" for stops. (DWI is the best example. You see a guy weaving all over, speed varying 20mph on a straightaway, standing for several seconds at green lights before moving, leaning over the steering wheel and then falling back into his seat. You have good reasonable suspicion that he's drunk, but a lot of courts will say that the stop's not good unless you had P.C. of a traffic law being broken, and weaving has to be "demonstrably unsafe.")

The Reasonable Suspicion standard still stands. Abused? Almost certainly. And that's bad. But that's the cop abusing the issue, not the issue that is wrong. If a cop claims R.S. when there wasn't any, he's wrong, just the same as is a cop who would lie on an affidavit or plant evidence, or whatnot. If a man misuses a gun, it's not the GUN that was wrong-- it was the man's misuse of the gun that was wrong.

I had written a rather humorous exchange between an 18th century Shire Reeve and a citizen leaving the area of the Revere storefront with a sackfull of what looked like silverware to demonstrate that all of this was within the framers' intent, but my machine crashed, and I haven't the heart to start over. ;)
 
Frank-
As to the Latin Counts. It'd be OK with me....cops ran the plate on the lowrider. They don't live here. I'm certain the cops told them they'd have to move on or face a loitering charge.

Next case?
Rich
Click to expand...

Sorry Rich,
Most loitering laws are unconstitutional. The gang bangers have as much right to drive in from southwest Detroit and sit in front of your house eating peanuts on the hood of their lowriders as you do unless it's a private street. If it's a public street, no case. Don't call "us" to get "them" out of your neighborhood if they're just sitting there at 2:00am eating their peanuts.
 
Rich said:
Now lemme ask y'all something: How, in God's name, can one know if you're within your rights to refuse your name, when something perfectly innocent and ordinary might have given rise to "Reasonable Suspicion" (spell that "hunch" or "fishing expedition")?
Click to expand...
Simple. Ask the cop. "Do you suspect me of a crime? WHAT crime?"

I've already addressed the hunch thing, one post above.

Oh, and LOITERING? In a public place? You wanna talk gray area, constitutionally??? Why not just bust out with "Vagrancy?!?" Loitering is almost always a municipal ordinance, anyway, and not a catchall. Why can't some guys sit legally parked in their car? Realize: stopping and ID'ing them for the time/place/circumstance and then leaving them alone is, IMHO, far less intrusive than saying in your best Chief Wiggem voice,"Ahh, move along, boys. Otherwise, it's to the pokey with you." ;)
 
Matt-
You make my point on the "Loitering" charge. Do we not have enough nuisance charges available already to obviate the need of charging someone with a Criminal Misdemeanor for refusing to talk to you?

As to your standards for Reasonable Suspicion, try this one on for size. from your own State:
http://www.juvenilelaw.org/CaseSummaries2003/03-2-33.HTM

Highlights:
"Reasonable suspicion to frisk juvenile was provided by his nervous behavior"
"[Officer] Favorite stated that when he asked P.M. for identification, the appellant raised his hands, which were 'shaking uncontrollably.'" (Sounds like my lady when stopped at night.)

And the kicker:
[Officer] Favorite also stated that he had no reason to believe P.M. had or was about to violate the law, although he did have a "suspicion that (P.M.) had something on him that he shouldn't have." Favorite based this suspicion on his "training, (his) experience, and the way (P.M.) was acting." Based on his testimony, Officer Favorite had a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable factors making the search constitutional. [FN2]
Click to expand...
Rich
 
And then, of course, we have the natural progression:
"Let's see. We have no-knocks for those violent guys. We have Reasonable Suspicion for the guys that may be violent but just look 'nervous' based on our 'training and experience'. Why not combine the two to make John Q. Citizen's apartment complex even more 'safe'."
http://www.barbarahaller.com/noknock.html

It never ends, guys.

Oh, and Frank, back to my complaint about the Counts in front of my house. Just how does Hiibel help you "get them out". You get to run their names and find out one was once arrested for not giving you his name?.

Rich
 
Rich,
You thought it was appropriate to call the police when you saw someone in a public place doing nothing wrong. I have to imagine that if you felt the need to call the police instead of taking care of the matter yourself, you'd expect the police to DO something. What did you expect them to do? If you had your way, we couldn't do anything based on a "hunch" which is what you think of the reasonable suspicion standard. So what should they do? God forbid the police should ride by and intimidate the Latin Counts, or hurt their feelings in any way by invading their 4th amendment space with nosey questions.

Oh, and Frank, back to my complaint about the Counts in front of my house. Just how does Hiibel help you "get them out". You get to run their names and find out one was once arrested for not giving you his name?.
Click to expand...

My gangster scenario wasn't Hibble specific. It was to show that the guy who says stopping someone based on reasonable suspicion isn't reasonable thinks it's reasonable to call the police on someone who did nothing wrong so that the police would roust them out of his neighborhood with an unconstitutional city ordinance. In other words, you like MY 4th. amendment when it keeps the scumbags out of your neighborhood, but you like YOUR 4th. amendment when the cops asks you your name and you don't want to give it to him.
 
Frank, to be honest, in my world I'd not make the call to you. I'd walk out and ask if I "could help" first. Call me crazy....after all, I'm just a "civilian". :) That failing, I'd call y'all, not with expectation that you're gonna arrest these guys for sitting outside my home, but to make your presence known, in light of all our rights. And please don't make the mistake of assuming I've never seen some of the scenes, sights or streets you have.

So, I guess my answer to your question is, I like our Fourth Amendment, period.

You raised the issue of Latin Saints parked outside my home in context of your defense of RS? OK, let's assume that I did call you and you did use RS to take action. Said Counts have been vetted, sorted and patted. Just how is it that Hiibel adds to your tool box in resolving the problem of them camped out?

This thread is about Hiibel, with Terry pointed up as the precursor only, is it not?
Rich
 
TheeBadOne said:
tyme said:
No. What's unreasonable is going digging into any random person's past based on reasonable suspicion
Click to expand...
If it's based on "reasonable suspicion", then it's not random.
Click to expand...
If it's not random, it's pretty close. Anyone in any marginally suspicious circumstances can be terry stopped. They don't have to have a description of a suspect. They don't have to have a report of a specific crime. Hence, the person really is random. It could be the Dalai Lama at 2am in the parking lot, and there could still be a valid terry stop. No specific crime is necessary. No suspect description is necessary.

Long Path said:
Simple. Ask the cop. "Do you suspect me of a crime? WHAT crime?"
Click to expand...
Cops have to suspect you of a specific crime in order to do a Terry stop? I don't think so. If you're right -- and I'd be thrilled if you are -- there are a lot of invalid Terry stops... and the margin between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is even narrower than I think it is.

Meanwhile, your definition of reasonable suspicion is awfully close to most non-nexus definitions of probable cause... for nexus PC there has to be a specific crime. For reasonable suspicion there doesn't. For nexus PC there has to be an ability for the suspect to have committed a crime. With reasonable suspicion, there's no clear crime yet, so there's no way to know whether a suspect could have committed any particular crime.

I have seen no definition of reasonable suspicion that indicates how sure the cop has to be that there's some sort of illegal activity. What do you think it is? 5%, 10%, 30%? People can't even agree that PC requires 51% confidence; reasonable suspicion is so much more vague that nobody would even suggest a percentage. And it's up to the cop to decide whether a given situation meets the extremely vague set of criteria for reasonable suspicion. If a cop can articulate something, courts almost always accept his judgement, even if he's lying. That's not a good way to administer investigative stops.

Oh, and are people misspelling Hiibel on purpose? :)
 
Thread veer! Aahhh! Look out!!!

You were a little scant on the highlights of that one, Rich. They took it all in the totality of the circumstance. The guy was in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction (no seat belt) by the driver. The passenger was not an object of scrutiny, yet was exhibiting extreme nervousness. When the cops asked a completely appropriate question ("do you have any weapons?"), he did not answer the question.

Favorite stated that when he asked P.M. for identification,
the appellant raised his hands, which were "shaking uncontrollably." He also described P.M. as "very nervous," stating that it was difficult "for him to get a full and complete sentence out of his mouth." P.M.'s behavior caused Favorite to think something may be wrong, and it was at that point that he asked him to step out of the car. Once P.M. was outside the vehicle, Favorite asked whether he had any weapons on him and P.M. remained silent. In light of Favorite's experience as a San Antonio police officer, [FN1] P.M.'s silence and extreme nervousness prompted the officer to pat him down.

FN1. At the time of the suppression hearing, Favorite had been employed as a San Antonio police officer for twelve and a half years. He had been with the SWAT unit for approximately three years.
Click to expand...

Now, that goes beyond just a bit of nerves.

Crud. Gotta put put the kids to bed.
 
Frank, to be honest, in my world I'd not make the call to you. I'd walk out and ask if I "could help" first. Call me crazy....after all, I'm just a "civilian". That failing, I'd call y'all, not with expectation that you're gonna arrest these guys for sitting outside my home, but to make your presence known, in light of all our rights.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "that failing"? Are you implying that you don't want them on the public street eating peanuts in front of your house where they have a right to be? What are you going out there to do? "Make our presence known"? You mean intimidate them into going to some other public place to eat their peanuts? So I go up there and say "Hey guys, Rich just called. He doesn't want you here. Will you please go back to your neighborhood to eat peanuts?" To which the Latin Count guy says "No, we like it here because because Rich has a nice fountain in front of his house and his yard is really landscaped nicely. We think we'll stay until morning." And then I say, "Well, you're right, it's a public streeet, and you certainly have a right to eat peanuts here. Have a nice day!"

OK, let's assume that I did call you and you did use RS to take action. Said counts have been vetted, sorted and patted. Just how is it that Hibbel adds to your tool box in resolving the problem of them camped out?
Click to expand...

Them being camped out is your problem. It's a public street, but we now have the name of the getaway driver for the home invasion that took place around the block. They didn't drive all the way out there to eat peanuts, they were eating peanuts while their buddies tied up your neighbor, emptied out his gun safe, and raped his daughter. The report comes in, the next day at roll call, I remember, "Hey, we were over there the other night at Rich's house when he called about the guys eating peanuts and admiring his landscaping, I wrote his name down not two weeks after the Hibble case!! It's a miracle!! Tell the detectives to check out Jimmy Jiminez."

If it's not random, it's pretty close. Anyone in any marginally suspicious circumstances can be terry stopped. They don't have to have a description of a suspect. They don't have to have a report of a specific crime. Hence, the person really is random. It could be the Dalai Lama at 2am in the parking lot, and there could still be a valid terry stop. No specific crime is necessary. No suspect description is necessary.
Click to expand...

Can you please give us some examples? There is plenty of case law you can post. Post a few that the courts supported that you think were 4th amendment violations. Some Supreme Court cases preferably.
 
TBO-
It may not be random, but it's still a fishing expedition based on hunch. The Fourth requires "Probable Cause"; Terry dropped that to Reasonable Suspicion; Hiibel adds a crime for being indignant, even if you know you've done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
An arrest requires probable cause, an investigation requires reasonable suspicion. People always talk about getting hassled by the Cops when they "haven't done anything wrong". That's because the average Joe doesn't know much about Police work (other than TV/Movies, which isn't real). Police are expected (by the same people) to prevent crime. That's why they go investigate suspicious circumstances (especially those called in the these very same people). If you think a Cop can only take action on a crime he actually sees, think about it for a moment. Why even have Police like they currently exist? Just have one or two at the office (not on patrol) to answer phone calls after a crime occurs. Also, be ready to be blown off when you call 911 saying, "There's someone walking around the front on my house on the sidewalk and it's 3AM, they keep walking back and forth and looking at my house". The response; "Sorry Sir, they haven't broken any law. If they do break a law, like by breaking into your house and/or assaulting your family, then by all means call us back later. Have a good night Sir".
Proactive Police patrol is what is expected and why the Police exist. To prevent crimes from occurring you interject before the crime is fully executed. Someone hanging around suspiciously in a high crime area late at night meets the reasonableness standard.

All the best
 
Frank-
You still haven't told me how Hiibel helps you except in the expected response of:
...but we now have the name of the getaway driver for the home invasion that took place around the block.....they were eating peanuts while their buddies tied up your neighbor, emptied out his gun safe, and raped his daughter.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I knew it had to come down to this. "If we can save just one child..."

As I've said elsewhere, I understand that violent crime happens. I understand that you'll never be able to stop it all. I'm already quite safe enough, to the point of suffocation, thanks.

If I believed otherwise, I'd suggest mandatory DNA sampling and ID/Tracking implants at birth....hell, we could stamp out all "bad behavior" in two generations. Think it's far fetched under this reasoning of "the need of the State to protect at all costs", Frank? Think how Hiibel and Terry might have been received from a SCOTUS of 60 years ago.

Have you read the writings that prompted the Bill of Rights recently? Am I to believe that "our" government is so much more trustworthy than all that have passed before, simply because we're "Americans"? Or am I to assume that this is a New Age, with New Crimes, that demand New Laws leading us to a Better Life?

There's two things that need to happen for this nation to survive free:
1) Everyone needs to be willing to step out and confront the Saints. Those unwilling are called Unfortunate.
2) Everyone needs to realize that, in protecting me, there are certain rights that are granted me by a Higher Authority. Just where do you draw that line?
Rich
 
Will this help clarify anything?

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.


As far as California goes, we can’t generally force identification during a “Terry” detention(detention based ONLY on reasonable suspicion). There is no statute, such as the one in Nevada, that requires a person to identify himself/herself during a detention.
 
Re: "Natural progression", and loitering...

Resident Says He's Been Picked Up In Own Front Yard

POSTED: 9:26 am CDT June 22, 2004
UPDATED: 10:45 am CDT June 22, 2004
CHICAGO --
Harvey
WMAQ
Harvey resident Lonnie Cooksey (pictured, left) said he was shocked one day when the Harvey police arrested him for loitering -- in his own front yard.

"They ride right up on you, jump right out, don't ask you no questions," Cooksey told Unit 5's Renee Ferguson. "No name, no ID -- 'Put your hands behind your back, you're going to jail for loitering.' How is [it] I'm loitering in front of 15237 -- and it's my house?"

Video: Unit 5 Reports: Some Say Harvey Detentions Out Of Hand

Ferguson reported Monday night that Cooksey is not alone. Unit 5 obtained police reports showing multiple arrests in the same neighborhood at 153rd Street and Loomis -- all for loitering.

Former Harvey patrolman Christian Daigre said police are ordered to arrest and keep subjects in jail -- sometimes for days.

"It became quite a problem," he said. "[Patrol Cmdr. Darnell Keel] would order us to detain them, hold them for 48 to 72 hours in our booking facility and release them without charges."

Harvey police officials declined repeated requests for an on-camera interview, Ferguson reported.

Keel resigned last year over an incident outside a Harvey nightclub. In a recording made in Keel's police car, Ferguson reported, Keel is heard saying, "Tonight is 'Everybody gets to spend the night in the jail cell.' I got to make some numbers, so I'm taking everybody to jail."

Ferguson said the tape also shows Keel driving very close to a group of people, forcing them to jump out of the way.

Keel's behavior led to a termination hearing, Ferguson reported. He resigned and apologized before the tape was made public last year.

"It was very unprofessional," Keel said. "I made a mistake."

This year, Keel was re-hired and even promoted to commander by Harvey's new mayor, Eric Kellogg, Ferguson reported. Kellogg defended Keel last fall.

"It was a matter of Commander Keel doing what he thought would not only save his life, but bring some calm to a situation that was totally out of hand," Kellogg said.

Kellogg has now appointed civilians to become what he calls "MIAs" -- the Mayor's Intelligence Agency, Ferguson reported.

"Now, there are those who believe the loitering arrests in Harvey are out of hand," Ferguson said.

According to attorney Kenneth Flaxman, police are arresting citizens by using a loitering ordinance that isn't even on the books.

"If they had a loitering ordinance, it would probably be unconstitutional, but they don't have one," Flaxman said. "The Harvey practice of allowing its police to make loitering arrests makes police the law, and that's not constitutional"

It is a concern Daigre voiced in a letter to the police chief, Ferguson reported.

"If they're caught doing something, they're caught doing something, fine -- that's our purpose as a police department," he said. "But when they're standing in front of their own residence, and there's no criminal charge, it's a complete violation of their civil rights."

Two days after Daigre's letter landed on the Harvey police chief's desk, Daigre was fired, Ferguson reported. Daigre was disciplined for, among other things, arriving for duty with unshined shoes.

Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit is in the works because of the detentions. Flaxman said Harvey has become a "police state."

"In the police state, the police are the law and in our system, the police follow the law," Flaxman said.

Cooksey said he is being picked up more than ever because he spoke to Unit 5, Ferguson reported.

"I ain't afraid, but I be watching over my back 'cause I know the police don't like me," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Link: http://www.nbc5.com/news/3446368/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65172
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No such thing as a slippery slope?
 
Kilrain wrote:
As far as California goes, we can’t generally force identification during a "Terry" detention (detention based ONLY on reasonable suspicion). There is no statute, such as the one in Nevada, that requires a person to identify himself/herself during a detention.
Click to expand...
With Hiibel, it can now be effectively argued in court that the subjects failure to ID is in fact "Obstruction" regardless of a specific statute on the books or not.

Isn't it wonderful how the Court can make a ruling that in effect (re)writes statutory law without the individual State Legislatures having to lift a finger!!?

Stop and Identify is now the law of the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top