-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
This could happen here in VA
- Thread starter JohnM15A
- Start date
Esanders2008
Regular Member
Man I sure could use 3.6 million bucks.. :banana:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Here is the CADS (Cop Attitude Disorder Syndrome) on full display. It extends to the very top in this department. Despite knowing there was no legal requirement to comply, despite knowing his officers had seized an American off the streets of his town, despite knowing his officers behaved in true KGB fashion (papers please, comrade), rather than apologize or decry the officers' gross violations as both unpatriotic and unAmerican:
Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, “Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two.”
Technically that is true, but the only problem is that Call was under no legal obligation to pacify the police officers. Call’s refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.
Notice that even the idiot who wrote the article lumps your rights under the heading of "technicalities."
Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, “Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two.”
Technically that is true, but the only problem is that Call was under no legal obligation to pacify the police officers. Call’s refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.
Notice that even the idiot who wrote the article lumps your rights under the heading of "technicalities."
Yup. All it takes is for any one of us, out and about in any one of the municipalities that have "stop and ID" laws on the books, to then be in pretty much the exact same situation. So I guess if you'd like, pick any one of those municipalities and see what happens.
JohnM15A
Regular Member
How about try this:
LEO: "What is your name"
OCPatriot: "I would be glad to tell you my name if you tell me what probable cause you have to require it"
Is the LEO allowed to give a probable cause?
LEO: "What is your name"
OCPatriot: "I would be glad to tell you my name if you tell me what probable cause you have to require it"
Is the LEO allowed to give a probable cause?
Well, municipal code and their interpretation of that don't necessarily require "probable cause"....but more importantly, User's advice as I understand it is to always go with asking if you are free to go rather than to get into a discussion/debate with LEO.
Maverick9
Regular Member
Yeah, remember LEOs are well-versed in the art of verbal warfare and you start saying that (as opposed to a simple 'why am I being detained/am I free to go') and they come back with 'you're giving me attitude/what are you a street lawyer?' ploy. Next thing you know they've got resisting and you're cuffed and stuffed.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Are there any stop and ID locales in Virginia? If so, what about preemption? Do you have to present an ID in those places? What happens if you are out for a walk and are not carrying any sort of ID?
Last edited:
Waddyamean
Seems we have read about, raised funds for the defense against, showed up as both moral support and moral outrage on the trial date, and otherwise gone through this a few times.
Having done that, a lot of us have decided that user's advice (Am I free to go? if yes > go, if no >say you want to talk with your lawyer and KYBMS until they show up) is the way to approach these encounters. That, and having a digital voice recorder running any time you are out of your house (even if it's just to get the mail).
Virginia case law is fairly well established that "obstruction" pretty much requires an overt act as opposed to just not cooperating. (Would it be going too far to offer to hold the cop's flashligt while he looks for clues of the crime he's trying to pin on you because you are OCing? That ought to play out well at trial.:lol
stay safe.
Seems we have read about, raised funds for the defense against, showed up as both moral support and moral outrage on the trial date, and otherwise gone through this a few times.
Having done that, a lot of us have decided that user's advice (Am I free to go? if yes > go, if no >say you want to talk with your lawyer and KYBMS until they show up) is the way to approach these encounters. That, and having a digital voice recorder running any time you are out of your house (even if it's just to get the mail).
Virginia case law is fairly well established that "obstruction" pretty much requires an overt act as opposed to just not cooperating. (Would it be going too far to offer to hold the cop's flashligt while he looks for clues of the crime he's trying to pin on you because you are OCing? That ought to play out well at trial.:lol
stay safe.
Esanders2008
Regular Member
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10...IMIOF.html#CO_CH23OF_ARTIMIOF_S23-7.1PRIDPOOF
Sec. 23-7.1. - Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
This is VA Beach. What does the bolded portion actually mean?
Sec. 23-7.1. - Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
This is VA Beach. What does the bolded portion actually mean?
JohnM15A
Regular Member
Amazing how bad laws can be written... Apparently my imagination is not up to the task to figure out what this means. How about this, the police need to arrest a criminal named Eric because he is a killer and is known to be armed. And Eric is in a room filled with identical people. So the police would need to know which one is Eric. So he starts asking for names. One man just says "can I leave now?" Then the cuffs go on...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
If he's got probable cause, you're going to be arrested, ID or no ID.
Reasonable suspicion, a lower standard that probable cause, is the question.
West Virginia seems to have some case law or a statute that implies the cop has to tell his reasonable suspicion before the detainee can be charged for refusing to identify.
In VA, I've come across neither a prohibition, nor a requirement, that a cop disclose all or any of his reasonable suspicion to the detainee during the detention.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Doesn't much matter in court. Its trumped by 4A case law on the subject.
On the street, it means whatever the cop wants it to mean. That is to say, refuse to identify when demanded and you'll probably get charged. Best bet is to comply while refusing consent. "Yes, officer. Here is my ID, provided only because you demanded it. I do not consent." Or some such.
Last edited:
Esanders2008
Regular Member
But if I got charged, I could fight it in court using 4A as my justification for refusing to answer the question?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
That's not what quite what I said.
You could try to fight it. All it would take, though, is for a judge to decide that clause is the equivalent of the reasonable suspicion requirement in Brown vs Texas or Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court, and you'd be toast. My point was that the existing 4A case law about reasonable suspicion is going to hold more weight.
If the judge agreed that local code was too vague or that what you were doing didn't rise to reasonable suspicion, then you might get off. Or, if the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion from the 911 call or whatever.
Last edited:
Esanders2008
Regular Member
Hmmm. Interesting food for thought