police contact without cause?

[RichD]

Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

There was a similar case locally, recently. (everybody
reads the police blotter, I hope, it's a riot) An affluent
town, which isn't gated, but the residents act like it is,
they view every stranger as a potential burglar. The
report read: "A woman was reported walking in the
street, she appears to be homeless."

"walking in the street" is not a crime, so when the officer
caught her, what if she refuses to co-operate in any
way, including ID?


--
Rich

[Dick Adams]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
> there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
> loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
> and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
> you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

Since the police have the right to stop and question people
at random, the result could be expensive in both time and
money. Look up failure to cooperate in a police investigation.

> There was a similar case locally, recently. (everybody
> reads the police blotter, I hope, it's a riot) An affluent
> town, which isn't gated, but the residents act like it is,
> they view every stranger as a potential burglar. The
> report read: "A woman was reported walking in the
> street, she appears to be homeless."

Many of us live in areas with Neighborhood Watch
organizations. It has a positive impact on the value of
your property.

> "walking in the street" is not a crime, so when the officer
> caught her, what if she refuses to co-operate in any
> way, including ID?

Same as above.

The only legal advice I have to offer is contact an attorney.

Dick

[Barry Gold]

If there is "reasonable suspicion" that she is involved in criminal
activity (near future or recent past), an officer can stop her and ask
her questions. He can require her to "identify" herself -- that is, to
give her name (and, in some states, her address). She does _not_ have
to answer questions, and she does _not_ have to show ID papers, merely
tell them (truthfully!) who she is.

If the officer "reasonably believes" that she is armed, he can "frisk"
her (a pat-down to determine if she has weapons in her outer garments).
Anything more requires "probable cause", the standard requirement for
an arrest.

Look up "Terry stop" in Wikipedia.

I would also recommend that you print out a copy of the ACLU "bust card"
that gives your rights if you are stopped by the police, la migra, or
the FBI.
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf

Print a copy, fold along the lines, and keep it in your wallet or purse.

[deadrat]

Dick Adams wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
>> there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
>> loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
>> and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
>> you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

> Since the police have the right to stop and question people
> at random, the result could be expensive in both time and
> money. Look up failure to cooperate in a police investigation.

You can't obstruct a police investigation, but you have no
obligation to help. In particular, you have no obligation
to answer their questions or show them ID if you're not
driving.

[A Michigan Attorney]

RichD wrote:
> Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
> there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
> loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
> and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
> you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

Depends on what you mean by "ID". If you mean your *name*,
you'll probably be arrested for obstructing an investigation (or
whatever the jurisdiction calls it), and I suspect the charge will
stick. If you mean an ID *card*, you can't be legitimately busted
for that last time I checked. IIRC there was a Texas airport case
involving a foreign-looking traveler, in which the USSC said you
don't have to produce an ID card to the police. But Barney Fife
won't know and/or care about that, so you'll get busted for
defying the officer for that as well (i.e., "contempt of cop").

[Seth]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
>there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
>loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
>and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
>you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

The Supreme Court has ruled that you have identify yourself
if told to do so, but you do not have to provide documentation.

Seth

[slide]

RichD wrote:
> Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
> there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
> loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,
> and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
> you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?

Works for both your examples: you need to identify yourself but are not
required to show an ID.

If the police is involved in an investigation and you refuse to
cooperate but also aren't identified by the police as a suspect, you'd
be interfering with a police investigation. It'd probably come to
nothing but it could amount to charges.

Overall, my guess is in cases like this, one way or another the police
will prevail so you or whomever may as well make it easier on yourself
and just go along to get along.

[Mike Anderson]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe it's been said to be unconstitutional to
require an ID for a police stop (even in a traffic stop, they can't
FORCE you to provide ID. But if you don't, you'll probably be taking a
ride with them. They already have you as a "suspect" in a traffic
violation so if they can't confirm who you are, they can take you in for
fingerprinting, etc. to figure it out before releasing you.) However,
you DO have to provide a name when asked and that's ALL you have to
provide. You don't have to prove the name, you don't have to give an
address, you don't have to state why you're there, etc.

However, the police do have some limited ability to hold you to confirm
the name in some cases and also if you LIE to them in any way, it can go
very, very bad for you.

So often it's best to simply give them your name (don't be an idiot and
refuse that) and, depending on circumstances, probably show them ID but
then say "I want a lawyer" for ANYTHING else, if you know you've done
nothing wrong (and even MORE so when you know you have done something
wrong, with maybe the limit of the traffic stop. There, "playing nice"
will sometimes get you a warning instead of a ticket so sometimes it's
better to go ahead and answer questions there.)

[micky]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Suppose a cop contacts you, but you're not a 'suspect',
>there's not even evidence of any violation. Like, you're
>loitering on the street, in a town with no loitering ordinances,

I am not a lawyer but havent' a lot of no loitering laws been ruled
unconstituational?

Even if not, did he admit he was loitering. I thought there was a
definition and room for debate on who is and who isnt'.

>and someone calls the police. He starts the questioning,
>you refuse to talk. He asks for ID, you refuse. Result?
>
>There was a similar case locally, recently. (everybody
>reads the police blotter, I hope, it's a riot) An affluent
>town, which isn't gated, but the residents act like it is,
>they view every stranger as a potential burglar. The
>report read: "A woman was reported walking in the
>street, she appears to be homeless."
>
>"walking in the street" is not a crime, so when the officer
>caught her, what if she refuses to co-operate in any
>way, including ID?

I can't answer your questions but I can retell my story. Walking home
from dinner at a friend's about midnight on a Friday night, down a
grassy hill with no lights but a street light 100 feet in front of me
was in my eyes. I saw two figures but couldn't tell until I could
turn my head away from the light that they were cops. I probably
mumbled "Hi" and when I was 10 feet past them, one called me back.

He didnt' ask for ID, may have asked my name and wanted to know where
I was going. I'm usually very cooperative, but his harsh, maybe
accusatory tone annoyed me and I just pointed in the general direction
of my house. He wanted to know the address and I told him. Then he
wanted to know where I was coiming from and I told him dinner at a
friend's. He wanted to know his address and I wouldn't tell him. I
said "I'm not dragging him into this" He wanted to know why it was
dark where I was coming from. I told him it was the shortest way
home, but what I shoudl have said is that I don't erect street lights.
I was angry and said "All I'm doing is walking down the street and you
have no reason to bother me ". He had never asked me if I saw
anyone or knew anything. The man doing all the questioning was about
5 foot 2, and the one of normal height didnt' say anything.

There actually is occasional crime in the apartment building right
near there, or its parking lot, and even where I live, but they never
said a word about a crime, and why would I be walking back to the
scene of a crime? Maybe the other said I could leave and as I did,
the short cop called out "If you're even in trouble, don't call us. "

I was tempted to complain to the precinct but I feared retaliation.

[Robert Bonomi]

Unfortunately, the above is not exactly accurate.
It varies in detail from state to state.

In some locales you are required, by law, to identify yourself, on demand
by law enforcement. Challenged in court -- upheld.

[deadrat]

You must tell them your legal name if they ask. You do not have to show
them ID.

[David Lesher]

>> Unfortunately, the above is not exactly accurate.
>> It varies in detail from state to state.
>>
>> In some locales you are required, by law, to identify yourself, on demand
>> by law enforcement. Challenged in court -- upheld.

> You must tell them your legal name if they ask. You do not have to show
> them ID.

Is not this the heart of Hiibel_v._Nevada?



--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Mike Anderson]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>> You can't obstruct a police investigation, but you have no
>> obligation to help. In particular, you have no obligation
>> to answer their questions or show them ID if you're not
>> driving.

> Unfortunately, the above is not exactly accurate.
> It varies in detail from state to state.
>
> In some locales you are required, by law, to identify yourself, on demand
> by law enforcement. Challenged in court -- upheld.

You are required to give your name (and possibly your address) in many
(most? All?) states. However, I don't think ANY locale legally can
require you to present ID to prove that name (and possibly address.)

But providing FALSE information is usually illegal and the police CAN
detain you for a reasonable period of time to verify the information you
provided so it's true that often simply flashing ID is a great time saver.

(I'm not a lawyer.)