PDA

View Full Version : Can Police randomly demand ID?




SeekLiberty
07-25-2007, 12:06 PM
Our Constitution does not allow police to randomly ask people for their I.D. Our Republic was not meant to be a Police State ... even though our remnant Republic is showing severe signs of being one.

Is anybody familiar with Beit Shalom Ministries http://www.beitshalomministries.org where two ministers are walking across our Country to protest the Iraq war?

Here's an excerpt from a recent article written about it:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57228&Disp=27

"What has become more troubling as part of the police stops, they say, is that they are almost immediately asked to show identification.

"We researched it," Nesch said, "And the Supreme Court ruled that you don't have to present your ID if you're not under suspicion of having committed a crime, committing a crime or going to commit a crime.

"I think it's pretty obvious what we're doing, so we refused to give it unless there's some legitimate complaint, like sometimes when we'll be preaching really loud with megaphone and there might be a complaint, we'll gladly give our ID, but it was obvious we were just walking."

The Law

Indiana law says that when a law enforcement officer stops a person for an infraction or an ordinance violation, then the person can be required to provide their name, address and date of birth or driver's license if they have one. Failure to do so is a class-C misdemeanor, according to Indiana Code 34-28-5-3.5.

Someone committing a class-C misdemeanor is subject to arrest, according to attorney William E. Marsh of the Federal Community Defender's Office in Indianapolis.

Marsh, who also teaches criminal procedure at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, added, "I think that a police officer who wants to stop a person just to find out who they are doesn't have the authority to do that."

After Nesch and Schwab began refusing to show identification, they started to videotape the police stops to protect themselves, they say, and to document the requests for ID. Several of the videos appear on the group's Web site.

On July 8, according to the police report, Patrolman James Haley received a call regarding a man wearing a jumpsuit walking west on U.S. 40. Sgt. William Bark located Nesch first, and called Haley to assist. After Nesch refused several times to give his ID, Bark handcuffed him and escorted him to his police vehicle. They later located Nesch's vehicle, which was impounded after a search. Nesch was taken to the Vigo County Jail, where he stayed until he was released later the same night.

During the car search, officers found Nesch's ID and Social Security card, as well as a bunch of Bibles and some clothing, Nesch said.

The incident, which Nesch said he began recording as soon as he was stopped, is no longer on his videotape.

"I had the video camera on, and when they asked me to shut it off, I said no, you're a public officer, I have the right to videotape this for my own protection and documentation," Nesch said. After he was handcuffed, officers took the camera, Nesch said.

Schwab and Nesch are alleging that the West Terre Haute police destroyed the evidence by erasing the tape, but Chief Mark Arnold says that's nonsense.

"The video camera never left [Nesch's] sight," Arnold said during a phone interview Friday. "When they booked him in, they tagged it in with him … In the process of turning it off, [the officer] could have hit the button. I don't know what happened, but there was no malice, no bad intent," he said.

Reasonable suspicion?

The two men say they are not guilty of any violation, and allege that the police abused their power.

Schwab said he compares it to "Communist Russia, where you're obligated to identify yourself wherever you go, which is contrary to the [United States] Constitution."

He maintains that he has the freedom "to walk unobstructed without having to tell anyone what I'm doing or why I'm doing it as long as I'm within the boundaries of the law and not infringing on anybody else's rights.

"We want to show people that while we're killing people in Iraq for the claim of freedom, we're losing those liberties here in America. And it's unacceptable," Schwab added.

Schwab said, "If someone had said, these guys threw rocks at our car, that's one thing, but just because they think we look suspicious — people cannot just randomly ID people because they have a hunch."

Marsh said, "In terms of practical advice, if someone asked me as a lawyer what to do in this case, I'd say to minimize the conflict for yourself, show your ID and move on … But if a person chooses not to do so, it's not a violation of Indiana law."

He added that a person should "absolutely not" be subject to harassment or arrest for failing to offer ID under those circumstances.

Nesch said if the law required him to show his ID, he would gladly produce it.

"We're not lawbreakers, we're peaceful people," he said."

- SL

[I]The opinions and articles expressed and posted on these Ron Paul Forums are not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Ron Paul Forums or Ron Paul.

mdh
07-25-2007, 12:25 PM
Monday night, I had a friend visitting (who also happens to be the WV state coordinator for Restore the Republic, Aaron Russo's patriot group). We drank some beers, I grilled up some chicken, we watched the original cut of Zeigeist and generally shot the shit and smoked some cigars.

My friend left my apartment to walk home (he lives about a mile down the road, just across the river) at about 3 AM Tuesday. On his way home, he was stopped by a police patrolman who demanded ID. The patrolman detained him for about 2 hours on the side of the road.

