Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 123

Thread: Stop and ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    18

    Stop and ID

    Just wondering if any of you all knew... say if I were walking down the street or riding my bicycle OC'ing, and a LEO stops me and asks for my ID, do I have to produce it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    From reading several other threads the answer is no.

    You do not need to provide ID. You do have to identify yourself by giving him your full name. Some people have found out that if you give them your drivers license they will keep it which allows them to "inadvertantly" detain you without officially detaining you. The only time you have to show your drivers license is if you are driving or in your car.

    Now with that said, if they have reasonable suspicion they may detain you and keep you longer in order to identify you better.

  3. #3
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Now with that said, if they have reasonable suspicion they may detain you and keep you longer in order to identify you better.
    *Waits for Citizen*
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    From reading several other threads the answer is no.

    You do not need to provide ID. You do have to identify yourself by giving him your full name. Some people have found out that if you give them your drivers license they will keep it which allows them to "inadvertantly" detain you without officially detaining you. The only time you have to show your drivers license is if you are driving or in your car.

    Now with that said, if they have reasonable suspicion they may detain you and keep you longer in order to identify you better.
    Good answer

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kg4usk View Post
    if I were walking down the street or riding my bicycle OC'ing, and a LEO stops me
    which is why you should have a digital voice recorder on yer person and RECORDING anytime you are OCing.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    *Waits for Citizen*
    (chuckle) I guess I must be too well known around here.


    Dear KG4USK,

    First lets make a distinction. Identifying oneself can occur verbally, or by providing an ID document. This is not a statement of law. It is simply a statement that the words "identify self" covers both ways, and it is sometimes useful or even important to distinguish one from another.

    Another term: Stop-and-Identify (S & I) statute. Generally, a law that requires a person to identify himself to a police officer under certain conditions when the cop is investigating a suspected crime. Generally, these laws require only verbal identification, but I have seen at least one in another state that required a person to show his drivers license or state-issued ID if he has one on him at the time.

    There was a stop-and-identify bill introduced in the General Assembly this year. I have word from a reliable source that it died in committee, BUT, I have not verified that myself.

    Otherwise, there is no stop-and-identify (S & I) statute in Virginia.

    There is no law requiring a citizen to carry ID in VA. This is distinguished from carrying your drivers license while driving.

    Next, we have word, verified, that at least one Virginia locality has a stop-and-identify ordinance.

    At least one forum member is convinced any such ordinance is invalid under the idea that a locality can only derive its power from the General Assembly, and since the GA has not authorized localities to write S & I ordinances, and since the GA has not written a state S & I statute, any local S & I ordinance would be invalid. Personally, I don't think a cop is going to stand around and figure out whether his local S & I ordinance, if any, is valid. He'll just cite or arrest and let the courts figure it out. I would not refuse to identify myself in a locality with a S & I ordinance unless I had the time and money to take it to court and try to prove the ordinance invalid.

    Earlier I said I mentioned that certain conditions must exist for the cop to demand identification under an S & I statute. Here is what I meant by certain conditions. There is a court opinion to the effect that a police officer must first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime before the officer can enforce a S & I statute against a detainee. Meaning the cop must have RAS and an S & I statute authorizing his identity demand before he can make an identity demand and make stick a citation for refusing. The court opinion is Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court. This case also cites Brown vs Texas, and Kolender vs Lawson. Together, those three cases seem to be the controlling cases on identity demands by cops of detainees. However, it is very important to note that you will have almost no way to know for sure whether the cop actually has genuine RAS during the encounter. This is an entire discussion in itself. I can't elaborate here. Until you learn more about RAS and how cops use it, just pretend it is not an avenue for dealing with a cop during the encounter itself.

    For myself, I plan to identify myself if demanded by a cop, while at the same time politely, verbally, refusing consent. Identifying myself saves me the bother of trying to memorize which localities have S & I ordinances. Besides, the cop is going to learn my name when the formal complaint or lawsuit lands, anyway. Politely, verbally refusing consent ensures clear understanding that I am complying with a demand, not voluntarily identifying myself. If it turns out the cop did not have authority to make such demand, all the better for me. I just add another point to the list for the complaint or lawsuit.

