The sleeze keeps right on oozing

[Care4all]

who has lawfully stopped him.... is the key...

 

[Care4all]

[1] A police officer's stopping a person and requiring him to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment where the
officer makes the stop and requires identification after observing the person walk away from another in an alley located
in a neighborhood which is frequented by drug users, but the officer conducts his stop merely to ascertain the person's
identity and has no reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct;
thus, upon failing to comply with the officer's request for identification, the person cannot be punished under a state
law making it an offense not to comply with a police officer's request for identification after the officer has conducted a
lawful stop and requested identification.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

who has lawfully stopped him.... is the key...

Exactly. In the case of Gates the police had the lawful right to question him and ask for ID.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The comment I made about going to jail is because that's usually where they take a person to be fingerprinted. At least that's the case here in Texas, they may take you to a couthouse or some other place for identification. I was speaking on what I know to be true where I'm at.

Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.

You should read Brown vs. Texas.

Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.

Brown v. Texas

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.

What you think is the law does not = the law.

The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.

There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.

I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.

You are an idiot.

The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.

http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF

"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."

And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.

Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.

First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.

No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.

THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[1] A police officer's stopping a person and requiring him to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment where the
officer makes the stop and requires identification after observing the person walk away from another in an alley located
in a neighborhood which is frequented by drug users, but the officer conducts his stop merely to ascertain the person's
identity and has no reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct;
thus, upon failing to comply with the officer's request for identification, the person cannot be punished under a state
law making it an offense not to comply with a police officer's request for identification after the officer has conducted a
lawful stop and requested identification.

Why highlight just one part? Why not highlight the preceding sentence. Oh but then that would put it all in context huh?

 

[Sweet Willy]

who has lawfully stopped him.... is the key...

Exactly. In the case of Gates the police had the lawful right to question him and ask for ID.

He can ask for ID all day long. It's not crime for a cop to ask. Gates was only required by law to state his name though. To infer that failing to comply with a request for a paper or plastic ID is grounds for ANYTHING is incorrect. It is not grounds for reasonable suspicion or probable cause and it is certainly not any part of grounds for arrest. Gates gave his name. The production of an ID card was a COURTESY. Gates was in no way obligated to give an ID card and subjec to no penalty or suspicion for not doing so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.

You should read Brown vs. Texas.

Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.

Brown v. Texas




What you think is the law does not = the law.

The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.

There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.

I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.

You are an idiot.

The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.

http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF

"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."

And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.

Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.

First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.

No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.

THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.

Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.

 

[Care4all]

[1] A police officer's stopping a person and requiring him to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment where the
officer makes the stop and requires identification after observing the person walk away from another in an alley located
in a neighborhood which is frequented by drug users, but the officer conducts his stop merely to ascertain the person's
identity and has no reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct;
thus, upon failing to comply with the officer's request for identification, the person cannot be punished under a state
law making it an offense not to comply with a police officer's request for identification after the officer has conducted a
lawful stop and requested identification.

Why highlight just one part? Why not highlight the preceding sentence. Oh but then that would put it all in context huh?

because these cops thought that seeing him leave the area where drug dealers hung out was reasonable suspicion, thus lawful....but it was not ''reasonable suspicion'' even though he thought it was lawful....so really i think what we are debating is the meaning of reasonable suspicion...

a 911 caller who thought she saw one of 2 men push the door open of a house with his shoulder, but also admits it could have been the owners, she wasn't certain....when the cop gets there, from what he has viewed so far has seen no signs of a break in and the person in the house freely opens his door for the cop, within seconds of being there the man identifies himself while throwing a fit and asks for your police identification and maneuvers to his home phone and calls his boss at harvard...yelling and screaming about a racist cop.... which gates denies yelling btw, says he had doctor documented bronchitis and there is no way he could yell loudly...

anyway, there was no reasonable suspicion to think that gates was not the legal resident and that there was a B and E that took place...no evidence of such imo.

crowley should have given gates his cop identification card, which is required by law in massachusetts, when gates asked him for it 3 times inside his home....crowley NEVER FOLLOWED THE LAW, did not give him his state cop id card, just his name....then crowley would not have brought gates outside to get it, and arrest him, wrongly at that, for disorderly conduct.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You are an idiot.

The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.

http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF

"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."

And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.

Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.

First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.

No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.

THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.

Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.

And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.

This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.

It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.

Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?

Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?

Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!

 

[Care4all]

And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.

Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.

First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.

No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.

THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.

Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.

And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.

This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.

It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.

Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?

Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?

Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!

thanks
pretty much the angle i am arguing from....

 

[dilloduck]

Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.

And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.

This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.

It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.

Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?

Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?

Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!

thanks
pretty much the angle i am arguing from....

and it's a desperate and weak one. Show the damn cop your ID and quit making an issue out if it. You attitude is wasting time and money. Do you plan to make a test case out of everyone who asks fro an idea ? Thanks for wasting our time.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.

And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.

This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.

It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.

Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?

Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?

Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!

thanks
pretty much the angle i am arguing from....

You're welcome Care!

As this relates to Gates:

Yes, I think reasonable suspicion had been satisfied by the 911 call. That justifies a "Terry stop" situation. The officer is allowed to make a limited search of the premise to check for forced entry.

Being that Crowley does not claim to have found probable cause (evidence of forced entry), he was not legally permitted to enter the residence without a warrant or being invited. It was an unlawful entry. (We'll get back to the "black men/backpacks" momentarily)

Anything that happened after, and as a consequence of that entry is the liability of officer Crowley, including the arrest of Gates. If anyone wants the legal cites on events occuring after an illegal action, just ask, I'll go get them for you.

Gates has every right to be as pissed off as he wants to be, the right to resist and even the right to KILL Crowley in escaping an arrest as a result of an unlawful entry. Again, just ask for the cites and I'll get them. Some of you may recall that we have already established a citizens rights to resist unlawful orders and arrest. And YES you can kill a cop if you have to, to evade an unlawful arrest.

One of the most important thing that is lost here, if you ask me, is that the fact that Gates did provide an ID card, IS A COURTESY in defference to Crowley's badge. He did not have to do anything but give his name. He was courteous enough to answer a request for an ID card. Crowley got what he asked for, even though he was not entitled to it, not even entitlled to be in the house. All that shit about Crowley following him inside for his safety is absolute poppy cock. He can't enter. If he feared for his safety when Gates went inside, his only option, absent any tangible casue to fear his safety, is to RUN. Being scared IS NOT reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Finally, the arrest was not lawful. Gates was on his own porch. Crowley confirms that a crowd had already gathered outside, before Gates was outside. Gates did not cause the crowd to gather. The cop cars did. Everyone of us knows this happens when cops show up and Crowley states in his report that the crowd was already there. There is no reasonable way to claim that Gates yelling caused a crowd to assemble or that the crowd was disturbed, scared, fearful or anyhting else, due to Gates yelling. In fact, the crowd got to see exactly what crowds gather to see in these instances.

Now, this all comes back to one VERY important detail in Crowley's report. The "two black men with back packs". This is the ONLY thing that elevates Crowley's cause from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. The phone call establishes reasonable suspicion. However, without some level of detail about WHO the criminal is, there is no probable cause. That is why Crowley puts it in his report. It is not just extra information that Crowely thought would be neat to include. IT IS HIS ESTABLISHMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. It is the only thing that makes his entry lawful. Without that cause, everything that happened after his entry is UNLAWFUL and Gates was rightful to yell, scream, resist and evade, all the way up to and including killing Crowley in order to prevent arrest.

If a witness did tell Crowley about "two black men/backpacks", his entry was legal. If Whalen did not give this description to Crowley, and she says she did not, Crowley made an illegal entry, an unlawful arrest and falsified an official report. This is the importance of knowing if Crowley had any reason to enter and any reason to make an ID inquiry of a black man present.

 

[Care4all]

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.

This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.

This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

Hey stupid, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it once more for you slower types. If you refuse an officers request for proper ID, he has the option of running a fingerprint check on you, that usually takes place at the jail. Now, I never said you would be arrested, but it is certainly an option the officer can use. It's my understanding in the state of Texas, it is unlawful to refuse to comply with an officers request. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a stand point where just cause had been established. Unlike Brown v Texas, where the officer had no legal grounds to question or detain the subject. Therefore you may be detained, transported to jail or whatever facility exist in order to confirm or establish your identity.

 

[Care4all]

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

Hey stupid, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it once more for you slower types. If you refuse an officers request for proper ID, he has the option of running a fingerprint check on you, that usually takes place at the jail. Now, I never said you would be arrested, but it is certainly an option the officer can use. It's my understanding in the state of Texas, it is unlawful to refuse to comply with an officers request. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a stand point where just cause had been established. Unlike Brown v Texas, where the officer had no legal grounds to question or detain the subject. Therefore you may be detained, transported to jail or whatever facility exist in order to confirm or establish your identity.

well, you didn't say ''just cause'' or ''reasonable suspicions'' in your response back to me and i am not a mind reader for goodness sakes lonestar?

care

 

[Sweet Willy]

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

Hey stupid, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it once more for you slower types. If you refuse an officers request for proper ID, he has the option of running a fingerprint check on you, that usually takes place at the jail. Now, I never said you would be arrested, but it is certainly an option the officer can use. It's my understanding in the state of Texas, it is unlawful to refuse to comply with an officers request. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a stand point where just cause had been established. Unlike Brown v Texas, where the officer had no legal grounds to question or detain the subject. Therefore you may be detained, transported to jail or whatever facility exist in order to confirm or establish your identity.

No, not quite. Not to say that this is not the scenario that may unfold in Texas and elsewhere. The cop does not have the authority to finger print you just becasue you don't have an ID. If the cop has casue to first ask for YOUR NAME, you must state your name and possibly your address. He will call that in and it will be run. He will get a DESCRIPTION of the person that goes with that name. If it says 6'1", brown hair, blue eyes, and you are 6'1" brown hair, blue eyes.....then no, he does not have reasonable cause to have you finger printed. He must have some reason to think you did not give him your real name. He doesn't automatically get to detain and finger print you just becasue you do not show an ID. He has to meet reasonable suspicion to ask for your identity and then he has to meet reasonable suspicion that you lied about your identity.

But again, police may use these tactics and violate the law everyday. If they think they can get away with treating a particular person that way, they will. Becasue no one is really policing the police but us. Whatever we allow them to do, they will do. Which is why all this BS about never giving the cops any lip and just shut your mouth and let them do their job is poppy cock. It's a good way to have your rights walked all over and you have NO RIGHTS unless you claim them. They aren't given to you or respected automatically. They do have to advise you of basic rights, but until you CLAIM them, they will not observe them. You have to claim your right to remain silent, your right to an attorney, etc. Until you do, the cops don't recognize your right to be silent or have an attorney or anything else. They will keep right on trying to get you to talk, without an attorney until you say "I will remain silent until I have an attorney." A cop has no requirement to respect your rights until you MAKE HIM. If you let him take you downtown to be finger printed, he hasn't violated a thing, now has he? If you let him search your car, he hasn't violated a thing.

THis is where some people are woefully misinformed. Sure, the cops love and promote this all co operative attitude. They love you guys who tell everyone to just bendover and take it and it will all be over so much faster and easier. But the fact is, police are not there to protect your rights. You are the only person responsible for claiming and insisting upon your rights. And if you don't, no one will. The cops will take every advantage that you do not claim.

 

[lawbuff]

I know this is an old thread, just reading some back ones.

Believe it or not I was at the SC building the day Hiibel was argued, the man next to me called it the "cowboy case".

I did not check the docket before I left on the trip, so was unfamiliar with the Question presented when granting Certiorari. I already knew about Brown v. Texas, so I was curious what the case was about.

Shorty after Hiibel my state passed thier version of the "stop and identify" law.

Courts lean towards granting leeway when a Terry stop is made, as in a Terry frisk also, but an officer better be able to articulate a reason/s which will pass Constitutional muster.

I took criminal law in College, and one of the 1st cases we learned about was Terry v. Ohio, as it was a fairly recent decision.

My state, also Ohio, mirrors the federal constitution as far as search & seizure is concerned, BUT there are a few exceptions.

We permit, as the federal does, Driver's license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints.

As far as Terry, it was a Cleveland case, so it is of course controlling precedent in Ohio, since the SC upheld it.

Not providing information, and indicating a non desire to so so, even under subpeona, in rare cases, very rare, can have one arrested under the Material witness statutes.

The crux of Hiibel is one MUST be "under investigation" to trigger any stop and identify law.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I know this is an old thread, just reading some back ones.

Believe it or not I was at the SC building the day Hiibel was argued, the man next to me called it the "cowboy case".

I did not check the docket before I left on the trip, so was unfamiliar with the Question presented when granting Certiorari. I already knew about Brown v. Texas, so I was curious what the case was about.

Shorty after Hiibel my state passed thier version of the "stop and identify" law.

Courts lean towards granting leeway when a Terry stop is made, as in a Terry frisk also, but an officer better be able to articulate a reason/s which will pass Constitutional muster.

I took criminal law in College, and one of the 1st cases we learned about was Terry v. Ohio, as it was a fairly recent decision.

My state, also Ohio, mirrors the federal constitution as far as search & seizure is concerned, BUT there are a few exceptions.

We permit, as the federal does, Driver's license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints.

As far as Terry, it was a Cleveland case, so it is of course controlling precedent in Ohio, since the SC upheld it.

Not providing information, and indicating a non desire to so so, even under subpeona, in rare cases, very rare, can have one arrested under the Material witness statutes.

The crux of Hiibel is one MUST be "under investigation" to trigger any stop and identify law.

Rereading this thread, I think what many missed about this situation was the importance of the description of the "two black men with back packs". Just as you highlight and as I pointed out way back when this thread was started, the officer must be able to articulate his probable cause. The folks who blew off this description and it's importance in the report, I don't think understand why it is crucial that Ms Whalen denied ever making that description and also refused to make a racial desription on the 911 tapes. Officer Crowely and most all police officers know they must articulate their cause. If he made that description up from a previous known description of suspicious characters, he invented his cause. Big problem.

 

[JD_2B]

Is it possible he was baiting the police?

Yeah, that's possible, I suppose.

Is it even more possible that two egos clashed in the night?

That one cop, who is used to people becoming compliant and obsequious, clashed with one academic, who is used to people being compliant and obsequious, met under circumstances where each felt offended by the other's lack of obsequious reactions?

Let's use our imaginations shall we?

A man broke into his own house and the cops were called by a neighbor.

The cops came in not knowing what was going on and acted like cops typically do.

They DEMANDED proof that the man standing in his own home was who he said he was.

That proof was provided, but done so by a professor who was unused to be spoken to harshly.

He responded (probably overreacting to the cop's tone of voice) arrogantly.

The cop took unbrage that the man wasn't passive and thankful. The cop probably wasn't polite

The professor took umbrage that the cop didn't immediately take his word for who he was. He was probably not polite.

The cop arrrested the professor.

The professor was outraged.

Two fucking hardons clash in the night.

Had the professor been a nobody we'd have never heard about it.

But the professor was a somebody.

Is it about race?

Certainly that might have been part of it.

But what it really was about was egos and expectations and arrogance and pride and how people react when confront with police power.

Jesus, I can't believe this event isn't obvious to each and every one of us.

I loved the way you explained this.. Really love it.

Of course, racist or not- people are allowed by the First to speak their minds about other people, government, or institutions.. To an extent anyways.

All in all, I say that the cops and this professor (and his peers) need to get through it, and try to at least ACT like the mature role models of our country, rather than all this grandstanding, making a spectacle of themselves, and putting on shows of narcissism and what can easily be interpreted as the self inflicted desecration of their own character.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Is it possible he was baiting the police?

Yeah, that's possible, I suppose.

Is it even more possible that two egos clashed in the night?

That one cop, who is used to people becoming compliant and obsequious, clashed with one academic, who is used to people being compliant and obsequious, met under circumstances where each felt offended by the other's lack of obsequious reactions?

Let's use our imaginations shall we?

A man broke into his own house and the cops were called by a neighbor.

The cops came in not knowing what was going on and acted like cops typically do.

They DEMANDED proof that the man standing in his own home was who he said he was.

That proof was provided, but done so by a professor who was unused to be spoken to harshly.

He responded (probably overreacting to the cop's tone of voice) arrogantly.

The cop took unbrage that the man wasn't passive and thankful. The cop probably wasn't polite

The professor took umbrage that the cop didn't immediately take his word for who he was. He was probably not polite.

The cop arrrested the professor.

The professor was outraged.

Two fucking hardons clash in the night.

Had the professor been a nobody we'd have never heard about it.

But the professor was a somebody.

Is it about race?

Certainly that might have been part of it.

But what it really was about was egos and expectations and arrogance and pride and how people react when confront with police power.

Jesus, I can't believe this event isn't obvious to each and every one of us.

I loved the way you explained this.. Really love it.

Of course, racist or not- people are allowed by the First to speak their minds about other people, government, or institutions.. To an extent anyways.

All in all, I say that the cops and this professor (and his peers) need to get through it, and try to at least ACT like the mature role models of our country, rather than all this grandstanding, making a spectacle of themselves, and putting on shows of narcissism and what can easily be interpreted as the self inflicted desecration of their own character.

That explanation is pretty much the idea I get about that whole deal. Still, I would be wanting to know if the officer falsified a report in order to justify his actions. That is a major problem. Can't have cops making up probable cause.