NationStates Jolt Archive

Cops on a power trip. Lovely. What is wrong with the police in this country?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21552034-23214,00.html

Apparently, 9 police officers and 5 squad cars (there were five squad cars, can't find a link stating this, but it has been on the news out here) are needed to subdue 2 guys out the front of a cafe. And the commisioner in NSW thinks that the two officers "acted appropriately". I don't really care about the racial element but honestly, 9 officers and 5 squad cars?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21555383-23214,00.html

Honestly, why would the police need that much backup? Especially in this country, where it is highly unlikely that anyone would be carrying a gun. It is a travesty for two men, one of whom is an excellent role model for young boys in this country, to be embarrassed in this way.

So what do the people of NSG think? Did the police act appropriately? Or were they on a power trip?

The police are always right.

The police are always right.

Always. If you think otherwise, you're an enemy of the state.

Given the size of the average Aussie RL player, I admire the police's bravery in thinking 9 was enough.

There were a spate of robberies in the area, the guy was refusing to provide ID, is that not reasonable cause?

Given the size of the average Aussie RL player, I admire the police's bravery in thinking 9 was enough.

There were a spate of robberies in the area, the guy was refusing to provide ID, is that not reasonable cause?

Not to me. They were perfectly willing to provide ID, they just wanted to know why they were being asked. And according to Houda (a barrister), the cops were acting illegally anyway.

In all fairness, even if it were Willie Mason (largest player in the NRL), I doubt it would have taken 9 officers to subdue him. I think that it is disgusting that anyone would be treated like this, much less someone who provides such an incredibly positive example for youth in this country, moreso than the average rugby league player.

They were lucky that they were not in the States. With nine bad cops here those Gentlemen would have gotten the Rodney King treatment.

LOL.

OF COURSE ITS RACIAL MOTIVATED YOU STUPID FOOL!

If the people being mugged by this thief all said this guy looked like to be of arab origin, would the cops look for someone blond and with blue eyes?

I doubt so, they are going after someone who looks arab.

Now, if someone clearly says the suspect is black, why shouldnt I look specificaly for black suspects?

Anyway, when a cop asks for your ID, give it to him. Dont be a bitch and dont be whinny.

LOL.

OF COURSE ITS RACIAL MOTIVATED YOU STUPID FOOL!

If the people being mugged by this thief all said this guy looked like to be of arab origin, would the cops look for someone blond and with blue eyes?

I doubt so, they are going after someone who looks arab.

Now, if someone clearly says the suspect is black, why shouldnt I look specificaly for black suspects?

Anyway, when a cop asks for your ID, give it to him. Dont be a bitch and dont be whinny.

Why should I when I haven't done anything wrong? And why ask two men who are sitting at a cafe for ID? I doubt that a thief or vandal is going to hang around the scene of the crime waiting to get caught. Furthermore, the incidents were break-ins. There is no evidence in either article that there were witnesses to the crime, so there is no reason to assume that the evidence points to men of Arab appearance, whatever that may be.

Notice how the cops only left after they realised it was Hazem El Masri (the greatest ever kicker in Rugby League) that they were "acting appropriately" towards. I wonder what would have happened if it were any other man sitting in that cafe.

They were lucky that they were not in the States. With nine bad cops here those Gentlemen would have gotten the Rodney King treatment.

In Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Palm_Island_death_in_custody), we don't need 9 cops. :rolleyes:

The police dont need any reason to ask for your ID. If they want to have it, they should have it. Mind that they are not asking the guy to go to the police district, or to jail, or to give them money, they are simply asking for ID, which is something all citizens should carry with them.

Now, why did they left after founding out the guy was famous? Well, I doubt anyone that makes thousands of dollars every year would break into people´s houses. If it was another man, and he refused to give any ID, then they should arrest him and put charges on him for being uncoperative to the cops. If he resisted, more charges on resisting prison.

I wonder when logic started to become racial prejudice.

All citizens should carry ID at all times? So you've never ever forgotten your wallet?

Never. And even when I go running, I also take ID, even without wallet.

Not just because of the cops, but because if you get in an accident, people will be able to recognize who you are and call your family.

Never. And even when I go running, I also take ID, even without wallet.

Not just because of the cops, but because if you get in an accident, people will be able to recognize who you are and call your family.

Wow, you're weird. If I'm not driving I won't bother to carry my wallet. Frankly it's no one's business what my name is if I don't feel the need to tell them. The cops can go to hell.

Where do you live? US? Then I dont think youre being smart enough.

The cops have the right to ask for ID and you should tell them. If you dont, you will only get into a load of shit that could´ve had been easily avoided.

Where do you live? US? Then I dont think youre being smart enough.

The cops have the right to ask for ID and you should tell them. If you dont, you will only get into a load of shit that could´ve had been easily avoided.

Yes, and then I'll sue them. Ain't freedom grand?

Yes, and then I'll sue them. Ain't freedom grand?

If the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you have to provide them with your identity.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

You would lose in court.

The police dont need any reason to ask for your ID. If they want to have it, they should have it. Mind that they are not asking the guy to go to the police district, or to jail, or to give them money, they are simply asking for ID, which is something all citizens should carry with them.

I wonder what would have happened to a guy who wasn't the record holding goal scorer in the NRL.

Now, why did they left after founding out the guy was famous? Well, I doubt anyone that makes thousands of dollars every year would break into people´s houses. If it was another man, and he refused to give any ID, then they should arrest him and put charges on him for being uncoperative to the cops. If he resisted, more charges on resisting prison.

But El Masri and Houda were still guilty of the "crime" of being uncooperative to police. Why should El Masri not be charged, if you are going to charge the average citizen with the crime? Or does celebrity enable you to get away with criminal activity?

I wonder when logic started to become racial prejudice.

I have explicitly stated that I do not wish to discuss the possible racial motives. To me, 9 officers and 5 cars is a total overreaction to the situation. And a highly embarrassing one for the gentlemen who had to experience it.

Again I ask, if it had not been someone as illustrious as Hazem El Masri, what would have happened to the person?

If the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you have to provide them with your identity.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

You would lose in court.

But surely, the police should inform you of the reason they are requesting your identity? And why did they back off upon finding out it was Hazem El Masri?

Wow, you're weird. If I'm not driving I won't bother to carry my wallet. Frankly it's no one's business what my name is if I don't feel the need to tell them. The cops can go to hell.

And, in most states, you'd be breaking the law. It's a leftover part of vagrancy laws.

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court that if an officer is conducting an investigation that s/he can ask for identification and you must comply. You needn't answer any other questions, but you must provide ID or you can be arrested. It varies from state to state what constitutes reason to ask, but the reasoning needn't very sturdy as it would hinder an officer's ability to perform his job within reasonable standards. Almost all states have a "stop and identify" statute.

But surely, the police should inform you of the reason they are requesting your identity? And why did they back off upon finding out it was Hazem El Masri?

They backed off because he'd been identified. Identity appeared to be the goal. Aside from identifying someone, they don't have much more authority unless they have probable cause. Despite what people believe, most officers are not interested in making arrests unless a person is really creating a problem.

I wonder what would have happened to a guy who wasn't the record holding goal scorer in the NRL.

He probabily would´ve had been arested, and I can see why. "Inocent until proven otherwise" only works if you comply to the law and help them. If you´re withholding information as simple as your name and ID, you can and will be treated as a suspect.

Also, 9 people to arrest someone as big as a rugby player sounds okay to me, specially if they wanted to arrest the guy without using any lethal means.

But El Masri and Houda were still guilty of the "crime" of being uncooperative to police. Why should El Masri not be charged, if you are going to charge the average citizen with the crime? Or does celebrity enable you to get away with criminal activity?

He was not charged because in the end they did get his ID, and knew he wasnt the suspect of any crime. Celebrity status doesnt enable you to get away with criminal activity, but it makes it easier for someone to identify you.

I have explicitly stated that I do not wish to discuss the possible racial motives. To me, 9 officers and 5 cars is a total overreaction to the situation. And a highly embarrassing one for the gentlemen who had to experience it.

Its not a overreaction. As said, if you want to arrest someone without using any lethal or violent means, you need a lot of people. In this case, 9, because the guy is strong and huge. Now, he didnt even had a gun? Exactly. YOu cant shoot a guy and send him to prison. You need to arrest him, and to do that you need raw power and strengh. 9 people can do that. Btw, he was with a friend, which meant there were 4 cops for each guy, and one extra. 4 guys to tackle someone seems pretty rational to me.

And it was only embarassing because the guy went bitchy and refused to give them his ID. If he had the cops would probabily ask him for an autograph or picture.

Again I ask, if it had not been someone as illustrious as Hazem El Masri, what would have happened to the person?

If it wasnt someone as ilustrious as him, he would probabily be arrested for questioning, or given a pretty bad speaking about not refusing to show your ID.

They backed off because he'd been identified. Identity appeared to be the goal. Aside from identifying someone, they don't have much more authority unless they have probable cause. Despite what people believe, most officers are not interested in making arrests unless a person is really creating a problem.

Well, evidently the officers thought he was causing a problem or was a threat, since they felt safe only when joined by seven of their fellow boys in blue. And they all scattered when they found out that they were dealing with an international RL player.

Well, evidently the officers thought he was causing a problem or was a threat, since they felt safe only when joined by seven of their fellow boys in blue. And they all scattered when they found out that they were dealing with an international RL player.

They were being careful. I don't blame them. Rugby players tend to be fairly large and sturdy and police officers have an obligation, if it becomes necessary to arrest him, to do their best to insure that they and civilians are not injured and that the person being arrested is detained safely. They must have felt that it was better to have too many officers than too few. This was two full grown men. It's pretty usually to have at least on backup vehicle (two more cops) when you are taking one person down. This was two. Their response wasn't unusual and it really seems you're attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, as was the rugby player.

Do you take issue with them being prepared? The player was being uncooperative, and unnecessarily so.

If they had not 9 people to work with, they would have to use peper spray or tasers, which would make things much more unconfortable.

If the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you have to provide them with your identity.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

You would lose in court.

Seems like that would conflict with the Miranda Rights.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03170604mpb.pdf

The dispositive question in this case is whether Marshal Adams “seized” Cochran when he asked for and obtained identification from Cochran. This court has explained that there are three levels of police investigation, two that implicate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and one that does not. First, the Fourth Amendment requires that an arrest or detention for more than a short period be justified by probable cause. Probable cause to arrest exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers are sufficient to warrant a belief by a person of reasonable caution that an offense has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it. Second, it is well-settled Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that police may, without a warrant or probable cause, briefly detain an individual for investigatory purposes if, based on specific and articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity “may be afoot.” Accordingly, limited investigatory stops and seizures on the street involving a brief question or two and a possible frisk for weapons can be justified by mere reasonable suspicion. Finally, the third level of investigation occurs when a law enforcement officer makes a casual and brief inquiry of a citizen which involves neither an arrest nor a stop. In this type of “consensual encounter” no Fourth Amendment interest is implicated.

Sitting in a cafe having lunch does not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Seems like that would conflict with the Miranda Rights.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03170604mpb.pdf



Sitting in a cafe having lunch does not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause, so it's a low standard.

The Supreme Court, as noted in the link, has already ruled on this. Giving your identity is not part of your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

He probabily would´ve had been arested, and I can see why. "Inocent until proven otherwise" only works if you comply to the law and help them. If you´re withholding information as simple as your name and ID, you can and will be treated as a suspect.

All Houda and El Masri did was request to know why they were being asked. I'm quite sure that El Masri would have provided ID had they been informed.

Also, 9 people to arrest someone as big as a rugby player sounds okay to me, specially if they wanted to arrest the guy without using any lethal means.

Hazem El Masri:
Height: 178 cm
Weight: 88 kg

Willie Mason:
Height: 195 cm
Weight: 114 kg (wonder how many police would be necessary for Mason?)

Sonny Bill Williams:
Height: 191 cm
Weight: 106 Kg (wow, must take an extra few to "act appropriately" with Sonny Bill!)

In point of fact, there are only 2 players in the Bulldogs that weigh less than El Masri.

Average Australian Male:
Height: 179.5 cm (1.5 cm taller than El Masri)
Weight: 77 kg (only 11 smaller than El Masri)


He was not charged because in the end they did get his ID, and knew he wasnt the suspect of any crime. Celebrity status doesnt enable you to get away with criminal activity, but it makes it easier for someone to identify you.

The below contradicts the above.

If it was another man, and he refused to give any ID, then they should arrest him and put charges on him for being uncoperative to the cops. If he resisted, more charges on resisting prison.

So Hazem El Masri wasn't committing a crime, but another man should be arrested for the same thing he did? Your logic is astounding. :rolleyes:

Its not a overreaction. As said, if you want to arrest someone without using any lethal or violent means, you need a lot of people. In this case, 9, because the guy is strong and huge. Now, he didnt even had a gun? Exactly. YOu cant shoot a guy and send him to prison. You need to arrest him, and to do that you need raw power and strengh. 9 people can do that. Btw, he was with a friend, which meant there were 4 cops for each guy, and one extra. 4 guys to tackle someone seems pretty rational to me.

See Above. He's not even the biggest player on his team. He's actually one of the smallest. And he's shorter than the average male. And smaller than a large percentage of Australian males.

And it was only embarassing because the guy went bitchy and refused to give them his ID. If he had the cops would probabily ask him for an autograph or picture.

But why was he asked? What was the reason for suspecting two men sitting at a cafe?

If it wasnt someone as ilustrious as him, he would probabily be arrested for questioning, or given a pretty bad speaking about not refusing to show your ID.

Which is sad. This tells me that the cops were on a power trip, since if El Masri had indeed been doing something wrong, they would not have backed away upon finding out it was someone famous.

They were being careful. I don't blame them. Rugby players tend to be fairly large and sturdy and police officers have an obligation, if it becomes necessary to arrest him, to do their best to insure that they and civilians are not injured and that the person being arrested is detained safely. They must have felt that it was better to have too many officers than too few. This was two full grown men. It's pretty usually to have at least on backup vehicle (two more cops) when you are taking one person down. This was two. Their response wasn't unusual and it really seems you're attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, as was the rugby player.

Do you take issue with them being prepared? The player was being uncooperative, and unnecessarily so.

See my latest reply. El Masri is not even close to the biggest player in his team. My issue is why are two men sitting in a cafe asked for ID? And why do highly trained police officers find it necessary to call seven other officers for backup to subdue two men. I wonder what they do when the Bra Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra_Boys) are out in force.

See my latest reply. El Masri is not even close to the biggest player in his team.

Not sure why this matters? He's likely bigger than the officers and guaranteed to be in better condition.

My issue is why are two men sitting in a cafe asked for ID? And why do highly trained police officers find it necessary to call seven other officers for backup to subdue two men. I wonder what they do when the Bra Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra_Boys) are out in force.

Um. So I'm refusing to comply with lawful police orders after several requests, then what should I do (were I the officer)? Giggle and wander off? They requested backup because, since they're highly trained, they have experience with situations where people are being uncooperative escalating quickly. If they'd not taken the situation seriously and they, now lawbreaking, individuals decided to attack them or someone else, you'd be crying about how they didn't call for backup when a problem became apparent. These officers acted exactly appropriately.

Quick scenario: A single officer asks someone for ID in the course of a routine investigation. The person is uncooperative and challenging your authority to uphold the law. After several requests the person is still being belligerant. Suddenly the situation quickly escalates but because you're physically unable to control the situation, you draw your weapon. Out of fear and anger, they individual who originally only refused to provide ID is now coming at you while you're drawn down on him and you have no choice but to fire. That individual is now seriously injured.

Same scenario handled differently: All things the same except you call for backup and it ends with the person being idientified and the situation being resolved peacefully.

Now, how likely is the first scenario? Not very. But because it's possible officers are supposed to call for backup. They're cops not superheroes. Despite you're rather insipid insinuation, it's precisely the high level of training that calling for backup if there is any chance the situation is or may become unsafe.

In your mind, how many officers is appropriate for detaining these two gentlemen if that becomes necessary?

According to the OP article, the men were asked to provide ID without being given any reason for producing the ID.

The robberies that had occurred in the neighbourhood recently were not given to the men as an excuse, so it would be illogical to think that the men were being questioned about these robberies.

Mr Houda said the officers had claimed to be responding to a noise complaint and did not mention any robbery.

Linky (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/El-Masri-lodges-police-complaint/2007/04/16/1176696746445.html)

There is also the fact that Mr. Houda is a lawyer, so we can intelligently assume that he knows his rights in these sorts of siutations. Especially since this is not the first time Mr. Houda has had to deal with this.

But Houda says he and El Masri were targeted by the police for "racial'' reasons and he is demanding an apology from Police Commissioner Ken Moroney. Having had first-hand experience of unfair treatment at the hands of the police, Houda's reaction is hardly mystifying.

Linky 2 (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21566413-5001031,00.html)

While many people are clear about the laws in the USA concerning this sort of crap, does anyone know the Australian laws?

According to the OP article, the men were asked to provide ID without being given any reason for producing the ID.

The robberies that had occurred in the neighbourhood recently were not given to the men as an excuse, so it would be illogical to think that the men were being questioned about these robberies.



Linky (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/El-Masri-lodges-police-complaint/2007/04/16/1176696746445.html)

There is also the fact that Mr. Houda is a lawyer, so we can intelligently assume that he knows his rights in these sorts of siutations. Especially since this is not the first time Mr. Houda has had to deal with this.



Linky 2 (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21566413-5001031,00.html)

While many people are clear about the laws in the USA concerning this sort of crap, does anyone know the Australian laws?

I haven't found the laws there, yet. I'm looking. However, everything I've found says the officers are permitted to ask for ID if they have any reason to do so. A noise complaint would also be a valid reason. Regardless of whether they were incorrect, the individuals don't have a right to refuse the ID request.

So Hazem El Masri wasn't committing a crime, but another man should be arrested for the same thing he did? Your logic is astounding. :rolleyes:


<mod snip>

Famous person: Refuses to give id, but gets recognized, people know who he is, let him go.
Regular person: Refuses to give id, no one knows who he is, cops have to take him to the DP so that they can get info out of him through questioning, fingerprints or identification from someone involved in the crimes.

And cops dont need any reason whatsoever to ask for your id. They ask, you give it to them, they see you have nothing to hide, you go away.

Wow, you're weird. If I'm not driving I won't bother to carry my wallet. Frankly it's no one's business what my name is if I don't feel the need to tell them. The cops can go to hell.
I carry my ID wherever I go. same with my keys, licence (even when I don' drive) checkbook and wallet.

how do you know you're not the weird one for not taking your id? :p


as for why 9 Akai? well, wasn't there an incident in France where 2 officers asked for ID's and ended up in a foot race that lead to two kids being killed in a power transformer?

and calling for backup will have any and all cops in the area responding. so if they were investigating a robbery (the cops, not those two in particular) then they would respond. when an officer calls for backup, they don't request how many to send, nor do any officer in the area say "oh, someone else will go..."

People make mention of arrests. I find no incident of any arrest being made.

and after they were Identified, the cops left. now what would've happened if those two provided their ID in the first place? nothing.

One cop mentions a noise complaint. does anyone have any record of that complaint? For all we know, the complaint could be "there are a couple of Mid Eastern men outside [name of cafe] making a ruckus." yet following up on that complaint is the cops fault... right.

right now, El Masri and his attorney has to prove that it was racially motivated. so far they stated, appears, thinks, feels, but nothing concrete. which is why they are using the media to rouse public support and 'bully' the police to do what they want.

Where do you live? US? Then I dont think youre being smart enough.

The cops have the right to ask for ID and you should tell them. If you dont, you will only get into a load of shit that could´ve had been easily avoided.

unless I am driving a car I have no obligation to show ID at any time.

I have no obligation to give ID to, speak with, or acknowledge in any way a police officer attempting to engage me in conversation. Unless I am under arrest I can freely, and without penalty, walk away.

And cops dont need any reason whatsoever to ask for your id.

Quite right, they can ask me for my ID, without any reason or cause.

And I can, without any reason or cause, say "no". And there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless they wisht o place me under arrest, and may only do that if they have sufficient probable cause, absent my refusal.

unless I am driving a car I have no obligation to show ID at any time.

I have no obligation to give ID to, speak with, or acknowledge in any way a police officer attempting to engage me in conversation. Unless I am under arrest I can freely, and without penalty, walk away.

Better check out your laws.

Better check out your laws.

I am well aware of them thanks, I took a constitutional law course, have you?

Under the 4th amendment I may not be forced to interact with the police if I do not wish to. They may ask to see ID, I may refuse. My mere refusal can not be considered suspicious, and I CAN NOT be arrested for it.

If I resemble someone they're looking for, I may be arrested, but not for refusing to give ID, but due to the resemblance.

The police can't just walk up to people at random and demand ID and arrest those who refuse. That's ascinine.

But go ahead, show me. Give me one law, still valid, that says that, absent driving a car, it is a crime to simply refuse to give ID to a police officer who asks for it.

Go on, show me one.

Although, I will admit my error in saying I have no obligation unless I am under arrest. I should have said unless i am lawfully detained. The sentiment is the same, the police can't just come up to me on the street and demand ID and arrest me for the mere fact that I refuse to give it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document

I'm aware of Hiibel. As I asked, Give me one law, still valid, that says that, absent driving a car, it is a crime to simply refuse to give ID to a police officer who asks for it.

The other distinguishing factor in that case was that the suspect was already detained. That case stood for one proposition only, which was if you are already detained as a suspect it could be made illegal to refuse to give your name, and only to the extent that your name would not in and of itself incriminate you.

As in, if you are already not free to go, they may ask your name. This is a clarification I made, which I admit I was in error saying only if you are under arrest. If you are detained as well.

But that is for name, not ID. The police can not compell you to give ID, or your name, simply by asking, you must be detained on suspicion first, and my mere refusal to give my name if asked can not, in and of itself, be considered as suspicious behavior.

unless I am driving a car I have no obligation to show ID at any time.

I have no obligation to give ID to, speak with, or acknowledge in any way a police officer attempting to engage me in conversation. Unless I am under arrest I can freely, and without penalty, walk away.

Not according to law and the Supreme Court's interpretation, you're wrong. And since that's what is going to be used, you'll go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I am well aware of them thanks, I took a constitutional law course, have you?

Under the 4th amendment I may not be forced to interact with the police if I do not wish to. They may ask to see ID, I may refuse. My mere refusal can not be considered suspicious, and I CAN NOT be arrested for it.

If I resemble someone they're looking for, I may be arrested, but not for refusing to give ID, but due to the resemblance.

The police can't just walk up to people at random and demand ID and arrest those who refuse. That's ascinine.

But go ahead, show me. Give me one law, still valid, that says that, absent driving a car, it is a crime to simply refuse to give ID to a police officer who asks for it.

Go on, show me one.

Although, I will admit my error in saying I have no obligation unless I am under arrest. I should have said unless i am lawfully detained. The sentiment is the same, the police can't just come up to me on the street and demand ID and arrest me for the mere fact that I refuse to give it.

They have to have reason to ask, but if you refuse, they need NO other reason to arrest you.

Not according to law and the Supreme Court's interpretation, you're wrong. And since that's what is going to be used, you'll go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I've already discussed that case. I'll admit my error in saying "arrested" when I meant "detained" but that's as far as it goes.

Read what I already posted, Hiibel only said that, if you were ALREADY suspected, you may be asked for your NAME.

Not ID. Just your name.

They have to have reason to ask, but if you refuse, they need NO other reason to arrest you.

Not quite. They need no reason to ask.

They can always ask.

You however are free to refuse, unless:

1) you are already a suspect
2) you are already detained
3) this has to do with your name, not being required to show ID

If they come up to me and ask my name, or to show an ID, and I refuse, there's NOTHING they can do about that

Not quite. They need no reason to ask.

They can always ask.

You however are free to refuse, unless:

1) you are already a suspect
2) you are already detained
3) this has to do with your name, not being required to show ID

If they come up to me and ask my name, or to show an ID, and I refuse, there's NOTHING they can do about that

The law varies but they need a reason to lawfully make the request. And if they lawfully make the request and you refuse, you're breaking the law and can be arrrested even if there is nothing else you've done. The law requires you to comply with lawful orders from police officers. In some states they can simply ask for you identification as a witness. You're not detained and you're not a suspect. The law varies by states and the only requirement is that they have a lawful reason for the request.

I'm sure you're aware this was recently challenged and survived the challenge, no?

The law varies but they need a reason to lawfully make the request. And if they lawfully make the request and you refuse, you're breaking the law and can be arrrested even if there is nothing else you've done. The law requires you to comply with lawful orders from police officers. In some states they can simply ask for you identification as a witness. You're not detained and you're not a suspect. The law varies by states and the only requirement is that they have a lawful reason for the request.

I'm sure you're aware this was recently challenged and survived the challenge, no?

the most recent challenge I know was basically articulated in Hiibel. The problem is your'e getting stuck on the idea of what is a "lawful" request. Which is to say, that the conditions in which the police CAN ask, and legally require an answer, is still mandated by the constitution.

Yes there are witness requirements, but that really wasn't the bounds of the conversation. My claim is, as it has always been. THe police can not simply come up to you on the street and demand your name, and arrest you if you don't comply.

The other person broung up an article about Hiibel to refute this, which didn't at all say what he thought it said.

Now yes, there are conditions in which it can be asked, and an answer required, HOWEVER I am not required to answer a question based on the mere fact that a police officer asked it. Moreover, my refusal to answer a question I am not legally obligated to answer can not be used against me.

I've already discussed that case. I'll admit my error in saying "arrested" when I meant "detained" but that's as far as it goes.

Read what I already posted, Hiibel only said that, if you were ALREADY suspected, you may be asked for your NAME.

Not ID. Just your name.

Ah, you already talked about Hiibel. I missed it. And, yes, you're right. I keep saying ID, but you're only required to identify yourself, not have a national or state ID according to Hiibel. However, some state laws that are currently on the books and haven't been reviewed definitely require you to provide state identification. Until I see them overturned by SCOTUS, I'm positive you've be legally and rightfully in the back of a squad car.

the most recent challenge I know was basically articulated in Hiibel. The problem is your'e getting stuck on the idea of what is a "lawful" request. Which is to say, that the conditions in which the police CAN ask, and legally require an answer, is still mandated by the constitution.

Hiibel wasn't that specific. They were fairly careful in making that precedent narrow both to protect officers and civil liberties. They did not do anything that struck down any law currently on the books that I know of, and many states state specifically that you can require ID and that you can ask for almost any reason.


Yes there are witness requirements, but that really wasn't the bounds of the conversation. My claim is, as it has always been. THe police can not simply come up to you on the street and demand your name, and arrest you if you don't comply.

The other person broung up an article about Hiibel to refute this, which didn't at all say what he thought it said.

Now yes, there are conditions in which it can be asked, and an answer required, HOWEVER I am not required to answer a question based on the mere fact that a police officer asked it. Moreover, my refusal to answer a question I am not legally obligated to answer can not be used against me.

The officer has to give you a reason under every law I've read in the US, and that's a lot, to be frank. However, the strength of the reasons vary and the SCOTUS case hardly addressed that.

Wow, I am surprised to see that there a lot of people in support of carrying around ID and giving it to cops who demand it for no reason

Hurray for being one step closer to 1984. :rolleyes:

The police dont need any reason to ask for your ID.

Yes, they do. Otherwise, I will refuse on principle - and it is my right to do so. If the police have no reason to suspect me of anything, then I have no reason to even talk to them.

If they want to have it, they should have it. Mind that they are not asking the guy to go to the police district, or to jail, or to give them money, they are simply asking for ID, which is something all citizens should carry with them.

Why should I be required to carry ID with me? If I'm not driving or drinking, I see no reason that I should have to carry anything other than my keys to get back into my house (and money, if I want to buy anything).

Wow, I am surprised to see that there a lot of people in support of carrying around ID and giving it to cops who demand it for no reason

Hurray for being one step closer to 1984. :rolleyes:

I thought it was like that already in most countries in the world. Here in Brazil, its like that.

And its meant to PROTECT people, not endanger them. If you get lucky and find a wanted criminal roaming around, you´re entitled to ask for his ID and find out if he is being pursued or not.

Now, once I was riding the bus and the cops stoped it. They told everyone to leave the bus and make a line along it. They searched everyone and didnt find anything. Why they were doing that? Because there was a stealing in one of the local buses.

Did it hurt my LEGAL RIGHTS? Hell no, that is bullshit. If all I have to do to help fight crime is to show my documents to a cop, Ill gladly do it.

People seem to think that a cop asking for an ID Is the same as asking to have sex. Please.

Yes, they do. Otherwise, I will refuse on principle - and it is my right to do so. If the police have no reason to suspect me of anything, then I have no reason to even talk to them.



Why should I be required to carry ID with me? If I'm not driving or drinking, I see no reason that I should have to carry anything other than my keys to get back into my house (and money, if I want to buy anything).

And if someone shoots you or you get into a trafic accident, no one will know who you are and they wont be able to call your family at the moment they find you.

The bolded is the important part here. If you're just sitting on a public bench and a policeman comes up and starts trying to interrogate you, you are well within your rights to ask why you are being questioned - and to be given an answer.



IIRC, the officer can ask your name - not ask for ID. There is no requirement in this country to carry official identification with you unless you are engaging in certain activities (ie. driving). Otherwise, we'd have devolved into countries with much less protection of civil rights (not that our government isn't trying to do that anyways). All I'd have to say then is, "Papers, comrade?"

However, it is not clear that these officers were conducting an investigation, as no reason whatsoever has been given for questioning the two men. Maybe the law there is different, but I don't think police anywhere should have the authority to go around IDing everyone they see.

Yes, I actually already said that. I kept calling it identification and ID, but really you are only required to identify yourself. That's the SCOTUS decision. However, given that none of the actual laws requiring ID have been overturned by the SCOTUS don't expect the fact that you can be charged if you won't provide an ID to change in the near future.

If the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you have to provide them with your identity.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

You would lose in court.

The bolded is the important part here. If you're just sitting on a public bench and a policeman comes up and starts trying to interrogate you, you are well within your rights to ask why you are being questioned - and to be given an answer.


And, in most states, you'd be breaking the law. It's a leftover part of vagrancy laws.

It's been upheld by the Supreme Court that if an officer is conducting an investigation that s/he can ask for identification and you must comply.

IIRC, the officer can ask your name - not ask for ID. There is no requirement in this country to carry official identification with you unless you are engaging in certain activities (ie. driving). Otherwise, we'd have devolved into countries with much less protection of civil rights (not that our government isn't trying to do that anyways). All I'd have to say then is, "Papers, comrade?"

However, it is not clear that these officers were conducting an investigation, as no reason whatsoever has been given for questioning the two men. Maybe the law there is different, but I don't think police anywhere should have the authority to go around IDing everyone they see.

But that is for name, not ID. The police can not compell you to give ID, or your name, simply by asking, you must be detained on suspicion first, and my mere refusal to give my name if asked can not, in and of itself, be considered as suspicious behavior.

Ah, that's what I thought. Although I hadn't heard that you must first be detained. I suppose "detained" could be broadly interpreted, however.


And cops dont need any reason whatsoever to ask for your id.

Papers, comrade?

If the police don't have a reason to ask me for my ID, then I have no reason to show it to them. At that point, they are just another person asking to see it, as they are not engaged in doing their job.

Police are not allowed to go on big fishing trips where they just walk around interrogating people. They must have some sort of cause before they mess with you. Requiring anything less would be giving them way too much power over the lives of individual citizens.

And if someone shoots you or you get into a trafic accident, no one will know who you are and they wont be able to call your family at the moment they find you.

Unless I'm with someone else, that is absolutely true. But it isn't illegal for me to put myself in that risk, nor should it be.


Yes, I actually already said that. I kept calling it identification and ID, but really you are only required to identify yourself. That's the SCOTUS decision. However, given that none of the actual laws requiring ID have been overturned by the SCOTUS don't expect the fact that you can be charged if you won't provide an ID to change in the near future.

I think they will if they are actually used and then challenged. The problem with a law like that is that it actually has to harm someone before it can be challenged.

Of course, without a law making it illegal to walk around without ID (Papers, comrade?) the laws you are talking about are impossible to enforce.

Police: "What is your name?"
Citizen: "Bob Smith."
Police: "ID, please."
Citizen: "Sorry, don't have it on me."

Oops.

Yes, I actually already said that. I kept calling it identification and ID, but really you are only required to identify yourself. That's the SCOTUS decision. However, given that none of the actual laws requiring ID have been overturned by the SCOTUS don't expect the fact that you can be charged if you won't provide an ID to change in the near future.

the problem is it's a bit of a catch 22.

Why haven't SCOTUS ruled on those laws? Because they haven't been challenged.

Why haven't they been challenged? Because there has been no standing to challenge them.

Why has nobody had standing? Because nobody's been charged with them.

Ah, that's what I thought. Although I hadn't heard that you must first be detained. I suppose "detained" could be broadly interpreted, however.

Well yes and no. "detained' means when one does not have the option to leave. That's pretty cut and dry.

What is up for interpretation is, and what is more often the more important element, is whether one THINKS he is detained.

Unless I'm with someone else, that is absolutely true. But it isn't illegal for me to put myself in that risk, nor should it be.



I think they will if they are actually used and then challenged. The problem with a law like that is that it actually has to harm someone before it can be challenged.

Of course, without a law making it illegal to walk around without ID (Papers, comrade?) the laws you are talking about are impossible to enforce.

Police: "What is your name?"
Citizen: "Bob Smith."
Police: "ID, please."
Citizen: "Sorry, don't have it on me."

Oops.

Except the reason this challenge happened is because it does get used. How do you think I knew about it? I don't just keep every law in my head. I've had friends that were picked up on old vagrancy or vagrancy-related laws. Usually, once they identify you, you are free to go, but not always. I'm sure if you looked you could find plent of people charged. I agree that people wouldn't be that likely to challenge such a thing, but the current decision did little to really change the existence or legality of such laws.

In the framework of criminal suspicion there are three "general" classifications:

1) free

2) detained

3) arrested

If you're arrested...you really got nothing. They can do a lot to you.

If you are free, it means you are free to elave any conversation. At this point you can pretty much do anything you want. You do not need to speak with, answer, or even stay in the presence of any police who want to ask you questions.

You are absolutly free to refuse any request for identification, or give it, or simply walk away, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

Now it's that middle area where things get grey. Hiibel said that one who was detained on suspicion of criminal activity can be required to give his name. Name, not any identification papers.

One big question unanswered in Hiibel was to what extent can being required to give a name necessary if the name is incriminating. For instance, in hiilel thee issue was "hey you, I think you comitted a crime, what is your name?" SCOTUS did NOT address what would happen if the situation was more like "hey, I think bob smith committed a crime, are you bob smith?" In that case, revealing your name might incriminate yourself, and run into 5th amendment problems. SCOTUS clearly said that this was NOT the issue in Hiilel and should that come up, they would revisit.

But Hiibel also said that only one legally detained could be required to give his name. Not just suspected, but actually rendered not free to leave the presence of the police officer.

Except the reason this challenge happened is because it does get used. How do you think I knew about it?

It's pretty clear that this challenge had to do with asking for a name, not asking for ID. Otherwise, the laws either would have been validated, or struck down. You seem to be talking about laws that actually require a person to show official ID when asked - and that simply wasn't covered by this case.

I don't just keep every law in my head. I've had friends that were picked up on old vagrancy or vagrancy-related laws. Usually, once they identify you, you are free to go, but not always. I'm sure if you looked you could find plent of people charged. I agree that people wouldn't be that likely to challenge such a thing, but the current decision did little to really change the existence or legality of such laws.

I doubt many people get charged with this law, for several reasons. First of all, most people don't refuse to show ID. They don't even think twice about it. Second of all, if you are actually arrested, there is probably something more to charge you with than "refusing to show ID." While they certainly could tack it on, it most likely doesn't get used much. And there's also the simple fact that, to my knowledge, there are no laws requiring you to carry ID on you at all times. You could easily get around a request for ID by pointing out that you aren't carrying any. Even if you are, the cops are going to have to have probable cause if they wish to search you.

And then, as you pointed out, unless the fine is high or jail time is involved, people simply aren't likely to go through the insane amounts of money it would take to challenge such a law, so a challenge is unlikely.

I thought it was like that already in most countries in the world. Here in Brazil, its like that.

And its meant to PROTECT people, not endanger them. If you get lucky and find a wanted criminal roaming around, you´re entitled to ask for his ID and find out if he is being pursued or not.

Now, once I was riding the bus and the cops stoped it. They told everyone to leave the bus and make a line along it. They searched everyone and didnt find anything. Why they were doing that? Because there was a stealing in one of the local buses.

Did it hurt my LEGAL RIGHTS? Hell no, that is bullshit. If all I have to do to help fight crime is to show my documents to a cop, Ill gladly do it.

People seem to think that a cop asking for an ID Is the same as asking to have sex. Please.

Why should they be able to get everyone off a bus, line them up, and search each person, as if they were prisoners? If they can treat you like a prisoner, where would the invasion of privacy and civil rights stop?

I wouldn't mind letting an officer check my drivers license for a moment if they were searching for a criminal that fit my exact description, but pulling me and 30 other people off a bus and doing a search, or jumping me with 9 other cops because I look suspicious or someone stole something? Thats just wrong.

You can argue "They are just keeping us safe" till the cows come home, but your version of keeping us safe will just spread until we reach a 1984 like society/country. There is a reason civil rights exist, and it is not to impede safety or annoy the government.

Even if you are, the cops are going to have to have probable cause if they wish to search you.

Kinda yes, kinda no, police can pat you down after they detain you to determine if you have a weapon, even if they have no probable cause to believe you're holding a weapon...

But that's a pat down, not a full search.

It's pretty clear that this challenge had to do with asking for a name, not asking for ID. Otherwise, the laws either would have been validated, or struck down. You seem to be talking about laws that actually require a person to show official ID when asked - and that simply wasn't covered by this case.

Yes, again, I already said that. And as those laws are still on the books and as those laws have not been struck down, you'd be required to comply, legally.


I doubt many people get charged with this law, for several reasons. First of all, most people don't refuse to show ID. They don't even think twice about it. Second of all, if you are actually arrested, there is probably something more to charge you with than "refusing to show ID." While they certainly could tack it on, it most likely doesn't get used much. And there's also the simple fact that, to my knowledge, there are no laws requiring you to carry ID on you at all times. You could easily get around a request for ID by pointing out that you aren't carrying any. Even if you are, the cops are going to have to have probable cause if they wish to search you.

And then, as you pointed out, unless the fine is high or jail time is involved, people simply aren't likely to go through the insane amounts of money it would take to challenge such a law, so a challenge is unlikely.

Yes, it's not likely to be challenged and, as such, if a cop stops you and requests ID because there has been a crime in the area or some similar thing, you'd be smart to provide even if you feel it's too 1984.

By the way, I think it's funny you compared that rule to Soviet Russia, when in almost all of US history we've had vagrancy laws. The issue is far more American than most people realize.

Why should they be able to get everyone off a bus, line them up, and search each person, as if they were prisoners? If they can treat you like a prisoner, where would the invasion of privacy and civil rights stop?

I wouldn't mind letting an officer check my drivers license for a moment if they were searching for a criminal that fit my exact description, but pulling me and 30 other people off a bus and doing a search, or jumping me with 9 other cops because I look suspicious or someone stole something? Thats just wrong.

You can argue "They are just keeping us safe" till the cows come home, but your version of keeping us safe will just spread until we reach a 1984 like society/country. There is a reason civil rights exist, and it is not to impede safety or annoy the government.

Stop being paranoid, please. The cops arent out there to get you, they are out there doing their jobs.

Stop watching The Shield.

Yes, it's not likely to be challenged and, as such, if a cop stops you and requests ID because there has been a crime in the area or some similar thing, you'd be smart to provide even if you feel it's too 1984.

Personally, I'd be likely to comply without even thinking about it, unless I had reason not to do so or the cop was being extremely rude. I'll generally assume that an officer is doing his job and isn't out to do anything wrong unless I have something to convince me otherwise. Of course, I have been hanging out with my fiance's family a lot lately, and they've probably increased my suspicion towards police, considering the past interactions they've had.

I did have one interesting interaction with a very rude police officer. There was very little for a teenager to do on the weekends in my hometown or in the nearby larger city. One night, after going to see a movie, several of us decided to go to a park and play around there because we didn't feel like going home yet. We were playing on the playground equipment and just generally being silly. I walked a little away from the rest of the group to pick up a couple of hats and a pair of shoes that we had left near some other equipment. I was well within sight of my friends, but not close enough that they could have gotten to me without running.

A completely unmarked car carrying at least four people - looked like 4 men to me - drove up near where I was standing. A voice from the backseat of the car said, "Come over here ma'am." I'm not stupid, and I wasn't going near a car full of guys in the middle of the night when I couldn't see who was inside. The man shown a flashlight onto himself and said, "Come over here, we're the police." I still couldn't see him, and I still wasn't going near the car. He jumped out of the car yelling, "Jesus lady, I'm not going to rape you!" At that point, I could see that he was wearing an orange vest that said POLICE on it. Of course, you can buy those at the corner store and he was not wearing a uniform. He never offered any form of ID. He did, however, say he could arrest me for being in the park after hours (which may or may not have been true, there were no posted hours). They were apparently looking for some suspect or other.

I'm sure, if he had wanted to and had the time, he could have hauled me in for being "uncooperative" and not following police orders or something like that. Of course, I also think we can all agree (and any jury would have agreed) that I did nothing wrong. It would have been pretty stupid to walk over to a strange car full of guys just because one of them is barking out orders and claims to be police.

Of course, then again, when a practically deaf older lady who lives in a crime-ridden neighboorhood shoots at police officers busting into her house without knocking and is subsequently killed, we're apparently supposed to feel bad for the cops.

[/end off topic rant]

By the way, I think it's funny you compared that rule to Soviet Russia, when in almost all of US history we've had vagrancy laws. The issue is far more American than most people realize.

It's never been common in the US (to my knowledge anyways - and certainly not in the southern US --assuming the person is white, that is) for the police to just randomly ask for ID. Even the laws you are talking about seem to require some sort of cause to do so. People in the US have tended to shy away from giving any police force too much power over them.


Stop being paranoid, please. The cops arent out there to get you, they are out there doing their jobs.

Are you really under the impression that all police officers are good guys just trying to do their jobs? I think most of them are, but I would hardly say all. Police officers are human beings, just like the rest of us, and some of them are assholes - most likely assholes on a power trip.

My fiance's father once turned in a dirty cop. Ever since then, the police in that town have targeted him and his family for everything from speeding tickets to assault charges. When his son was charged with assault, one officer claimed to have seen it all and was going to be admitted as a witness. This was until, of course, the prosecutor was shown that the there was a large, non-transparent brick wall between the site of the incident and the inside of the store - where the officer was. Getting a badge doesn't make someone a saint.

It's never been common in the US (to my knowledge anyways - and certainly not in the southern US --assuming the person is white, that is) for the police to just randomly ask for ID. Even the laws you are talking about seem to require some sort of cause to do so. People in the US have tended to shy away from giving any police force too much power over them.

Contrary to popular belief, there were often minorities in the US that were white. If you were Irish in some areas you were treated like blacks are now. If you were Italian in others, or polish, or slavic, or any number of others. My last name is the result of my family being unable to find work or really be treated equally with a slavic last name. The privelege of being "white" for most of history actually meant the privelege of being rich and of the ruling group of whites of any particular area. In fact, today, I'd say that rich privelege trumps white privelege each and every day.

And harrassing vagrants of any color was pretty common practice including asking for papers. This was the reasoning that pretty much every area of the US had these laws.

Contrary to popular belief, there were often minorities in the US that were white. If you were Irish in some areas you were treated like blacks are now. If you were Italian in others, or polish, or slavic, or any number of others.

I know. But that occurred mostly in the large, industrialized cities (which were generally in the Northern US).

And harrassing vagrants of any color was pretty common practice including asking for papers. This was the reasoning that pretty much every area of the US had these laws.

What kind of papers would most people have had then? Even 1-2 generations ago, most people didn't even have birth certificates. Official ID was hardly a requirement.

Cops on a power trip. Lovely. What is wrong with the police in this country?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21552034-23214,00.html

Apparently, 9 police officers and 5 squad cars (there were five squad cars, can't find a link stating this, but it has been on the news out here) are needed to subdue 2 guys out the front of a cafe. And the commisioner in NSW thinks that the two officers "acted appropriately". I don't really care about the racial element but honestly, 9 officers and 5 squad cars?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21555383-23214,00.html

Honestly, why would the police need that much backup? Especially in this country, where it is highly unlikely that anyone would be carrying a gun. It is a travesty for two men, one of whom is an excellent role model for young boys in this country, to be embarrassed in this way.

So what do the people of NSG think? Did the police act appropriately? Or were they on a power trip?
First of all, you don't have any full incident report. You have one persons viewpoint and they are claiming to be victimized. Secondly, a good ratio of officers to offenders is 4:1. This is not the movies, police are not superheros. If you don't want severe injury to either side then overwhelming force is needed.

I know. But that occurred mostly in the large, industrialized cities (which were generally in the Northern US).



What kind of papers would most people have had then? Even 1-2 generations ago, most people didn't even have birth certificates. Official ID was hardly a requirement.

Identification was just more local. People didn't resist identification methods, just national ones. People aren't generally opposed to government in the US or weren't. It's was the federal government they were worried about.

I assume you heard the important part of the story where these men were within giant robots with rocket launchers for arms and chainsaws for legs? Of course you didn't. Typical liberal media.

I assume you heard the important part of the story where these men were within giant robots with rocket launchers for arms and chainsaws for legs? Of course you didn't. Typical liberal media.

phffft... and they say Rugby is a rough sport. :rolleyes:

Identification was just more local.

You mean your local cops already knew who you were? Because I've never heard of any type of papers that you were required to carry - especially considering the fact that most people didn't even have birth certificates.

People didn't resist identification methods, just national ones.

LOL! The people of the US, espeically in the rural south (or maybe I'm just more familiar with them) have always been resistant to the government interfering much in their everyday lives. Even now, the idea that someone would be legally required to carry identification around on an every day basis would be an anathema to many people. Most people do it anyways, as not having it would be inconvenient. But to have the government tell you that you have to? That would be unforgivable.

People aren't generally opposed to government in the US or weren't. It's was the federal government they were worried about.

It isn't a matter of being opposed to the government. It's a matter of being opposed to government interference where it doesn't belong. The government has its place. That place is not to keep tabs on the whereabouts of every citizen or to poke into our personal lives.

I assume you heard the important part of the story where these men were within giant robots with rocket launchers for arms and chainsaws for legs? Of course you didn't. Typical liberal media.

Teehee.

Honestly, why would the police need that much backup? Especially in this country, where it is highly unlikely that anyone would be carrying a gun. It is a travesty for two men, one of whom is an excellent role model for young boys in this country, to be embarrassed in this way.

So what do the people of NSG think? Did the police act appropriately? Or were they on a power trip?


I don't see why it's a big deal. The cops sensed a threat and they called for backup, better safe than sorry.