Remind me: Can police ask/take my License if I'm not driving?

[jonhowe]

A friend of mine told me he was walking home from a party drunk when he was surrounded by some cops, who asked for his License. He wasn't driving, so he asked why he needed to give it to them, and they told him it was the law. After checking it (and seeing he was underage, eep!) they just... took it. It's been 2 days now, and he's not sure what to do.

So I guess thats the 1st question, how should he go about getting this back?

2ndly, is it legal for cops to require me to show my driver's license when Im not "using it", IE, driving?
If so, why?


Thanks,
Jon

[ryanmkeisling]

I would consult a lawyer admitted to the bar in your state of residence or maybe the ACLU. Laws are different everywhere but I don't see why someone would have to provide identification if they have done nothing wrong. I would start by saying "Have I done something wrong?" the next step would be, "Am I being detained?"

Start here: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html

There is some good info on that page regarding dealing with the police.

[Dr.3D]

Just tell them you don't have a license to give them.

This does not mean you don't have a license, it just means you don' t have one you want to give to them.

If they then search you and find the license, you can tell them that license was the one you didn't want to give them.

In other words, you didn't want to give them the license you had.

[LibertyRevolution]

#1, If all they did was take it and not charge him with anything, go to your local motor vehicle department, tell them you lost it, and you need a duplicate.

#2, if a cop stops me while I am walking and ask me for ID, I tell them sorry I dont carry my ID.
If they ask me to empty my pockets, I say, "Why? I havent done anything wrong, you dont have the right to search me.*
When they ask me my info I say Tom Hicks, I live at 124 Elm st. (which is not my information, just pick something easy to remember and spell.)

*At this point the officer may get aggravated an forcefully take your wallet from you, find your license, and charge you with interference in an police investigation, or some other crap.

[coastie]

#1, If all they did was take it and not charge him with anything, go to your local motor vehicle department, tell them you lost it, and you need a duplicate.

#2, if a cop stops me while I am walking and ask me for ID, I tell them sorry I dont carry my ID.
If they ask me to empty my pockets, I say, "Why? I havent done anything wrong, you dont have the right to search me.*
When they ask me my info I say Tom Hicks, I live at 124 Elm st. (which is not my information, just pick something easy to remember and spell.)

*At this point the officer may get aggravated an forcefully take your wallet from you, find your license, and charge you with interference in an police investigation, or some other crap.

Right, I'd just go get a new one.

I would'nt lie to them about who you are, just politely ask them if you're free to leave, and if not then ask them the charges.

[brandon]

Laws vary by state, but generally these are the rules for pedestrians as I understand them.

If you are not under arrest you do not have to present any identification to the police for any reason. Sure they can ask for it, and you can refuse the request. In PA you are required to give them your name and address if they ask, but do not have to show the ID card. If you are under arrest them you must produce legal ID. If you are not sure if you are under arrest, ask them. Chances are they will give you some smartass remark like "not yet you aren't." If that is the case just politely tell them that you are going to be getting on your way and leave. Don't speak with them anymore. Ignore them.


I am 24 years old now, but I had a rough past. I was arrested for underage drinking about 5 times, so i am speaking from experience. If the police smelled alcohol on your friend, that gives them probable cause to administer a beathalyzer test and subsequent arrest. Of course this type of probable cause can not ever be verified in court which makes it a very corrupt practice, but one that is generally accepted anyway.

Seeing how your friend was not placed under arrest, he got off easy. Tell him to go buy a new license and forget about it. He may recieve a citation for underage drinking in the mail in a few weeks. If he does, he should be able to plead not guilty and win since we was not placed under arrest at the time of the incident.

ALso, never lie to the police about who you are. I tried this once. When they find out you are lieing they tack on another charge (something like falsification of identity) which in many cases can be a more serious charge then the original offense. If your are insistant on not cooperating the the police, telling them nothing at all is much better then lieing.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

Drunk and disorderly is a crime, they could have arrested him. They let him go but took his license. tell him to go replace his "lost" license, cops do that as a way of fining you without court action. Illegal as hell, but the cure is worse than the endurance of their crap.

[BravoSix]

These type of threads frustrate me because they're often filled with responses from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm a police officer, and even then, I'm only qualified to speak in regards to my own state (Pennsylvania). My advicve, first and foremost, would be to follow the advice of ryanmkeisling, who said your friend should consult an attorney licensed to practice in his state, or contact the ACLU branch in that state.

Generally speaking, many states have laws requiring you to identify yourself if detained (as in, an investigative detention). An "investigative detention" is a stop supported by reasonable suspicion, which is a lesser standard than probable cause.

However, to my knowledge, most states that require you to identify yourself do not require you to produce government ID. You simply must provide valid personal info (name, date of birth, and address). So I'd ignore the poster advising you to lie.

In many states, being drunk in public to the degree that you cause a problem is illegal. Assuming that this is the case in your friends scenario, then he was lawfully detained upon reasonable suspicion. As such, he is likely required by law to identify himself, but not necessarily provide a driver's license (because, like you said, he wasn't driving).

As for keeping the license, that's something that I can't really speak to because I'm not sure what state this occured in. I can speculate and say that, technically speaking, the state owns your physical driver's license (it's why they can suspend it and then take the physical license). Many states automatically suspend your driver's license for an underage drinking conviction, so perhaps that was the reasoning. Of course, that begs the issue of a lack of due process, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Of course, it could have just been an oversight by the officer who forgot he had it. I've done just that before - driven off with someone's DL, registration, etc without realizing it.

[brandon]

These type of threads frustrate me because they're often filled with responses from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm a police officer, and even then, I'm only qualified to speak in regards to my own state (Pennsylvania). My advicve, first and foremost, would be to follow the advice of ryanmkeisling, who said your friend should consult an attorney licensed to practice in his state, or contact the ACLU branch in that state.

Generally speaking, many states have laws requiring you to identify yourself if detained (as in, an investigative detention). An "investigative detention" is a stop supported by reasonable suspicion, which is a lesser standard than probable cause.

However, to my knowledge, most states that require you to identify yourself do not require you to produce government ID. You simply must provide valid personal info (name, date of birth, and address). So I'd ignore the poster advising you to lie.

In many states, being drunk in public to the degree that you cause a problem is illegal. Assuming that this is the case in your friends scenario, then he was lawfully detained upon reasonable suspicion. As such, he is likely required by law to identify himself, but not necessarily provide a driver's license (because, like you said, he wasn't driving).

As for keeping the license, that's something that I can't really speak to because I'm not sure what state this occured in. I can speculate and say that, technically speaking, the state owns your physical driver's license (it's why they can suspend it and then take the physical license). Many states automatically suspend your driver's license for an underage drinking conviction, so perhaps that was the reasoning. Of course, that begs the issue of a lack of due process, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Of course, it could have just been an oversight by the officer who forgot he had it. I've done just that before - driven off with someone's DL, registration, etc without realizing it.

So you agree with most of what I said in my post? Anyway, what part of PA? If you are in montgomery county maybe you arrested me for underage drinking before. ;)

[NeoRayden]

This is a great place to look:

http://www.flexyourrights.com/


The exact answer for your question is here:

http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#07

[Dr.3D]

........

Of course, it could have just been an oversight by the officer who forgot he had it. I've done just that before - driven off with someone's DL, registration, etc without realizing it.

So then of course, since they have their address on the license, you mailed it back to them?

[NeoRayden]

Additionally in most states you only need to give them your name if you have done something wrong or have been suspected of doing something wrong.

Also if giving your name or address will incriminate you state that you plead the 5th and ask if you are free to go. If not then ask if you are under arrest. If you will incriminate yourself it is better to let the court show the officer he was wrong for arresting you for standing up for your right to not incriminate yourself.

[BravoSix]

So then of course, since they have their address on the license, you mailed it back to them?

No, the few times it happened were local people, so I just brought it back to them. I worked in a small town at the time.

Brandon, I spent most of my time in law enforcement a bit north of you, in Monroe County. I currently work for an agency in central PA.

I disagree with some of what you posted. In an attempt to not hijack the thread, I'll just say that:

1. It's not always about being arrested. You're not free to leave an investigative detention, but still aren't technically arrested (think traffic stop).

2. The smell of alcoholic beverages can be PC for an arrest of someone underage. I need no PC to administer a preliminary breath test, but you have no legal obligation to take it. (This is different than the breath test required AFTER being arrested for DUI.) Also, I don't need a PBT result to arrest / convict someone for underage drinking.

3. If this guy gets a citation for underage drinking, he should definitely plead not guilty. You should ALWAYS plead not guilty. However, there is no legal requirement that he be arrested at the scene, so the fact that he wasn't arrested immediately isn't a defense to anything. He needs to enter a defense to the actual violation.



NeoRayden, I can think of no instance where your name would incriminate you. Being you isn't illegal. The only scenario I could think that you might be refering to, is if you have a warrant, but you're still not testifying against yourself in regards to your guilt, so that wouldn't fly.

[Dr.3D]

NeoRayden, I can think of no instance where your name would incriminate you. Being you isn't illegal. The only scenario I could think that you might be refering to, is if you have a warrant, but you're still not testifying against yourself in regards to your guilt, so that wouldn't fly.

A warrant does not mean you are guilty. If however, you were stopped for one possible infraction, and then having given them your name causes you to be arrested for another infraction, I can see where giving your name may cause them to arrest you for something completely unrelated to the original stop.

I don't like the idea of stopping somebody just to find out if they can find something to arrest them for.

[brandon]

No, the few times it happened were local people, so I just brought it back to them. I worked in a small town at the time.

Brandon, I spent most of my time in law enforcement a bit north of you, in Monroe County. I currently work for an agency in central PA.

I disagree with some of what you posted. In an attempt to not hijack the thread, I'll just say that:

1. It's not always about being arrested. You're not free to leave an investigative detention, but still aren't technically arrested (think traffic stop).

2. The smell of alcoholic beverages can be PC for an arrest of someone underage. I need no PC to administer a preliminary breath test, but you have no legal obligation to take it. (This is different than the breath test required AFTER being arrested for DUI.) Also, I don't need a PBT result to arrest / convict someone for underage drinking.

3. If this guy gets a citation for underage drinking, he should definitely plead not guilty. You should ALWAYS plead not guilty. However, there is no legal requirement that he be arrested at the scene, so the fact that he wasn't arrested immediately isn't a defense to anything. He needs to enter a defense to the actual violation.



NeoRayden, I can think of no instance where your name would incriminate you. Being you isn't illegal. The only scenario I could think that you might be refering to, is if you have a warrant, but you're still not testifying against yourself in regards to your guilt, so that wouldn't fly.


Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that you weren't free to leave an investigative detention. I dont like that sound of that.

I generally have a dislike for cops because of some bad stuff they put me through. They once dragged me out of my house and slammed my head into a windshield simply because I had some people over drinking underage. I was a skinny 18 year old not resisting. I was ranting about the consitution and my rights though.

I'm trying to lose this collectivist mindset, i know you're not all bad.

[NeoRayden]

1. It's not always about being arrested. You're not free to leave an investigative detention, but still aren't technically arrested (think traffic stop).

NeoRayden, I can think of no instance where your name would incriminate you. Being you isn't illegal. The only scenario I could think that you might be referring to, is if you have a warrant, but you're still not testifying against yourself in regards to your guilt, so that wouldn't fly.



1. If you are in Florida and an officer detains you at a traffic stop for more than a curtain period of time and the officer does not charge you with a "crime" as defined as a "felony" or "misdemeanor" by the US Supreme Court you can submit a claim against the jurisdiction for restitution for your time. This is according to a Florida Supreme Court case. I cant find a reference any more for it however.

Just about every US district court has ruled that a person does not have to give there name if they have a warrant because that is incriminating information.

[NeoRayden]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that you weren't free to leave an investigative detention. I don't like that sound of that

Don't believe this BS. A detention is defined as an arrest. Both words are interchangeable. The only way you cannot leave is if you are detained (detention)or arrested since they both mean the same. However in order to be arrested you must be charged with a crime.

You should always ask if you are free to go. If they say no then ask them what you are being charged with. If they refuse to tell you then express that you do not wish to continue the conversation and you wish to leave, then keep quite!

They are not on your side and any information you give them is only to their benefit.

REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT THE COURTS! YOU DO NOT NEED TO TALK TO THEM! SAVE YOUR SIDE FOR THE COURT ROOM!


Oh and this is coming from a person that has the local police cowering and has personally arrested three police officers without recourse through the the common law right to citizens arrest.

[brandon]

Don't believe this BS. A detention is defined as an arrest. Both words are interchangeable. The only way you cannot leave is if you are detained (detention)or arrested since they both mean the same. However in order to be arrested you must be charged with a crime.

You should always ask if you are free to go. If they say no then ask them what you are being charged with. If they refuse to tell you then express that you do not wish to continue the conversation and you wish to leave, then keep quite!

They are not on your side and any information you give them is only to their benefit.

REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT THE COURTS! YOU DO NOT NEED TO TALK TO THEM! SAVE YOUR SIDE FOR THE COURT ROOM!

I feel you are right and I want to believe you, but Bravo is an actual officer so I am leaning towards believing him. Dont count on the courts to save you though. If the case boils down to your word against a cops word you will lose every time.

[NeoRayden]

http://www.flexyourrights.com

Visit this site and watch the videos.

[NeoRayden]

Here is the dvd video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

[IcyPeaceMaker]

The only scenario I could think that you might be refering to, is if you have a warrant, but you're still not testifying against yourself in regards to your guilt, so that wouldn't fly.

Actually, the Supreme Court has stated that the right against self-incrimination extends to any official communications whatever, and also protects a witness as well as an acused.


U.S. Supreme Court
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)
Lefkowitz v. Turley

No. 72-331

Argued October 10, 1973

Decided November 19, 1973

414 U.S. 70


Syllabus

New York statutes require public contracts to provide that, if a contractor refuses to waive immunity or to testify concerning his state contracts, his existing contracts may be canceled and he shall be disqualified from further transactions with the State for five years, and further require disqualification from contracting with public authorities upon a person's failure to waive immunity or answer questions respecting his state transactions. Appellees, New York-licensed architects, when summoned to testify before a grand jury investigating various criminal charges, refused to sign waivers of immunity, whereupon various contracting authorities were notified of appellees' conduct and had their attention called to the applicable disqualification statutes. Appellees thereafter brought this action challenging the statutes as violative of their constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination. A three-judge District Court declared the statutes unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.

Held:

The Fifth Amendment provides that no, person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40 (1924), squarely held that

"[t]he privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant."

[Mach]

This is not the kind of answer (my kind) you were looking for, but, here you go.........

(see moishanb post)
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel/14122-peace-officer-may-not-detain-arrest-person-no-license.html



Time to learn? This guy is I believe from Canada and gets into Canadian Law but a lot of it will (so far) carry over into the US, if there are any Attorneys out there, what is your PERSONAL opinion, he will give you the low down on the way things really work and I have to say he even has an Officer on video (The Magnificent Deception) that he asks a question and that Officer is nice and regular until he asks that legal question then that Officer sidesteps, if we the people would just learn some basic law we would help ourselves with freedom on a daily basis, "pushing" and manipulating is how the law works and they don't like it when the common man learns their ways.............

"everything they do is an offer"..............."they get you to break the law because of how you deal with their offer"

Think Free : Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835

The Magnificent Deception Part 1 of 2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6729904244308031068

The Magnificent Deception Part 2 of 2 (ThinkFree & Robert Menard Present)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7257545709470673839

Cornell University Law School
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

What? :rolleyes:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articles-news/14054-what-do-you-people-think-about.html

[acptulsa]

There was a Supreme Court decision in the mid-Seventies that specifically spelled out that you may have to properly identify yourself to police, but you do not have to show them anything. Was a longhaired, dredlocks kinda guy who was rich and liked to walk in his own neighborhood. He was constantly checked out and got tired of it. Can't remember any more.

[BravoSix]

IcyPeaceMaker, that's an interesting case. I wasn't aware of that particular case before, but in researching the issue, I believe you've misinterpreted the decision. The act of simply identifying yourself, when in a situation compelling one to do so, is not incriminatory in nature regardless of the existence of a warrant for your arrest. The simply act of being you must incriminate you in a criminal proceeding, not just allow an already commenced proceeding to continue.

Recent cases have stated just that.


Most recently in Hiibel vs. The Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html), a 2004 US Supreme Court case, the court held that the Nevada state statute requiring Hiibel to identify himself did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights. Precisely, the court held that:

"Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination."

In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/493/549/case.html), and held that:


"Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow."

I would opine, and this is only my opinion as I could find no court-issued opinion on the matter, that "furnishing identity" when one is wanted on an arrest warrant is not a "link in the chain of evidence" in the case which caused the warrant to be issued. In other words, if you've already been charged with the crime, simply being the person charged with the crime is not evidence that you committed the crime.

I would also offer the opinion that providing his name does not "put him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." In fact, you've already been "put" in such proceeding by the filing of charges and issuance of a warrant. From reading the case, it appears that "him" is used meaning the identity, and not specifically the physical body (which is what it appears that you're arguing).

[torchbearer]

Does the phrase "Show me your papers!" sound familiar?
Welcome the the USSA.

[BravoSix]

To clarify my last post, this applies only to those detained pursuant to Terry vs. Ohio, which is the US Supreme Court case regarding investigative detentions (despite NeoRayden's claim that such encounters do not exist :rolleyes: ). Of course, those not stopped in a lawfully compulsory manner have no obligation to identify themselves. Nor does it require one to "show papers", as a verbal (and truthful) identification is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.

NeoRayden, anytime someone claims they have the "local police cowering....blah, blah, blah..." and all that other internet commando bullshit, I can't help but shake my head. You demonstrate an obvious misunderstanding of the doctrine of citizens arrest. With all due respect, you're doing more harm than good spreading such falsehoods.

Your are incorrect in your assertion that a detention equals an arrest. Read up on the applicable case law, particularly Terry vs. Ohio, to learn the difference.

However, I do tend to agree with you on one thing. The police aren't your friend, particularly when your involvement with them is in an enforcement-type encounter. You're best course of action is to never divulge more information than necessary.

Brandon, I would suggest you confer with a licensed attorney here in PA for any trouble you have in the future (although, I sincerely hope there is none). I don't mind offering my first-hand experience and knowledge in these types of threads, but like I said before, they usually end up with several internet tough guys posting erroneous information.

Now, I'm not saying that any of this is the way it should be, but it is the way it is currently. Also, just FYI, PA doesn't have a law requiring you to ID yourself, unless driving (when you must provide a driver's license). However, you could be prosecuted for lying, so if you were going to use this tactic, simply refusing is better than providing false info.

However, the only time I could see this benefiting you would be if you know you have an active warrant for your arrest. If I have PC of a crime and decide to arrest you, you'll be arrested regardless of your refusal to ID yourself. In such a case, refusing to ID yourself may well be detrimental to your interests, as the judge will set higher bail and you'll likely be sitting in jail as "John Doe", and 99.9% of the time, the police will eventually figure out who you are anyway (fingerprints, etc).

If I don't have PC to make an arrest, you won't be arrested even if you refuse to ID yourself.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

I agree with your assessment of those cases, but I disagree with the rulings, as being violative of privacy rights. Though something as inane as a request for identy would normally be no big deal, but in the cases where it IS an issue, then I believe the probable cause bar should be reached before an enforcement demand would be lawful. In fact, it is those particular cases where it's an issue are the precise rights the courts should be protecting.

I love the law, in it's purest sense, it is right, good, just & holy, but when you add overzealousness, corruption or even personality, it becomes hideous and destructive. One problem I have is that civilly speaking, judges think both sides must be injured equally, when getting to the truth and assessing blame is their primary function. As a result, I love the law and despise the practice of it.

[kyleAF]

There may be a legal distinction between "investigative detentions" and "arrests". Of course, one cannot just drive away from a traffic stop, but I think that's more specifically a violation of the law itself which allows for an arrest.

To a Libertarian mind, however, there is NO distinction between the two, since both are forceful measures by the state backed by the power of monopolized force (the gun and the courts). Any other distinctions are meaningless.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

You are correct, both are restraint of liberty, and Lefkowitz V Turley definately would be a viable defense, but you may have to plead your case from the jailhouse.

LEOs have a tough job, a thankless job, and I wouldn't have it. On the other hand, nearly any confrontation, regardless of the nature, with a LEO is stressful and aggrivating. People do strange things under any confrontational encounter, but especially with a LEO, that makes them very unpredictable. LEO is a dangerous job in large cities, it can be bad when they run into a psycho.

[DealzOnWheelz]

Hey Bravo since your in PA I have a question for


THis is something that has been disputed by alot of people.

Is the mere smell of marijuana PC for a search of your vehicle??

And in PA what is the amount of marijuana that warrants arrest? I know alot of times if your just smoking some and don't have alot on you they usually give you a disorderly conduct.


Hey Brandon do you live in Philly or in Montco??

You should come out for some beers some night out in norristown

[angelatc]

A warrant does not mean you are guilty. If however, you were stopped for one possible infraction, and then having given them your name causes you to be arrested for another infraction, I can see where giving your name may cause them to arrest you for something completely unrelated to the original stop.

I don't like the idea of stopping somebody just to find out if they can find something to arrest them for.

An aquaintance of mine was arrested and detained for a couple of days because he has the same name of a really bad guy. The fact that that he is a totally different race than the real criminal should have been a give-away, but the system is slow to acknowledge the obvious.

[angelatc]

LEOs have a tough job, a thankless job, and I wouldn't have it. On the other hand, nearly any confrontation, regardless of the nature, with a LEO is stressful and aggrivating. People do strange things under any confrontational encounter, but especially with a LEO, that makes them very unpredictable. LEO is a dangerous job in large cities, it can be bad when they run into a psycho.


If the job makes them crazy, then maybe there should be term limits. The country would be a better place if cops were idealistic rookies, intent on protecting the innocent, rather than burning out and morphing into bullies with badges.

[angelatc]

There was a Supreme Court decision in the mid-Seventies that specifically spelled out that you may have to properly identify yourself to police, but you do not have to show them anything. Was a longhaired, dredlocks kinda guy who was rich and liked to walk in his own neighborhood. He was constantly checked out and got tired of it. Can't remember any more.

About 15 - 20 years ago, there was a guy in South Florida who refused to give his name to the police. He was taken to jail, processed, but still refused to give his name. They held him for nothing but that for 8 months, IIRC, before a judge finally turned him loose.

[torchbearer]

About 15 - 20 years ago, there was a guy in South Florida who refused to give his name to the police. He was taken to jail, processed, but still refused to give his name. They held him for nothing but that for 8 months, IIRC, before a judge finally turned him loose.

and here i thought you could only be held for 24 hours without charges.

[DealzOnWheelz]

If the job makes them crazy, then maybe there should be term limits. The country would be a better place if cops were idealistic rookies, intent on protecting the innocent, rather than burning out and morphing into bullies with badges.

Angel

Young Idealistic cops with something to prove are usually worse than a good moral cop who is realistic and merciful

Those same cops with the intent on PROTECTING THE INNOCENT can only do so if they are assuming innocence. That young 23 year old fresh out of training just wants to get his first collar and tends to be more forceful and arrogant.

[synapz]

BravoSix, with respect to the non-aggression axiom of libertarian philosophy, and without regard for the law, do you believe that it is morally acceptable for someone to force someone else to identify themselves?

[Dr.3D]

Many if not most police officers are not well versed in the law.
Usually, if they see something unusual, they will just assume it is illegal.

Case in point:
A man was riding a horse in a city park.
There was no law on the books about any illegality of riding horses in the city.
The man on the horse noticed five police cars on one side of the park and decided to go over and see what was going on. By the time he got there, the five police cars were on the other side of the park he had just come from. The man on the horse then wondered what was going on so he crossed the park again to see what was happening.
When he got over to the police cars, he was told to get off his horse and then searched.

Finding nothing on the man, the police proceeded to tell the man it was illegal to have a horse in the city and that he would have to take his horse out of the city.
The man then asked the police officers to read him the law claiming horses were illegal in the city. After some time, the radio in the cars was heard to be reading a law. "No one may ride, drive or operate any team of horses or horse within the city limits...." and then the radio was turned down in one of the cars but they neglected to turn it down in the others...."in a hazardous or reckless manner."... was heard on the rest of the radios.

The man told them they forgot to turn down the other radios to keep him from hearing the rest of the sentence being read. The police officers finally let him go. Six months later, the police force in that city were seen riding horses in the city.

It seems the police were upset at the fact the man while not actually trying to evade, could so easily evade them when they were trying to stop him.

After this incident, I have a tendency to question all law enforcement when they try to tell me something is against the law.

[unconsious767]

This is not the kind of answer (my kind) you were looking for, but, here you go.........

(see moishanb post)
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel/14122-peace-officer-may-not-detain-arrest-person-no-license.html



Time to learn? This guy is I believe from Canada and gets into Canadian Law but a lot of it will (so far) carry over into the US, if there are any Attorneys out there, what is your PERSONAL opinion, he will give you the low down on the way things really work and I have to say he even has an Officer on video (The Magnificent Deception) that he asks a question and that Officer is nice and regular until he asks that legal question then that Officer sidesteps, if we the people would just learn some basic law we would help ourselves with freedom on a daily basis, "pushing" and manipulating is how the law works and they don't like it when the common man learns their ways.............

"everything they do is an offer"..............."they get you to break the law because of how you deal with their offer"


I was recently looking at those fora. Asking whether the officer knows that misrepresenting a statute as a law is a felony, takes some balls. I guess its in how you present it :)

"also, officer, it is not the corporate entity, state-owned person, to whom you are speaking and I am not subject to your so-called statutes." lol.
"Oh a ticket? Thanks! Is this ticket a bill of remittance?" I will practice saying that with a straight face. :D



The dude with the alcohol on his breath endured a Terry stop, which is supposedly legal in some areas (bullshit).

[propanes]

First time for everything. After reading this thread this morning I went out to do errands and got nabbed for jaywalking next to my car. I now owe Los Angeles County $100.

I declined to present my id which the young cop demanded. So I had identify myself and allow him to frisk me against the hood of the police car for weapons. Another first. He ran my name and address on the computer. When he was finishing writing the citation he wanted my fingerprint. No way so I say my license is in my car near by. Luckily he let me retrieve that as proof of identity instead.

[Dr.3D]

First time for everything. After reading this thread this morning I went out to do errands and got nabbed for jaywalking next to my car. I now owe Los Angeles County $100.

I declined to present my id which the young cop demanded. So I had identify myself and allow him to frisk me against the hood of the police car for weapons. Another first. He ran my name and address on the computer. When he was finishing writing the citation he wanted my fingerprint. No way so I say my license is in my car near by. Luckily he let me retrieve that as proof of identity instead.

Another bull shit law. In my state, we don't have such a stupid law.

[NeoRayden]

BravoSix:

Your reference to my online arrogance is completely wrong. I am simply stating a fact. When my rights are violated or as in one instance no I'm wrong actually two of them (since I must now correct my earlier statement) where others rights were violated and recourse could not be obtained in other ways. I have made three citizens arrests of officers. Two in my town and one in another.

One instance was where a van was parked in a legal fashion in front of a persons house. Since the person did not like anyone parking in front of their sidewalk they called the police and stated that the van was parked in front of the persons driveway.

At which time when the owner of the van returned to the van seeing a police car parked behind it. The since I was with that person I learned that the officer accessed the inside of the van since it was unlocked and had the registration from inside the glove compartment in his hand inside his police car. At which point I interrupted the conversation and requested his badge number and his name. Then asked that the officer give the registration back to the owner and for the owner to not make any further comments.

I told the officer that it was obvious that the "sidewalk" was barely drivable for a motorcycle and no evidence could be found to show that it was a driveway and there was no curb cut either. I informed him that he violated her 4th amendments rights and that a complaint would be filed with his dept.

At that time I was interrupted by the owner telling me to be quited and the officer also advised me of the same. He also told me that if I had no business with the van to step back and leave the area.

I stayed and told him that if he wanted me removed that he would have to get out of his car and make me. I also informed him that if he touched me that he better have his supervisor there to witness and approve of what he was doing. He said fine and stepped out of the car while radioing for his supervisor. After more words were exchanged and now three other officers where there and his supervisor pulled up I informed that supervisor of the situation.

The supervisor took the officer off to the side and spoke with him. After returning they told the owner of the van they were free to go. However they wanted to talk with me about specking with officers in a disrespectful manner and minding my own business.

At that time I started that I had nothing more to say to them and walked off. The officer came up behind me and grabbed my arm to stop me. I turned around and asked the officer if I was under arrest he said no. I asked if I could go and he said no. I stated that I didn't consent to the conversation and that if I was not under arrest I was leaving.

After turning around to leave again he stopped me again. At which time I turned around and told the officer that he was under arrest for a violation of my right to travel freely. I stated that unlike his unlawful actions that I know the law and told him that both him and his supervisor conspired to violate my rights and he was in violation of Title 18 USC 241 and 242. I advised his supervisor that I was turning the officer over to him as required by Indiana Code. I then stated that if the supervisor did not comply that I would also be filing charges against him also and that it was to his advantage to cooperate. (Gotta love the play on words.)

He choose to cooperate and I immediately went to the county prosecutors office to file the charges in the appropriate manner. Also included in the charges was the violation of my friends 4th amendment rights and the officers attempt to forcefully intimidate me and restrain me against my will. He was charged with several felonies. The prosecutor decided to drop one of them and filed the others.


In another instance a local officer was moonlighting for a repo company in his city issued car and with the use of city issued equipment and resources. To hide this he called out the repoed cars description and information over the radio. He ticketed the car for being parked in a supposed no parking zone.

However the no parking sign was in the next block and it has always been valid for people to park there. The officer made the mistake of knocking on my door to see if the car was mine. By the time I got to the door the officer left the porch. I went to the sidewalk to see who it was and seen the officer. I asked him if he was the one that knocked. At that time he asked if I owned that car. I asked him why. He said that it wasn't supposed to be parked there. I told him no I didn't but I was curious to know why no one could park there. He pointed out the sign on the next block and stated that in Indiana that sign is good for the whole length of the street.

I told him he was full of it and that it was only good for at most 50 feet before and 50 feet after the sign. He told me to mind my own business and go back inside. I told him that he made it my business and that if he ticketed the car I would report him to the chief of police. He told me that it was none of my business and that he is the one with the badge and that means he IS the law. Meanwhile him and I got into it back and forth and he said that he would arrest me for disorderly conduct if I did not quite down. I told him that I am sure that the rest of the neighbors wanted to hear the conversation and maybe he should speak a little louder.

After he ticketed the car he proceeded to get back in his car and pull up to the sign and parked in front of it. He was trying to show that he could do what he wanted. After I did something that yes I admit was childish and continued the pissing match by waling by his car and flipping him off and taunting him calling him a piggy and waling up to the car and making faces and you name it I did it. (Hey he really pist me off. I needed a way to release.) Turns out he was parked there to wait on the repo guys to show up and give him some cash for finding the car.

I then called the chief and she called me back the next day. After our conversation and he was suspended from duty without pay for the incident I was not satisfied since that was not the first time I had an encounter with him, I went to the station three days after he returned and asked that be come in because I needed to speak with him. He came in and at that time I arrested him for several state misdemeanor charges. I then told the chief that if he was not processed and taken to county that I would be forced to go to the newspaper. (Seeing how that was something she didn't want she complied.)

The prosecutor choose not to take any action and I went to the newspaper about the incident.


The third incident was only a month ago or so. Basically even though I joke sometimes about having my door knocked down at 2am I never dreamed the 2am call would come so soon. City officers came to my door at 2m responding to a 911 call that was supposedly made regarding someone injured in the area. Even though the 911 center now has pin point positioning they did not know where in a two block area the person was.

After ringing my doorbell and then 15 seconds later banging very loudly at my door while I was going to it they then proceeded to enter and just before coming around the corner I seen them and told them to stop and remove themselves from my house. At that time for the first three minutes of the argument did they mention they were there for a welfare call due to a 911 call. If they would have the situation would have went more smoothly and they could have been going about their business. Instead they argued with me about me not telling them my name.

I did not have to and was not going to. After they finally asked me if anyone was injured I told them no and they left. I went to close the door and poked my head outside and told them that if that was their main concern they should have mentioned that first instead of being obsessed over my name. One officer turned around and started to walk back. The other three officers followed. I went to close me door and the first officer stopped the door and put one foot inside the door. At that time he got in my face and yelled at me telling me that he should arrest me for not giving my name. I told him to go ahead if he felt he had the authority. I also reminded him of his buddy that was arrested for the ticketing issue. I told him that his presence in my home was unwelcome and that if he did not remove his foot he would end up like his buddy.

He left it there and the others chimed in. Since I had my phone in my hand and I have the new chief of police in on my speed dial due to him being a former city councilman I called him at home and boy was he pist off.

The new chief spoke with the officers and told them to leave. After they left I went down the next morning and filed charges with the prosecutor and then learned that those charged are still pending because of an internal investigation within the dept of the officers involved. Oh yah BTW there was no 911 call as it turned out.

[kyleAF]

^^^ wow.

[jonhowe]

NeoRayden is bad ass.

[Dr.3D]

NeoRayden is bad ass.

Let's hope nothing bad happens to him.

[VaderM5]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that you weren't free to leave an investigative detention. I dont like that sound of that.

I generally have a dislike for cops because of some bad stuff they put me through. They once dragged me out of my house and slammed my head into a windshield simply because I had some people over drinking underage. I was a skinny 18 year old not resisting. I was ranting about the consitution and my rights though.

I'm trying to lose this collectivist mindset, i know you're not all bad.

You shouldn't have been under the drinking age in the first place. It should still be 18!!!

[Dr.3D]

You shouldn't have been under the drinking age in the first place. It should still be 18!!!

I could legally drink when I was 18.

At that time, they thought, if you are old enough to be drafted, then you are old enough to drink.

We even had beer machines in the barracks.

[VaderM5]

I could legally drink when I was 18.

At that time, they thought, if you are old enough to be drafted, then you are old enough to drink.

We even had beer machines in the barracks.

What a interesting concept. :rolleyes: And here we have young men going to war as minors. :rolleyes: