If a cop asks for your name...

[Snide]

...you gotta tell him! (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4839009.html)

(May need to sign up for free service)

[aerocontrols]

Seems like this has been the law for some time.

Does it count as cooperation if you tattoo your name on your bum and make the cop read it?

[Matabiri]

And if you tell him your name, but then he demands ID? If you're not carrying ID?

How can he prove that you haven't told him your name, if you give a fake one?

What happens if you're not carrying ID, and he suspects you of giving a fake name, when if you haven't? Does he arrest you and risk being sued for wrongful arrest?

[Ignatius]

Phil Carter at the
Intel Dump (http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_21.shtml#1087830758)


...
But, the Court did hand down an extremely important Constitutional criminal procedure decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., No. 03-5554. The case centered on the question of whether a police officer can ask for a person's identification during a "Terry stop". Those types of encounters, whichi require only a reasonable suspicion by the police officer (and not the higher standard of probable cause), were approved by the Court in Terry v. Ohio. Here's a brief excerpt from the holding of Terry:

"We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."
Today, the Supreme Court extended the Terry stop to include "stop and ID" in addition to "stop and frisk". The case arose out of a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction, but it's easy to see the applicability of this case in other contexts. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the Court's majority, said these "stop and ID" searches violated neither the 4th nor the 5th Amendment rights of the defendant in this case. Here are some excerpts from the majority opinion.
...
Presumably, this case might authorize the police to now use "stop and ID" tactics to conduct large-scale gang sweeps in places like South L.A.'s Nickerson Gardens housing complex. Also, police might use this power in the course of normal "order maintenance" activities (as opposed to "law enforcement" activities), such as walking the beat, in order to gather police intelligence and reduce street crime. There may be implications for the terrorism arena as well.


I don't really have anything to add. Maybe our resident lawyers will be able to help us understand the potential implications of this ruling (including the important "ass tattoo" question that this brings up) .

[Bottle or the Gun]

It protects your rights while labeling you a smart-ass.

Bust Card (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9608&c=25)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
It protects your rights while labeling you a smart-ass.

Bust Card (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9608&c=25)

That's a very handy card for people who have not seen way too many Law & Order episodes :)

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's a very handy card for people who have not seen way too many Law & Order episodes :)

I use to make it available to my employees, who kept getting stopped while 'Walking While Ethnic'.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


I use to make it available to my employees, who kept getting stopped while 'Walking While Ethnic'.

Does/did it happen often?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
It protects your rights while labeling you a smart-ass.

Bust Card (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9608&c=25)

The card says not to consent to be searched, and not to consent to have your car or house searched. Is there a good reason to refuse to be searched in general, or does it boil down to how much privacy you want?


You don’t have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court.

In what way does letting the cops search my car, for instance, affect my rights later in court?

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The card says not to consent to be searched, and not to consent to have your car or house searched. Is there a good reason to refuse to be searched in general, or does it boil down to how much privacy you want?

In what way does letting the cops search my car, for instance, affect my rights later in court?

MattJ

This is purely from watching too much TV so probably false but if you refuse to consent to every search and your lawyer finds a reason for the search to be illegal anything they find will probably be thrown out.

[Tmy]

Jay Z ( a popular rapper for you non-hip know nothings) has a new song "99 Problems". Theres a great verse about being stopped by the cops and what your rights are. You realize this song will be more responsible for educating 1000's of youngsters than any ACLU campaine.


Why woudl you consent to a car search. Your given the cops the OK to tear up your ride.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


This is purely from watching too much TV so probably false but if you refuse to consent to every search and your lawyer finds a reason for the search to be illegal anything they find will probably be thrown out.

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of 'what if there's nothing to find' as would be the case with me.

The card seems to take the position that you should refuse to consent whether whether there is something to find or not. I'm trying to figure out why.

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm actually thinking more along the lines of 'what if there's nothing to find' as would be the case with me.

The card seems to take the position that you should refuse to consent whether whether there is something to find or not. I'm trying to figure out why.

MattJ

Well if there is nothing to find I suppose you have nothing to lose by agreeing. The ACLU comes from the position I agree with that it's not of anyone's, include police's, business of what you do or do not have in your house, room, car, person.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why woudl you consent to a car search. Your given the cops the OK to tear up your ride.


In one case, I consented to the search because my activity was quite suspicious and when 8 police cars swoop in on you I figure it's best to be cooperative so you can go home and not go down to the station for further questions.

In another case I cooperated because the cops had me on a speeding violation and I figured if I consented to the search I wouldn't get a ticket.

In neither case did the cops 'tear up my ride'.

MattJ

[Bjorn]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.

``Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests,'' Kennedy wrote. I hope that's not a common way of determining a person's right to refuse something?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm actually thinking more along the lines of 'what if there's nothing to find' as would be the case with me.

The card seems to take the position that you should refuse to consent whether whether there is something to find or not. I'm trying to figure out why.

MattJ

How much do you make in a year? None of my business right. Same thing here.


What do you get out of either situation?? OK you have nothing to hide Does that mean you want to be handcuffed standing on teh side of the road while people drive buy. After the police tear up your car and pull everything out of its place, you then get to put the crap back together. JOY!!!

If you do have sonthing to hide them your hanging yourslef by ok-ing to a search.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Jay Z ( a popular rapper for you non-hip know nothings) has a new song "99 Problems". Theres a great verse about being stopped by the cops and what your rights are. You realize this song will be more responsible for educating 1000's of youngsters than any ACLU campaine.


Why woudl you consent to a car search. Your given the cops the OK to tear up your ride.

Nothing says education like..."If you havin girl problems I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems, but a b*tch ain't one."

Oh wait, do you mean the other lines? :)

"Son do you know why I'm stoppin you for?"
Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low
Or do I look like a mindreader sir? I don't know
Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo'?
"Well you was doin fifty-five in the fifty-four;
license and registration and step out of the car -
are you carryin a weapon on you? I know a lot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of sh*t, all my papers legit
"Well do you mind if I look around the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights, so you gon' need a warrant for that

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well if there is nothing to find I suppose you have nothing to lose by agreeing. The ACLU comes from the position I agree with that it's not of anyone's, include police's, business of what you do or do not have in your house, room, car, person.


Do you really think so? So why should we even let police ask?

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Do you really think so? So why should we even let police ask?

MattJ

I can't think of a reason why they should not be able to ask.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



In one case, I consented to the search because my activity was quite suspicious and when 8 police cars swoop in on you I figure it's best to be cooperative so you can go home and not go down to the station for further questions.

In another case I cooperated because the cops had me on a speeding violation and I figured if I consented to the search I wouldn't get a ticket.

In neither case did the cops 'tear up my ride'.

MattJ

Are you a black guy? Sure you can gamble that being cool will get you out of trouble, its up top you to decide.

My buddy once ok-ed a search. They tore up his carpets and foudn a joint. Now the car was like 15 yrs old and the thing couldve been therefor years. He had no idea, but he was on the hook for it.

Moral to the story: You may not know that you have somthing to hide.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
How much do you make in a year? None of my business right. Same thing here.

It's the IRS's business how much I make in a year. It's the cop's business whether I'm smuggling plastic explosive up from Mexico.


Originally posted by Tmy
What do you get out of either situation?? OK you have nothing to hide Does that mean you want to be handcuffed standing on teh side of the road while people drive buy. After the police tear up your car and pull everything out of its place, you then get to put the crap back together. JOY!!!

That wasn't my experience in either situation. I never got handcuffed, nor did the cops tear up my car.

Originally posted by Tmy
If you do have sonthing to hide them your hanging yourslef by ok-ing to a search.

I definitely would not consent to a search if I were carrying contraband of some sort. But I don't carry contraband.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Are you a black guy? Sure you can gamble that being cool will get you out of trouble, its up top you to decide.

I'm not black, but we're discussing the ACLU's card, which doesn't make the distinction.

Originally posted by Tmy
My buddy once ok-ed a search. They tore up his carpets and foudn a joint. Now the car was like 15 yrs old and the thing couldve been therefor years. He had no idea, but he was on the hook for it.

Moral to the story: You may not know that you have somthing to hide.

15 year old joint, huh?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



Do you really think so? So why should we even let police ask?

MattJ

I know the question was asked of another but in my opinion, we shouldn't let them ask that. They either have probable cause or they do not. If they do, they do not need your permission. If they don't, it's none of their business. At the very least they should have to inform you first that you have no obligation to allow it.

The problem is one of education. The police, to many, are an intimidating presence. Perhaps that is a necessary evil. But because they are intimidating, people feel like they have to allow something that they perhaps would not allow if they were not the police. For example, a stranger walks up and asks to look through your car. Would you let this happen?

Perhaps this is the reason for the Miranda Act. Just guessing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It's the IRS's business how much I make in a year. It's the cop's business whether I'm smuggling plastic explosive up from Mexico.


Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.


That wasn't my experience in either situation. I never got handcuffed, nor did the cops tear up my car.

I definitely would not consent to a search if I were carrying contraband of some sort. But I don't carry contraband.

MattJ

You don't have consent or not consent, the card simply explain what you rights are, it's up to you how much of your rights you want to give up when asked to.

It all depends of course, if there is some emergency and police are looking for something and stopping all the cars and asking questions, I will probably allow a search. If however it's a routine traffic stop and the cop just wants to search my car because he feels like it, I might just not let him.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I know the question was asked of another but in my opinion, we shouldn't let them ask that. They either have probable cause or they do not. If they do, they do not need your permission. If they don't, it's none of their business. At the very least they should have to inform you first that you have no obligation to allow it.

I guess I just come at it from another angle. When the Oklahoma Highway patrol pulled me (long haired youngster with Georgia plates) over going west at the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, (and I mean at the border) the first thing I thought was "they don't want me for speeding, they're searching for drug dealers". This was pretty much confirmed when the second car showed up almost immediately after I gave consent to search.

In my view, I figure they have a hard job and they take a lot of crap from people every day, so I'm going to be as cooperative as possible. They want to search my car, I figure I'll consent but only after I calmly tell them that they're wasting their time.

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.

How long do they get to detain me while we wait for the dog, I wonder? Do you think that, should a dog arrive on the scene, my car is going unsearched? I don't. I think the dog will twitch and I'll get searched. I also think that the police are going to be a lot less friendly at that point.

Originally posted by Grammatron
You don't have consent or not consent, the card simply explain what you rights are, it's up to you how much of your rights you want to give up when asked to.

The card pretty much says "don't consent" It also says that consent now may cause a loss of rights in court later. (My original question) It seems to me that consent now causes a loss of my rights now, not later.

Originally posted by Grammatron
It all depends of course, if there is some emergency and police are looking for something and stopping all the cars and asking questions, I will probably allow a search. If however it's a routine traffic stop and the cop just wants to search my car because he feels like it, I might just not let him.

I see where you're coming from

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


How long do they get to detain me while we wait for the dog, I wonder? Do you think that, should a dog arrive on the scene, my car is going unsearched? I don't. I think the dog will twitch and I'll get searched. I also think that the police are going to be a lot less friendly at that point.


I believe it's 24 hours with out charging you.



The card pretty much says "don't consent" It also says that consent now may cause a loss of rights in court later. (My original question) It seems to me that consent now causes a loss of my rights now, not later.

