Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Court: Arrest For ID Refusal Unwarranted

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

    The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.
    http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008...day/news10.txt

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Great ruling!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Live Free or Die, ,
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    And one of the best parts of the ruling is piercing the "qualified immunity" of the trooper, so he can answer directly for his actions. Good stuff.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Fantastic!

    Too many people misinterpret Hiibel, so maybe this will help the misunderstanding.



  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Hope this trooper brought his lube...his about to get a taste of "Reasonable attorney fee's", plus something for Mr. Stufflebeam. :-) This link should be posted in all states discussions under the 8th circuit.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    Wow. a federal court that understands that citizens are not serfs.


    Isuspect that even if damages are ever assessed against the trooper, somehow the state will pay. in some respects that is fair since in most cases governments are the ones pushing for cops to violate the rights of its citizens.

    OTOH, having to take personal responsibility for ones bad acts tends to cause others to reconsider their actions.


    Stufflebeam is an unusual name. A Randy Stufflebeam ran for Illinois governor last year on the Constitution Party platform.


  7. #7
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.



    He's driving a car (traffic stop).... He has to show a license (identification).... Or am I missing something?


    Edit: FIMS...

    He was a passenger...


    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

    What the HELL gave that officer the impression that he can just randomly ID people and cart them off to jail if they refuse?

    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    What the HELL gave that officer the impression that he can just randomly ID people and cart them off to jail if they refuse?
    I assume that's a rhetorical question....

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    I have actually had a similar experience (well, I didn't get arrested, but the cop wanted my ID for no reason). While I was going to school I headed out for a 3 am snack at the grocery store about 5 blocks away from my apartment. I made it to the store, bought a box of Teddy Grahams (I love them!) and a 12-pack of Coke. About halfway home, a cop car pulls up next to me and the officer gets out. This cop couldn't have been older than 25, and in that town they are notorious for making mountains out of molehills (due to boredom, not much going on there). The following is pretty much how the conversation went (it was 3 years ago, so this is not an exact transcript):

    Me: "Evening officer"
    Him: "What brings you out this late?"

    (I wanted to say "none of your business," but I didn't)

    Me: "Just picking up some study food"
    Him: "Can I see your ID?
    Me: "Excuse me? what for?"
    Him: "We have been having some problems in this neighborhood tonight."
    Me: "So why do you need to see my ID?"
    Him: "We are just checking on people."
    Me: "Am I suspected of a crime?"
    Him: "No, nothing like that."
    Me: "I think I will just go home then."
    Him: "I need you to show me your Driver's License."
    Me: "I didn't think I needed it in order to WALK to the store."
    Him: "Sir, I need to see your identification"
    Me: "Not unless you can tell me why."
    Him: "Where do you live?"
    Me: "What's that got to do with anything?"
    Him: "I told you we have been having some problems in this neighborhood tonight."
    Me: "Are you detaining me?"
    Him: "No, we are just checking on people"
    Me: "I am just going to head home then... goodnight."


    He was obviously frustrated, but never raised his voice or moved to block my path or anything. If it wasn't 3 am I might have thought to get his badge number and called the next morning to report the incident. He got back into his car and drove away, though I saw him on cross streets the next couple blocks home.

    I couldn't believe this guy. It is a college town and there are regularly people out shopping, jogging, playing frisbee, etc... till the wee hours (I had to wait in the checkout line for my Teddy Grahams). I just have to wonder what he was thinking.


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    What a great T-shirt idea!

    "I carry a .45 and love Teddy Grahams!"

    Who the hell can argue with that?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    wow, I am totally going to have to make that shirt! Thanks for the idea!

    ...seriously though, Teddy Grahams (honey) are the greatest snack ever...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    I couldn't believe this guy. It is a college town and there are regularly people out shopping, jogging, playing frisbee, etc... till the wee hours (I had to wait in the checkout line for my Teddy Grahams). I just have to wonder what he was thinking.
    Having lived in State College, PA, I can feel your pain. One of the things about colleges and college towns is that they assume (correctly) that young adults right out of high school don't know what their rights are, or don't care, and don't know how to stand their ground and assert themselves. They assume (incorrectly) any young adult they see is just a drunken and unruly snot-nose. So school officials, local cops, landlords, and others in a position of authority take you for a doormat when they deal with you and like to show you who's boss. Good for you for showing them otherwise. When I went to college, I had just come back from active duty, and I had a decidedly different attitude than what they were expecting.

    (BTW, this goes back to the opposition to student gun carry; the stereotype of college students as irresponsible party hounds)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Here's what wikipedia says (if you trust what any yahoo can write):

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

    According to that entry, in Utah, the police can demand name,
    address and explanation of actions, if there is suspicion of crime
    or intent to commit a crime.

    No such law for Virginia. Pennsylvania, California.

    gridboy

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    "Stufflebeam was a passenger in his grandson’s car in May 2003 when the vehicle was stopped by a state trooper. The driver was not issued a citation during the traffic stop. When Trooper Jeff W. Harris asked the grandfather for identification, he told the officer he did not have to show any ID."

    If you are not suspected of a crime.... there should be no need to ask you for any ID. I am not sure why the trooper even asked.


    "In its ruling Friday, the federal court panel referenced a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”"


    The trooper really had no cause to arrest this guy as he was not obstructing anything or preventing the trooper from doing his job. The trooper had no cause to investigate him for anything.

    I predict that the trooper is going to be hurt financially.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    The courts have ruled that ALL people in the care are seized during the stop.

    This means that passengers are NOT free to exit and do anything they want. They may not be required to say who they are as this is only required by the driver but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

    I just want everyone to be clear on that and not think that NO ID = No legal authority to control.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    but they can be removed and patted down for weapons
    ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

    At least that's how I understand it...

    EDIT: Syntax
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    but they can be removed and patted down for weapons
    ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

    At least that's how I understand it...

    EDIT: Syntax
    You are correct, a Terry frisk is warranted if youhave reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. Not just armed, many LEO's do not understand this, I know no one in my class did. The few times I have had snotty punks pulled over, I never did a Terry Frisk on them, they in no way convinced me they were armed and dangerous, they were just whining.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    but they can be removed and patted down for weapons
    ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

    At least that's how I understand it...

    EDIT: Syntax
    True... you have to have a valid reason first that can be based on prior knowledge or the person makes affective movements that cause you to be concerned.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    True... you have to have a valid reason first that can be based on prior knowledge or the person makes affective movements that cause you to be concerned.
    WTF is an "affective movement[sic]"? 'Affective' means 'emotional', as for example Seasonal Affective Disease.

    Granting the benefit of the doubt; an 'effective movement' is at best tautological nonsense. Consider an in-effective motion, a spasm clonic or tonic? <<-- that's sarcasm.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******



  22. #22
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    You are correct, a Terry frisk is warranted if youhave reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. Not just armed, many LEO's do not understand this, I know no one in my class did. The few times I have had snotty punks pulled over, I never did a Terry Frisk on them, they in no way convinced me they were armed and dangerous, they were just whining.
    True for so many people LEOs and Sheep alike, Armed = Dangerous.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    The courts have ruled that ALL people in the care are seized during the stop.

    This means that passengers are NOT free to exit and do anything they want. They may not be required to say who they are as this is only required by the driver but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

    I just want everyone to be clear on that and not think that NO ID = No legal authority to control.
    You better reread the court cases. If you (not you LEO 229, the editorial 'you.') stop a car I'm a passenger in because the driver went 5 over the speed limit, you better not try and throw you weight around by obstructingthe exercise ofmy constitutional rights to "unimpeded liberty" under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments or I'll haul your ass in Federal Court under 1983 and state court for false arrest, malicious prosecution, battery--maybe aggrevated assault, if your hand so much as touches your firearm. And you'd find that you could stick your badge up your a$$ in Federal Court because it means nothing in re immunity under 42 USC 21 `1983. Add a Terry search failing so called 'articulatable reasonable suspicion' and that's the cherry on the sunday. Now it becomes a case where you could be enjoying a few months in a cell. If I were a minority, you could add title 18 of the USC, as well, and hope you have a nice roommate in Danbury. If you are detaining me, you damned well better have a reason beyond a traffic stop when I was not driving the vehicle or I'll be driving your car and taking a nice piece of your paycheck for years to come.

    The problem is most people don't fight back because they're intimidated by the cops, and many lawyers don't want to take the case because they have to deal with them after. But that isn't true for everyone, and there is money to be made under exemplary damages--and a Federal jail cell with plenty room for an ex-cop who thought he was NKVD.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    The courts have ruled that ALL people in the care are seized during the stop.
    OK, ah, not quite. Recently the S. Ct. held that a passenger can suppress evidence obtained because he felt seized - that's not the same as being properly seized. If somebody dredges up that case, we can pick it apart - 4th amendment law is weird - if you "feel" like you are not free to leave, then searches you allow to be done to you are not deemed to be properly consented to.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    but they can be removed and patted down for weapons
    ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

    At least that's how I understand it...

    EDIT: Syntax
    You are correct, a Terry frisk is warranted if youhave reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. Not just armed, many LEO's do not understand this, I know no one in my class did. The few times I have had snotty punks pulled over, I never did a Terry Frisk on them, they in no way convinced me they were armed and dangerous, they were just whining.
    Maybe ScottyTshould have asked...-"Some Teddy Grahams with that Teddy Frisk?":celebrate

    TJ

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •