sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
I agree. This hill will be a tiny bit tougher to climb than Dan's other case. The last case, he was approached by the police for no reason. That puts the burden on them, and they clearly can't meet it.
In this case, he initiated the contact. I don't know how that affects the case.
I'm still unclear as to whether the obstruction charge is about not showing ID, not putting your hands on your head or both. The ID part is definitely bogus. I don't know about the putting your hands on your head...that would probably swing on the legality of the detainment, and the fact that Dan approached them may effect that.
longwatch wrote:
I'm with Dan, citizens have the right to observe the police operating in public, armed or not. Arresting him for not showing his ID is not justification for an obstruction of justice arrest in this Commonwealth. Though I do recommend hiring a good attorney who can cite the case law afirming this.
I agree. This hill will be a tiny bit tougher to climb than Dan's other case. The last case, he was approached by the police for no reason. That puts the burden on them, and they clearly can't meet it.
In this case, he initiated the contact. I don't know how that affects the case.
I'm still unclear as to whether the obstruction charge is about not showing ID, not putting your hands on your head or both. The ID part is definitely bogus. I don't know about the putting your hands on your head...that would probably swing on the legality of the detainment, and the fact that Dan approached them may effect that.