This behavior is clearly unacceptable, but nobody wants to get shot, maced, or tasored. What are we doing about this? First, we'll seek assistance through the official channels - the police chief, and the mayor who appointed him. Second, we'll demand it. Third? We'll run a mayoral candidate in the city where this occured if the current mayor will not deal with these problems. And we'll win. So let me ask you guys - who here would contribute funds to such an endeavour? To help a mayoral candidate win in a small town where the cops have decided to run amuck.

freelance
07-25-2007, 12:39 PM
We'll run a mayoral candidate in the city where this occured if the current mayor will not deal with these problems. And we'll win. So let me ask you guys - who here would contribute funds to such an endeavour? To help a mayoral candidate win in a small town where the cops have decided to run amuck.

We're going to have to start doing this all over the country.

james1906
07-25-2007, 12:44 PM
could case law be provided? the cops here run driver's license checkpoints regularly.

Bradley in DC
07-25-2007, 01:00 PM
Demand? Of course! It's like the question, can I sue someone. The answer is always yes. Would the suit be successful is another question.

I don't remember the case name off hand, but the Supreme Court just addressed this question and sided with the police. I'm not positive how extensive the holding was, etc. One of the guys at Cato was the lead on our side, if that helps.

Bradley in DC
07-25-2007, 01:05 PM
Explanation of case:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Actual case languate:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

background here:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/02/62438?currentPage=all

cjhowe
07-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Perhaps someone can enlighten me or correct my thought here.

1) 4th ammendment protects against unreasonable search
2) State legislatures are left to define what is unreasonable.
3) State legislature decides requesting identification under circumstances as outlined in the various cases is reasonable.
4) Police officer follows that direction of what is reasonable and arrest someone for breaking the law of impeding a police officer
5) Court agrees the man broke the law he was charged with

Everyone wants to bitch and moan about the police and the courts. If you have a problem with the principle here, you need to direct your attention to the legislature so that the laws are aligned with your principles.

Douglass Bartley
07-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Why don't you send this question to Ask the Judge @ http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/62f903d6-600e-4740-8ec7-8177c22e0bd8

SeekLiberty
07-25-2007, 01:42 PM
We're going to have to start doing this all over the country.

Yes, with each community having a "Citizens Homeland Security Association" as described in the book Constitutional Homeland Security.

Government' police detainment is the beginning use of force.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” - President George Washington

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.” - President Thomas Jefferson

“Force is the antithesis of freedom, but force must be used, if only to defend against other force” - Blaise Pascal

Why don't our presidents of today talk like this? Aren't they Patriots for our American Republic? :rolleyes:

- SL

mdh
07-25-2007, 01:48 PM
Update: I just got off the phone with my aforementioned friend. Beyond our plans to potentially put out a mayoral candidate, he's also got a constitutional attorney on retainer now here in town, and is going to pursue that path as well.

Never Surrender

Wendi
07-25-2007, 01:50 PM
If you have a problem with the principle here, you need to direct your attention to the legislature so that the laws are aligned with your principles. Which is all fine and dandy, but the law (CONSTITUTION) already clearly spells it out. If a law violates the constitution, it cannot be enforced. Period. That is the real issue here, isn't it?

mdh
07-25-2007, 01:54 PM
Please address this guys...

Before it can be reasonable for a police officer to ask you to present ID, it must first be reasonable that everyone should have such ID, right? What about those who don't?

I read the case law that Bradley sited - all it said was that the person was compelled to identify himself. That does not mean presenting papers. You can identify yourself by simply telling the agent your name.

Is there a law compelling all citizens to have an ID? Certainly there is a law saying that to drive, one must have a license, and must carry it while driving. I understand that. But if you are NOT driving, is there a law compelling you to possess *ANY* documentation of any sort?
I don't think so. Am I wrong?

cjhowe
07-25-2007, 02:20 PM
Which is all fine and dandy, but the law (CONSTITUTION) already clearly spells it out. If a law violates the constitution, it cannot be enforced. Period. That is the real issue here, isn't it?

We have certainly reached utopia when every individual feels justified in their actions based solely on _their interpretation of the Constitution. The judicial branch of government determines what is constitutional and what is not. What has the highest court that has heard such cases decided in this regard? The law is constitutional. At least as applied in Hiibel. In regards to SL's example. We don't know the facts surrounding it. Did they violate the law, did they not. If not, was it an honest mistake by the officers or was it deliberate harassment. We have a process to sort these things out.

Everyone wants to go around talking about their civil liberties being _taken away. The truth of the matter is that we are _giving our civil liberties away. WE are electing people who pass laws that run counter to our principles and then propose anarchy as a proper response for officers and courts enforcing the laws that WE elected people to enact. Anarchy will not protect your liberties. Responsibility at the voting booth and lobbying your neighbors will. Stop shirking your responsibility to elect competent people to office.

Kregener
07-25-2007, 03:06 PM
You are asking these questions in a post-USAPATRIOT Act/9/11 world.

Uncle Sugar has carte Blanche now.