Chesterfield PD--OCer Encounter

[peter nap]

Sorry, I'm not following you. What argument? I'm just sharing what VanC posted on the VCDL list wrt what a 'seizure' consists of. If it's factual, then it's new information which may be valuable to those choosing to OC.

OK, not argument..explanation the unknown LEO sent Philip. He posts here unless he has a ghost writer.

 

[nuc65]

??

Where have I mentioned NM?

You mentioned NM indirectly in your post, which contained a link to states that have stop and identify statutes.

 

[wrightme]

You mentioned NM indirectly in your post, which contained a link to states that have stop and identify statutes.

No, I mentioned that only states that have a Stop and ID statute can even force you to give your name.

If you found something there that I did not present, that is not my discussion point.

 

[wrightme]

Citizen, it seems that you are arguing against something I never brought to the discussion. Why is that?

It is my contention that Hiibel negates such common-law views of Stop and ID.

States that HAVE passed a statute that meets the "no vagueness" metric set by Hiibel and others CAN "stop and ID". AFAIK, VA does not have a "stop and ID" statute, correct?

THAT should be the end of any claim of "need to tell LE your name" in Virginia. The "common law" stuff appears to be a big fat nullified red herring.


EDIT: Okay, I THINK I followed the chronology. TFred brought the "common law" thing, attributing it to user, thinking it was a "stop and ID" statute? Is that it?

 

[wrightme]

THERE it is.


So, according to jmelvin and peter nap, user may have passed info in the past that supports a "common law" version of "stop and ID." I do see that so far, no one has addressed if this passes the test of Hiibel and subsequent cases. Other than what citizen posted. But, as VA is not listed as a "Stop and ID" state, I see no mechanism to legally force a citizen of VA to identify themselves to LE upon request, demand, note from mommy, etc....

Depending on the time of night this gent was out and about there are English Common Law provisions which require someone out walking in public to identify themselves to the constable after dark. These would have applied here, but a statement of his name and general address should be adequate to fill this requirement. Note that the policeman didn't demand ID, the gent offered it.

I have to give my name and address if I'm asked for ID? What the heck?!

It's common law and only applicable after dark.

I need to ask User about the address part since this stems from a time before enhanced 911 addresses.

You don't have to SHOW ID, just give your name and address.

 

[Citizen]

Citizen, it seems that you are arguing against something I never brought to the discussion. Why is that?

It is my contention that Hiibel negates such common-law views of Stop and ID.

States that HAVE passed a statute that meets the "no vagueness" metric set by Hiibel and others CAN "stop and ID". AFAIK, VA does not have a "stop and ID" statute, correct?

THAT should be the end of any claim of "need to tell LE your name" in Virginia. The "common law" stuff appears to be a big fat nullified red herring.


EDIT: Okay, I THINK I followed the chronology. TFred brought the "common law" thing, attributing it to user, thinking it was a "stop and ID" statute? Is that it?

I wasn't particularly arguing with you. Most of what I posted was "thinking out loud", etc.

Now, I agree the common-law thing is pretty much easily killed if it ever did come up in court. So, I'm just replying to address a few aspects for discussion sake.

The common law thing is actually a statute in a VA:

§ 15.2-1704. Powers and duties of police force.

A. The police force of a locality is hereby invested with all the power and authority which formerly belonged to the office of constable at common law and is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1704

The steps were something like:

During the 1300's, the English made a law that constables could demand identity after dark. This from User.

VA's statute ties police powers to constable common law power. This would arguably include police having the old constable power to demand identity after dark. I say arguably because desuetude (long unuse renders the law inoperative) could be counter argued.

Thus, Hiibel's permission to make a statute wouldn't have nullified the the constable thing. Essentially, VA already made a statute.

 

[wrightme]

hiibel wasn't so much a "permission" to make a statute, but a recognition that "Stop and ID" was not a "given" without one.

I am of the firm opinion that a Common Law 'statute' would be judged to be too "vague" to qualify as a "Stop and ID" statute under Hiibel.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I am of the firm opinion that a Common Law 'statute' would be judged to be too "vague" to qualify as a "Stop and ID" statute under Hiibel.

You have a point there. How would the citizen ever have a chance to know about the law and the need to comply?

 

[Citizen]

hiibel wasn't so much a "permission" to make a statute, but a recognition that "Stop and ID" was not a "given" without one.

I am of the firm opinion that a Common Law 'statute' would be judged to be too "vague" to qualify as a "Stop and ID" statute under Hiibel.

Make you a deal, Wrightme. If you don't take comments of mine like "permission to make a statute" too literally, and recognize I'm just tossing down words to indicate an already-understood concept quickly--I'll overlook and won't correct the obvious literal contradiction in things like a common law statute.

Work with me here.

 

[wrightme]

Citizen, I am "thinking out loud" as much as you are here.


FOR THE RECORD, I apologize for having a chip on my shoulder when I was responding to your posts. Even though this thread only got 2 pages, somehow I was confusing who was posting what, and who was responding to what post of who.


As for "permission," I do believe that was applicable to point out. Even in a "thinking out loud" discussion. It sounds like a niggle, but I do believe that in the law, there IS a difference. Specifically, states have the power to create statutes. And, the Hiibel decision did not grant permission for states to create a statute; but Hiibel did help define the terms of "Stop and ID" statutes. And, as in this specific, if states do not follow the terms of Hiibel, those existing statutes, especially the Common Law-based, are very likely to be unenforceable. Notwithstanding that "word what means old and unused". :lol:

 

[wrightme]

Now, on another tack, in this case of "Common Law" 'out after dark' statutes, I do believe that any municipality that attempts to "Stop and ID" citizens under that statute will be in violation of the protections stated in Hiibel. Specifically, the 4th and 5th amendments. To "seize" a "what are you doing here" response without warrant, or to force such does seem to constitute "illegal search and seizure" as well as "self incrimination," under the guise of a vague "show me your papers since it is dark outside" mentality.

 

[peter nap]

Now, on another tack, in this case of "Common Law" 'out after dark' statutes, I do believe that any municipality that attempts to "Stop and ID" citizens under that statute will be in violation of the protections stated in Hiibel. Specifically, the 4th and 5th amendments. To "seize" a "what are you doing here" response without warrant, or to force such does seem to constitute "illegal search and seizure" as well as "self incrimination," under the guise of a vague "show me your papers since it is dark outside" mentality.

I've posted much the same thing in the past wrightme. I am a firm believer in NOT showing ID or giving information. That has not changed.

User often gives academic information usually with a caveat about how modern judges and courts could react or rule.

The common law issue came up originally during one of my rants to someone that was claiming a NOVA locality had a stop and ID law on the books.

I never question Dan's information and there is no doubt in my mind that what he cited was Common law and correct.

I don't think he ever voiced an opinion about it's enforceability in the modern world though.

 

[wrightme]

peter nap,

Thank you for the clarification. I had mistakenly understood your prior statement as indicating that such Common Law statute was a valid implementation of Hiibel S&ID.

It appears that most in this discussion agree that VA does NOT have a valid S&ID statute. Thus, there is NO onus upon someone in VA to provide even their name to LE upon request, demand, coercion, etc.

Do you know if user has ever addressed municipality statutes?

 

[peter nap]

Do you know if user has ever addressed municipality statutes?

I have no idea. You'd need to ask him.

 

[ixtow]

Florida's is tied to the Loitering/Prowling ordinance and worded pretty restrictively to require RAS/PC. Hence why it was tied to the Loitering/Prowling ordinance. It further implied the need to RAS/PC of a crime of some kind.

I've been addressed by Officers in regard to it and said "Just keep observing me and see what conclusions you come to."

When an Officer maintains respect for his limits and my Rights, I respect him/her right back. But it almost never happens, sadly. If they start demanding things they have no authority to demand, that's when I whip out the hardline approach. Something they do far too often...

While the OP didn't have to show ID, not that I have any place to care, but I won't knock him for showing ID. The Officer maintained consensual, was polite and respectful, etc... He didn't DEMAND it, didn't detain without RAS/PC, etc. I wouldn't have, but that's my choice.

I much prefer the "Observation is where RAS/PC comes from, so just keep observing me and see if you find any of that." "Your car is unmarked, so how do I know you're really a Cop?" "Just keep watching or you'll blow your cover!" One can conceive of many ways to decline without being a dick about it.

 

[user]

peter nap,

Thank you for the clarification. I had mistakenly understood your prior statement as indicating that such Common Law statute was a valid implementation of Hiibel S&ID.

It appears that most in this discussion agree that VA does NOT have a valid S&ID statute. Thus, there is NO onus upon someone in VA to provide even their name to LE upon request, demand, coercion, etc.

Do you know if user has ever addressed municipality statutes?

Ok, I've spent the day thinking about this, having never actually been faced with that specific question before. Here's a summary of what I've learned - right click and "save as" this text file:
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/Documents/self_identification.txt

 

[Grapeshot]

Appreciate it User - lots of good info all there in one place.

Only problem I have is all of the right and left cursor moving to read each line.
We're going to have to chip in and get you Micosoft Office or similar so you can put this in a more "user friendly" format :lol:

Ya, I know I b!tch about the freebies too.

 

[TFred]

Appreciate it User - lots of good info all there in one place.

Only problem I have is all of the right and left cursor moving to read each line.
We're going to have to chip in and get you Micosoft Office or similar so you can put this in a more "user friendly" format :lol:

Ya, I know I b!tch about the freebies too.

Just do a "save as" to a local file and then turn on Word Wrap with whatever application you use to read it... notepad, wordpad, word, etc.

I know you know that... but just saying...

TFred

 

[wrightme]

Thanks, user.

Given that the one case you cite that deals with that specific was in 1985, IMHO, IANAL, it is void post-Hiibel, which was 2004.

 

[Grapeshot]

Just do a "save as" to a local file and then turn on Word Wrap with whatever application you use to read it... notepad, wordpad, word, etc.

I know you know that... but just saying...

TFred

Actually TFred, I was not aware of it - guess it has seldom been an issue for me. Have corrected that now though (I hope) by downloading a fix for Mozilla Firefox which will give me that option.

Today was a good day - I learned several new things. One on MA firearms cards and permits + this on word wrap. Never too proud to admit I did not know something.

Edited to add: Did NOT work for me even though the option was selected. I'll have to look into this further tomorrow.