Stop and identify statutes [on topic]

[cvfd1399 0]

Yep on Father's Day I was pulled over and immediately read my rights in the parking lot of a restaurant. It seems a vehicle matching my truck and partial license plate was running people off the road about 10 miles away. We had just had dinner and I had the recipts to prove it wasn't me.

As a kid living in a lower income subdivision we were fucked with by the police on a weekly basis and accused of throwing stuff in the road, and other general mischief.

If I am ever actually involved in anything I will use that defense of not saying anything other than I want my lawyer in the future. In my Father's Day incident I had no clue what was going on, and was scared to death because he initiated a felony stop to include calling me out of the vehicle by microphone then reading me my rights so I wasn't even thinking straight.

I have been abused by black state police officers before also. Nothing physical just general verbal battery.

[kawisixer01 0]

cvfd1399

Illegal fishing for what??? Your name? Honestly who cares what your name is, and if the cops know it. If you have warrants take care of your shit, don't come up with some unreasonable argument as to why you shouldn't be asked for your name.

Illegally fishing for a reason to further detain or question you. I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO obligation to identify myself as a free citizen going about my legal business. Have you been the guy riding his bicycle home after second shift and been harassed by the police for doing nothing more than trying to get home after a hard shift of work only to be quizzed on where you are going, where you are coming from, who you associate with, and why are you out at that time of night? I have. Have you been in the passenger seat in a traffic stop and been asked for your identification for absolutely no reason other than associating with someone who happened to forget to use their blinker? I have. It is unnecessary and a waste of police resources. It is nothing but a fishing expedition. unchecked it quickly morphs into dragnets otherwise known as "roadside safety checks" and "meta data collection".

Just because YOU are comfy enough with the government to willingly reveal all of your comings and goings, your associations, and your private informtion to them doesn't mean that I am. You are more than free let uncle sam in on all your private info, but you have absolutely no right to demand that others give up their freedom, liberty, and privacy in the same manner.

I have completed an associates degree in criminal justice, I have a number of friends in both the law enforcement field and the litigation field, and pretty much every one has the same advice. "Don't talk to cops". If anything my education and associations have opened my eyes to the slippery slope we are sliding down fueled by folks like yourself who are more than happy to throw away what little privacy and liberty we have left in the name of some fake feeling of security

[ryoder 1,381]

For those who have not seen it before...
A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

Quote

Some people are just fine when they are part of a police state since it benefits them personally... others.. not so much.

Care to explain who here on this forum would benefit from a true "police state"?

Any person who is pro-big government and loves excessive rules and regulations because they can run your life better than you....

... and lawyers.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cvfd1399 0]

The topic is stop and identify, not stop and let yourself be interrogated. I still have no issue providing my id. If it goes further than that, am I free to go officer, and if he says no, then I want my lawyer. No more words from me.

Let me remind everyone again almost half the states in America already have this law, and your not seeing 1940's Germany as someone else alluded to earlier.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Let me remind everyone again almost half the states in America already have this law,

Yeah. That proves absolutely nothing other than This.

[rehmwa 2]

kawisixer01

I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO obligation to identify myself as a free citizen going about my legal business.

absolutely

now - there's ways to make that clear to a cop that is respectful and polite (like we'd want to do with anyone else, hopefully). "I'd be happy to make a statement with my lawyer present. We can make an appointment. Am I under arrest? Is there any way I can help you that doesn't make me worry about my own rights?"

and there's jerk/asshole ways of communicating the exact same thing. "I don't have to tell you a fucking thing, PIG. HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT. HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT"


we have examples of both - I always wonder why courtesy goes completely absent when hotheads are discussing rights.

Now, if you try the first (friendly and helpful) route, then at least you can find out pretty quick if you have a good cop in front of you, or a bully. The 2nd one? well, you can only identify the REALLY good cops that deal with it regardless of how big an ass is in front of them, but the regular ones shouldn't have to take abuse like that. and the bullys will expect it and will still be crappy - but now they have an excuse you just gave them.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

jgoose71

***

Quote

Some people are just fine when they are part of a police state since it benefits them personally... others.. not so much.

Care to explain who here on this forum would benefit from a true "police state"?

Any person who is pro-big government and loves excessive rules and regulations because they can run your life better than you....

... and lawyers.

Which is exactly what the GOP has done in the last 40 years....

Small Government and Fiscal Responsibility..... only a fool would believe that propaganda... I believe in what I have seen and what they have actually done. Yet we get the Patriot Act and all the other things that went with it and a climate of if you are doing nothing wrong... what do you have to worry about..... the Fascists of the 1930's are smiling with glee from hell.... YOU WILL COMPLY... SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS.

[Remster 24]

ryoder

For those who have not seen it before...
A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Skip to 27:25 for the police perspective.

Remster

[cvfd1399 0]

It proves a lot, chicken little screams the sky is falling. Well chicken little has been saying that for 10 years and yet the troposphere remains in place.

[normiss 620]

Tell it to my attorney.

[cvfd1399 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

Let me remind everyone again almost half the states in America already have this law,

Yeah. That proves absolutely nothing other than This.

It proves a lot. Chicken little screams the sky is falling. Well chicken little has been screaming that for 10 years and yet the troposphere remains in place.

[normiss 620]

Since the early 1800's IIRC.


Although that fable has nothing to do with being stopped and harassed by the man.

[Andy9o8 0]

cvfd1399

***

Quote

Let me remind everyone again almost half the states in America already have this law,

Yeah. That proves absolutely nothing other than This.

It proves a lot. Chicken little screams the sky is falling. Well chicken little has been screaming that for 10 years and yet the troposphere remains in place.

That's because years of chicken little screaming resulted in regulations to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons, thereby mitigating the damage to the ozone layers.

Anyone who thinks that civil liberties have not been eroding in the US, especially post-9/11, is naive. Comparisons to the 1950s and 60s, when civil liberties were commonly trampled by government and law enforcement in the name of, for example, anti-Communism, are most apt.

Mongered fear is contagious. History is replete with dumb ideas spreading from one state legislature to the next, to the next. They don't become less dumb just because they become virulent. Baaaaahh!!

[cvfd1399 0]

Changing the angle huh, well klinger this try at a section 8 isn't going to work either.

We're talking about stop and identify laws, and the facts are almost 50% of the U.S. has been living just fine for 10 years plus.

When we get this at every county line you let me know and I'll come join your fight.
http://tablewarfare.com/images/92/german-army-road-block-with-sentry-box-by-sgts-mess.jpg

[billvon 2,380]

This is an on-topic thread. Thus comments about the ozone layer, clever put-downs, anti-liberal screeds etc will be deleted, and if continued, the poster will be banned for a few days. (And that includes the poster who started the thread.)

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Yeah. That proves absolutely nothing other than This.

Where did my reply go to him? It was 1000% on topic it had to do with the percentage of the states with stop and identify laws, and years they have been under such laws? If that is not on topic what the fuck is???!

[cvfd1399 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Above is the list of states that require stop and identify statues. In it you will see that 23 states have this law not counting MO which is only in effect for KS.

As far as I can tell most of these were done post 2004 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada(someone might now better than I)

That leads me to say that in 10 years how much harm has really be shown to come out of this law which has been in effect for almost half the country and a decade of time?

[Andy9o8 0]

I answered once. It went away. I'm getting on with my life.

[jtiflyer 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Differs from state to state

[cvfd1399 0]

He failed to identify that his window was about to be smashed in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoBgkAmJUn0&feature=youtu.be

These sovereign citizens crack me up. "What right do you have as a man to pull me over"? "The state of Texas sir.", "Speeding isnt a law, you are illegally detaining me".

When I hear people complaining about ID laws, this is the type of guy that I picture in my mind.

[Andy9o8 0]

Let's see if this works. I really am trying to keep this on-topic.

Anyhow, the recent-ish trend of states passing stop & identify laws was to fill a gap in the means by which police were able to harass and intimidate "undesirables" once their old standby means of doing so - vagrancy laws - were deemed mostly unconstitutional by the federal courts in the early 1980's. One or 2 states experimented with a stop & identify statutes, other states' legislators and lobbyists figured "hey, that's a great idea", and so other states' legislatures acted similarly. (That's actually a fairly common way that similar laws seem to spread from one state to another over a relatively short period of years.)

Here's the history of what I'm referring to. In 1983, in the case of Kolender v. Lawson, the US Supreme Court struck down California's vagrancy law, which basically criminalized walking around with no apparent purpose, and refusing to produce identification when asked to do so by a police officer. The defendant, Edward Lawson, was a black man who wore his hair in long dreadlocks, who made a point of challenging the vagrancy law by wearing an ostentatious white suit and walking around wealthy white neighborhoods late at night. He wasn't doing anything else- just walking, so there was no "reasonable suspicion" element other than the collision of race and geography. When challenged by police, he would refuse to show any ID, whereupon they'd arrest him. He was convicted of vagrancy several times, and the case eventually went to the SCOTUS, which struck down California's vagrancy law in a ruling that pretty much sounded the death knell for vagrancy laws and ordinances all over the country.

In response to this, as I said above, various states, now lacking enforceable vagrancy laws, then started to pass various stop & identify laws, slightly more specifically tailored to overcome some of the vagueness issues that controlled the Lawson case.

But the net effect is the same: to allow police a legal means to use profiling to target people for harassment, and to criminalize people who decline to comply because their civics training as Americans leads them to feel that they are within their constitutional rights.

You ask whether stop & identify laws, the topic of this thread, have had a real-world negative effect over the past 10 years or so. I say it has, especially given the propensity for civil rights and liberties to be eroded post 9/11.

[DanG 1]

Really good post Andy, thanks.

Do you know what the Supreme Court has said, if anything, about the current stop and identify laws?

If that's been asked and answered, I'll withdraw the question.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 0]

DanG

Really good post Andy, thanks.

Do you know what the Supreme Court has said, if anything, about the current stop and identify laws?

If that's been asked and answered, I'll withdraw the question.

It was mentioned, but: upheld in 2004 in a 5 to 4 decision. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

[Amazon 7]

Andy9o8

***Really good post Andy, thanks.

Do you know what the Supreme Court has said, if anything, about the current stop and identify laws?

If that's been asked and answered, I'll withdraw the question.

It was mentioned, but: upheld in 2004 in a 5 to 4 decision. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

And we still have people telling us we should just COMPLY... just because we have a bully in blue "fishing" so we do not get our asses kicked for bein "uppity".