Court: Arrest For ID Refusal Unwarranted

[ne1]

imported post

LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.
http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008/04/07/week_in_review/news/saturday/news10.txt

 

[Mike]

imported post

Great ruling!

 

[ScottNH]

imported post

And one of the best parts of the ruling is piercing the "qualified immunity" of the trooper, so he can answer directly for his actions. Good stuff.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

Fantastic!

Too many people misinterpret Hiibel, so maybe this will help the misunderstanding.

 

[Article1section23]

imported post

Hope this trooper brought his lube...his about to get a taste of "Reasonable attorney fee's", plus something for Mr. Stufflebeam. This link should be posted in all states discussions under the 8th circuit.

 

[ilbob]

imported post

Wow. a federal court that understands that citizens are not serfs.


Isuspect that even if damages are ever assessed against the trooper, somehow the state will pay. in some respects that is fair since in most cases governments are the ones pushing for cops to violate the rights of its citizens.

OTOH, having to take personal responsibility for ones bad acts tends to cause others to reconsider their actions.


Stufflebeam is an unusual name. A Randy Stufflebeam ran for Illinois governor last year on the Constitution Party platform.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.

He's driving a car (traffic stop).... He has to show a license (identification).... Or am I missing something?


Edit: FIMS...:banghead:

He was a passenger...


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

What the HELL gave that officer the impression that he can just randomly ID people and cart them off to jail if they refuse?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

What the HELL gave that officer the impression that he can just randomly ID people and cart them off to jail if they refuse?

I assume that's a rhetorical question....

 

[ScottyT]

imported post

I have actually had a similar experience (well, I didn't get arrested, but the cop wanted my ID for no reason). While I was going to school I headed out for a 3 am snack at the grocery store about 5 blocks away from my apartment. I made it to the store, bought a box of Teddy Grahams (I love them!) and a 12-pack of Coke. About halfway home, a cop car pulls up next to me and the officer gets out. This cop couldn't have been older than 25, and in that town they are notorious for making mountains out of molehills (due to boredom, not much going on there). The following is pretty much how the conversation went (it was 3 years ago, so this is not an exact transcript):

Me: "Evening officer"
Him: "What brings you out this late?"

(I wanted to say "none of your business," but I didn't)

Me: "Just picking up some study food"
Him: "Can I see your ID?
Me: "Excuse me? what for?"
Him: "We have been having some problems in this neighborhood tonight."
Me: "So why do you need to see my ID?"
Him: "We are just checking on people."
Me: "Am I suspected of a crime?"
Him: "No, nothing like that."
Me: "I think I will just go home then."
Him: "I need you to show me your Driver's License."
Me: "I didn't think I needed it in order to WALK to the store."
Him: "Sir, I need to see your identification"
Me: "Not unless you can tell me why."
Him: "Where do you live?"
Me: "What's that got to do with anything?"
Him: "I told you we have been having some problems in this neighborhood tonight."
Me: "Are you detaining me?"
Him: "No, we are just checking on people"
Me: "I am just going to head home then... goodnight."


He was obviously frustrated, but never raised his voice or moved to block my path or anything. If it wasn't 3 am I might have thought to get his badge number and called the next morning to report the incident. He got back into his car and drove away, though I saw him on cross streets the next couple blocks home.

I couldn't believe this guy. It is a college town and there are regularly people out shopping, jogging, playing frisbee, etc... till the wee hours (I had to wait in the checkout line for my Teddy Grahams). I just have to wonder what he was thinking.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

What a great T-shirt idea!

"I carry a .45 and love Teddy Grahams!"

Who the hell can argue with that?

 

[ScottyT]

imported post

wow, I am totally going to have to make that shirt! Thanks for the idea!

...seriously though, Teddy Grahams (honey) are the greatest snack ever...

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

I couldn't believe this guy. It is a college town and there are regularly people out shopping, jogging, playing frisbee, etc... till the wee hours (I had to wait in the checkout line for my Teddy Grahams). I just have to wonder what he was thinking.

Having lived in State College, PA, I can feel your pain. One of the things about colleges and college towns is that they assume (correctly) that young adults right out of high school don't know what their rights are, or don't care, and don't know how to stand their ground and assert themselves. They assume (incorrectly) any young adult they see is just a drunken and unruly snot-nose. So school officials, local cops, landlords, and others in a position of authority take you for a doormat when they deal with you and like to show you who's boss. Good for you for showing them otherwise. When I went to college, I had just come back from active duty, and I had a decidedly different attitude than what they were expecting.

(BTW, this goes back to the opposition to student gun carry; the stereotype of college students as irresponsible party hounds)

 

[gridboy]

imported post

Here's what wikipedia says (if you trust what any yahoo can write):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

According to that entry, in Utah, the police can demand name,
address and explanation of actions, if there is suspicion of crime
or intent to commit a crime.

No such law for Virginia. Pennsylvania, California.

gridboy

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

"Stufflebeam was a passenger in his grandson’s car in May 2003 when the vehicle was stopped by a state trooper. The driver was not issued a citation during the traffic stop. When Trooper Jeff W. Harris asked the grandfather for identification, he told the officer he did not have to show any ID."

If you are not suspected of a crime.... there should be no need to ask you for any ID. I am not sure why the trooper even asked.


"In its ruling Friday, the federal court panel referenced a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”"


The trooper really had no cause to arrest this guy as he was not obstructing anything or preventing the trooper from doing his job. The trooper had no cause to investigate him for anything.

I predict that the trooper is going to be hurt financially.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

The courts have ruled that ALL people in the care are seized during the stop.

This means that passengers are NOT free to exit and do anything they want. They may not be required to say who they are as this is only required by the driver but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

I just want everyone to be clear on that and not think that NO ID = No legal authority to control.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

At least that's how I understand it...

EDIT: Syntax

 

[Jared]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

At least that's how I understand it...

EDIT: Syntax

You are correct, a Terry frisk is warranted if youhave reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. Not just armed, many LEO's do not understand this, I know no one in my class did. The few times I have had snotty punks pulled over, I never did a Terry Frisk on them, they in no way convinced me they were armed and dangerous, they were just whining.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

but they can be removed and patted down for weapons

ONLY if there is ARS to believe that they are armed, and it's necessary for the safety of the officer and/or the public. While SCOTUS has decreed that everyone in a vehicle is seized, there is still a requirement of ARS to further detain an individual, and without ARS that a crime is/has just/or shortly will be taking place, there's no justification for the frisk....

At least that's how I understand it...

EDIT: Syntax

True... you have to have a valid reason first that can be based on prior knowledge or the person makes affective movements that cause you to be concerned.