Court: Arrest For ID Refusal Unwarranted

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.

Click to expand...

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 KMA$$

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.

Click to expand...

True for so many people LEOs and Sheep alike, Armed = Dangerous. :banghead:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Jared wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe ScottyTshould have asked...-"Some Teddy Grahams with that Teddy Frisk?":lol::celebrate

TJ

imported post


KNOWLES v Iowa [font=Arial,Arial](Search of Vehicle Incident to a Traffic Citation) bulletin no. 230. A vehicle was stopped and the driver issued a citation for speeding. The vehicle was searched and drugs were found. The vehicle was illegally searched because the officers did not have the consent of the owner, probable cause, nor incident to custodial arrest. The Iowa legislature enacted a statute that allowed police to search a vehicle as an "incident to a traffic violation." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this statute violates the U.S. Constitution. [/font]

[font=Arial,Arial]Cops have zero authority, ZERO, in a stop for a traffic violation normally resulting inonly a citation for the violation to do anything except get the driver's license and registration. Any action, Terry search, search of vehicle for easily accessible weapons, search of entire vehicle or any interference in the passenger's--who was not the subject of the stop, exercising his rights to peaceful passage any damned place he chooses will be held up to strict scrutiny. The SCOUS does not allow violations to the 4th amendment lightly, and so much more for a person than property.
[/font]

imported post

1. When a motion to suppress evidence is filed, the State bears the burden of proving to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure.

2. Where the facts material to a decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question whether to suppress is a question of law subject to unlimited review.

3. A warrantless search is permissible where there is probable cause for the search and exigent circumstances justify an immediate search.

4. Exigent circumstances do not include situations where only a mere possibility exists that evidence could be destroyed or concealed.

5. The existence of reasonable cause for searching an automobile believed to be carrying contraband does not warrant the search of an occupant thereof, although the contraband sought is of a character which might be concealed on the person.

6. Where a passenger is told by a police officer to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle and in response to the officer's order to leave her purse in the vehicle, puts the purse down and exits the vehicle, the subsequent search of the purse as part of a search of the vehicle violates the passenger's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in State v. Boyd, 30 Kan. App. 2d __, 47 P.3d 419 (2002). Appeal from Sedgwick district court; REBECCA L. PILSHAW, judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is reversed. Judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions. Opinion filed March 7, 2003.



Enough said.

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.

Click to expand...

Based on Mike's post, and that of Gunslinger's, is this yet another example of LEO229 posting false or misleading information, or is there merelya difference of opinion?

imported post

BB62 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Based on Mike's post, and that of Gunslinger's, is this yet another example of LEO229 posting false or misleading information, or is there merelya difference of opinion?

Click to expand...

I think you are too hard on LEO229. We all make mistakes and I have never seen an instance of intentional deception on his part. And in this case he is correct:



[align=justify]SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [/align][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]
[align=center]Syllabus [/align][/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]
[align=center]BRENDLIN [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]v[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]. CALIFORNIA [/align][/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]
[align=center]CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA [/align]
[align=center]No. 06–8120. Argued April 23, 2007—Decided June 18, 2007 [/align]
[align=justify]After officers stopped a car to check its registration without reason to believe it was being operated unlawfully, one of them recognized petitioner Brendlin, a passenger in the car. Upon verifying that Brendlinwas a parole violator, the officers formally arrested him and searched him, the driver, and the car, finding, among other things, methamphetamine paraphernalia. Charged with possession and manufacture of that substance, Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence obtained in searching his person and the car, arguing that the officerslacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the trafficstop, which was an unconstitutional seizure of his person. The trial court denied the motion, but the California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Brendlin was seized by the traffic stop, which was unlawful. Reversing, the State Supreme Court held that suppressionwas unwarranted because a passenger is not seized as a constitutional matter absent additional circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable person that he was the subject of the officer’s investigation or show of authority. [/align][/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]
[align=justify]Held: [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13. [/align]
[align=justify](a) A person is seized and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action when officers, by physical force or a show of authority, terminate or restrain the person’s freedom of movement throughmeans intentionally applied. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Florida [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Bostick[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 501 U. S. 429, 434; [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Brower [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]County of Inyo[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 489 U. S. 593, 597. There is no seizure without that person’s actual submission. See, [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]e.g., California [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Hodari D.[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 499 U. S. 621, 626, n. 2. When police actions do not show anunambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual’s submissiontakes the form of passive acquiescence, the test for telling when a 2 BRENDLIN [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]CALIFORNIA [/align]
[align=center]Syllabus [/align]
[align=justify]seizure occurs is whether, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free toleave. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]E.g., United States [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Mendenhall[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 446 U. S. 544, 554 (principal opinion). But when a person "has no desire to leave" for reasonsunrelated to the police presence, the "coercive effect of the encounter" can be measured better by asking whether "a reasonable personwould feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminatethe encounter." [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Bostick[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]supra[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], at 435–436. Pp. 4–6.[/align]
(b) Brendlin was seized because no reasonable person in his position when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to "terminate the encounter" between the police and himself. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Bostick[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]supra[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], at 436. Any reasonable passenger would have understood the officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails a passenger’s travel just as much as it halts the driver, diverting both from the stream of traffic to the side of the road, and the police activity that normally amounts to intrusion on "privacy andpersonal security" does not normally (and did not here) distinguishbetween passenger and driver. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]United States [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Martinez-Fuerte[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 428

U. S. 543, 554. An officer who orders a particular car to pull over actswith an implicit claim of right based on fault of some sort, and a sensible person would not expect the officer to allow people to come andgo freely from the physical focal point of an investigation into faulty behavior or wrongdoing. If the likely wrongdoing is not the driving, the passenger will reasonably feel subject to suspicion owing to closeassociation; but even when the wrongdoing is only bad driving, the passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place. It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that an officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around inways that could jeopardize his safety. See, [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]e.g., Maryland [/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOBBB+CenturySchoolbook,Italic,Century Schoolbook"]Wilson[/font][/font][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"], 519 U. S. 408, 414–415. The Court’s conclusion comports with the views of all nine Federal Courts of Appeals, and nearly every statecourt, to have ruled on the question. Pp. 6–9.

[/font][/font]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

BB62 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Based on Mike's post, and that of Gunslinger's, is this yet another example of LEO229 posting false or misleading information, or is there merelya difference of opinion?

Click to expand...

I think you are too hard on LEO229. We all make mistakes and I have never seen an instance of intentional deception on his part. And in this case he is correct:

Click to expand...

I agree in part, disagree in part - the case is confusing on this point - the fair reading of it could go either way, the court did not overrule other case law saying passengers are free top walk away - the court was just saying that's not reaity and the passenger is as a practical matter seized - walking away is not really a realistic possibility in most instances. I do bnot think LEO 229 was taking a decep[tive position at all - this issue we are talkiong about will come up some day - so if any of you are passengers, and tghe car is stopped, please do cal;mly exit and begin walking away, and if seized by the police, let's LITIGATE!!!!!

imported post

Of course one problem with getting out of the car and walking way is, depending on where you are the type of road, it may be illegal for pedestrians to be on that roadway.

imported post

apjonas wrote:

[font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="EEOAPP+CenturySchoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that an officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around inways that could jeopardize his safety. [/font][/font]

Click to expand...

How wouldmere leaving ever be considered jeopardizing the safety of an officer?

imported post

I know the locals will check an ID on everyone in the vehicle to insure there are no outstanding warrants among the group in St. Francois county Missouri. whether thats leagal or not I don't know, I don't have anything to worry about, I don't associate with felons, or someone that would have an outstanding warrant. Unless something freaky sets me off, I usually cooperate with Officers without verbal resistance just so's I can get on with my travels or business..

imported post

Well I am like you in that I would have nothing to worry about, but to me that's not the point. We are expected to follow the law, so LEO's should as well. Being secure in one's person is one of the utmost rights you have I feel. So if there is no cause for them it interact with you...then they shouldn't.

imported post

OH ! Don't get me wrong, I've had my days with Idiots in Uniform myself. If there's no just cause for an Officer to pull me aside, I'll be sure to let em know that I'm not on this earth for their Entertainment.. I commute 80 miles a day to work, so I'm just as guilty as every other john doe about driving like I need to get to point "B" so it the happen chance meeting involves my inability to drive 55 I'll cooperate to the fullest extent, But I don't and won't tollerate any unnecessary BS along the way.. With that said, I do hold the utmost respect for Cops as long as that critical first impression leaves me at ease..

imported post

Oh...if I'm speeding and am stopped...then I expect interaction...lol My DL and permit to be checked maybe a warrants check. But I doubt I would voluntarily submit to a search or my vehicle. BUT.......if I am a passenger is said speeding vehicle the reason for the stop has nothing to do withme...and I don't bother him, he shouldn't botherme.

I have no problems with LEO's in general, I have worked as one, my bother and his wife are LEO's and I have friend's that are LEO's.

I also agree first impressions mean lot.......both ways.....

imported post

I just got back from the gas station , and talked with an old friend who is a local cop, and asked him about the ID for all passengers in any given traffic stop, and he told me that most towns in this county have an ordinance stating that Proper ID must be furnished upon request of any uniformed officer, if you refuse, then they will charge you with failure to Identify, and the fine is $70 + court cost.., the same if you refuse to sign a citation..

imported post

Stop and Identifylaws do vary by state and even can by local jurisdiction. SCOTUS has said they are legal in theplaces that have them. AR & MOdo have suchlaws, thankfully TN does not and none of the local places I frequent do, to my knowledge at least.

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I just got back from the gas station , and talked with an old friend who is a local cop, and asked him about the ID for all passengers in any given traffic stop, and he told me that most towns in this county have an ordinance stating that Proper ID must be furnished upon request of any uniformed officer, if you refuse, then they will charge you with failure to Identify, and the fine is $70 + court cost.., the same if you refuse to sign a citation..

Click to expand...

Did your friend give the name of a single city, town or village that has such a law? What about where he lives, does it have such a law?

If I identify myself to an officer with my true name and address but say that I am carrying no "Official Identity Card" issued by any governmental agancy does that mean the officer has the authority to search my person and papers to see if that is true?

Is there any state government, county, city or other political subdivision, that to your certain knowlege requires possession of an Official Identity Card by any citizen.


Not a knock on your friend, but a law enforcement officer is the last person I would ever dream of asking for advice about the law or laws in general.

imported post

Fallguy wrote:

Stop and Identifylaws do vary by state and even can by local jurisdiction. SCOTUS has said they are legal in theplaces that have them...

Click to expand...

Say what???

You want to back that up with a cite?

So you're saying that stop and identify is in the absence ofsuspicion of a crime?

Not.