Withholding Identity From a Law Officer: Your Right or Not?

Associated Press ^ | March 23, 2004 | Gina Holland

[Sweet Land]

They should also jail him until he IDs himself

Why? Are we free men or vassals of the State?

[eno_]

They should also jail him until he IDs himself, or he dies.

Yeah, and let's see the permit for that smoke pole. Don't have it handy? In jail for you until you find it!

[spunkets]

Read it again and try to comprehend it.

"a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."

[cinFLA]

From the very beginning of the tape (when the officer first pulls up) it appears his daughter is in the driver's seat.

From Mr. Hiibel's brief it is stated that she was on the passenger's side.

[cinFLA]

YOU are the ONLY one blithering this line. Not even Hiibel is agreeing with you on this one.

[Sweet Land]

Read it again and try to comprehend it.

"a person being detained because of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity may refuse to identify himself."

Don't make a fool of yourself. In the context of a legal ruling, "a person may do X" means "a person may do X without being legally punished."

[cinFLA]

You are full of it. No source! But from Mr. Hiibel's brief -

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In response to a call from police dispatch ....

[cinFLA]

All very strange, unless, of course, the call was never made and the cop who claimed to be investigating a report of domestic violence lied and made it up to support his buddy in coercing a response out of the man who refused to identify himself.

All very strange, unless, of course, the call was never made and the cop who claimed to be investigating a report of domestic violence lied and made it up to support his buddy in coercing a response out of the man who refused to identify himself. you are just making this all up.

[cinFLA]

And, of course, no recording of the call.

And of course no source for your claims therefor your claims are imaginary.

[Arpege92]

If the police recieve a call of a man hitting a female, the police are going to respond even if the caller refuses to leave a name or number. Given that information, it makes no sense that the cops first try and verify the call before actually responding to it.

[spunkets]

"In the context of a legal ruling, "a person may do X" means "a person may do X without being legally punished."

Nonsense. Particular conditions were attached to the waiving of sanctions for refusal to ID. It puts the burden on the police to obtain the persons ID some other way. If they are unable to ID the suspect any other way they should keep him until they are sure he is someone. If they can't determine he is someone, they should declare him fruit and toss him in the recycling bin for composting.

[Modernman]

Here it would have been Obstructing Official Business. Or Domestic Violence or Disorderly Conduct, Persisting. Whatever I felt like at the moment.

And cops wonder why people don't like them. Don't come crying here for sympathy the next time a cop takes a bullet.

[Sweet Land]

Particular conditions were attached to the waiving of sanctions for refusal to ID.

What "conditions"?

[spunkets]

"What "conditions"?"

"articulable suspicion of criminal activity"

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "Not everything people have to hide is criminal."

Hey! The ONLY thing being discussed in this case is whether, when upon PUBLIC property, whether or not you should be required to give an officer your NAME, upon request!

Or did you miss that point?

[Modernman]

It's the screwed-up, hyper-vilolent, increasingly criminal and hellbent, mindlessly belligerent public. That's what has changed.

Violent crime in every category has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. Society is not getting any more dangerous, so there is no reason for cops to get more belligerent towards the people who pay their salaries.

[cinFLA]

Hey! The ONLY thing being discussed in this case is whether, when upon PUBLIC property, whether or not you should be required to give an officer your NAME, upon request! Or did you miss that point?

I think you should go back and read the writs.

[cinFLA]

Society is not getting any more dangerous

The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1996. By 1996 the crime rate was 313% the 1960 crime rate. In 1996 your risk of being a victim of a crime in the United States was 5.079%, and of a violent crime 0.634%. In 1960 these rates were 1.89% of being a victim of a crime and 0.161% of becoming victim of a violent crime.

[Modernman]

Hmmm.... According to the DOJ- Bureau of Justice Statistics, the murder rate as of 2000 was 5.5/100,000, which is a level comparable to the 1960's. Violent crime rates are at the lowest level since 1973 (the first year statistics were compiled)as are property crime rates.

[21st Century Man]

How's your goosestep?