Skip to comments.
Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?
Associated Press ^
| March 23, 2004
| Gina Holland
Posted on 03/23/2004 6:10:30 AM PST by wallcrawlr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 501-515 next last
To: cinFLA
And did this witness show up to testify in court?
And why not?
Does the witness exist?
Did he use a telephone to make the report?
Where is a recording of the call?
Or a call detail record from the telco proving the call was placed?
Or the number from which the call was placed?
Or the witnesses name so we can look it up in the directory?
The absence of things as obvious as a recording of the call or a telco record for the call, and the curious coincidence that the witness cannot be located to testify, together mean that the odds are THE WITNESS NEVER EXISTED and the cop claiming there was such a "report" is lying.
Happens all the time.
Sadly.
161
posted on
03/23/2004 8:51:45 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: eno_
Are you calling Mr. Hiibel a liar?
162
posted on
03/23/2004 8:53:01 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: eno_
You still have not posted a source of your blithering.
163
posted on
03/23/2004 8:53:54 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: wallcrawlr
In Philadelphia, it used be common for a criminal to have multiple identies and then fail to show up for court claiming that he was never served the papers, that they didn't have his name on them.
164
posted on
03/23/2004 8:54:09 AM PST
by
Eva
To: eno_
Even Mr. Hiibel's web-site is counter to your blithering. Where is your source.
165
posted on
03/23/2004 8:54:33 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: Eva
In Philadelphia, it used be common for a criminal to have multiple identies and then fail to show up for court claiming that he was never served the papers, that they didn't have his name on them. Look at arrest warrants today. The usually aka five to ten aliases.
166
posted on
03/23/2004 8:59:02 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: eno_
Does your mother know you are on-line?
167
posted on
03/23/2004 9:03:13 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: eno_
THE WITNESS NEVER EXISTED and the cop claiming there was such a "report" is lying. No source; no credibility. Even Mr. Hiibel does not support this claim.
168
posted on
03/23/2004 9:10:34 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: cuz_it_aint_their_money
Yes, I agree that "Pleading the 5th" has to do with the 5th Amendment. I'm glad you agree, I'd hate for my law school tuition to have been wasted.
169
posted on
03/23/2004 9:15:32 AM PST
by
Defiant
(The sane in Spain are mainly on the wane.)
To: Wolfie
Slam dunk. Of course you have to identify yourself to police. Then why is the SCOTUS hearing it?
To: Wolfie
"Slam dunk. Of course you have to identify yourself to police"Well we shall soon find out won't we?
Personally, I find your response to this a little bit frightening. This certainly should NOT be a 'slam dunk' and less than two decades ago, the answer was clearly and legally "No, you do NOT have to identify yourself".
These days, I'm not so sure. What does scare me is that there are a large number of people who believe you ARE required to identify yourself and that believe this is acceptable.
"Your papers please!"
To: Cap'n Crunch
"I think the cop was sent there for a legitimate call. I would have locked the guy up too." Was the call? on what charge would you lock him up? For being arrogant enough to challenge your self importance as an officer of the law?
Get a life, and remember who you serve.
To: Cap'n Crunch
". People in general are ruder than they used to be, from my observations anyhow"Well, based on your responses throughout this thread, maybe you are personally reaping the responses of your own attitude toward those you encounter each day.
I can say with certainty that if you were the officer stopping me, and you approached me with the attitude you've displayed in this thread, that I will have just been the rudest person you will have met on that day.
To: Old Professer
Then why is the SCOTUS hearing it? You apparently have not read the briefs nor my explanation on this thread.
174
posted on
03/23/2004 9:39:02 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: cinFLA
There is a more informative thread running that stresses the elements; the question I posed was simply a means to declare that the issue has not been settled.
We can all speculate and take sides, but the SCOTUS is charged with clarifying the conditions for upholding or striking the decisions of the lower courts and hence, the law.
Your opinion is not likely to sway their decision.
To: Old Professer
We can all speculate and take sides, but the SCOTUS is charged with clarifying the conditions for upholding or striking the decisions of the lower courts and hence, the law. And we all know that the liberal 9th is the most overturned court in the land.
176
posted on
03/23/2004 9:51:00 AM PST
by
cinFLA
To: Lloyd227
"Your papers please!" I believe the disposition will be that you have to identify yourself to the police and the police must have probable cause that you are involved in a crime. If you are asked to identify yourself and it is subsequently shown that the police did it just to hastle you, then they will be repremanded.
Some time ago a car with plainclothes police stopped me walking along the highway. I showed identification and they gave me a ride home to confirm my address. I was told I fit the description of a man they were looking for seen in the area where I was walking. (I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.) Since my story checked out, I ended up with a free ride home. If I decided I had no identification, I am certain these officers would have taken me in. Were my rights violated? I did not think so. Would I have helped the police if I could? Yes. Have I ever been falsely accused by the police? No, Does it happen? Of course. So get those cops off the street.
177
posted on
03/23/2004 9:51:46 AM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: Old Professer
There is a more informative thread running that stresses the elements; the question I posed was simply a means to declare that the issue has not been settled.It would have been settled if the 9th had not ruled that a driver was not required to show his DL during a traffic stop.
178
posted on
03/23/2004 9:53:27 AM PST
by
cinFLA
Comment #179 Removed by Moderator
To: cinFLA
The prosection is itself the source:
1. They claimed someone witnessed the event
2. In the most publicized case they ever tried, they could not find the witness.
It isn't credible the witness disappeared.
As I pointed out:
Calls to PDs are always logged, and usually recorded.
It would be unusual if the call was not to 911.
Even if it wasn't, the telco would have a record of the call including the number it originated from.
The PD's dispatcher should also have taken name number and address information.
So: No name. No number. No address. No call detail record at the telco. No 911 log. No 911 recording. No recording of any type. No return call from the dispatcher to verify.
Just the assertion there was a report. Not a shred of evidence that the report was made and that the witness exists.
In how many other instances when someone calls the PD is there such a lack of information and untraceability of the caller? This situation is either the height of misfortune, or the cop that claimed there was such a report is lying.
180
posted on
03/23/2004 9:59:43 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 501-515 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson