Police can demand ID, high court rules

Daughter (the ostensible victim) also arrested. That's worth repeating: Daughter (the ostensible victim) also arrested.
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotion.


Apparently you've not familiar with domestic violence. Often times the person who dials 911 pleading, begging for help, for the Police to come, is the very same person who changes in the blink of an eye (actually the click of a handcuff) from a cowering, crying domestic battery victim into a raging screaming attacking animal. That's why domestic disturbance calls are one of the most dangerous types of calls. They are incredibly unpredictable due to human emotions, liquor/drugs, past history. Hiibel was arrested and his daughter launched herself at the Officers, refused to stop when asked/told, thus the charge. Officers are killed/injured/attacked at a higher rate answering these type calls. It's always a crap shoot, never knowing when it'll turn up snake eyes. If you read "Officer Down" web pages, notice how many are domestic related (whether auto/home/foot).

All the best
 
TBO-
Please. Stop educating me on the bad people in this world. Start educating yourself on the facts in the case. Do some homework before you knee jerk as to the "inability" of a "civilian" to know what it's like on the mean streets or in the mean kitchens of the world. I know what Domestic Disturbances can look like.

There is no statement of fact that a DD ever occurred. There is no statement of evidence that one ever occurred. The girl was not arrested for attacking the cops. No one was arrested for Domestic Disturbence. This 17 year old "victim" was arrested when she tried to open the door to the truck, with a (second) State Trooper holding it closed, in order to assist her Dad (who was not struggling with the first cop). She was thrown to the ground, cuffed and booked for Resisting the Authority of the State.

In court her case was summarily dismissed. This, too, bears repeating: In court her case was summarily dismissed.

Two criminals for the price of one. The source crime at issue: "I've done nothing wrong and I don't want to talk to you. Am I under arrest or can my daughter and I leave now?"

Rich
 
There is no statement of fact that a DD ever occurred. There is no statement of evidence that one ever occurred. The girl was not arrested for attacking the cops. No one was arrested for Domestic Disturbence.
Click to expand...
Two points.

1) No conviction does not equal "did not happen" (see OJ Simpson). Also, the court habitually dismisses charges (for various reasons ranging to not enough evidence to support the charge, to dismissal for sympathy reasons, to dropping all but the most serious charge(s) to expedite the case).

2) The Police had received a citizen complaint of a Domestic Disturbance occurring. They were lawfully conducting an investigation. That's the part that has lead to 6 pages here. People don't understand that Police conduct investigations, or even what one is. The Police don't have to see the crime occur in their presence to investigate it.

In court her case was summarily dismissed. This, too, bears repeating: In court her case was summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...
See #1 above.

The source crime at issue: "I've done nothing wrong and I don't want to talk to you. Am I under arrest or can my daughter and I leave now?"
Click to expand...
And again, the fact someone claims to have "done nothing wrong" changes nothing in this scenario. It's why the court ruled the way it did. (based on reasonable suspicion vs random contact for no reason). If it were just Joe Blow on the side of the road who had not done anything suspicious or been reported to have done something suspicious or been in a suspicious area I'd whole heartedly agree with you.
Also, where (as mentioned a few times on these 6 pages) does the Officer say "I'm investigating an investigation"? The video link you put up has a running transcript and although the Officer tells him several times he's investigating, he doesn't say "I'm investigating an investigation".?
Also, at the end of the tape, when the daughter launches out of the truck, let's reverse the scenario. Have an Officer seated in the truck and a citizen by the door. I'll bet a whole buck fifty that there'd be a few posts about "the vicious assault of throwing the door into them".
Any of you Dads ever had an argument with your daughter about someone she was dating? (those were the facts in the case).
Click to expand...
The fact that it turned out to be a father/daughter verbal argument has absolutely no bearing on the issue. That's what's sidetracking so many.
The point is, a citizen reported a crime occurring to the Police and they responded to check it out. That gives them the authority to investigate and identify the parties who were contacted here in this case. Could other cases be different? You bet ya! (heck, there's no shortage of "scenarios" posted on these 6 pages). This happens often, IE: report of a slumper in a car parked. The Police investigate the slumper for:

1) safety reasons- is it someone suffering from a medical condition

2) criminal reasons- is it someone who is under the influence

* turns out it's neither, just someone tired from night shift snoozing. Does this mean the Police were wrong for contacting them? Nope, again, reasonable suspicion. Making judgments based on 20/20 hindsight is what trips people up from understanding the issue as stated by the courts. You have to judge it based on the information and situation as it existed at the time of the call.

All the best
 
TBO-
Still you insist on lecturing us as to extenuating circumstances in the "real world" that require extraordinary powers over Free Men. Miighta, coulda, woulda, plus OJ thrown in for good measure? That's a mouthful. ;) I'm not gonna descend with you into this litany of obfuscation of the real facts, available from transcript and video tape.

The real facts are this.
- The only "Reasonable Suspicion" of a crime was a third party complaint. There was neither evidence nor statement of such at the scene.
- Free American gets arrested and convicted for refusing to provide his name in light of a non-crime.
- The 17 year old daughter did not "launch herself at the Officers" and she took the hit on "Resisting Arrest". (Please don't waste my time with, "But she got off after paying the attorney.")
- Lower courts could easily have ruled this an unfortunate mistake, handled in best judgment and complete courtesy by the first officer on the scene. Instead, the Supreme Court of the United States of America took it on and ruled that all is as it should be.

You now have a new floor in the Powers of the Police. Welcome to the New America.
Rich
 
With regards to the application of this beyond Nevada, and the other states with such statutes, it depends entirely on the state. Here in Colorado, Obstructing has a very specific and limited definition, which does not encompass failure to identify.
 
TBO-
Still you insist on lecturing us..
Click to expand...
No lecture good Sir (certainly no more than yours or any other posts on this thread).
My main points were/are:

Pointing out "post" incident facts/circumstances and using them to criticize the actions at the "start" of the contact in wrong. Hindsight is always 20/20. The standard as recognized by the courts for the past 35+ years is to judge based on the facts of the time, IE: what the Officers knew.
Judging on hindsight we could convict someone of manslaughter if they shot someone who aimed a firearm at them, and then said firearm was found to be empty of ammo (as examined after recovering it from the corpse).
You admit there was evidence prior to the Officer's arrival in the presence of a "3rd party complaint". There are 2 type of "3rd party complaints" (this is not a lecture, merely clarifying):

1) Anonymous-caller will not give name/number/etc

2) Citizen-person identifies themselves by name/number/etc.

Citizen complaints are considered to be reliable for the purpose of conducting an investigation. Anon complaints don't have the same weight (and I agree totally with that, very strongly in fact).

I know this last post will not change a thing between you and I on this subject but wish to convey my respect for your opinion and especially the civility you have shown here.

All the best
 
TBO-
Of course your words change nothing between us. You're one of the Good Guys and that's enough for me.

But you keep looking at this from the standpoint of, "Did the cops do the right thing?". I look at it from the standpoint of "Did the Courts do the right thing?". (Now I could debate the issue of Reasonable Suspicion....it's not locked in at the time of the complaint. As you aptly point out, it's based on what the officer knew at the time of making an arrest. At that point he knew there was no evidence of disturbance. But that's not my debate, it's yours.)

The Cops enforce the laws on the books. I understand that. The Courts create the laws. Please revisit my posts on that basis. This incident should never have happened; or it should have been dismissed at the Circuit Court level, overturned at the State Supreme level or rejected out of hand at the SCOTUS level.

Again, this is not about LEO's....it's about the Bill of Rights.


Roadkill-
Do you have a Terry Law in CO? If so, you now have Hiibel.
Rich
 
you keep looking at this from the standpoint of, "Did the cops do the right thing?"
Click to expand...
A very natural response (given todays atmosphere).
The Cops enforce the laws on the books. I understand that. The Courts create the laws.

Again, this is not about LEO's....it's about the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
That's what is "funny" about these type of discussions. We are much more alike than not, but the rift that does exist is quite solid. I guess the old adage "agree to disagree" applies. Thank you for your time and consideration.

TBO
 
If you think I'm about Cop-Bashing, you need to become familiar with my day job:
Click to expand...
No Sir, not in the least. It's clear from your posting that you are addressing the issue from the Court perspective. I have not and do not consider you a "Cop-basher".

All the best



p.s. If you listen to the video one of the very 1st things the Officer says is, "I've got a report there's been a fight going on between you two tonight". :p
 
The real facts are this.
- The only "Reasonable Suspicion" of a crime was a third party complaint. There was neither evidence nor statement of such at the scene.
Click to expand...

We're obligated to investigate third party complaints. Even anonymous ones. And TBO already hit on the reasonable suspicion aspect of third party complaints. You say "the only" RS of a crime. Reasonable Suspicion is either there or it isn't. There aren't "degrees" of reasonable suspicion. Either the police had enough to detain, or they didn't. Even if they didn't have enough they still had the right to go up there and ask questions, even if the complaint were anonymous.
 
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.

Now, I want it to be understood that I have no problems with identifying myself to the police, as a matter of everyday conduct. I am the general manager of a grocery store and I have almost daily contact with our police. I want them to know who I am, especially if the occasion should arise that I am forced to use my weapon in my store! That aside, I find it less than palatable that now a citizen is forced to ID at the "request" of an officer or face immediate arrest before the officer has made any determination of fact that a crime has actually been committed, is about to be committed or will be committed... Or that I'm even a party to the supposed crime.

How much time will pass before some bright legislator will attempt to broaden this to make it criminal to fail to actively cooperate in Terry Stops? Obviously, the State has an interest in its citizens fully cooperating with its investigations. Might this not be the next logical step in officer safety and furthering the interests of the State?

People that voluntarily cooperate with the police is one thing. Attaching criminal sanctions in order to acheive that cooperation is quite another.
 
Terry was incorrectly decided. There should be no compelled investigatory detention. The only purpose it serves is to try to find other crimes besides the one(s) the officer suspects with which to charge a suspect. Just about every newsworthy Terry stop ends up with an arrest due to drugs or weapons. Or now, failure to ID.

If the police suspect a crime, they should do things like they used to be done. Surveil the suspect, get the license plate.

People who are in vehicles can usually be tracked down through the registered owner. Those not in vehicles have no reason to give police a real name, and the only thing cops could possibly arrest them for would be possession of contraband.

As for officer safety, who's safer? The cop approaching a suspect who is not worried about getting arrested for having crack and/or carrying a firearm without a license, or the cop who approaches a suspect who is illegally carrying both and really doesn't want to go back to prison? Either getting rid of Terry stop-and-frisks, or legalizing carry of weapons/drugs solves that problem. Stop-and-identify laws are the same way. Criminals who fear a return to prison due to outstanding warrants are likely to turn violent as soon as they suspect the officer wants to identify them.

Obviously anyone worth apprehending is going to present a similar risk of violence. Because of the questionable 4th and 5th amendment applicability of terry stop-and-frisks, and the numerous Terry stops that result in no arrest or arrest due to unconstitutional contraband laws, Terry stops present too much danger, too much government intrusion, and not enough real crime-fighting effectiveness.

Even Scalia agrees that the justification for Terry frisks is garbage. MN v. Dickerson:
I am unaware, however, of any precedent for a physical search of a person thus temporarily detained for questioning. Sometimes, of course, the temporary detention of a suspicious character would be elevated to a full custodial arrest on probable cause -- as, for instance, when a suspect was unable to provide a sufficient accounting of himself. At that point, it is clear that the common law would permit not just a protective "frisk," but a full physical search incident to the arrest. When, however, the detention did not rise to the level of a full-blown arrest (and was not supported by the degree of cause needful for that purpose), there appears to be no clear support at common law for physically searching the suspect.
Click to expand...

Since many businesses today operate 24 hours a day, the stigma that was once attached to night-walkers cannot legitimately be observed today. Some people are awake at night; that's the way things work now. In the paragraph before the one I quoted, Scalia defended stop-and-id on the basis of the common law surrounding night-walkers. Therefore both stop-and-id and stop-and-frisk ought to be eliminated.
 
Just about every newsworthy Terry stop ends up with an arrest due to drugs or weapons. Or now, failure to ID.
Click to expand...

??? If they didn't result in an arrest, they wouldn't be on the news in the first place..Not sure what you're getting at here. As far as Hibble, I've yet to see anything similar on my local news.

If the police suspect a crime, they should do things like they used to be done. Surveil the suspect, get the license plate.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Police used to do not only detentions based on reasonable suspicion, but ARRESTS too!! Just because Terry outlined what was reasonable for investigatory stops or certain searches doesn't mean that the police weren't routinely going well beyond that before, and in many cases as a matter of POLICY. Look at some old police blotters for what people were "arrested" for..."Suspicion of Robbery, Suspicion of Vagrancy, Suspicion of Burglary"....They didn't have probable cause for charges like that but were constructively arrested, not just detained. Back "the way things used to be", if you came upon a homicide scene and weren't 100% sure that a witness wasn't the killer, and he didn't want to come downtown to answer questions, guess what? You arrested him for "Suspicion of Homicide".

People who are in vehicles can usually be tracked down through the registered owner.
Click to expand...

At best, you could arrest a lot of really dumb criminals that way. The ones who are even one step up the evolutionary ladder either steal a plate or car, use a "crack give up" car, or in the case of the dopeman, use a rental car, rented by someone else so as to avoid his own car being forfeited when he gets caught.

Either getting rid of Terry stop-and-frisks, or legalizing carry of weapons/drugs solves that problem.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you get them to outlaw Terry stops. I think I'll turn to a life of crime with the odds of getting caught under those circumstances.

Obviously anyone worth apprehending is going to present a similar risk of violence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true, let alone "obvious".

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.
Click to expand...

And if your state doesn't have an obustruction charge, the elements of which include being required to provide your name to the police when stopped based on reasonable suspicion?
 
Your suspicion diatribe... perhaps you've forgotton the 4th amendment? Probable cause is the standard written into the constitution, and no court case I know of has ever lowered that standard for arrest without a warrant.

Aside from that minor problem, thanks for explaining so clearly how the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion is all semantics. I suppose now anyone who's Terry stopped can also be validly arrested without any additional evidence? Something is terribly broken with your conclusion, but it's not your fault; the problem lies with the geniuses on the Bench that came up with "reasonable suspicion" and decided it was a lesser standard than "probable cause."

With the license plate suggestion I was thinking of Lawdog's example of the teens-who-had-burglarized-the-school. Obviously sophisticated criminals can find ways around everything. If you have PC to arrest, do it! What kind of criminals swap plates or steal or rent cars? Drug and weapons traffickers, most likely. I'm much more concerned with what I consider real crimes. Complaining that it'll be tougher to catch Joe Crackpipe or Jimmy AK-47 won't get you much sympathy from me. I don't care of Joe or Jimmy are gang members and just murdered someone. That's not what you'd initially arrest them for. Taking the crime progression concept to the extreme, you might as well arrest and book people for jaywalking, littering, swearing... you'd probably catch all the uncaught violent criminals in the process. Nevermind that the prisons would be overflowing. Our streets would be safe! I have the same problem with pretextual arrests that Rich has with pretextual stops. (I know you don't think any arrests are pretextual, but I consider drug and weapons arrests to be -- because they're considered stepping-stone crimes to violent crime, or because they're intended to catch criminals who have already committed those serious crimes.)

You're right, my "obviously" comment wasn't very obvious. What I meant was that criminals who have just committed a crime (other than contraband possession) for which you Terry stop them have the same incentive to fight as the person carrying drugs, or the person who has an outstanding warrant. The point was that the latter two cases -- contraband and outstanding warrants -- are discoverable by Terry procedures while the former is not. The entire point was to address the objection that getting rid of Terry stops wouldn't prevent criminal-on-police violence, and to offer a rationale behind the decision to eliminate Terry stops anyway. Terry stops may offer a similar risk of violence, but they are of dubious constitutionality and don't have any potential to reveal current criminal behavior.

I have no illusions that the government will get rid of Terry stops or legalize drug possession or firearm carry anytime soon. I'm just explaining what ought to happen and why.
 
Your suspicion diatribe... perhaps you've forgotton the 4th amendment? Probable cause is the standard written into the constitution, and no court case I know of has ever lowered that standard for arrest without a warrant.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've forgotten it. The 4th. Amendment says that warrants will not be issued except on probable cause, and that there will be no unreasonble searches and seizures. Maybe you can cut and paste the part of the 4th. amendment that states police must have probable cause to make a seizure.

Here it is, it's only one sentence long:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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...

As far as wanting the police to do things "the way they used to", be careful what you wish for.....
 
There's no point in arguing this any longer. Either everyone's being deliberately obtuse, or there's just no way to convince anyone to change sides on even the smallest point.
 
I suppose now anyone who's Terry stopped can also be validly arrested without any additional evidence?
Click to expand...

Not the way I read it.

With the license plate suggestion I was thinking of Lawdog's example of the teens-who-had-burglarized-the-school. Obviously sophisticated criminals can find ways around everything.
Click to expand...

How sophisticated do you have to be to change a plate or rent a stolen car? More sophisticated than teens breaking into a high schoo? That's not very sophisticated.

What kind of criminals swap plates or steal or rent cars? Drug and weapons traffickers, most likely. I'm much more concerned with what I consider real crimes.
Click to expand...

All kinds. "Weapons traffickers"??? How about armed robbers? People who kill for money? Drug traffickers are real criminals. Just because you don't like the law doesn't make it an unconstitutional law. I'd rather save the "cocaine, herion and meth should be legal" argument for another forum though, if that's what you were implying.


Complaining that it'll be tougher to catch Joe Crackpipe or Jimmy AK-47 won't get you much sympathy from me.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less how hard it is to catch them as long as I can move to the next suburb like everyone else......

Complaining that it'll be tougher to catch Joe Crackpipe or Jimmy AK-47 won't get you much sympathy from me. I don't care of Joe or Jimmy are gang members and just murdered someone.
Click to expand...

I know you don't. I really don't care either. People watch Sipowicz get all worked up on TV and think that cops actually have some personal stake in all this stuff. Granted, a lot of them take it personally when they lose a case, or have to let someone go without charging them when they're convinced they've committed a crime, but not me, and not many guys with any kind of time on the job who have worked the ghetto for any amount of time. I don't live anywhere near the huge majority of scumbags I've arrested, and as long as I do my job with the tools that society is ready to accept as reasonable to the best of my ability, I don't care if the defendant is free to rob another day. What WOULD make me feel bad, for instance, is if I stopped an armed robber and DIDN'T use something like a pretextual stop and as a result he got away with a crime that I could have otherwise arrested him for or prevented.

Taking the crime progression concept to the extreme, you might as well arrest and book people for jaywalking, littering, swearing... you'd probably catch all the uncaught violent criminals in the process. Nevermind that the prisons would be overflowing.
Click to expand...

That's sort of what happens in the more desirable areas to live. That's kind of why people want to live there. Just because you arrest somone or write them a misdemeanor ticket does not mean you have to send them to prison. I'd love for the police to arrest more people for littering. Let them post a bond and go to court later. Or even give them a personal bond. Any violent criminals you catch because they were littering would be a bonus.
 
Frank-
There you go again. :D You're closing ranks around the Police action, rather than responding to the point of this entire thread, which is a Court action.

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?

Have you looked at the video tape for the ramifications to the average father who chooses to scold his daughter in the New America?
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html

Have you looked at the SCOTUS transcripts I provided here?
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/hiibel.pdf

That is what is being debated here. I can just as easily debate the individual Police Action, if you'd like to start another thread. You might title it, "How can a 17 year old girl be charged with Resisting Arrest when there were no other charges?" Then we can talk about the ability of the police to claim that she resisted an action that was never taken! But please, not in this thread, OK?
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top