Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woman files suit over police demand for her identification
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 8/26/2005 | Pamela Manson

Posted on 08/26/2005 4:37:24 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity

Until last year, Tanya Ortega de Chamberlin had a clean record, with no criminal convictions or even an arrest. But her refusal to provide her date of birth or Social Security number to a South Salt Lake police officer changed that.

Although she was not suspected of committing a crime, and eventually provided the requested information, Ortega de Chamberlin was still cited based on her initial resistance.

The obstruction charges against her were later dropped. But Ortega de Chamberlin says that's not good enough - she has filed a lawsuit asking for a declaration that her constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. She also wants reimbursement of the money she spent fighting the criminal case.

Capt. Chris Snyder said Thursday that the department cannot comment on pending litigation.

The legal action, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, gives this account of the incident:

On Nov. 4 about 12:30 p.m., Ortega de Chamberlin, a photographer who lives in Salt Lake City, was standing on a public sidewalk near 3021 S. Main St. when Officer B. Heddlesten approached her. The officer said she was not suspected of a crime, but demanded the photographer give him her name, date of birth and Social Security number and tell him whether she had a driver license.

Ortega de Chamberlin gave her name but told the officer she was not required by law to provide the other information he requested.

In response to her repeated questions, Heddlesten said he did not think she had committed a crime or was attempting to commit one, according to the suit. However, the officer still insisted that she had to tell him the information; his supervisor, Sgt. Brian Stahle, who arrived at their location, backed him up.

Under threat of arrest, Ortega de Chamberlin finally complied, but was cited for allegedly interfering with or obstructing an officer by giving false information and by refusing to give information. Her suit says she then was put in handcuffs and placed in a police car until the officers changed their minds about taking her to jail and released her.

The charges were dismissed before trial, but Ortega de Chamberlin still has a criminal accusation on her record.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: aclulist; billofrights; boredcops; constitutionlist; donutwatch; govwatch; jackbootedthugs; newworldorder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: yarddog

Let me pick the lineup from a collection of randomly selected legal and illegal immigrants.

And none of them have to be illegal.

Then you choose.


41 posted on 08/26/2005 5:09:23 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon
So you hate cops.

No, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for "peace officers". Too bad there aren't any around anymore. They're "Law Enforcement Officers" now.

I distrust Law Enforcement Officers.

42 posted on 08/26/2005 5:10:02 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Ortega de Chamberlin

43 posted on 08/26/2005 5:12:25 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ('That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy Sheehan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Why don't you make it even harder. Why don't you make me pick out the one illegal from a group of 10 from Iceland./sarcasm.


44 posted on 08/26/2005 5:12:48 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The Salt Lake area has some pretty hard core law enforcement officers. Years ago my dad was stopped because he was driving a Lincoln that had tinted windows. His other "crime" was that he was from California. They thought he was running drugs.

They backed way off when he verbally started recalling court cases about harassment and illegal vehicle searches. He was a former cop and worked in the legal field for decades. By the time he was done with THEM the were practically tucking him back into his car and telling him to have a nice day.
45 posted on 08/26/2005 5:13:38 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

"I distrust Law Enforcement Officers."

And I distrust the media to tell the whole truth.

Do you trust the media that much to just take a side on this issue from the limited info given in the article?

Like I said, the cops could have overstepped their bounds, but since I was not there, and there is very limited info in the article for me to base an opinion either way, I will hold back judgement before I slam either side.

Let the courts deal with it, and then we will know the truth ( hopefully ).


46 posted on 08/26/2005 5:16:28 PM PDT by Peace will be here soon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
Why did they want her info?

Probably wanted a date...or at least try to feel like a "man" by bossing a woman around.

47 posted on 08/26/2005 5:16:48 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

Other than knowing now that she's ugly, too, that doesn't really provide much insight.


48 posted on 08/26/2005 5:17:03 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Hey Senator! Leave those kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum; Michael.SF.; freedumb2003

Thank you all for replying to my post.

Knitting A Conundrum - Michael SF's post that has a link in it, goes to her web site and has her pic. Still would like to know what's around the address where she was "questioned"......

Michael.SF.- Thanks for the link. Her pic on her site doesn't make her look real "suspicious".

Freedumb2003- The lady in question WOULD look suspicious if placed next to the pic you posed....

Thanks again .


49 posted on 08/26/2005 5:17:47 PM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
Why did they want her info?

What kind of smart-alec question is that? It's for The Children, of course. We're At War Now.

50 posted on 08/26/2005 5:18:22 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
"Why did they want her info?"

That's classified municipal security information.

51 posted on 08/26/2005 5:18:34 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
A police officer can't arbitrarily demand identification from someone who he knows hasn't committed a crime.

Even under the Double Secret Probationary Clause of the Patriot Act?

52 posted on 08/26/2005 5:20:04 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon
Let the courts deal with it, and then we will know the truth

The courts have already dealt with it. We all lost. Click the link at post #17.

53 posted on 08/26/2005 5:20:56 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Already been done. Already been to SCOTUS. Already been lost.

I thought we had already lost this one; thanks for the link.
54 posted on 08/26/2005 5:21:25 PM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Last time I checked, America wasn't a police state.

You'd better check again.

55 posted on 08/26/2005 5:21:33 PM PDT by semaj ("....by their fruit you will know them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

" It is not considered an invasion of privacy."

It's BS though and these cops are polluting the environment.

56 posted on 08/26/2005 5:21:38 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Ping.


57 posted on 08/26/2005 5:23:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

I hope she owns the P.D. before this is through. This is utter b.s.; no American citizen need EVER be subjected to these freakin' Dirty Harry Wannabes in such a manner. Too many cops assume that the Constitution doesn't exist. I love it when they find out otherwise.


58 posted on 08/26/2005 5:23:42 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inneroutlaw

Ping. Come and get it.


59 posted on 08/26/2005 5:25:07 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
"It is not considered an invasion of privacy."

The hell it isn't. Where were you raised???? Or should I ask..........when????

60 posted on 08/26/2005 5:25:50 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson