Ed's "Notice to all law enforcement" cards

peter nap said:

I just can't tell you how much I like that one!!!!!!:banana:

Click to expand...

Late getting back to this: Peter, you are most welcome. The thought gave me so much enjoyment I had to share.

This is fantastic, going to make sure that I keep on in my cars, in my wallet, and anywhere else I think I may need one!

Thanks much for making it available!


Now (sorta kinda kidding)....is there anything to use to inform them that I am a mute and when I'm required to comply with their stop and ID law in VA BH that I intend to give them that information in SIGN LANGUAGE (seems to be the only loop hole I can think of). :banana:

Grapeshot said:

First we had Merandized - Should we call this Hawesized or Hawesified? - With apologies to Dan Hawes.

Or perhaps Edified, which seems more appriate by definition.

Click to expand...

Edified by Hawes?

But the card discloses name and address, information that should not be given to officer unless actually arrested, or officer has clear RAS.

WalkingWolf said:

But the card discloses name and address, information that should not be given to officer unless actually arrested, or officer has clear RAS.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be filled in - mine are blank on those two lines.

All the items on the card just notice stuff that already exists. Do not consent to a search -- that's already assumed under the law..

Go ahead an print them up and people can gather them .. no harm done.

Cops won't read 'em, won't listen to any oratory based on them, and and contact with police will continue as normal.

davidmcbeth said:

All the items on the card just notice stuff that already exists. Do not consent to a search -- that's already assumed under the law..

Go ahead an print them up and people can gather them .. no harm done.

Cops won't read 'em, won't listen to any oratory based on them, and and contact with police will continue as normal.

Click to expand...

According to my councilor/attorney. offering it to an officer or attempting to read it to them will benefit you in everything from filing a simple complaint to actually going to court. It shows in greater detail the disregard for fact/law held by that officer.

It is not intended to be a feel good thing, but rather another tool in your kit bag.

1. self-identification:

I take the position that one is required under Virginia law, to identify himself to a police officer (though not to a sheriff's deputy) after dark, upon request. No one shares that view, really, because it's based on common law and not the code (at least except for the code provision that says that a police officer has the powers of a constable at common law - which a sheriff does not have). That identification can be oral, and unless one is engaged in an activity for which a certificate of license is required (e.g., fishing, driving, etc.), one need not produce any kind of document for purposes of identification. My personal opinion is that there is no reason not to give the cops your name and address if they want it, unless there are warrants out for your arrest; it will only make them even more suspicious, and they'll use that as part of their "reasonable suspicion" argument if you wind up having gotten arrested. But the talk should pretty much end there.

2. effectiveness of what the card says:

We have to remember that law is a game of strategy and skill. It really isn't important whether the cop complies with what the card says; what's important is that you put him on notice. That notice will have legal effects later on if he does something silly. It's not only harmless, but valuable, in that you will be protecting your legal position. It is not a "get out of jail free card", and whether it has any effect on the cop at the time of the stop or not has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The opposite of putting the cop on notice is "waiver", as in when the cop shows up in court and testifies that you gave him oral permission to search the car. It won't do any good at that time to jump up and yell, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!", but it will do some good to be able to produce a card into evidence with the testimony that you put him on written notice that he was not to search the car without a warrant.

Grapeshot said:

According to my councilor/attorney. offering it to an officer or attempting to read it to them will benefit you in everything from filing a simple complaint to actually going to court. It shows in greater detail the disregard for fact/law held by that officer.

It is not intended to be a feel good thing, but rather another tool in your kit bag.

Click to expand...

As I said, I see no harm in it ... if there would be a benefit we may find out in the future.

user said:

1. self-identification:

I take the position that one is required under Virginia law, to identify himself to a police officer (though not to a sheriff's deputy) after dark, upon request. No one shares that view, really, because it's based on common law and not the code (at least except for the code provision that says that a police officer has the powers of a constable at common law - which a sheriff does not have). That identification can be oral, and unless one is engaged in an activity for which a certificate of license is required (e.g., fishing, driving, etc.), one need not produce any kind of document for purposes of identification. My personal opinion is that there is no reason not to give the cops your name and address if they want it, unless there are warrants out for your arrest; it will only make them even more suspicious, and they'll use that as part of their "reasonable suspicion" argument if you wind up having gotten arrested. But the talk should pretty much end there.

2. effectiveness of what the card says:

We have to remember that law is a game of strategy and skill. It really isn't important whether the cop complies with what the card says; what's important is that you put him on notice. That notice will have legal effects later on if he does something silly. It's not only harmless, but valuable, in that you will be protecting your legal position. It is not a "get out of jail free card", and whether it has any effect on the cop at the time of the stop or not has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The opposite of putting the cop on notice is "waiver", as in when the cop shows up in court and testifies that you gave him oral permission to search the car. It won't do any good at that time to jump up and yell, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!", but it will do some good to be able to produce a card into evidence with the testimony that you put him on written notice that he was not to search the car without a warrant.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

What trips me up in agreeing with you is the requirement in Brown v Texas that police have RAS before demanding identity. Also, the 4th Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14A, and I was thinking that the common-law power of constables to demand identity without RAS would be repugnant to the 4th Amendment. Please set me straight, wise one. I am happy to start a new thread to discuss it if the answers are too much for this thread.


Excerpts from the opinion Brown v Texas:

The flaw in the State's case is that none of the circumstances preceding the officers' detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct.

In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits. See Delaware v. Prouse

The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself...


From the syllabus:

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers...


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html


Notes for new readers:


1. I am discussing the old common-law principle that constables could demand of anyone their name if they were out and about after dark as related by User in previous dicussions. According to User, who cited the state statute, that old constable power was transferred to police by a statute that gives police all the powers of constables at common law. If there is a stop-and-identify ordinance in your jurisdiction, its a whole different game because refusing to identify yourself means you have to correctly rule whether the cop has RAS--guess wrong and you could be going to jail.

2. Fine point. Note that Brown v Texas attacks the suspicionless seizure of the person. It doesn't say so, but its kinda hard for police to claim they have the power to demand a fella identify himself without having first seized him. Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Distric Court examines the 5th Amendment aspect--right to silence--of requiring someone to identify himself. (Hiibel said in so many words that the right against self-incrimination does not protect against a statute compelling identity.)

Im confused; is this for after an arrest has been made? My plan does not involve legal discusions with an officer on the street. Isnt the consenous still the best option is to be polite; and verbally give your name then let the officer know you do not consent to being detained; and walk on down the street?

I really dontt think pulling anything out of your pocket and trying to debate the officer on legal points is a better option than simply walking away.

conhntr said:

Im confused; is this for after an arrest has been made? My plan does not involve legal discusions with an officer on the street. Isnt the consenous still the best option is to be polite; and verbally give your name then let the officer know you do not consent to being detained; and walk on down the street?

I really dontt think pulling anything out of your pocket and trying to debate the officer on legal points is a better option than simply walking away.

Click to expand...

When the LEO does not affirm that you are "free to go" but claims "you are not under arrest" is perhaps the optimum time to "Hawsize" him. If the LEO has in fact anounced that you are under arrest, handing over the card is your best first move - followed immediately by complying with the instructions the card says you have been given.

As mentioned by the genius who created it, it's only purpose is to put the LEO on notice - it has no power of its own to cause or prevent any action/behavior by the LEO - at that moment.

At a later moment (usually in a courtroom but possibly in some lawyer's office during depositions) establishing the fact of the LEO having been given the card may cause what is lovingly referred to as "head-desk" motions by the LEO, the attorney representing the LEO and (later on) by the LEOs supervisors.

stay safe.

Citizen said:

....

What trips me up in agreeing with you is the requirement in Brown v Texas that police have RAS before demanding identity. Also, the 4th Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14A, and I was thinking that the common-law power of constables to demand identity without RAS would be repugnant to the 4th Amendment. Please set me straight, wise one. I am happy to start a new thread to discuss it if the answers are too much for this thread. ....

Click to expand...

Agreeing that a new thread may be most appropriate for any in-depth discussion, a question/observation/comment -

Did not the common law contain a presumption that a person out and about in the hours of darkness was likely to be up to some nefarious business? As in a hold-over from the days before street lighting and third-shift employment?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Agreeing that a new thread may be most appropriate for any in-depth discussion, a question/observation/comment -

Did not the common law contain a presumption that a person out and about in the hours of darkness was likely to be up to some nefarious business? As in a hold-over from the days before street lighting and third-shift employment?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. I am thinking it doesn't withstand the reasonableness requirement of the 4A--courts adopted long ago the idea that articulable facts are necessary to protect against police arbitrary-ness. The suspicion has to be reasonable and it has to be articulable so a court can judge its reasonableness. (See the internal citations of Brown v Texas)

In fact, Brown v Texas even points out that the cop said he stopped Brown simply because the situation looked suspicious without saying what circumstances made him suspicious other than that two men were walking away from each other in an alley.

Citizen said:

....
In fact, Brown v Texas even points out that the cop said he stopped Brown simply because the situation looked suspicious without saying what circumstances made him suspicious other than that two men were walking away from each other in an alley.

Click to expand...

Bad prep of the LEO for testimony. Possibly a "Thank goodness" moment, possibly not.

Forget which case it was (Terry itself?) where the cop simply recited that it was a "high crime" area and the guy "looked suspicious". 'Course, there are so many.

No, could not have been Terry - they kept walking in front of a store, IIRC. Whatever it was, it was more blatant than "looking suspicious".

Getting back to the point - as it currently stands, in many jurisdictions one is required to identify themself under any of a number of settings. Knowing what the absolute minimum is to comply with the requirement is essential. User's letter/Ed's card has the name and address. I imagine that presenting the information in writing would be sufficient to meet the law in all but a few cases. (For those that insist on a "government ID document" of some kind, I forsee accusations/charges of racism due to the extreme burden put upon certain elements of society to obtain those documents for purposes of establishing eligibility to vote. What's good for the goose is good for the gander cuts both ways.)

stay safe.

skidmark said:

When the LEO does not affirm that you are "free to go" but claims "you are not under arrest" is perhaps the optimum time to "Hawsize" him. If the LEO has in fact anounced that you are under arrest, handing over the card is your best first move - followed immediately by complying with the instructions the card says you have been given.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense. Reading the thread i was thinking people where recomending to whip these cards out first thing. Avoiding any discussion/interaction is still the best approach; if you ARE detained THEN resort to the card

skidmark said:

Bad prep of the LEO for testimony. Possibly a "Thank goodness" moment, possibly not.

Forget which case it was (Terry itself?) where the cop simply recited that it was a "high crime" area and the guy "looked suspicious". 'Course, there are so many.

No, could not have been Terry - they kept walking in front of a store, IIRC. Whatever it was, it was more blatant than "looking suspicious".

Getting back to the point - as it currently stands, in many jurisdictions one is required to identify themself under any of a number of settings. Knowing what the absolute minimum is to comply with the requirement is essential. User's letter/Ed's card has the name and address. I imagine that presenting the information in writing would be sufficient to meet the law in all but a few cases. (For those that insist on a "government ID document" of some kind, I forsee accusations/charges of racism due to the extreme burden put upon certain elements of society to obtain those documents for purposes of establishing eligibility to vote. What's good for the goose is good for the gander cuts both ways.)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Oh, please lets not call police honesty "bad prep".

conhntr said:

Ok that makes sense. Reading the thread i was thinking people where recomending to whip these cards out first thing. Avoiding any discussion/interaction is still the best approach; if you ARE detained THEN resort to the card

Click to expand...

Realize the card also can be used when being questioned after a defensive gun use (DGU). In that Dan teaches a class on the law and self-defense, and the card includes language about submitting to an arrest, I am betting Dan had that in mind when composing the text.

WalkingWolf said:

But the card discloses name and address, information that should not be given to officer unless actually arrested, or officer has clear RAS.

Click to expand...

I think he included it to comply with the common law obligation ti identify yourself after dark. As GS said...leave it blank.

Edit....I'm way behind in this thread...that's already been answered.

Peter.. I also sent you the postcard version.. did you get it?

Ed