Identifying ourselves to police?

Citizen · Jan 17, 2012

SgtScott31 said:
For a brief second I didn't sign in and saw Citizen's comments. Let me say this Citizen since you're obviously still reading/commenting on my posts. Your opinion/interpretation has no bearing at all. I find it comical that you boast in your posts like you have vast knowledge of applications of TN law when you have never stepped in a TN courtroom, let alone walked a day in the shoes of a LEO or applied TN code. You can laugh, insult, cry, defacate or do anything else to your heart's content, but ultimately it's up to the judge to decide the constitutionality of my actions. I have no problem with ANY of my cases going before the Trial Courts, Criminal Court of Appeals or TN Supreme Court.

You can twist my words, falsely attribute to me, and evade all you want.

But you still haven't provided the requested cite. Nor, withdrawn your assertion. Say anything you want about me. Just provide the cite.

SgtScott31 wrote: SNIP If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.

Cite, please.

Brass Magnet · Jan 17, 2012

Since you've got Citizen on ignore.....

SgtScott31 said:
If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.

Please follow forum rules and give us a cite to back up your assertion.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

ncwabbit · Jan 17, 2012

no i will save grapeshot the effort to delete my post by not putting it out here...

nah...wrong approach...will take out those comments violating forum rules...

Sgt, of course we are still reading this thread...the WHOLE forum membership is awaiting, w/bated breath :banana:, the cites to support your position...

citizen, et al., i think Sgt is awaiting for the courts to render a ruling on his misreprestnation of the statutes so he is able to provide a cite...

opps just went on ignore i think...

wabbit

PS: going to be lonely out here if he puts the whole membership on ignore...

PSS: also makes me wonder about the other forums he frequents...they also must adore his comments...

Fallschirjmäger · Jan 17, 2012

Until he provides the citation; is there any forum rule prohibiting members from politely reminding him of that in any thread where he posts?

ncwabbit · Jan 17, 2012

ya know...

i would put him on ignore, but would miss the fasinating rethoric being espoused...such an exemplary example of how the public forms their opinion(s) about certain professions.

wabbit

ps: now i understand what my psych professors meant bout there being two kinds of attention...pos and neg...

pss: as the thread asks...i personally will follow my military training...name, rank, service number...

SgtScott31 · Jan 17, 2012

No court opinions (that I could find) where the court directly addressed the issue of a citizen refusing to ID himself during a valid detention. State of TN v. Daniel is the leading case where our high court states that retention of someone's ID constitutes a seizure.

Here's the deal, obviously you all want something in writing. Apparently this issue has never been addressed by the Court of Appeals or TN Supreme Court. If it has, it wasn't a published case where it is listed in Westlaw. Does it prove I'm wrong? nope. Does it prove you're right? Nope. It proves that no defendant (or his attorney) attempted to challenge a LEOs authority to identify them during a stop.

For those of you who have never lived here, worked here, been involved in the law making or law enforcing process, I encourage you to come into TN and prove your theory that it's illegal/unconstitutional for LEOs in this state to demand ID during an investigative stop. Take some actions that require LE intervention/detention and refuse to identify yourself. Roll the dice and prove me wrong. Officers do it every day in this state and if it's as "wrong" as many of you imply it is, then the issue would have been resolved by the courts years ago. Until a District Attorney or judge tells me otherwise, the practice will continue.

On a side note, let me give a scenario and I want you to give an answer as to what you would do:

You're a police officer and get dispatched to a person breaking into vehicles in a Walmart parking lot. The dispatcher relays witness information that describes the suspect as a white male, 6' tall, wearing a striped red shirt and blue jeans. You pull in not long afterwards and see a guy matching the description to a tee. You approach and talk to him. He appears nervous but is somewhat compliant. You notice what appears to be glass fragments on his jeans, but he doesn't have any tools or stolen property on him that you could see. You haven't quite built up enough PC to arrest him, but you definitely have enough to detain him. In the process of questioning you ask for name (or ID) and he refuses. How would your investigation identify this person should enough evidence develop after you let him go to get a warrant?

MamaLiberty · Jan 17, 2012

SouthernBoy said:
For a quick and consice reference, get your hands on "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party. This is a short handbook that is chock full of valuable information regarding topics frequently discussioned on these forums.

http://www.javelinpress.com/you_and_the_police.html
New for 2009
You & The Police!

$16.00

ABOUT YOU AND THE POLICE!

Until now, the average American has lacked a simple, up-to-date summary of constitutional law regarding confrontations with the police. More and more peaceable, law-abiding folks are being caught up in the widening police dragnet of roadblocks, checkpoints, searches, intrusive questioning and civil forfeitures. Americans have long needed a clear explanation of exactly where our rights end and executive power begins, especially if you travel or carry a gun.

More than a legal handbook, You & The Police! explains precisely how to win police confrontations using: sample dialogue, "what-if" scenarios, and practical tips. Armed with this book, you will know just how to avoid traffic tickets, bogus searches, roadside delays, and general harassment. Probably 90% of erroneous civil forfeitures from honest folks could have been avoided had they known about this book. There is no reason for us to be bluffed or intimidated by the police any longer.

Updated for 2009! This new 2009 edition is a greatly revised, revamped, and expanded version since the revision of 2005. It contains some of Boston's thoughts on the 2008 Heller decision, plus many new Supreme Court cases since 2005.

Reviewed by several practicing attorneys, you can rely upon the quality information and ideas inside. This is still the only book of its kind, and a must read for every American in this increasingly regulatory age.

You and The Police! is a unique, timely title with excellent credentials.

Fallschirjmäger · Jan 17, 2012

I can answer that -
Let us suppose he says, "Officer, my name is Mortimer 'Mickey' Mouse. Since you are apparently detaining me because you have a reasonable suspicion that I may have committed an illegal act, I'm going to exercise my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent until I have retained a lawyer. Anything else I can do for you today?"

Well, he isn't going to answer any more questions, is he?
And I, as Officer Friendly, have no more to on on than some glass, no tools, no stolen items, no bloodied hands, and no witnesses running up to me saying "Oh, thank heavens, you caught the miscreant!"

Without probable cause, he goes on his way.
What do you want me to do, Birk him?

Citizen · Jan 17, 2012

SgtScott31 said:
No court opinions (that I could find) where the court directly addressed the issue of a citizen refusing to ID himself during a valid detention. State of TN v. Daniel is the leading case where our high court states that retention of someone's ID constitutes a seizure.

Here's the deal, obviously you all want something in writing. Apparently this issue has never been addressed by the Court of Appeals or TN Supreme Court. If it has, it wasn't a published case where it is listed in Westlaw. Does it prove I'm wrong? nope. Does it prove you're right? Nope. It proves that no defendant (or his attorney) attempted to challenge a LEOs authority to identify them during a stop.

For those of you who have never lived here, worked here, been involved in the law making or law enforcing process, I encourage you to come into TN and prove your theory that it's illegal/unconstitutional for LEOs in this state to demand ID during an investigative stop. Take some actions that require LE intervention/detention and refuse to identify yourself. Roll the dice and prove me wrong. Officers do it every day in this state and if it's as "wrong" as many of you imply it is, then the issue would have been resolved by the courts years ago. Until a District Attorney or judge tells me otherwise, the practice will continue.

On a side note, let me give a scenario and I want you to give an answer as to what you would do:

You're a police officer and get dispatched to a person breaking into vehicles in a Walmart parking lot. The dispatcher relays witness information that describes the suspect as a white male, 6' tall, wearing a striped red shirt and blue jeans. You pull in not long afterwards and see a guy matching the description to a tee. You approach and talk to him. He appears nervous but is somewhat compliant. You notice what appears to be glass fragments on his jeans, but he doesn't have any tools or stolen property on him that you could see. You haven't quite built up enough PC to arrest him, but you definitely have enough to detain him. In the process of questioning you ask for name (or ID) and he refuses. How would your investigation identify this person should enough evidence develop after you let him go to get a warrant?

Hey, fellas,

SgtScott31 is still dodging and evading. The recent round of cite requests did not ask for a cite to TN law. He was the one who brought up all his experience in TN courts. He's still evading; he's shifting the subject. Now he's into asking you questions, while still not providing a cite to his original assertion which most definitely included every state in the union.

1. This is not the TN subforum.
2. Some of the cite requesters are from other states, Missouri was one I recall.
3. His assertion of law covered all states.

Don't let him lead you off on the merry side-path. Just do this: (next post)

Citizen · Jan 17, 2012

SgtScott31 said:
SNIP If I can articulate enough reasonable suspicion to detain you, then you're obligated (by law) to give me enough info to identify you. This is the case whether the involved state has a "stop and identify" statute or not.

Cite, please.

OC for ME · Jan 17, 2012

SgtScott31 said:
<snip> On a side note, let me give a scenario and I want you to give an answer as to what you would do:

You're a police officer and get dispatched to a person breaking into vehicles in a Walmart parking lot. The dispatcher relays witness information that describes the suspect as a white male, 6' tall, wearing a striped red shirt and blue jeans. You pull in not long afterwards and see a guy matching the description to a tee. You approach and talk to him. He appears nervous but is somewhat compliant. You notice what appears to be glass fragments on his jeans, but he doesn't have any tools or stolen property on him that you could see. You haven't quite built up enough PC to arrest him, but you definitely have enough to detain him. In the process of questioning you ask for name (or ID) and he refuses. How would your investigation identify this person should enough evidence develop after you let him go to get a warrant?

How does this person identifying himself exclude him as the person reported as breaking into cars? If a witness(s) positively ID him, his identity will be discovered later. If he is not positively ID'd by a witness(s) then he not providing ID is moot. This is predicated on the fact that it is not a offense to not ID in TN when detained and ID demaned.

SgtScott31 · Jan 17, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
I can answer that -
Let us suppose he says, "Officer, my name is Mortimer 'Mickey' Mouse. Since you are apparently detaining me because you have a reasonable suspicion that I may have committed an illegal act, I'm going to exercise my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent until I have retained a lawyer. Anything else I can do for you today?"

Well, he isn't going to answer any more questions, is he?
And I, as Officer Friendly, have no more to on on than some glass, no tools, no stolen items, no bloodied hands, and no witnesses running up to me saying "Oh, thank heavens, you caught the miscreant!"

Without probable cause, he goes on his way.
What do you want me to do, Birk him?

Similar to what I was expecting from you. Although he may not say anything to incriminate himself, I have the authority to at least determine who he is given the facts that I can articulate thus far. That way if the evidence is not present for an arrest at that point he is at least identified when enough evidence is obtained for a warrant. The governmental interests in solving crimes outweighs the minimal interests in detaining and identifying someone suspected of a crime. You disagree. Luckily my courts don't see it your way.

Thundar · Jan 17, 2012

SouthernBoy said:
I posted Citizen's opening text on another thread and someone offered a list of states which have stop and identify laws. I don't know these to be factual but here they are;

States with “stop and identify” laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

Be careful what you do with that list of state laws. In Virginia there is no state law, but certain localities have stop and identify laws.

SgtScott31 · Jan 17, 2012

OC for ME said:
How does this person identifying himself exclude him as the person reported as breaking into cars? If a witness(s) positively ID him, his identity will be discovered later. If he is not positively ID'd by a witness(s) then he not providing ID is moot. This is predicated on the fact that it is not a offense to not ID in TN when detained and ID demaned.

That doesn't make sense. How can any witnesses identify him later if police don't even know who he is.

OC for ME · Jan 17, 2012

A witness can positively ID him as the person without knowing that person's name. LE will ID him, discover his name later, after his arrest.

OC for ME · Jan 17, 2012

Unless of course he does not have a criminal record, even then his 'identity' is likely to be discovered, eventually, by LE.

OC for ME · Jan 17, 2012

If a witness(s) positively ID him, his identity will be discovered later.

Note the comma, please.

Fallschirjmäger · Jan 17, 2012

So, what are you gonna do, Officer Friendly, 'take him downtown' and have his fingerprints taken? You just said you don't have probable cause to arrest. You can detain him a reasonable time to establish PC, but if he doesn't talk to you, then it's all on you.

Oh, and I notice you Still Haven't provided the citation for the question you were asked earlier. Should we take it as a tacit admission of failure to do so?

"...The governmental interests in solving crimes outweighs the minimal interests in detaining and identifying someone suspected of a crime. You disagree. Luckily my courts don't see it your way..."

That right there, folks is sig-worthy. It shows who he considers to be "us" and who he considers "them." Sadly, SgtScott is at odds with such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, who stated rather the opposite as "...it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".

OC for ME · Jan 17, 2012

Thundar said:
Be careful what you do with that list of state laws. In Virginia there is no state law, but certain localities have stop and identify laws.

The Missouri statute applies to St Louis city and Kansas City only.

SgtScott31 · Jan 17, 2012

OC for ME said:
A witness can positively ID him as the person without knowing that person's name. LE will ID him, discover his name later, after his arrest.

How exactly? photo lineup? police can't conduct one without knowing the suspect's name. It appears that the majority here believe that the only way police can legally obtain someone's name is after the arrest. Unfortunately, that's not usually how it works.

So, what are you gonna do, Officer Friendly, 'take him downtown' and have his fingerprints taken? You just said you don't have probable cause to arrest. You can detain him a reasonable time to establish PC, but if he doesn't talk to you, then it's all on you.

Oh, and I notice you Still Haven't provided the citation for the question you were asked earlier. Should we take it as a tacit admission of failure to do so?

I'm not going to take him downtown yet, but there's a reason we have an obstruction/resist stop, frisk, halt statute. As far as the cite I gave my answer, you just don't want to accept it. I could ask you the same thing. Where is case law that says I don't have the authority to force identification? You don't have it. A LEOs authority to demand ID during an investigative detention hasn't been challenged in my state. If you want to be the first, be my guest. If the court rules in your favor, I'll be the first to congratulate you.

That right there, folks is sig-worthy. It shows who he considers to be "us" and who he considers "them." Sadly, SgtScott is at odds with such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, who stated rather the opposite as "...it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

Hiding behind quotes? The "us" versus "them" comment obviously means the OC.com folks here who think they know something about law enforcement versus the courts, legislative bodies, and law enforcers. I find it amusing you can sit behind a computer screen, look up some case law on the internet, and somehow think you're an expert in the law involving the other 49 states you don't live in. Funny, I guess the judges and justices of the courts in the U.S. oppose the idea behind good ole Ben and the others, because they disagree with you in a majority of jurisdictions as well when it comes to the issue. If you think the states don't have a right to demand ID during an investigative detention that's on you. If you think that just because it's not codified it's unconstitutional, that's on you too.

Bottom line, you think I'm wrong. I don't and neither do those @ the courthouse. It ends there.

Identifying ourselves to police?

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member