Well forgoing Tmy's example...what if your friend/acquaintance/someone who was in your home, has left something of that was either used in a crime or is illegal to poses. You consent, unknowingly, and then they find it and not only do you not know how you got it but now you are unable to prove it does not belong to you in the first place. I realize it's rather extreme example but weirder things have happened.


I see where you're coming from

I'm a somewhat private person and I don't like people going through my belongings when they have absolutely no reason to.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I believe it's 24 hours with out charging you.

Actually, that's a little hard to believe, but if true, I doubt that making them get a dog is the right thing to do.


Originally posted by Grammatron
Well forgoing Tmy's example...what if your friend/acquaintance/someone who was in your home, has left something of that was either used in a crime or is illegal to poses. You consent, unknowingly, and then they find it and not only do you not know how you got it but now you are unable to prove it does not belong to you in the first place. I realize it's rather extreme example but weirder things have happened.

If someone in my home has left behind an object like that, I want it found and removed. I wouldn't let the cops go on a fishing expedition, but if they say 'hey, we think your friend bob may have stashed a murder weapon at your place' I'm going to let them in to check it out. I don't have any friends I like well enough that our friendship would survive their leaving contraband in my house without my permission.

Originally posted by Grammatron
I'm a somewhat private person and I don't like people going through my belongings when they have absolutely no reason to.

Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost. Unless you cannot, because they have a warrant or probable cause. I'm still of the opinion that if you haven't done anything, it's best to cooperate. (and my experience thus far bears that out) After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case. Plus, I want them to be able to do their jobs.

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

If someone in my home has left behind an object like that, I want it found and removed. I wouldn't let the cops go on a fishing expedition, but if they say 'hey, we think your friend bob may have stashed a murder weapon at your place' I'm going to let them in to check it out. I don't have any friends I like well enough that our friendship would survive their leaving contraband in my house without my permission.

You are missing the point. In my example your friend "Bob" has left something in your place with out your knowledge. So, let's say he stashed a pound of cocaine under the couch. Police looking for something completely unrelated find it, you're charge with possession and intent to sell.


Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost. Unless you cannot, because they have a warrant or probable cause. I'm still of the opinion that if you haven't done anything, it's best to cooperate. (and my experience thus far bears that out) After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case.

MattJ

So let them waste their time. Maybe that will teach them to bother people.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost.

More to the point, they are telling the cops, "If you don't have any reasons for searching me, then there's no reason you should."

The position that "They can search me because there isn't a good reason they shouldn't" has burden reversed. "There doesn't seem to be any harm in it" is a very poor reason to support ANY government action. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why should they do it?" NOT "Why shouldn't they?"

I have some questions, though. Suppose the cop asks if he can search the car. What can I happen if I start asking him questions, like "What for?" "Why do you think I might have that?" etc? Will he rough me up for being a smart-a$$ (even if I am sincere in my questions - for example, asking, "Is there any reason that you think there might be drugs in my car?" "No? Then, no, I don't think you should search my car.")


If he is legitimately searching the car for stolen money from a band robbery (because it matches the description of the getaway car, for example), but finds drugs, can it be used against you?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You missing the point. In my example your friend "Bob" has left something in your place with out your knowledge. So, let's say he stashed a pound of cocaine under the couch. Police looking for something completely unrealted find it, you're charge with posession and intent to sell.

I think we've entered the realm of the ridiculous. Perhaps you have different sorts of friends than I.

Originally posted by Grammatron
So let them waste their time. Maybe that will teach them to bother people.

They're not just going to waste their time. They're going to waste mine as well. And they'll probably come back with the intent of 'tearing up my ride/house' once they get a warrant.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
More to the point, they are telling the cops, "If you don't have any reasons for searching me, then there's no reason you should."

The position that "They can search me because there isn't a good reason they shouldn't" has burden reversed.

I didn't really think that this was in any doubt. I don't think the legal burden should be reversed, but I still can't see why an individual with nothing to hide shouldn't consider the possibilty that by letting the cops search, the ticket goes away, or we don't sit here by the side of the road waiting 3 hours for a dog to show up, etc.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I have some questions, though. Suppose the cop asks if he can search the car. What can I happen if I start asking him questions, like "What for?" "Why do you think I might have that?" etc? Will he rough me up for being a smart-a$$ (even if I am sincere in my questions - for example, asking, "Is there any reason that you think there might be drugs in my car?" "No? Then, no, I don't think you should search my car.")


If he is legitimately searching the car for stolen money from a band robbery (because it matches the description of the getaway car, for example), but finds drugs, can it be used against you?

I think these questions are aimed at me, but I'm no expert. I'm fairly certain that cops can't rough you up for being a smart alec, however.

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I think we've entered the realm of the ridiculous. Perhaps you have different sorts of friends than I.

Yes I did say it was an extreme and therefore unlikely examples and no I do not have those kinds of friends. I'm merely pointing out what an apparently harmless search can lead to.


They're not just going to waste their time. They're going to waste mine as well. And they'll probably come back with the intent of 'tearing up my ride/house' once they get a warrant.

MattJ

As Tmy pointed out they can tare up your ride even if you give them permission.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.


Since I am alergic to dogs, I definately have a problem with dogs in my car. Do I have the right to refuse a canine search?

"Humans please"

[crimresearch]

"After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case."

Mmmmm, for just a speeding violation? They probably aren't.

If everything is above board with that particular department and officer, they're going to follow the Constitution, and the relevant Supreme Court decisions, which do NOT allow for car searches based on ***nothing*** more than speeding.

If they want to do a random dog sweep, they will have the dog there, if they have enough PC to sign an affidavit for a search warrant, they will, but the scenario as described (speeding stop, followed by request to search based on nothing) just isn't going to fly in any legitimate jurisdiction.

If the ONLY reason you are stopped is for speeding, you get a ticket. End of story.
And *merely* refusing a blind request for a search after receiving a ticket is not probable cause for getting a dog, or a warrant.

Add in *other* factors, and of course you will be more likely to get other results.

Soooo...

Basic common sense, do what you are told, answer reasonable questions relevant to identity, say 'No Thanks, am I free to go now? if you feel that you have gone from a routine encounter, to being a suspect, shut up if you are told anything other than 'Why yes, you are free to go', and have Johnny Cochran's number in your wallet.'

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tmy


How much do you make in a year? None of my business right. Same thing here.


What do you get out of either situation?? OK you have nothing to hide Does that mean you want to be handcuffed standing on teh side of the road while people drive buy. After the police tear up your car and pull everything out of its place, you then get to put the crap back together. JOY!!!

If you do have sonthing to hide them your hanging yourslef by ok-ing to a search.

Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by billydkid


Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

That's why I'd want to ask him why he wants to do the search. As you say, if he really has good reason to suspect something, then he is going to be able to do it anyway. If his only reasoning is because it is convenient because he has me stopped, then that is no better than randomly stopping someone on the road and searching them. We wouldn't allow that, so why should we put up with a random search just because he pulled me over for a speeding ticket?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


That's why I'd want to ask him why he wants to do the search. As you say, if he really has good reason to suspect something, then he is going to be able to do it anyway. If his only reasoning is because it is convenient because he has me stopped, then that is no better than randomly stopping someone on the road and searching them. We wouldn't allow that, so why should we put up with a random search just because he pulled me over for a speeding ticket?
Asking cops questions like that will only label you a smarta$$ and get get them pissed off. It's not unheard of for them to "find" something on you you didn't have under such circumstances. Not recommended!
Frickin' drug war. :(

[evil sutko]

Originally posted by billydkid


Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

That's why this decision is a load of BS. The Court made it very clear in the Terry case that they were reluctantly adding to the power of the police, but for the very good reason of protecting cops from imminent danger.

In a Terry stop, they can basically pat you down for weapons only. If they find a big bag of drugs, then it's not admissible unless they can get a warrant or find probable cause.

This decision is troubling, because it sets a bad tone for the enemy combatant cases, and for future rulings on personal rights.

[Grammatron]

Here's a question about the case.

Let's say you are a homeless guy who never appeared in the "system." You refuse to say your name and they give you a fine; how do they know who to fine?

[Whoracle]

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Really? Where here in USA that's not the case. It must suck to live in Communist America, Communist Russia sure sucked for me.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

I carry my IDs and such on me at all times in the event of an emergency, such as a car accident, earthquake, or stray bullet where those finding/treating me would need some identification. That's common sense, not "Communism".

Were you looking for, say, "Tolitarian"?

[Chad Noles]

From the source: On the Net:

The ruling: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040621hiibel.pdf

Perhaps this will answer many of your questions.

[shuize]

I may be repeating what has already been posted above, but I think it's an important point:

If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking....

[crimresearch]

"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot.

[Art Vandelay]

What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions? This is not an extension of a Terry stop; the Terry stop deals with what the cop can do, this deals with what the suspect must do. During a Terry stop, a cop can search for weapons. But can he demand that you tell him where you've hidden your weapon, and prosecute you if you refuse?

Also, if I give consent to a search, and the cop tears up my carpet, is the evidence admissable? Isn't tearing up a carpet vandalism? And isn't evidence collected by the police during a crime inadmissable? Seems to me that giving permission for a search and giving permission for vandalism are two completely different things.

[shuize]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot. I understand your point about how police officers "develop" probable cause (like when the police ask a potential subject if they can pat him down/search his car and he takes off running -- Yippie! Automatic P.C.). But in cases where probable cause is borderline, couldn't the fact that an officer asks for consent also work against him?

Defense attorney at suppression/probable cause hearing: "Well, Your Honor, if probable cause were so obvious in this case, why'd the police even ask the suspect for consent to search? And why, as in this case, after asking and being refused consent, did they go ahead and search him anyway? Did they ever have any intention of honoring his refusal or, more likely, were they just trying to gain consent where no probable cause ever existed?"

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.


Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

They implied no such thing.

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

I always wondered what the fascists eternally cried...


edit: Do you think there is a difference between your formulation

If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed

and mine

Since I have nothing to hide, I do not worry about being surveyed

at least inasmuch as it speaks to how much of a fascist I am?

[Chad Noles]

originally posted by Art Vandelay:
What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions?

From the ruling:
"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist"

These people have to be suspects first,as Hiibel was.Further,....

From the ruling""Any person so detained,shall identify himself,but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer"

[Kevin_Lowe]

In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.

Whereas lots of bad things can happen. They can find something actionable, they can plant something actionable, or they can waste your time and damage your property and you have very little real recourse.

Thus the advice always seems to be to deny any and all requests to search your stuff.

I have a vague idea that we have fewer rights to refuse a search here in Australia, but I don't have the foggiest what the rules actually are. It's never been an issue for me, so I've never bothered to bone up on it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.


I've already laid out the ways in which permitting a search benefitted me. In one case I avoided what most likely would have been a trip down to the police station to answer a few questions. In another case I probably avoided a speeding ticket and possibly (depending on whether the police had a dog on call or not) avoided waiting for some lengthy time in the back of a squad car for the dog to arrive. Let me go on:


And then once the dog arrives, I would have had unfriendly police searching my car. If the dog had twitched funny, they would have had probable cause to go into my car, and my earlier recalcitrance may have resulted in their having no incentive not to make a mess. This was a trip home for Christmas, and my trunk was filled with (already wrapped) presents. Would the dog have gone for the presents? There was food in some of them. It would have been less than fun to re-wrap the presents.

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I guess I just come at it from another angle. When the Oklahoma Highway patrol pulled me (long haired youngster with Georgia plates) over going west at the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, (and I mean at the border) the first thing I thought was "they don't want me for speeding, they're searching for drug dealers". This was pretty much confirmed when the second car showed up almost immediately after I gave consent to search.

In my view, I figure they have a hard job and they take a lot of crap from people every day, so I'm going to be as cooperative as possible. They want to search my car, I figure I'll consent but only after I calmly tell them that they're wasting their time.

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.

MattJ

How nice of them to profile and harrass you. Last I looked, driving on the interstate wh out of state plates and long hair does not equal probable cause for squat. The war on drugs has destroyed our personal rights. Its like the Cpnstitution flies out the window as soon as you hop in your car.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

I'm sure cops in your universe rough up cooperative polite citizens all the time. One presumes that police who have no problems planting something would similarly have no problems testifiying that I gave consent to be searched. It hasn't been my experience that cops are like this, but if they were I doubt my refusal to allow them to search would make much of a difference one way or another.

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

You think they need probable cause to get a dog? If they have probable cause, they don't need a dog.

MattJ

[Tmy]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

MattJ

From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

Here

In another case I cooperated because the cops had me on a speeding violation and I figured if I consented to the search I wouldn't get a ticket.

When I said they had me on a speeding violation, I meant that they pulled me over for speeding, and that I was speeding.

Originally posted by Tmy
As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

I believe you're incorrect. The advice offered here (http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=167349&page=1) would appear to back me up.

MattJ

[crimresearch]

"While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa’s argument that a “search incident to citation” is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive...
...The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Knowles v Iowa
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/knowles.html

I guess the US Supreme Court justices haven't gotten the benefit of the extensive legal education to be gained from television shows and internet forums.
:p

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Whoracle
Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Ain't it the truth. Now what was it we were supposed to hate so much about communism? They were awful, I guess, because they were a communist police state. We are ok because we are a capitolist police state.

[mjv]

“Since I have nothing to hide, I do not worry about being surveyed”

You better be real sure you “have nothing to hide”

Did you loan your car to a friend, sibling, or child in the last few weeks or months? Any chance that you would know whether they or a passenger had a small quantity of an illegal substance in a pocket that fell out and is now hidden under the car seat?

Did you drive Grandma home or to the doctor’s office recently? Can you be sure that an unlabeled “pill box” containing her valium or muscle relaxants did not fall out of her purse and is now under your car seat?

In either of these scenarios, your car can be seized under the federal forfeiture laws. Doesn’t matter if the drugs are yours or not, or whether you knew about them, or even whether you get charged with anything, your car is theirs unless YOU can PROVE (by preponderance of the evidence) that the VEHICLE was not involved in illegal activity.

An unlikely scenario? Possibly, but I would never consent to a generic request to search, just on the outside possibility that there is something in my car I don’t know about.

Take for example Willie Jones, a black man in the landscaping business in Tennessee, who probably thought he had nothing to hide. I want to say this was late 80's early nineties, but anyway, he was flying to some sort of a horticultural brokerage sale or some sort of wholesale event and because he needed to bargain for the stock he needed, he took several thousand dollars in cash. When he paid for his airline ticket, the airline clerk tipped off police to the fact that he had several thousand dollars in his wallet (as I recall the police offered a “cut” of any seized money for informing them). Assuming this was drug money, the police searched Jones's luggage for drugs. They found none. When a police dog sniffed traces of drugs on the cash he was carrying, which is not unheard of for large bills in urban areas, the police confiscated the money under the forfeiture laws. He was never charged with or convicted of illegal activity. It took him two years to convince a court to order the police to give him the money back. Source: A Google search of a Cato Institute article on the Hyde Act to reform forfeiture laws; also my viewing of a dateline or 60 minutes piece several years ago.

[Bottle or the Gun]

In general I don't want to consent to a search, but I might consent in the reality. I go onto a military base almost daily, so I have no problem with the car being searched. Most bases also have a program that you can have a dog search the car at your request. This is really helpful if you bought a used car and want to make sure it is 'clean' of the bad habits of the previous owner. I don't know if civilian police do it, or if they do, if they arrest you if something is found. I just bought a used car that was probably owned by a 22 year old that couldn't keep up the payments. I'd like to get the car checked. (Yes, they can't pay the bills but always have cash for weed and beer.)

I also do not have to consent to a breathalyzer test, but if I say no I lose my car, license and may get arrested for Wreckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vehicle.

[Tmy]

Yeah but you expect that going on the base. Its different if you're out in public. Who wants to live in a military state. Ya know there is the constitution and all. What theyre doing now is the sort ofthing that really pissed off our founding fathers.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but you expect that going on the base. Its different if you're out in public. Who wants to live in a military state. Ya know there is the constitution and all. What theyre doing now is the sort ofthing that really pissed off our founding fathers.

I expect it in public also. I worked in both a police agency, and Human Resources for several years and I have to tell you, I'm surprised I make it home alive. I can't even count the number of drunk, coked, weeded or impaired people that would either be pulled over or would come through the office looking for a job. One of our contracts was in the Dept of Transportation. Applicants KNEW they would be tested and still go through the process of applying, which for us was not inexpensive. Then they would get tested and the results would be crack, meth, MJ, etc etc. They would always say "It wasn't my fault, I was at a party". Yeah, well, time to grow up you freakin' moron and join society and stay away from places that are bad for you and keep out of stupid and compromising activities. Good luck shaking fries at the McDonalds.

Having been in the service, there is nothing unconstitutional about the searches or the system. People think there is, but it isn't. It's all free-will and lawful orders.

I think people who have REALLY been exposed to a Military or Police State might see the US differently than a regular civilian, who thinks we are a Police State because you get pulled over for doing 90 in a 35 mph zone, cops won't let you drink Everclear while driving or that red-light cameras are unconstitutional.

Our founding fathers were not saints. They owned slaves and oppressed women and people that did not own land in the new society. But they also designed the constitution so that it is an evolving document. I don't know iof this was foresight or not. Later, America made slavery unconstitutional and allowed women to vote, something that our founders would have been upset about if anyone wrote that into the document back in 1776.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
From the ruling:
"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist"
Either allowing cops what is, essentially, their own supoena power, is justified, or it is not (wow, that sentence had a lot of commas). Normally the slippery slope is considered a fallacy, but in this case I think it is justified. If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?

[crimresearch]

" If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?"


The Constitution, for starters. And the specific wording of this ruling.


There is nothing in this decision that gives police any more powers than they have right now, with the single addition of getting a truthful name.

Subpoena power is pretty much for witnesses, not suspects.
And I think the law on being forced to be a witness against yourself is pretty well established at this point in time.
And self identification isn't self incrimination.

Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have been some commentary on that among the legal community by now?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I've already laid out the ways in which permitting a search benefitted me. In one case I avoided what most likely would have been a trip down to the police station to answer a few questions. In another case I probably avoided a speeding ticket and possibly (depending on whether the police had a dog on call or not) avoided waiting for some lengthy time in the back of a squad car for the dog to arrive.


I'm uncomfortable with those kinds of salami tactics actually.

If you were caught speeding without extenuating circumstances you should be fined, and that should be the end of it. It shouldn't be used as a threat to facilitate further fishing expeditions.


Let me go on:

And then once the dog arrives, I would have had unfriendly police searching my car. If the dog had twitched funny, they would have had probable cause to go into my car, and my earlier recalcitrance may have resulted in their having no incentive not to make a mess. This was a trip home for Christmas, and my trunk was filled with (already wrapped) presents. Would the dog have gone for the presents? There was food in some of them. It would have been less than fun to re-wrap the presents.

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.


I'm not saying you did the wrong thing.

I'm saying that in a free society you shouldn't have to bend over like that for fear that a police officer will trash your christmas presents.

There's not much point to denying police the right to search everyone they pull over for speeding, if they can just hint to each person that they'll waive the fine if they consent to a search. Anyone who would rather pay the fine than be searched is obviously up to no good and will get their car and/or person searched on that basis.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun




I think people who have REALLY been exposed to a Military or Police State might see the US differently than a regular civilian, who thinks we are a Police State because you get pulled over for doing 90 in a 35 mph zone, cops won't let you drink Everclear while driving or that red-light cameras are unconstitutional.
.

The examples you give are all causes to be pulled over and arrested. Im talking about people being harassed simply because they have out of state plates, dark skin, or a certain type of car. OR when a person is considered suspicious just because they dare to invoke their constitional right.

Should we accept that just because things could be worse? We talk big when it comes to "America" and "fighting for freedom", but little by little we become less free.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tmy


How nice of them to profile and harrass you. Last I looked, driving on the interstate wh out of state plates and long hair does not equal probable cause for squat. The war on drugs has destroyed our personal rights. Its like the Cpnstitution flies out the window as soon as you hop in your car.

Careful, your sounding kinda libertarian there and you know what wackos we are.

[Tmy]

Search n seizure issues have been around since day one.

hey, while the bill of rights was written before cars, they did have horse n buggies. Did the constables have the right to buggy searches???

[Ed]

Dunno...

This past winter I had to leave my car at the bottom of the hill leading to my house. A neighbor called the cops and a cop came to my house. He asked for ID since, as he explained, bad guys have stolen cars and gone to the owner's house to loot it. It seems to me that that is what I am paying the cops to do.

Another point is that Police department's are a business. I am not sure how well it would go down with the Chief if his staff was expending resources on BS harressment. There is a downside for a cop to expend resourses unnecessarily.

[Tmy]

Theres another downside to the police skirting the seach laws. If they DO actually catch someone, they can arrest and toss them in jail at that time. BUT when it hits court, the evidence is tossed out and the criminal walks. What did they accomplish?

[crimresearch]

"But in cases where probable cause is borderline, couldn't the fact that an officer asks for consent also work against him?
Defense attorney at suppression/probable cause hearing: "Well, Your Honor, if probable cause were so obvious in this case, why'd the police even ask the suspect for consent to search? And why, as in this case, after asking and being refused consent, did they go ahead and search him anyway? Did they ever have any intention of honoring his refusal or, more likely, were they just trying to gain consent where no probable cause ever existed?"..."


Sorry for the delay in replying.

A defense attorney probably could try that approach, but I doubt if they would meet with much success.
There is another USSC decision (Ohio?) that allows for the police to pursue dual investigative tactics (one as a pretext for the other), and see which one pans out, as long as both are legit. That would seem to rule out redundancy as grounds for excluding fruits of a search.
And there is no requirement that probable cause information be especially obvious or strong in any way, just that it pass the reasonableness test.

Also note that *merely* refusing a search isn't sufficient for PC, but engaging the officer in argument can be used to build PC...
"The suspect appeared evasive", OR "The subject talked too much",
"The subject appeared agitated", OR "Tthe subject appeared lethargic..."

These observations allow the officer to add in their own beliefs:
"In my experience a driver who 'any-of-the-aboves' is likely to be hiding something..."
BUT
What won't fly in a legitimate court is "I asked for consent without any probable cause, and they said 'No thank you', so I went ahead and searched anyway".

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
" If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?"

The Constitution, for starters. And the specific wording of this ruling.
I didn't see any language detailing the Constitutional uniqueness of this request, nor any reason why similar reasoning can't be extended to other situations.

There is nothing in this decision that gives police any more powers than they have right now, with the single addition of getting a truthful name.
So as long as each infringement is conducted separately, that's okay?

Subpoena power is pretty much for witnesses, not suspects.
And I think the law on being forced to be a witness against yourself is pretty well established at this point in time.
And self identification isn't self incrimination.
The suspect is being asked to be a witness. Self identification can be self incrimination, and even if it isn't, so what? It's not juiist that aspect that bothers me; it's the whole idea of the police being able to demand you do something.

Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have been some commentary on that among the legal community by now?
Argumentum ad populum.

BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay


BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?

Yes.

[crimresearch]

"The suspect is being asked to be a witness. Self identification can be self incrimination, and even if it isn't, so what? It's not juiist that aspect that bothers me; it's the whole idea of the police being able to demand you do something"


It may bother you, but it is still the current reality that people sometimes have to do things they don't want to, like complying with police orders, going to jail, giving fingerprints, appearing in line ups, posing for booking photos, paying fines, and identifying themselves. Refusing to accede to those demands may have consequences that are also bothersome.

This ruling merely confirms that obvious reality, by refuting the artificially constructed right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that one doesn't like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Don't you think if this decision had overturned Miranda, et al. as >your slippery slope fear would require, that there would have >been some commentary on that among the legal community by >now?

"Argumentum ad populum"

No, you appear to be making an extraordinary assertion, namely that this ruling forces people to answer every question, even self incriminating ones, truthfully.

You further posited that the words:
" The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist "...

...meant that the police *could* force people to provide details about their backgrounds:
[" What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions? This is not an extension of a Terry stop; the Terry stop deals with what the cop can do, this deals with what the suspect must do. During a Terry stop, a cop can search for weapons. But can he demand that you tell him where you've hidden your weapon, and prosecute you if you refuse?"]

In the face of such extraordinary assertions, you were asked for evidence that anyone with expertise in the area saw this situation the same way.
Failing to provide that evidence doesn't support the assertions, it weakens them.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?"

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?

Or did you mean just any cop, for no particular reason whatsoever? In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I believe this part was Art's[/i]"BTW, if I walk up to a cop and demand that he tell me his name, is he obligated to do so?"

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?

Or did you mean just any cop, for no particular reason whatsoever? In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have?

You can't walk up to any cop and demand his name. You can ask, but not demand. Most cops I've dealt with can be rather friendly if you approach them in the same manner.

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.

[Tony]

What if you're just a guy riding in a car with a friend and you don't have I.D.? Can you get in trouble for that? Are you required, by law, to carry I.D.?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
It may bother you, but it is still the current reality that people sometimes have to do things they don't want to, like complying with police orders, going to jail, giving fingerprints, appearing in line ups, posing for booking photos, paying fines, and identifying themselves. Refusing to accede to those demands may have consequences that are also bothersome.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

This ruling merely confirms that obvious reality, by refuting the artificially constructed right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that one doesn't like.
It is not the right that is artificial, but the law. Rights precede laws. And I never said that that I have the "right to arbitrarily ignore the parts of the justice system that [I don't] like".

No, you appear to be making an extraordinary assertion, namely that this ruling forces people to answer every question, even self incriminating ones, truthfully.
I never made that assertion. I simply pointed out that similar logic could be used to justify other situations.

...meant that the police *could* force people to provide details about their backgrounds:
Well, as it stands, they can ask for their first name and their last name. So doesn't this ruling mean that the police can force people to provide details about their backgrounds?

I don't know, did the rest of us give you the authority to conduct a criminal investigation of that particular cop, and is he properly the focus of said investigation?
Are you implying that you have the right to give my rights away?

In that case, why should you have a right that none of the rest of, cops included, have?
That's ridiculous. I think it's really, really obvious that when I asked whether "I" can do this, what I meant was "Can a general member of the public do this?" The suggestion that I'm trying to assert a unique right is completely baseless.

LostAngelesYou can ask, but not demand
I didn't ask whether I can demand, I asked whether he is obligated to answer.

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.Huh?

[LostAngeles]

If an officer has stopped you and asks for your name, you can ask for his name back and if you wish, his badge number and he is obligated to give it to you. He is not obligated, but might, give you crap about that.

I missed a "to" and parsed it all wrong.

Normally when people ask for a name and badge number it's to file a complaint which could cause the officer to get testy. Nevertheless, he is obligated to respond.

[shuize]

I have two questions (and I apologize if either has already been covered above):

1) If the police officer asks for your name and you give it, is the officer authorized to follow up and obtain some form of I.D. as verification?

2) I understand how, under the Terry decision, police may stop you (and even frisk in certain situations) if they have "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful activity. Is the requirement to provide a name when asked governed by the same "reasonable suspicion" standard?

If the answer to # 1 is "no" and # 2 is "yes" then I suppose I don't have any real problem with this ruling. After all, police have been conducting legal Terry-stops since 1968.

On the other hand, if the answers are reversed, then police will certainly use the ruling to "boot-strap" justification for previously impermissible stop and frisks.

Possible scenarios:

Me: "Why did you stop me officer?"

Police Officer: "No reason. What's your name?"

Me: "John Doe"

Police Officer: "Prove it. Show me some I.D."

Me: "Sorry, I was just out walking my dog, I didn't bring my wallet."

Police Officer: "No I.D.? Then you'll have to come with us ..."

Or,

Me: "Wait a minute. You asked my name and I told you. If you have no reason to stop me, then why should it be on me to prove anything? I'm leaving."

Police Officer: "I don't need a reason. And, not only that, I think you might be giving me a false name, so I'm going to pat you down for I.D., and if by chance I discover some other contraband in the process, I'll arrest you for that, too."

*Although I still haven't read the opinion, the more I think about this the more I suspect the police are going to be held to the same "reasonable suspicion" standard noted in Terry before being allowed to ask for I.D. As I recall, the courts have traditionally defined non-suspicious questioning as "voluntary encounters" and the citizen has always been free to walk away without providing any information. If my interpretation is not correct, I'm sure the legal community would have gone nuts already and I haven't heard anything so far.

[crimresearch]

This ruling isn't going to open the door for people to go to jail for not having ID on them when not engaged in any suspicious activity.
Nor does it extend the Terry pat down for weapons into a suspicionless fishing expedition for contraband, or into an interrogation.
It simply answers the very specific question, 'Can I with impunity, refuse to tell the police my name, when they have reason to suspect me of some wrongdoing?'

And the answer is 'No'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As to the questions raised by other posters about the right of a police officer to refuse to tell a random citizen their name, or whether this means that the police can force people to confess to crimes or face criminal charges for not confessing, or for a person to be held for hours waiting for a drug dog with zero probable cause...

...A little common sense would go a long way toward answering those questions.

Besides, I am surprised at the total lack of commentaries on 02-1371 and 02-1182, which offer a much greater potential threat to individual liberties than the case being discussed.

Why the disparity?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'm saying that in a free society you shouldn't have to bend over like that for fear that a police officer will trash your christmas presents.

There are a lot of things that shouldn't happen in a free society (income tax, compulsory education, compulsory voting, compulsory military service ect.) I've never seen that stop them from doing those things. It's not abuse of power that’s the problem; it's the power to abuse.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by shuize
Possible scenarios:

Me: "Why did you stop me officer?"

Police Officer: "No reason. What's your name?"

Me: "John Doe"



Me: "Puddintame"

(am I the _only_ one who has thought of this?)

[crimresearch]

'Puddintame...ask me again, and I'll tell you the same...'



Actually, I'm reminded of the Who lyric:

"Woke up in a Soho doorway, p'liceman knew my name..."

Now *that* paints a picture.

[Suddenly]

Just passing through, but there is another thread on this topic here that does silly things like discuss the law and facts of the case:


http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[crimresearch]

True, but having a discussion on people's opinions about the law, and actually providing useful information are two different matters, as the linked thread amply demonstrates..

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by crimresearch
True, but having a discussion on people's opinions about the law, and actually providing useful information are two different matters, as the linked thread amply demonstrates..

When the former is not done with the fruits of the latter it is at best worthless, as an opinion not based in fact only resembles reality by coincidence.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by crimresearch


Besides, I am surprised at the total lack of commentaries on 02-1371 and 02-1182, which offer a much greater potential threat to individual liberties than the case being discussed.

Why the disparity?

I can see 02-1371 as being important, questioning outside Miranda.


02-1182 seems to be an employment law case, Oatman v. Fuji Photo Film USA, Inc.

What is the individual liberty problem there?

[crimresearch]

Sorry, 02-1183, or US v Patane.

Anyway, just I find it a bit odd that the 'outraged ' commentary over having to give one's name when under investigation, outweighs that over cases where people are interrogated outside of Miranda.

In fact, I haven't noticed you posting much at all around here lately, but I'm talking about all the people who were so sure that the Hiibel case was going to be the end of individual rights, and yet had apparently never even heard of the other two upcoming cases.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Sorry, 02-1183, or US v Patane.

Anyway, just I find it a bit odd that the 'outraged ' commentary over having to give one's name when under investigation, outweighs that over cases where people are interrogated outside of Miranda.

In fact, I haven't noticed you posting much at all around here lately, but I'm talking about all the people who were so sure that the Hiibel case was going to be the end of individual rights, and yet had apparently never even heard of the other two upcoming cases.

The reasons why are because in these types of cases an opinion creates more interest than a potential opinion in that once an opinion is handed down there is something concrete to discuss. Until then there is speculation.

Plus, the Hiibel case just sounds worse. Especially when people distort it to mean that you must show your "papers" when asked.

These other two cases can't really be laid out in such a dramatic manner. Hopefully the Court will give teeth to Dickerson and fully apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to Miranda rights. However, it just sounds to the casual listener like technical slick lawyer stuff. It just doesn't have legs.

I had vaguely heard of the other cases, but since I have no Miranda issues in my caseload at present I really haven't followed closely. After the Crawford decision I try not to be too down about what they are likely to do. At least they gave me one good opinion this term...

I tend to worry more about the state supreme court anyway. More relevant to my situation.

As to the rest I don't usually post here anymore. I was looking for a thread that shanek mentioned and stumbled on a few legal threads, so why not? I may happen through now and then but I'll for the most part stay over there.

[Art Vandelay]

When a cop arrests someone, aren't they supposed to tell you that you have the right to remain silent? So does this ruling not apply to people that have been arrested? Or when they say "You have the right to remain silent" do they really mean "You have the right to remain silent, unless I ask you your name, in which you are obligated to tell me"? Are cops obligated to tell people what law obligates them to reveal their names? I.e. "If you don't reveal your name, you will be in violation of such and such a law"? Or are individual citizens supposed to either know exactly what they are obligated to say, or else answer every question? I've read that cops can lie to suspects. Can they lie about the law? Can they, for instance, say "There's a law that says that if you don't tell me where the gun is, you'll go to jail"?