    Note that there is a low, but present danger in identifying yourself when you don't have to. The police now know who you are and where you live. If they can invent a charge or figure out a way to charge you (twist the law) after the encounter, they know who to put their hands on. This actually happened to an OCer, Theseus, in California. The cops let him go after the encounter, and then some time later the prosecutor figured out how to go after him, even getting a court to change the meaning of a word in order to make the charges stick. The police seized his ID out of his wallet without his consent. Thus, when the prosecutor figured out his nasty little strategy, they knew who the OCer was and where to find him. If the cops had not got their hands on his ID, the prosecutor wouldn't have known who to try to screw-over.

    Final note. Some VA police consider that if you are being cited for a serious misdemeanor and you refuse to provide an ID document, you are showing that you plan to skip your court date. Some cops will arrest you in this case.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-22-2010 at 02:11 AM.

  7. #7
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Refusing consent

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    For myself, I plan to identify myself if demanded by a cop, while at the same time politely, verbally, refusing consent. Identifying myself saves me the bother of trying to memorize which localities have S & I ordinances. Besides, the cop is going to learn my name when the formal complaint or lawsuit lands, anyway. Politely, verbally refusing consent ensures clear understanding that I am complying with a demand, not voluntarily identifying myself. If it turns out the cop did not have authority to make such demand, all the better for me. I just add another point to the list for the complaint or lawsuit.
    Sorry if you have covered this before, citizen, but can you clarify what you mean by "refusing consent?" I'm inferring that you might say something like, "Certainly, officer -- my name is Joe Schmatz, and I respectfully refuse consent to any searches of my person or property. Now, am I free to leave?"

    Please correct me if I have it wrong.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    5 Rules for Activists

    When Activism was necessary in Virginia I advocated:

    1) Sterile Open Carry. Sterile means no means of ID on your person. The keys to my truck remained in my truck. (I have a door electronic combination lock). I even bought a lockable thin metal case to put my credit cards in (Rolling combo lock, not key).

    2) Always have voice recorder on. Don't wait until you see a cop. Always have it on.

    3) Electrical tape over your firearms serial #. They can run serial numbers only if they see the serial #.

    4) Make sure your cell phone is locked. Cops will use it to try and ID you if they can.

    5) Practice the following phrases: Am I being detained? What is your Reasonably Articulated Suspicion? I wish to exercise my 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent. I wish to have my attorney present for any questioning. I do not consent to your unconstitutional detainment/ search but I will not physically oppose your illegal actions.



    The OC hysteria has all but disappeared. I still recommend a voice recorder at all times, as this is a very valuable assistant in the very messy he said, she said world that can happen when you OC.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Not disagreeing with any of the advice here. Another option....

    At our first Burke Lake Park picnic, an officer asked if anyone would be willing to identify himself for the report in case there were later questions. BobCav admirably produced identification -- his military ID (retiree) card. The advantage of providing this card is that it does NOT contain an address. And if an officer is seen recording the social-security number, one can politely inform him the card has an identification number that he should use instead.
    Last edited by Tess; 07-22-2010 at 06:41 PM. Reason: link BobCav

  10. #10
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Sorry if you have covered this before, citizen, but can you clarify what you mean by "refusing consent?" I'm inferring that you might say something like, "Certainly, officer -- my name is Joe Schmatz, and I respectfully refuse consent to any searches of my person or property. Now, am I free to leave?"

    Please correct me if I have it wrong.
    Depends on the circumstances. For the most part, VA police seem to have been making extra-legal ID document demands for so long, they forgot they do not have authority for it. We've all read the reports. Almost always some version of, "I wanna see some ID!" So,


    COP: "I wanna see some ID!"

    Citizen: "I will provide my ID, officer. I do not consent to giving you my ID; but since you have demanded it in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled, I will give it to you." (said while digging out wallet and digging for drivers license in wallet).

    In order to not put him on guard, you could also feign uncertainty, "Uh, sure, officer. I don't think I should consent to this, but since you are demanding it, I don't feel like I have a choice. I, uh, don't consent to this, but, here it is." Changing the words "do not consent to providing my ID" to "do not agree with providing my ID" is even less likely to put the cop on guard, I should think.

    The important point is that I'm just applying search-and-seizure law to ID demands. Specifically, the idea that consenting to a search or seizure automatically makes it legal. See the video on youtube: Busted: A Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters. My rationale is that consenting to an ID demand or even a request automatically makes it legal, just like a search or seizure. Note that these are not meant to be comprehensive statements of law. There are exceptions. For example, coerced consent would not be genuine consent.

    Another important point that some readers fail to notice is that refusing consent does not mean to non-comply. When I say "refuse consent" I mean only verbally and politely. While still complying with any demands.

    Of course, if you want to see a cop who is being a real a-hole cop get so mad he almost bursts from trying to hold in his anger, you can always tell him, "I don't have to show you my ID." I've seen it done. I don't recommend it; but it is entertaining to look back on it. Again, I don't recommend it, though. He might turn out to be such an a-hole that he doesn't bother trying to contain his anger and turns it into aggression. Remember, some of these people consider proning-out somebody as light entertainment, something to look forward to during a dull shift.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-23-2010 at 01:06 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Remember, some of these people consider proning-out somebody as light entertainment, something to look forward to during a dull shift.
    Oh Citizen,

    Why play word games? If you are propelled enough, just ask "am I free to go, or am I being detained"? If the answer is you are free to go... then go. If you are handing over an I.D. but stating that you are doing it because you feel compelled, it wouldn't even matter since the officer ASKED "I want to see some id" and thus no detention occurred. Most officers would meet that statement back with something like "well the option is up to you to hand over your i.d.". You forget to point out that most LEOs are extremely experienced and trained with such encounters and your word games are not anything new.

    I can assure everyone on this board that LEOs don't try to prone innocent people out as light entertainment as something to do during a dull shift. You do realize that doing such thing without justification would be met with some serious consequences both civil, criminals, and from your department (termination). HAHA Citizen you are a true work of art. Your anti-LEO bias tarnishes much of your legal standpoints. How can you justify such a comment? Do you have a cite?
    Last edited by NovaCop10; 07-23-2010 at 02:07 AM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    Oh Citizen,

    Why play word games? If you are propelled enough, just ask "am I free to go, or am I being detained"? If the answer is you are free to go... then go. If you are handing over an I.D. but stating that you are doing it because you feel compelled, it wouldn't even matter since the officer ASKED "I want to see some id" and thus no detention occurred. Most officers would meet that statement back with something like "well the option is up to you to hand over your i.d.". You forget to point out that most LEOs are extremely experienced and trained with such encounters and your word games are not anything new.

    I can assure everyone on this board that LEOs don't try to prone innocent people out as light entertainment as something to do during a dull shift. You do realize that doing such thing without justification would be met with some serious consequences both civil, criminals, and from your department (termination). HAHA Citizen you are a true work of art. Your anti-LEO bias tarnishes much of your legal standpoints. How can you justify such a comment? Do you have a cite?
    Welcome back LEO229.

    I never said LEOs try to prone out innocent people. Nice try at deliberately shifting the context to bash me. I said "some of these people..." Clearly the context was to further illustrate that some a-hole cops are friggin' dangerous. We've all seen the videos. Since the truly dangerous ones don't wear signs saying, "I am one of the really dangerous cops", the OCer has no way to know until it is too late. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I was giving more explanation about why I didn't recommend annoying a cop.

    By the way, if I recall, it was you who introduced us to the the terms prone out and hands on and the idea that some cops consider it good fun.

    Heh, heh, heh. Kinda blew your own cover didn't you LEO229? Only you would take such an easily grasped section of a post and get it so far sideways in your own mind, then take offense, and then attack me for it. You've done it so many times before, it is a signature of your personality. What tiny reservations I previously had about your actual identity just disappeared entirely. There cannot possibly be two cops in NoVA who:

    spend so much time on OCDO
    don't seem to actively support OC, but spend time here
    have such similar, almost if not identical argument tactics
    and twist text in their mind the same way

    And, there are no other cops on the forum who do things with such similarities. Read that again, folks. No other two cops on the entire forum have those characteristics so much in common, much less two cops from NoVA.

    I'm a little surprised, too, LEO229. I kinda supposed you had gotten the idea that you were really reflecting poorly on your department with the way you represented it. I admit, it took me awhile to realize it myself, and even then I figured you did not realize it yourself--otherwise you would have stopped sooner. But, after the disappearance, and the name change, and after it took me awhile to suspect who NovaCop10 was, what with your better behavior, I figured you had finally realized you were previously reflecting poorly on your department. Now, with this evenings outburst, I am surprised.

    Oh, well. Sorry to disappoint you LEO229, but I cannot play as much as I used to. I'll indulge myself a little more tonight, but, alas, it cannot be the way it was. You'll just have to make an a$$ out of yourself without my highlighting it. Oh, I'll still hammer each and every mis-statement of rights, and every advocacy for not exercising rights, just like I promised before. I just can't afford to spend as much time playing at the back and forth that went along with it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-23-2010 at 03:08 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    I can assure everyone on this board that LEOs don't try to prone innocent people out as light entertainment as something to do during a dull shift. You do realize that doing such thing without justification would be met with some serious consequences both civil, criminals, and from your department (termination). HAHA Citizen you are a true work of art. Your anti-LEO bias tarnishes much of your legal standpoints. How can you justify such a comment? Do you have a cite?
    I don't speak for anyone but me. I try not to get in the middle of these kinds of threads, I hope you will acknowledge that I've always tried to give you a fair shake.

    The simple fact is that nobody can factually make a claim that speaks to all law enforcement officers, and the fact that there have been Section 1983 cases won in courts of law is really all the evidence needed to refute a claim that it doesn't happen.

    There are good and bad people. Some of them are LEOs. Citizen has tried to be prepared for them and is sharing how he has prepared for them.

    This is not much different than the reason any of us carry firearms for self-defense in the first place. The odds are low, but the consequences are high. For encountering either a criminal, or a LEO who does things their own way.

    To wholly dismiss the fact that there will be LEOs who operate below the expectations of their department and the communities they serve is no better than the anti-gunners belittling folks who carry because they won't ever be a crime victim.

    I appreciate your participation here. I think you add value to our discussions. But you have to keep at least one foot in the real world, or you lose credibility.

    TFred

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    SNIP If you are handing over an I.D. but stating that you are doing it because you feel compelled, it wouldn't even matter since the officer ASKED "I want to see some id" and thus no detention occurred. Most officers would meet that statement back with something like "well the option is up to you to hand over your i.d.". You forget to point out that most LEOs are extremely experienced and trained with such encounters and your word games are not anything new.
    Bwahahahahahahahaaaa!! He thinks we're dumb enough not to notice that he switched the discussion from ID demands to ID requests.

    And, while telling us that an ID request refusal would receive a polite, "well it is up to you...", he conveniently omits the reports we've received of cops whose standard reply is, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you object?" Christ! I recently had two Fairfax County cops pull a very similar one on me and I wasn't even the one being investigated. Correction. One cop asked why I objected. His partner lectured me about it! And, let me re-emphasize, I wasn't even the person being investigated!!

    Oh, yeah. Right. The cop who is investigating someone will just say, "OK. I understand. It is your privilege to refuse to identify yourself. Can we talk about the weather?" Suuuure he will. He won't mind being thwarted in his investigation at all. He will be inclined not at all to make some other attempt to get identity info. He just asked for it because he was bored. Not because he really wanted it. Uh, huh. Suuuure. In all fairness, there might be some percentage of cops who play the way LEO229/NovaCop10 says, but I ain't encountered one, yet. And, it is rather revealing that he left out the whole body of cops who will bait and badger.

    Hahahahhahahahaaa.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-23-2010 at 03:26 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    Oh Citizen,

    Why play word games? If you are propelled enough, just ask "am I free to go, or am I being detained"? If the answer is you are free to go... then go. If you are handing over an I.D. but stating that you are doing it because you feel compelled, it wouldn't even matter since the officer ASKED "I want to see some id" and thus no detention occurred. Most officers would meet that statement back with something like "well the option is up to you to hand over your i.d.". You forget to point out that most LEOs are extremely experienced and trained with such encounters and your word games are not anything new.

    I can assure everyone on this board that LEOs don't try to prone innocent people out as light entertainment as something to do during a dull shift. You do realize that doing such thing without justification would be met with some serious consequences both civil, criminals, and from your department (termination). HAHA Citizen you are a true work of art. Your anti-LEO bias tarnishes much of your legal standpoints. How can you justify such a comment? Do you have a cite?
    No offense but only a cop could see that as being asked. That is a demand.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    SNIP You forget to point out that most LEOs are extremely experienced and trained with such encounters and your word games are not anything new.
    Well, thank you very much for the reminder. Glad you asked. If the cops are so experienced, why are they making demands for ID for which they have no authority?

    And, why haven't you, Mr. Liberty-minded, freedom-loving, OC supporter, ever chimed in with tactical advice on how OCers can best exercise their rights on this matter? Oh, is it because you don't want to reveal that police have no authority to demand ID? No, it couldn't be that! Oh! Is it because of that discussion ages ago where you spent vast amounts of energy avoiding the distinction between a demand and a request. Pages of evasion as I recall. All trying to evade the various indications of a demand. You recall the one I mean. The one where you totally screwed up the facts of US vs Mendenhall while saying you had just read it. No. Avoiding the distinction between a demand and a request couldn't possibly be it. Oh, no. Such distinction would lead right into the fact that LEOs have no authority to demand ID. And cannot enforce the extra-legal demand. So, that just couldn't be the reason you have never chimed in with tactical tips for OCers about how to exercise their rights on this point. You being the professional who fully understands the dynamics of cops and encounters and all.

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471
    CItizen,

    I never said that LEOs have the right to demand i.d. in VA. They don't. Citizens don't even need to tell a LEO anything about themselves, unless they are being charged with a crime obviously. I have stated that in previous threads. Once again, I am not against anything exercising their rights. I even said to leave if you feel it necessary if you are free to go. Geez old man, give me a break here. Here's one thing that you didn't consider... you don't know what information/suspicion the LEO has. They might have enough to Terry stop you without you knowing it. The information might even be wrong, but a detention would still be legal. Regardless I don't understand why you would want to play word games. You must read a lot of internet talk and watch internet videos. Of course not all LEOs are the most professional, as with any profession involving humans. You act like a government conspiracy is out to get you. Like that officer requesting your id is doing so because he has a secret plan to sneak into your house and take your loaded weapon off your hip while you sleep (oh I know you keep it there while you sleep). keep believing in your conspiracy.

    Now for LEO229 stuff- You have called me LEO229 before, which I didn't realize what you were referring to, till I did a little research. Although this is the internet and lies run rampant, I am not LEO229, although after reading some of his/her post, I support some, not all, of what they said. Obviously our views will be similar since we work in the same field, gain the same knowledge of the real world. i could care less if you believe I am LEO229. Care less. If it makes you feel good about yourself, then you can call me whatever, whoever you want. I said prone out/hands on?? I can't recall, not denying it, just can't recall.

    TFred,
    I agree with you that there are good bad LEOs. I agree that I have been given a fair shake by most involved on this site (although those that seem to bully me, along with others, seem to be much louder). I just can't agree with the comment that there are LEOs that prone people out just to make a shift more exciting. Can't do it. I could see bad LEOs doing unethical things, but not that extreme. I am always for the termination of said officers.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA, ,
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    I am not against anything exercising their rights.
    but goes on to say:
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    You act like a government conspiracy is out to get you. Like that officer requesting your id is doing so because he has a secret plan to sneak into your house and take your loaded weapon off your hip while you sleep (oh I know you keep it there while you sleep). keep believing in your conspiracy.
    You may not be against it, but your attitude suggests that you have no strong inclination toward asserting one's rights. This is not just NovaCop' attitude; it is symptomatic of the way in which many, if not most, Americans think about their rights these days. That obscure list of rights doesn't really matter that much and only crazies such as the ACLU and the gun rights groups push them. It should never be considered crazy to protect your identity. It should never considered crazy to speak your mind (the act, not necessarily what you say). It should never be crazy to carry a gun for self protection.

    Regarding the topic of this thread specifically, NovaCop would you please take a minute to consider what it means to demand somebody's ID (and let's be honest a request from an officer sounds a heck of a lot like a demand to just about anybody else). We all understand that you need to identify people to do your job and I doubt that anybody can find fault with an officer requesting ID, but think about how that has been abused over the years. The fear of demanding identification is one of the tools that authoritarian regimes use to keep their citizens in line. It's a tool of intimidation. They restrict peoples' movements and use IDs to help enforce it. They use them to institute racist institutions and bar undesirables unless they prove they are the right race, ethnicity, or religion. In places like the GDR once a stasi official had your name you can bet your ass that you would be under surveillance.

    The United States, as a beacon of rights for the entire world, stands in opposition to such tactics. We should all cherish the fact that we can say 'no' when asked by an authority to identify ourselves. Doing so is effectively saying, "no officer, as a law abiding citizen I will not let the state intimidate me or interfere with me or my personal business as I pursue my happiness." It will be a sad day when such things are no longer important in this nation.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I got this in this mornings feeds. It is the perfect example of an Officer who thought he was off camera, making an illegal demand then changing to... it was a request, when he was on camera.
    Novacop will say that he is a small percentage and should be disciplined. That's Police code for "You got caught brother".

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    SNIP Here's one thing that you didn't consider... you don't know what information/suspicion the LEO has. They might have enough to Terry stop you without you knowing it. The information might even be wrong, but a detention would still be legal.
    Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Suuuuuure. You're not LEO229. Hahahahahahahaahaa!

    Lemme see. You (the mythical NovaCop10), said to the effect you and LEO229 would share attitudes because you are both cops. (Hahahahahahaaa! I'll go along that you are both cops. You are both one and the same cop.) However, reviewing my recent post, I see nowhere that I mentioned attitudes. I wrote about argument tactics and other characteristics. So, just like your postings under username LEO229, you make a straw statement and then explain how it isn't really an indicator, apparently thinking nobody would notice. (This is a real clue, folks, to his opinion of readers).

    And, like LEO229, or, like your usual self I should say, you went off on another totally unrelated tangent: quoted above. Whether a cop has genuine RAS or not has nothing to do with the subject--politely, verbally refusing consent to an identity demand while complying. Such police demand is just as lacking in authority with RAS as it is without RAS. But, nice try on shifting the argument. More evasion.

    And, like yourself, you used another straw argument when claiming you never said cops got authority to demand identity. It is a straw argument, because I never said you made the claim. More evasion.

    Like your old self you seem to have a real problem acknowleging there is a difference between a request and a demand. Even in your evasive post, excerpted in the quote above, you carefully avoid saying police do not have authority to make identity demands during detentions, and have no power to enforce the demand. My, my, my. You carefully say a citizen doesn't have to give information, but (haha) that is not the same thing as saying police lack authority to make the demand in the first place.

