Posted on 01/03/2009 4:41:51 PM PST by don-o
Today as I was walking about six blocks from my home, a police cruiser rolled up. The officer said that a woman had called in that a person fitting my description had "been looking into her car." Now, this is without any basis in fact. I looked into no car, except at a street crossing, where I looked in the driver's eyes to assure that I had been seen as I was crossing.
In the course of the exchange, I was asked to produce identification. Which, I did. He also asked me where I was going. I told him. On reflection, I wonder if that is correct policy by the police and what would have happened if I had refused.
Sorry, bucko, but there is "basis in fact".....the woman described somebody who looked like you, and the cops acted on it, and rightly so.
When I was in my senior year of high school, a buddy and I ( in his VW bus) got pulled over at gunpoint because of the same "basis in fact"......the bus resembled a vehicle involved in some crime, but we got cleared quicklike, as two kids who'd driven to Tijuana to buy a guitar.
The cop and both of us laughed it off. Don't be a fool and mail your "composed letter to the chief". Take a deep breath on this one, if you're asking for advice (which you seem to be doing.....).
It is against the law to be anywhere without ID and you must produce it anytime a cop requests to see it.
You probably don’t need to tell him where you are going though. I’ve used this one before...
cop: where are you going?
Me: (point straight ahead) that way.
Cop: where did you come from
Me: (point straight behind me) that way.
The cop laughed.
“There’s not that fine a line between cooperating with law enforcement and unreasonable search and seizure. Being asked to identify yourself is not out of line, and is compelled legally in most states.”
The requirement to provide your identity is only required if a crime has been committed, correct? So the correct response would be to ask what crime I was suspected of? Peeking into cars is not a crime although it may be somewhat suspicious.
Ahem....your thinking is good, but the problem is you might get to spend a night or weekend in jail if you overly "invoke your rights", while things get sorted out.....the police DO have the right to question you.
“It is against the law to be anywhere without ID “
HUH? perhaps in New York City.
What do you want to do? Sue for harassment? Lost wages?
It appears to me, or any reasonable person, that 'To protect and serve' is EXACTLY what the officer was doing. Yeah, its irritating. You just deal with it. I have had the same sort of thing happen to me. Look at it as an opportunity to make a friend of a neighborhood LEO, not make enemies out of all of them by trying to get him fired for DOING HIS JOB, for crying out loud...JFK
Either the woman who called in the complaint made a mistake, was actively trying to cause you a problem, or there actually was someone your size, gender, approximate age and coloration wearing similar clothes, looking into her car.
The officer was just doing his job. Was he courteous, professional? Were you free to go on your way promptly, after the exchange? Did he follow you or something, afterwards? I’m not sure why the upset.
Every notice that most who say they have nothing to hide never post under their own names?
‘Every notice that most who say they have nothing to hide never post under their own names?”
Yeah break out the search warrants. Oh yeah they dont need no stinkun search warrant.
Go back and reread my comment number 1. I am not upset. Nor do I seek any consequences for the officers, who I assume were following SOP. My purpose is to glean information and opinions.
Most states require you to identify yourself when requested to do so by an officer of the law. Hence my original reply ... answer the officer's questions, or stand on principle and be taken in for questioning. As far as any "crime," I'd say suspicion of breaking and entering, given the nature of the call that had the officer out there in the first place.
Since when did looking inside somebody’s car become suspicion of breaking and entering.
But if don-o plays this wrong and makes a scene, he will draw the attention of damn near all of the cops (ESPECIALLY the bad ones) in that precinct or the entire force by making this stink.
Forgive me if I sound hostile, don-o, but I do not want you to be categorized by any of these LEOs in a negative light. No good comes of it...JFK
It varies from place to place. In some states(or cities) you are only required to verbally tell the cop your full name DOB and address so he can call it in. In other places you must produce a photo ID.
Didn’t a guy from Nevada take this all the way to the Supreme Court and lose? I could be wrong, but I think providing ID to law enforcement is the law of the land now, and not just some states. Let me know if I am wrong...JFK
When somebody fitting the description of a person peering into a parked car, called in by the owner of that car, refuses to cooperate with the investigating officer, maybe?
“In other places you must produce a photo ID.”
I can see that if you’re driving but not otherwise. You can tell the cop who you are though.
“But if don-o plays this wrong and makes a scene, he will draw the attention of damn near all of the cops (ESPECIALLY the bad ones) in that precinct or the entire force by making this stink.”
I find the very idea that cops would target an individual for no reason to be offensive.
Have we become the Soviet Union?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.