Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
BS the DC
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Looks like two men having a pissing contest. Neither one looks like they can shoot too far.
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
bsdc said:
Looks like two men having a pissing contest. Neither one looks like they can shoot too far.
Since the supreme court will be hearing the "show your papers" part of it, it's a bit more than that.
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
"There's a glitch in the system" -Robocop

(good)Laws v. (often dumb)People

The law may say I am free but LEO may say otherwise. So it's off to the courts.

Of course we don't have to show ID until LEO has a good reason to ask. That's fundamental. But on the street cops simply have power over, period.

In this case, I agree the cop had not yet established probable cause to ask for ID. He should have 1st found out if his suspicion was correct; i.e was the dom. violence report correct. He should have been more communicative that he needed to establish the relationship b/t these people, asked the girl out of the car, checked conditions, diplomatically requested ID for that purpose, taken info etc and let it go. But who knows what the cop knew or not of this guy.

As stated, they got into a standoff prematurley and here imo the cop should have been more diplomatic (responsible) b/c he represented the greater authority.

The court will have to assert that we are not a police state (must have PC, assert the importance of the 4thA) and decide if this cop had PC to ask.

I don't think this is a sign of Bush's Regime Expansion, just a case of the center not holding.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Would you want that cop's job?

No of us like to see that and I am sure none of us would like that to happen to us or someone we know. Could the first officer handled the situation better? Maybe. What looks reasonable and what is procedurally correct, may conflict. I do believe it is the law within most states that a person must possess ID and must produce it in certain circumstances. Mr. Hiibel didn't produce it and was then taken into custody willingly.

The report that brought the officer to the scene may have demanded he follow certain procedures. The officer didn't just happen upon them and decide to harass them. He was summoned there by a witness to something. It's not pretty and maybe it's not what we would expect. I don't think any of us would want to be in the position of that cop, having to handle a similar situation on an open highway like that. Many times a police officer never knows what type of situation he is entering into. I guess caution is the better part of valor.

It all looks innocent and very clear to us with the information we were provided prior to the video. Without that information, it wouldn't look so clear cut. If the officer was not within the bounds of the law, he should be admonished. I still wouldn't want his job.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
You are wrong

The cop had probable cause. He was summoned to the scene with a report of domestic violence. Police officers do not have to explain why they pulled you over or why they are requiring information. That is just the simple fact of it. We may not like that, but that is what the law provides for the protection of all parties involved. I would suggest that if anyone doesn't agree with that, they should petition the Supreme Court to get the law changed.

As for trying to sort out what was happening, the cop was trying to establish identity. He was alone with two unknown individuals. He did what is taught, which is to get the two parties apart. He asked the father to step away from the truck and then to produce identification. Thinking about this further, I don't see that the officer did anything wrong. Again, it may not be pretty and it is certain that we wouldn't want that to happen to us, but proceedurally I think the officer was within his bounds.

Oh I forgot to add, this happened before Bush was in office. Otherwise I guess some of you would be making claims that he and Ashcroft had something to do with it.
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
Ding.....dong

But let's do this Socratically:

For what was he arrested?
 

·
The web is a MUT
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
Live Steam said:
Police officers do not have to explain whay they pulled you over or why they are requiring information.
Not entirely true.
Quid Pro Quo can sometimes lead to easier terminations of encounters.
Additionally we have the right to remain silent and to have counsel present during questioning.

But in Law Enforcement there is often no easy way to know what is the more prudent path, and as private citizens there is often no easy way to know when you are dealing with a good or bad cop.

I don't know the story linked above, just clicked the main page but didn't watch the show.
I have had a minimal amount of training in the field, but that in no way makes me any sort of even an amateur expert.
I do know you do not have to stop for questioning while walking down the street unless ordered to do so, and then once ordered you are now under official detainment and the officer is now obligated to file in his/her report exactly why you were detained. At that point you can either ask for a lawyer or cooperate. At which point the officer will have to either try a new tactic to get you to cooperate or will have to decide among several options at his disposal.
I usually cooperate with officers since I have no criminal intent. But I have also backed down some officers who were themselves getting out of line. Not bragging, just the facts. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and prudent reason and level headedness can often defuse a tense situation without escalation.
And in closing I'll add that I don't know how to spell escalation.

=====
There's a reason I tend to avoid sections like this one. I think I'll depart again.
Back to bikes and shoe babes. Much funner preoccupations.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Hey 128! You bringing a Truth Bell to bear on Stream too?

128 said:
But let's do this Socratically:

For what was he arrested?
It's a thankless job, and more than one man can handle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
DING - He didn't produce ID

As I stated above, in many states (maybe all have some similar law) it is illegal to venture into public without being able to produce ID upon the request of law enforcement. It's called failure to give account of yourself. The penalty is usually a fine. I don't think it's a crime that gets prison time, and it's not considered an arrest. Usually it's remedied by someone stepping forward to take responsibility for the detainee or by someone producing ID for that person.

Aside from that, there was a report called in that reported this man as being involved in some kind of assault. Mr. Hiibel didn't want to cooperate, so the officer had no choice but to take him into custody and allow the court to sort out what should happen to him.

 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,421 Posts
This time, you are correct. There are some times that a cop has to be able to tell who people are. Refusal to cooperate can result in a trip downtown.
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
Illegal to venture into public w/o ID?? Really?

On what basis does refusing to produce ID (or venturing forth into public w/o it) establish PC for an arrest?
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
But the question is not 'will it'

lead to a trip down town, but is that trip Constitutional. Though I agree, cops will do what they 'feel' is right at the time- hard to argue with that.

The Circuit Ct said: Compelling an individual to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures unless officers have enough evidence to arrest the suspect.

The bottom line is the law is unsettled on this point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
It's one of those laws

that almost never come into play. But, if you are out in public and there is some reason for the authorities to stop you or are investigating some crime, they can ask you to produce identification. If you cannot produce ID they can take you into custody until someone can produce it for you. Some states go further and have laws on the books that make it a finable offense. Again it isn't usually enforced unless there is reason to suspect you may be involved in a crime.

A cop would not take you into custody if he saw you walking around in your Speedos and it was obvious you didn't have any place for your ID. In this instance, there was a call of some type of disturbance that Mr. Hiibel and his daughter were involved in. That is what brought him to the scene and that's called probable cause. I hope I cleared that up for you.


128 said:
On what basis does refusing to produce ID (or venturing forth into public w/o it) establish PC for an arrest?
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
Ding (final volley)

"a call of some type" is not PC.

The answer is: you are generally never required to carry or produce ID unless you are required to (fire-arms, driving- other licensed activities which constitute cause to inquire) or there is cause to believe you may have violated the law (this is the 4thA protection). How does LEO determine violation? Through investigation. Was there an investigation in this case?

The horse before the wagon = failing to produce ID is a violation. Correct order = the violation comes first. Reasonably suspecting violation, LEO may require ID. Cop had the magic words, but failed in process.

As I stated, had the Law Enforcement Officer investigated further he could reasonably be said to have attempted to determine if there was a possible crime here. I would probably agree after even minimal investigating in THIS CASE that asking for ID would have been appropriate and intervention would have been prudent (the minute I saw a young girls and this guy in a PU truck). This cop (as far as I can tell) didn't even see/check if in fact there was a female in the truck. From the truck drivers point of view he was simply being interrogated for no good cause. Just poor police work apparently.

Your quick conclusion and misunderstanding of fundamental legal principles freightfully ignore the Constitutional processes that we value in this country intended to prevent abuse of authority.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
My conclision was not quick and I don't ...

have any "misunderstanding of fundamental legal principles". Do you know what Blue Laws are? The law as I stated it, does exist on the books in some states. New Jersey is one of them. Again, you may not like what you saw and you may even think it is a violation of civil rights, but I think we will find out that the PO operated within his purview provided by law. The call is probable cause. He never would have been at that location and confronting two individuals in a pickup who were arguing, had it not been for the call.

Again I didn't say I agreed with how he handled the situation. Hindsight is 20/20 however. It looks innocent because we are seeing it after the fact and know some of the facts before even seeing the video. You should place yourself in the POs shoes and try to see how this situation could have been much more volatile than it actually was. The court will rule that the PO acted within reasonable bounds considering the circumstances.

If you want to disagree for the sake of that, well fine, you win. Maybe you need to do some homework. The link below is a head start. Have fun :D
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I bet this is getting scary for you

Agreeing with me on two consecutive days. Must be something in the air! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
There is no general requirement to carry ID

Hey Live Steam,

I agree that a police officer has a right to ask questions (i.e., identification) when he has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime may have been committed. And I'm not expressing an opinion on whether that existed in this case. And, if the individual refuses to identify himself AND probable cause exists that a crime has been committed, the individual may be detained further or arrested. But, there is no requirement in any state in the United States that a person carry ID at all times. If a person is driving, they must carry a driver license, and perhaps for other purposes, but, generally speaking, there is no requirement for identification documents of any sort to be carried by anyone.

I've been unable to find anything to the contrary. Can you show me a link to such a law?

Thanks,

cholla
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Maybe I mistated what ...

I was trying to convey, though I have some experience in this matter. My experience goes something like this - during Hell Week and while pledging for my fraternity, I along with 11 other pledges were "detained" by police. We entered a seaside snack bar in the off season, to get out of the cold. We were wet and it was about 25 degrees outside. The police came and we were taken away - the Dirty Dozen - there were actually 20 in our pledge class.

The judge in this matter saw that we had no intention of committing a crime. He saw we were just trying to find a warm place to wait until we could be picked up by the sorority that was on call to do so. He didn't want the "crime" to go unpunished and he had a disgruntled constituent -the business owner, but he also didn't want us to suffer unjustly for the rest of our lives for a stupid fraternity prank, which he actually thought was funny. He didn't want to shackle us with an arrest record. So he cited a law that is on the books in New Jersey that was a finable offense and is not considered an arrest. Sort of like a parking ticket - it doesn't go against you driving record. The offense was "failure to give account of yourself". Something to that effect. You see we all knew we would be going into the ocean and didn't want to lose or have our wallets get wet, so we left them in our dorms. Well we all paid $25 fine and went out for dinner. This all happened in a real court, before a judge, about 6 months after the fact. We were told by our attorney that the judge cited a blue law that is still on the books - this is 25 years ago! Holy sh!t! That law allowed the judge to give the business owner his pound of flesh without ruining our futures. I am sure other states have a similar law.

I know, now you can all call me a felon. Hahaha! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Good story

Good story.

I wasn't able to find any statute that might have applied, but I'd be that the judge applied a law that requires cooperation with an investigating police officer if there is probable cause. Probably just a way to keep the business owner happy while not ruining your lives, like you said. I still think that there is no law anywhere in this country that requires a person to always carry ID (unless driving, etc.), and that any such law would be unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. In fact, any law that would require any identifying info from a suspect is probably unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

cholla
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top