    Yep, you're LEO229. No other cop before or since has spent so much energy on evasions and misdirections. Especially on this exact subject. Yep, you're LEO229.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-24-2010 at 06:12 PM.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    SNIP Here's one thing that you didn't consider... you don't know what information/suspicion the LEO has. They might have enough to Terry stop you without you knowing it.
    Oh, by the way. It seems I do take that into account. Been writing on it for the last say, two years. Every time I see a member write to the effect that if the LEO ain't got RAS, the citizen can walk away. Here is my latest:

    "...Terry gives the initial hint. Whether RAS existed is the privilege of the courts to decide. Notice the use of the past tense--"existed." This means after the encounter. Nowhere have I read that the courts have extended their power and privilege to rule on RAS to a citizen so he can determine RAS and walk away if he is not satisfied about the officers RAS.

    I have no information that a cop is required to give you his RAS.

    I have no information that a cop cannot give you only part of his RAS to see if you will admit to something.

    I have lots of information that cops lie to detainees. Google "permissible deception" for whether it is legal for cops to lie to people they are investigating. I have no information that says a cop cannot lie to you about his RAS.

    There are rafts of court opinions that discuss various sets of circumstances and whether a given set of facts amounted to RAS. Care to try to out-guess an LEO, a professional, about what circumstances amount to RAS?..."

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...23#post1313823

    Check the post time. Compare to your little attack on me. I posted that cautionary information just ten minutes before your first outburst against me in this exchange. Ironic isn't it?

    But, just to keep things on track, whether the cop has geniune RAS has nothing to do with lacking authority to make an identity demand, and no authority to enforce the demand.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-24-2010 at 06:14 PM.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Suuuuuure. You're not LEO229. Hahahahahahahaahaa!

    Lemme see. You (the mythical NovaCop10), said to the effect you and LEO229 would share attitudes because you are both cops. (Hahahahahahaaa! I'll go along that you are both cops. You are both one and the same cop.) However, reviewing my recent post, I see nowhere that I mentioned attitudes. I wrote about argument tactics and other characteristics. So, just like your postings under username LEO229, you make a straw statement and then explain how it isn't really an indicator, apparently thinking nobody would notice. (This is a real clue, folks, to his opinion of readers).

    And, like LEO229, or, like your usual self I should say, you went off on another totally unrelated tangent: quoted above. Whether a cop has genuine RAS or not has nothing to do with the subject--politely, verbally refusing consent to an identity demand while complying. Such police demand is just as lacking with RAS as it is without RAS. But, nice try on shifting the argument. More evasion.

    And, like yourself, you used another straw argument when claiming you never said cops got authority to demand identity. It is a straw argument, because I never said you made the claim. More evasion.

    Like your old self you seem to have a real problem acknowleging there is a difference between a request and a demand. Even in your evasive post, excerpted in the quote above, you carefully avoid saying police do not have authority to make identity demands during detentions, and have no power to enforce the demand. My, my, my. You carefully say a citizen doesn't have to give information, but (haha) that is not the same thing as saying police lack authority to make the demand in the first place.

    Yep, you're LEO229. No other cop before or since has spent so much energy on evasions and misdirections. Especially on this exact subject. Yep, you're LEO229.
    Well, let's see if he is.
    Novacop, you did some research on LEO229 lately. What was the REAL reason Leo229 was removed as a Moderator? It's floating around in the threads and I'm sure you saw it.

    If you don't want to repeat it....you're 229. Not being argumentative and evasive...the single act that did him in.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    Oh Citizen,...Why play word games?
    So, after all that go-round, we're still waiting for whether Mr. Liberty-minded, freedom-loving, OC supporter, NovaCop229 is going to give us tactical advice on how OCers can best exercise their rights on this matter.

    < crickets >

    Bwahahahahahaahahahaahaaa!

    You'd think that would be the main focus of discussion from somebody who genuinely wanted to help. And, what an opportunity for expert advice, him being a cop, understanding cops, and being very familiar with the dynamics of encounters, and all.

  25. #25
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    What a coincidence...

    Interesting, after bantering this subject about the past few days, this article appears in Saturday's Free Lance-Star. I suppose this newspaper gets it "right" about the same amount of time as most other newspapers, which, sadly, is not as often as it should be...

    According to the report, this story has two major problems. First, the initial report came out as a man with a gun, and near a school, which come to find out later, "the initial caller wasn't sure he'd seen a gun."

    Second, in black-and-white for all to read: "Calverley (the deputy) told Latson (the suspect) he was under arrest for refusing to provide his identity."

    I suppose this incident probably does involve a RAS, given the man-with-a-gun call. But if I remember right, everything I've read here recently seemed to say you only have to identify yourself after you've been arrested. I wonder what this initial charge was?

    Unfortunately for both us who are interested in the identification part of the story, as well as for the defendant, this particular event then quickly went way south and quite past the point of no return. The identification part of the story will likely be ignored, even though one could make the case that it started the whole rest of the story.

    Something doesn't add up here.

    TFred


    Wounding charges advance in Stafford
    July 24, 2010 12:35 am

    BY KEITH EPPS

    As far as anyone knows, Reginald "Neli" Latson had committed no crime when he ran into Stafford Deputy Thomas Calverley May 24.

    By the time that encounter was over, Calverley was in a lot of pain and the 18-year-old Latson was in a lot of trouble.

    Latson is charged with malicious wounding on a law enforcement officer and assault on a law enforcement officer.

    Judge Sarah Deneke sent the charges to a Stafford grand jury following a preliminary hearing yesterday in Stafford General District Court.

    Latson's case has received national attention in part because his mother, Lisa Alexander, has launched an Internet campaign accusing Stafford authorities of racial profiling and insensitivity.

    Alexander said her son has Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism, and should be home receiving care instead of being locked up in the Rappahannock Regional Jail under no bond. Two attempts at securing a bond for Latson have failed.

    Alexander has also accused Calverley of instigating the altercation by using racial slurs and other comments.

    Stafford officials deny the allegations and say Latson was arrested simply because of his actions.

    No racial allegations or questions about autism were brought up in court yesterday.

    According to police and testimony, the May 24 incident began at 8:37 a.m. when the Sheriff's Office got a call about a man sitting outside the Porter Library near Park Ridge Elementary School with a gun.

    Schools in the area were locked down and a manhunt began. It wasn't until later that police learned that the initial caller wasn't sure he'd seen a gun.

    Calverley, a school resource officer at North Stafford High School, said he saw a young men fitting the suspect's description coming out of the woods toward the high school about 20 minutes later.

    Calverley testified that he drove up near Latson and said, "Hey, what's up man?" He said Latson responded that he had overslept, but later acknowledged that he wasn't a student at North Stafford.

    After determining that the suspect had no weapon, Calverley said he asked the young man for his name. He said the suspect became agitated, cursed and accused the deputy of harassing him.

    The two then got into a wrestling match after Calverley told Latson he was under arrest for refusing to provide his identity.

    The wrestling match became increasingly physical, and Calverley estimated that he was punched in the head 25 times or more.

    The deputy said he was dazed, but eventually was able to unleash his pepper spray. But he said the punches kept coming and the suspect got the spray away from him.

    Calverley said he got the spray back and tossed it to the side. He was finally able to call for help, which came a short time later.

    Before leaving the high school property, Calverley said, Latson cursed at him again and spit in his face.

    Calverley said he spent four days in the hospital after the incident. Among his injuries were multiple fractures to his ankle, a large gash in the back of his head and multiple cuts and abrasions. He has been unable to return to work.

    Latson was arrested about 45 minutes after the incident and has been in custody ever since.

    As is customary in preliminary hearings, no evidence was put on by defense attorney John Mayoras. A grand jury will decide whether to indict Latson on Aug. 2.

    Keith Epps: 540/374-5404
    Email: kepps@freelancestar.com

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •