H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Remember "you may beat their rap but you will not beat their ride."Not that it sticks, just that it is initially used to try and get the person to comply.
Remember "you may beat their rap but you will not beat their ride."Not that it sticks, just that it is initially used to try and get the person to comply.
Very first sentence: "The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials." So by refusing to give your name you are interfering with the work of the police! It just requires you to ignore the second sentence of the second paragraph that states: "However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so."
Yes my response was sarcasm, though I believe I've seen people mention on this board that the OOJ charge is relatively common when one refuses to waive their rights when a cop demands it. Not that it sticks, just that it is initially used to try and get the person to comply.
If that's the citation someone is going to try to use, then they may wish to enroll in continuing education in the form of remedial English.
Noncooperation is not interference.
The definition of 'interference' illustrates the meaning by giving such examples as - -
to come into opposition with, as one thing with another;
to take part in the affairs of others;
to meddle in another's life;
to strike against each other, or one against another;
to come into physical collision;
to interpose or intervene for a particular purpose;
to act reciprocally so as to augment, diminish, or otherwise affect one another;
The astute reader will note that one must take opposing action in order to interfere; to stand to one side, to move away from, to refuse to become involved with or to refuse to cooperate are not interference. Were it so, then if the police put out an advertisement for all criminals to come in and confess their sins and a criminal did not, then he could be changed with obstruction of justice for failing to cooperate.
It's immediately obvious that such is not the case.
Remember "you may beat their rap but you will not beat their ride."
I'm just curious, but did you not see the second paragraph where I said my response was sarcasm? Also just because one isn't truely obstructing the cops doesn't mean that they won't at least charge you with it and go from there until it gets thrown out. I believe MKEgal had even been charged with OOJ in the start (though I could be wrong).
You know, after I hit post I thought of editting the post to say at the end "just because you will beat the rap doesn't mean you will beat the ride" in order to help highlight how a cop could try to charge you with OOJ even if you aren't truely obstructing justice.
I don't know about other states, but this is the cite from the Alabama Code:
[h=5]Section 15-5-30[/h][h=4]Authority of peace officer to stop and question.[/h]A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
[h=5](Acts 1966, Ex. Sess., No. 157, p. 183, §1.)[/h]Do notice that it does not say that you have to produce any form of government-issued identification. Other states may require you to produce an identity document on demand, but, again, I would think that the officer would have to have RAS to make that demand.
One of you brighter individuals may have the cite, but, if I remember correctly, the courts have found that the mere carry of a firearm does not, in and of itself, create RAS.
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
But ONLY upon RAS, right?...
Yes, Alabama is one of the few states that DO have a "Stop & ID" statute on the books.
But ONLY upon RAS, right?
I don't know about other states, but this is the cite from the Alabama Code:
Section 15-5-30
Authority of peace officer to stop and question.
A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
(Acts 1966, Ex. Sess., No. 157, p. 183, §1.)
Do notice that it does not say that you have to produce any form of government-issued identification. Other states may require you to produce an identity document on demand, but, again, I would think that the officer would have to have RAS to make that demand.
One of you brighter individuals may have the cite, but, if I remember correctly, the courts have found that the mere carry of a firearm does not, in and of itself, create RAS.
SNIP One of you brighter individuals may have the cite, but, if I remember correctly, the courts have found that the mere carry of a firearm does not, in and of itself, create RAS.
US v. DeBerry would also be very applicable in this instance. See Judge Woods concurrence at paragraph 10.
"...The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon. The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view. I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons. At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?). This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here. It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them. However, we do not have that situation. Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today..."
I do hope we hear from SgtScott again, I'm very interested in seeing him come up with a paragraph from the Tennesee Code requiring someone to do what he says the law says.
I look forward to adding that section of Code to my list.
The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The reasonableness *188 of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined “by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The Nevada statute satisfies that standard. The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the Nevada statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself: it does not change its duration, Place, supra, at 709, 103 S.Ct. 2637, or its location, Dunaway, supra, at 212, 99 S.Ct. 2248. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
How the hell can you sit there as a LEO and proclaim that someone you detain is obligated by law to ID themselves, even if there is not a law about that on the books??? If there is no law about it, you cannot state "It's the law!"
How is this good cop behavior in any way/shape/form?
It was quite clear that you did have an insufficient understanding of the stated case law, as the text did support his claim, and did not support yours.
No, I am not his big, small, or same sized brother. None of that is relevant a bit, other than an attempt at the ad-hom argument.
It's not in the TCA. There's a resist stop, frisk halt statute that you can look up, but it involves any force being used.
I love how you people think that I'm pulling this out of my rear-end because you can't find it in a TN law book. I'll try to put it in context because it's really not your opinions on the matter that concern me at all. It's the TN courts that I attend quite often. Their opinions hold that officers have the right to identify a suspect of a crime if they can articulate that the person has committed, is committing, or about to commit a crime per the Terry standard. It's not rocket science. If we couldn't ever identify someone suspected of a crime, then many criminals roaming your streets wouldn't get caught. Hiibel has reinforced this. What do you think the standard is for the many states that don't have stop/identify statutes? You think you have to see it in a law/code book for it to be enforceable? I've done it hundreds of times and will continue to do it. Why? because it's perfectly legal in my state and any state where the reasonable suspicion standard is met. Ironically, this is directly from Hiibel,
The US Supreme Court has stated that principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. For some reason some of you believe that it has to be written in text to be enforceable. Their analysis also advises that for those states that do make it a law, it is not in violation of Fourth Amendment protection(s). Some states make it a crime to simply refuse by name. Other states make it a crime to use force in the process of obstructing a LEO during a Terry stop.
Bottom line....it's constitutional for me to verify the identity of someone during a Terry stop. If they want to provide a name or government ID, it's up to them. If I have to use force (by removing an ID) to identify them while I'm investigating a crime, then they're getting charged with our obstruction statute. You may not agree with it, but it's not you wearing the black robe.
Care to elaborate on what part of my interpretation of Hiibel was "insufficient?"
It's not in the TCA...I love how you people think that I'm pulling this out of my rear-end because you can't find it in a TN law book.