PRIVACY REGULATIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, When I wrote: >>If you are stopped by the police, you are required to >>identify yourself if asked. Chris Hibbert responded: This is not true. If you're driving a car you are required to have a license. If you're just walking around, you're not required to have a name, or to tell it. Nope, *this* is wrong. In most jurisdictions, you do not have to provide *physical ID* if you are not in a car, but you do have to identify yourself AND give some account as to what you are up to. A cop has to have a probable cause to arrest you, and not giving your name doesn't provide it. /Au contraire/, you are "interfering with an investigation" or "obstructing justice" or whatever it's called in the particular jurisdiction. If you're surly, a cop can take you in, ... Nonsense. Where do you non-lawyers get this stuff? Surly, rude, impolite, etc. are all protected speech. (Threatening *ACTS* or physical resistance, however, is another thing.) ... Just say "Officer, someone is waiting for me. May I go now?" Just say "no"? I *guarantee* this won't work. If you are asking permission ("May I go?"), aren't you ceding to the officer the legal right to say "no"? If you believe you don't have to interact with the nice man, why not just turn your back and walk away without a word? (I wouldn't advise it.) This has been tested in court. There was a black lawyer several years ago who liked to walk a lot. He lived in one of the fashionable neighborhoods in LA, and occasionally got picked up because he "looked like he didn't belong there". He sued them and won in court every time, and got the police to leave him alone. [No, I don't have references.] A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The gentleman in question was not a lawyer. He was a black man who was dressed and coiffured in dreadlocks and Rasta man clothes. He did not live in Beverly Hills nor Belaire, but he did like to take long walks in those neighborhoods in the middle of the night. He was arrested for not identifying himself with an "official" ID. When he sued, the court issued a temporary injunction against the police for requiring *documentary* identification. The right of the police to require a person to identify himself was never in question. I'm not sure what the disposition of this particular case was, but that's irrelevant, as it only went to the issue of documentary ID. (If memory serves, there was an interesting result of this case. The California legislature attempted to pass, or passed, a law that required to showing of official identification if demanded by a police officer. I don't know how this law ended up, unfortunately.) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was too succinct in my message about dealing with cops. I didn't want to write a long message, but by responding briefly, I said things that could easily be misconstrued, and now I'll have to spend the time. Sandy is right about a number of things. As he points out, you are not required to have documents on your person saying who you are, but you do have to give a name (and probably an address) when the police ask. However, there are many times when a cop asks a question that you don't have to answer. Cops are allowed to just "nose around," and it's in this situation that you aren't required to be very forthcoming. Cops are allowed to ask idle questions (as anyone is). They don't have as many special rights at these times. When they do have probable cause, they can insist that you cooperate or allow a search. And if you don't cooperate, they can arrest you. If they don't have probable cause, and are just poking around, they have to let you go if they haven't found anything suspicious. If you assume they always have the right to insist, you will spend more time talking to cops than you have to, and will let them dig deeper than they have a right to. The longer they poke around the better the chances they'll find something you thought of as innocent that they think is suspicious. Many people let police search when they don't have to, thinking they don't have a choice. When a cop asks if he can look in the trunk of your car, or take a look around your apartment, you can say "I'd rather not," and ask if you're free to go. **Remember that they have a gun** and the right to use it in some situations. Be polite. They'll let you know if they're insisting on your cooperation. Physical resistance is a very bad idea. But there's no need to let them look if they don't insist, and they are prohibiting from insisting if they don't have a legally justifiable reason. In my previous message, I said ... Just say "Officer, someone is waiting for me. May I go now?" and Sandy responded: Just say "no"? I *guarantee* this won't work. If you are asking permission ("May I go?"), aren't you ceding to the officer the legal right to say "no"? If you believe you don't have to interact with the nice man, why not just turn your back and walk away without a word? (I wouldn't advise it.) Again, I spoke too quickly, and so left out the caveats and details. Cops have to have probably cause before they can detain you. When they have probably cause, they'll let you know. "Just turn[ing] your back and walk[ing] away without a word" is a bad idea, but if you give them everything they ask for without objecting, you're giving in too quickly. Cops are not always your friends. If a cop asks to search you, your car or your apartment, the proper response is "I'm real busy right now, I'd rather not." "May I go" is a question that forces a cop to either claim he has a reason to hold or search you or admit that you can go. If they have a legally justifiable reason for insisting, they'll let you know. Many people try to claim in court that a search was "without probable cause," and lose because they didn't object, and so the search is deemed to have been voluntary. Anything they find in a voluntary search is admissible in court. The question isn't "Do you have something to hide?" but "Does everything you own look completely innocent from all viewpoints?" Chris Sorry for the length.
participants (2)
-
Chris Hibbert -
Sandy Sandfort