Posted on 11/29/2005 12:32:57 PM PST by CedarDave
If his opening statement to you was "do you want to get arrested tonight?", then that sets the stage for a confrontation, which is fine for Johnny Bad Guy, but not Joe Family Guy, that is usually a rookie mistake, not a detective, oh well, it happens sometimes.
As to laws on Federal Property on in DC, I would only be guessing. Your guess is as good as mine.
I do have a few long time friends that are Officers for a Transit Authority, that includes buses. Here in Texas, there all kinds of governments that have authority to pass laws that are unique to their area. For instance, a City will have City ordinances that are unique to just that City. Park boards may have Police Officers that not only are Texas Peace Officers, but they are hired to enforce rules of the park. You will see this on School P.D.s also. Transit Authorities are governed by elected or appointed officials that pass law enforceable ordinances also. On their buses they will have rules and laws. Rule violations may result in having riding privileges revoked, and violation of laws may result in citations or arrests.
In the post, from the line "Rusnok said the federal officers in Colorado told him the policy of checking the IDs of bus passengers and others entering the Federal Center began shortly after the April 1995 terrorist bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City."
I take that as showing ID is a rule, or a policy, not a law. From reading the story she refused to follow the rule (or policy). A guard is not able to enforce laws, only rules and policies, and she violated a policy. she didnt break the law until this point...
"The guard told her she had to leave the bus, but she refused. Two officers with the Federal Protective Service were called."
The guard represents the bus line, has authority to tell people to leave the bus. She refused. So she is now trespassing, that is a violation of law, so the guard called Officers, and she was arrested. The way I see it, she refused to show ID, so the bus refused to provide her with a service. She refused to leave, that when Officers were called in, because she refused to leave. Thats my take. Im to tired to read the whole thing again to see if there was anything else.
On the other link "Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats."
I dont know how they did that, I cant say enough about what a bad idea that is. I only know Texas law, not Florida. In Texas, you must have probable cause to a crime to check ID. Some States make an exception for that for certain traffic enforcement such as DWI checkpoints ect. They were checking ID's of bank and Hotel customers. Handing out literature is fine, if the property owners dont mind. Checking ID's of everyone going in and out in of a private business? No way. If the Bank, or the grocery store, or whatever business wants to see your ID, fine. Show the bank or the hotel your ID if they want that, or you can go somewhere that doesnt require you to show your ID. That is between you and the business. But LEO's asking for ID at random I personally see as going to far. I am comfortable with Texas law that gives LEO's authority to ID a suspect or witness to any crime great or small, but not like this Florida Chief that was choosing people at random in the name of security.
"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Any prime is good.
Someone posted the Texas ID law. It has three very specific categories of situations where someone is legally REQUIRED to identify themselves to a police officer who asks:
- If they have been ARRESTED.
- If they have been DETAINED.
- If they are a WITNESS to a suspected crime.
Can you reasonably believe that any of these situations applies to some random person walking down the street minding their own business?
"Do you want to be arrested?" is not a proper way to inform someone that they are being detained under investigation of a suspected crime.
If we do not live in a police state, we retain the right to tell the police to shove off unless they have legal cause to detain or interview us.
Go back and read the story. The ID checking is haphazard or random. Some times they do it and some times they don't.
So, as to your assertion that people have been showing ID all the time at all federal facilities is undermined by the very story you are commenting upon.
I stand corrected and offer an apology.
>So, as to your assertion that people have been showing ID all the time at all federal facilities is undermined by the very story you are commenting upon.<
Tell you what sparky,show me where I said anything about showing ID all the time at all federal facillities.
If I'm Sparky, you're soggy ashes. Here's your statement:
"People have been required to produce ID before entering military installations for years even when passing through."
Whew, that was easy.
Thank you for agreeing with my post.
Relax a little...mere conjecture is not a personal attack.
There's the rub.
She was actually on federal property, out of the jurisdictional control of the state.
This should be interesting.
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
...
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 . The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [443 U.S. 47, 48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
BTTT
The courts have laid it all out very clearly.
It's called "articulable suspicion." If they have no specific, explainable reason to talk to someone, they can't force that person to talk to them.
In the Brown case, the conviction and fine was overturned.
You're going way off the deep end by claiming that I want to strip cops of all their tools.
They have the authority to watch me, to observe my behaviour, to gather whatever information they like. If that adds up to a reasonable suspicion that I have broken, am breaking, or am about to break the law, then they have the authority to detain me, compel me to identify myself, and investigate further.
But if there is NO reasonable suspicion that I have broken, am breaking, or am about to break the law, if there is NOTHING about my conduct that is, or appears to be, illegal, then in a free country I must, by definition, have the right to tell them that I don't care to talk to them.
Law enforcement has been able to do their jobs for hundreds of years without harassing innocent, law-abiding citizens on the basis of hunches, routine dragnets, and wild-ass guesses.
I'm not worried that they'll think of a way to continue to do their jobs without violating their oaths.
Here's an example of the kind of thing that can result when there's an absence of any restraint or accountability on the actions of police officers with respect to their interactions with the public:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/13272741.htm
---
On July 13, 1995, Judge Lazarus was listening to lawyers arguing a motion when two men in casual clothes entered the sequestered courtroom.
When Court Officer Gary Wakshul tried to stop them, one declared: "You can't do anything to us. We're... cops!"
Wakshul told the Police Department's Internal Affairs that Fleming grabbed his necktie with one hand and punched him in the face, knocking off his glasses. The other man, Officer Jean Langan, also punched Wakshul.
The Internal Affairs investigation found that Fleming and Langan, who had been working undercover with a narcotics unit, punched Wakshul and used profanity, though both denied it.
---
He also engaged in a public strip search of someone who was ultimately not arrested, and nearly paralyzed a 53-year-old pastor with a take-down maneuver who was eventually found not guilty on all charges. He's also been caught testilying.
He has cost the department about a million bucks in settlements, but he still carries a badge.
Is that the kind of person you want to give carte blanche to confront anyone they care to confront regardless of evidence or suspicion?
If quoting you is making it up, so be it.
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.