-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Held in jail because he refuses to ID himself..
- Thread starter VW_Factor
- Start date
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
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?
VW_Factor
Regular Member
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.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
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?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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
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:
paramedic70002
Regular Member
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?
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?
eye95
Well-known member
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:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
OC-moto450r
Guest
Stop and ID
2A
2A
Last edited:
OC-moto450r
Guest
2A
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
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.
Tucker6900
Regular Member
So we are now held indefinately for not identifying ourselves?
eye95
Well-known member
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
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
OC-moto450r
Guest
2A
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
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?
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:
eye95
Well-known member
Only if the information he provides is true. If the information is false, he is still obstructing. Ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby.
KBCraig
Regular Member
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".
eye95
Well-known member
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.