Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Held in jail because he refuses to ID himself..

  1. #1
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098

    Held in jail because he refuses to ID himself..


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Interesting, doesn't sound like the guy is all together though. I wonder what the charges are? I guess since he was arrested he has to identify himself. Or am I wrong on that?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Interesting, doesn't sound like the guy is all together though. I wonder what the charges are? I guess since he was arrested he has to identify himself. Or am I wrong on that?
    Minor trespassing charges from being in a parking garage. He was said to be well dressed, educated and well spoken, as well as polite.

    Yeah. I'm not sure about him being required to ID himself, however.. Being as how they haven't charged him with any other crime related to just that, I would be willing to guess that it is not against to law to refuse to ID yourself after being arrested.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Minor trespassing charges from being in a parking garage. He was said to be well dressed, educated and well spoken, as well as polite.

    Yeah. I'm not sure about him being required to ID himself, however.. Being as how they haven't charged him with any other crime related to just that, I would be willing to guess that it is not against to law to refuse to ID yourself after being arrested.
    Trespassing is one charge. What about the other two, they could be more serious maybe? My question is if he continues to refuse to identify himself, how long can they hold him?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court centers around identifying oneself. The case, linked below, is about the constitutionality of a Nevada statute requiring one to identify himself to a cop under certain conditions.

    The Kennedy, writing for the majority, explains that in court the defendant must be known--according to their logic anyway. Check out the opinion. It talks about the government's reasons and interests. Which all sound a little like hooey because of one important little fact: the government has the live body.

    It doesn't matter what his name is. The government can still try him and convict him and hold him through his sentence. It doesn't matter what name is attached to the live body; they can still carry out everything against him except chase up a fine if he refuses to pay.

    But, there is a bigger issue. Government otherwise having the ability to "disappear" people. As in certain South American countries in the past. This is not a good thing.

    As an American, I want to be able to know about it when government seizes one of my fellow citizens. I want to be able to know who they seized, why they seized him. And, just as important, I want to know who seized him--government. Not have it happen that one day, Joe just stops showing up at the lunchroom table, you know.

    I don't recall seeing much about that in Hiibel.

    Nonetheless, I think its a good thing if we know who is arrested and jailed, for the most important reason of all--keeping an eye on government.

    Hiibel court case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

    You can actually watch the police stop that turned into Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court. The police dashcam of the encounter is on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dFRrFvuGsc
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-26-2011 at 12:34 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    Weird. Trespassing in a parking garage. Wonder what drew the LEOs' attention to him.

    I was getting a warrant in Hampton, VA once and the Magistrate disclosed to me that they had a man in jail going on six months for refusal to ID himself. You've got to wonder what they are hiding from when they can stay in jail that long for no reason. And I don't think it's an arbitrary rule, most likely being held officially in contempt of court.

    So at what point do you administer justice to a nameless man and cut him loose?
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Trespassing is one charge. What about the other two, they could be more serious maybe? My question is if he continues to refuse to identify himself, how long can they hold him?
    When folks are released on bail, it is with the belief that they will return for future proceedings, either because they stand to lose a substantial amount of money or because there is reason to believe that they are upstanding enough to be counted upon--or both. If this man does not identify himself, he has zero chance of coming up with bail money (unless he had it in his pockets at the time of arrest) and does not instill any faith in his willingness to show up for trial.

    It is reasonable that he stay in jail until trial.

    I only wonder whether he was arrested because of a failure to "cooperate" with police. That would be troubling.

    On ninja edit (with the expressed intent of making some posts down there look pretty foolish): Please note that nowhere am I saying that the law causes one to be held for refusing to identify himself. Instead, I am pointing out that releasing someone on bail who remains unidentified is a practical impossibility, not a legal one. RIF, folks. No citation of law is necessary, or even possible, as I am not making a comment on the effect of law. Duh.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-26-2011 at 10:24 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Another small peak into the mindset of LE.Really? If he is in some other database, is it possible that there may be some forensic data to determine his identity? A finger print database search, after four weeks, reveals nothing?

    In other words, he has to be a criminal, or why would he not just ID himself? If he has nothing to hide, that is.

    Sadly, so typical of LE today.
    And according to Hiibel that would be a valid reason for the man not to identify himself. Because it would infringe on his 5th. If they have no other reason to hold him than he should be let go.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395

    Stop and ID

    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  10. #10
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 09:04 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC-moto450r View Post
    Excellent point
    They do have other reason to hold him. We don't have enough information to determine whether those reasons were trumped up to punish contempt of cop or they were genuine. If it all stems from his refusal to identify himself, that fact, in and of itself, does not provide grounds for arrest.

    I can't speak to State law where he was arrested, but, in AL, if the officer lawfully stops you, he has the authority to demand your name and address. If the lawful reason was RAS of criminal behavior on your part, he can detain you. If that RAS develops into PC, you can be arrested.

    My only worry is that the only thing the man did "wrong" was failing to identify himself under circumstances where the officer was not authorized to demand that information. If that is the case, then the man's rights were violated. If the man was breaking the law, the officers had PC of that law-breaking, and the man refused to identify himself (which might have facilitated the officer writing a ticket, essentially on-the-spot bail), then being arrested and jailed is reasonable.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Another small peak into the mindset of LE.Really? If he is in some other database, is it possible that there may be some forensic data to determine his identity? A finger print database search, after four weeks, reveals nothing?

    In other words, he has to be a criminal, or why would he not just ID himself? If he has nothing to hide, that is.

    Sadly, so typical of LE today.
    So we are now held indefinately for not identifying ourselves?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    So we are now held indefinately for not identifying ourselves?
    No. The man is not getting bail because such would be impossible as he is not identifying himself. He can still be processed through the judicial system. If he is acquitted, they will not be able to hold him. If he is convicted, he will have to be released upon serving his time. All of this can happen independent of his identifying himself.

    If he identifies himself, he can facilitate ending his pretrial confinement.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No. The man is not getting bail because such would be impossible as he is not identifying himself. He can still be processed through the judicial system. If he is acquitted, they will not be able to hold him. If he is convicted, he will have to be released upon serving his time. All of this can happen independent of his identifying himself.

    If he identifies himself, he can facilitate ending his pretrial confinement.
    Cite? Where they can deny you bail for not having your identity?

    Pretrial confinement is wrong in my opinion. You are innocent until proven guilty, guilt is found at trial, so how can you justify confinement until that time? Seems fairly unconstitutional to me.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Cite? Where they can deny you bail for not having your identity?
    Howdy SVG!
    Don't hold your breath waiting for a cite from that particular source. I, along with quite a few others, are still waiting for one to a claim made that forum members were trying to foment violent revolution against the government of the United States. Ain't seen it, despite several requests that he provide specific examples from the forum. To this date, none has been forthcoming. So good luck getting a straight answer from somebody who will demand answers from others while refusing to do so himself.

    Back on topic, I agree that it is inherently wrong to hold somebody indefinately without rights of habeus corpus. I do not believe one is required to abdicate their 5th Amendment rights to bail out of jail. Of course, without any clue to his identity or place of residence, it would become difficult if the individual skipped bail. I think now they're crowding into his right to a speedy trial.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 09:03 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The wording of Utah law is almost identical to Alabama law. So I stand by my comments and extend them to the situation in Utah.

    Apart from that, I am still at a total loss as to what you are questioning.

    I cannot speak to UT law (why you ask I don't know), but in AL, if a LEO makes a lawful demand for name and address and one refuses to give it, he is not violating that section, he is violating the obstruction section. Again, that is only IF the demand is lawful.

    As far as RAS for trespassing goes, the LEO could only reasonably have that if he knows that the man is in the parking garage without the permission of the owner. It would be unreasonable for him to suspect trespass without knowledge of the owner's wishes. That very situation made the cops look foolish when they tried to trespass me from Target without having bothered to find out if the owner (or his agent) objected to my presence with a gun. They did not.

    Again, though, apart from that, I have no idea what you are looking for or if even the above in any way satisfies your curiosity.

    On edit: I noticed your location. You aren't the erstwhile poster Eric, are you?
    Last edited by eye95; 07-26-2011 at 11:39 AM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This gentleman's plight is not that grievious, all he has to say is John Doe, homeless, and he has satisfied the statute.
    Only if the information he provides is true. If the information is false, he is still obstructing. Ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    ...in AL, if a LEO makes a lawful demand for name and address and one refuses to give it, he is not violating that section, he is violating the obstruction section. Again, that is only IF the demand is lawful.
    You emphasized it, but I wanted to re-emphasize this point. "Lawful" means he has a specified authority under the law to demand a name and address.

    Sadly many, perhaps most, officers will take the stand on the street that any request by them is the same as a lawful demand, and they will be backed up by their chain of command on this, as well as by the prosecutor and many first-line magistrates. It's one of those situations where a person might sit in jail for days/weeks/months until they get to "prove their innocence".

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    You emphasized it, but I wanted to re-emphasize this point. "Lawful" means he has a specified authority under the law to demand a name and address.

    Sadly many, perhaps most, officers will take the stand on the street that any request by them is the same as a lawful demand, and they will be backed up by their chain of command on this, as well as by the prosecutor and many first-line magistrates. It's one of those situations where a person might sit in jail for days/weeks/months until they get to "prove their innocence".
    I cannot speak to every instance, but the time I refused to identify myself, the officers came to accept the fact that they weren't getting that information and would be held liable for any actions they took in retribution. The fact that they knew I was recording the whole affair added some gravity to their deliberations on how to proceed. It also helped that I carried sterile. I physically could not produce either of the unlawfully demanded licenses.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Quite correct, given that Martha and Scooter were already known by LE. Any request by LE to those two would have been a mere formality. Therefor no deception would have been necessary.

    Not so in this case. His statement, if he gives one, that he is John Doe, and homless could not reasonably be refuted by the authorities absent any fact(s) to prove his statement false. Nice try on the Martha and Scooter angle though, your point on the law is obvious, to me anyway.
    My point was not the identification of these two individuals, just that providing false information (which includes fake names and addresses) is grounds for being tried and convicted, even if there turns out to be no prosecutable underlying crime.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Weird. Trespassing in a parking garage. Wonder what drew the LEOs' attention to him.

    I was getting a warrant in Hampton, VA once and the Magistrate disclosed to me that they had a man in jail going on six months for refusal to ID himself. You've got to wonder what they are hiding from when they can stay in jail that long for no reason. And I don't think it's an arbitrary rule, most likely being held officially in contempt of court.

    So at what point do you administer justice to a nameless man and cut him loose?
    That's a violation of the Speedy Trial Act in VA. John Doe is used if the accused refuses to give his name, but John Doe still has rights.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    When folks are released on bail, it is with the belief that they will return for future proceedings, either because they stand to lose a substantial amount of money or because there is reason to believe that they are upstanding enough to be counted upon--or both. If this man does not identify himself, he has zero chance of coming up with bail money (unless he had it in his pockets at the time of arrest) and does not instill any faith in his willingness to show up for trial.

    It is reasonable that he stay in jail until trial.

    I only wonder whether he was arrested because of a failure to "cooperate" with police. That would be troubling.

    On ninja edit (with the expressed intent of making some posts down there look pretty foolish): Please note that nowhere am I saying that the law causes one to be held for refusing to identify himself. Instead, I am pointing out that releasing someone on bail who remains unidentified is a practical impossibility, not a legal one. RIF, folks. No citation of law is necessary, or even possible, as I am not making a comment on the effect of law. Duh.
    State v Hittle comes to mind for UT re speedy trial, although I'm not aware of a statutory tolling. None the less, the Appellate Court in UT doesn't take kindly to violating 6th Amendment rights. I, as posted, know that VA has a 5 month tolling.
    "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
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Authorities have identified an inmate held for three weeks in a Utah jail as a missing New Mexico man.

    Phillip T. Beavers was arrested July 1 in the Provo Police Department parking garage, about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. He was ordered held on $1,200 cash bond for three misdemeanor charges of interfering with an investigation, failure to provide information to a police officer and criminal trespass.




    The man refused to provide his name to authorities, baffling investigators who have been reaching out to the public and media for help.

    On Tuesday afternoon, authorities said the man's brother identified him. Additional details weren't immediately available.
    "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

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Authorities have identified an inmate held for three weeks in a Utah jail as a missing New Mexico man.

    Phillip T. Beavers was arrested July 1 in the Provo Police Department parking garage, about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. He was ordered held on $1,200 cash bond for three misdemeanor charges of interfering with an investigation, failure to provide information to a police officer and criminal trespass.

    The man refused to provide his name to authorities, baffling investigators who have been reaching out to the public and media for help.

    On Tuesday afternoon, authorities said the man's brother identified him. Additional details weren't immediately available.
    Rats! I was hoping he was some liberal law-professor setting up a civil rights suit.

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
  •