If a cop asks for your name...

[Snide]

...you gotta tell him!

(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

Quote:

...
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

[Grammatron]

Quote:

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

Bust Card

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

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Bust Card

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?

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?