Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
My understanding is that you've got limited fifth amendment rights to decline identifying yourself, but do not have to provide ID unless pulled over for a traffic stop.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
More COPS gone wild....
- Thread starter powderfinger
- Start date
- Status
My understanding is that you've got limited fifth amendment rights to decline identifying yourself, but do not have to provide ID unless pulled over for a traffic stop.
True. But this is also what will get you a ride to the station where you can invoke your right to remain silent even more and even demand an attorney (the law says they can do this for up to 24 hours or something like that before they have to release you.) That's a whole lot of time out of your day just for an infraction like jaywalking. Most cops would be fine with just giving them your name and the address you live at or your DL number or something like that. If everything jives in their computer then you're good to go.
I wish cops would actually worry about things that actually mattered. All this over a damn jaywalker....
No.
Brown v. Texas says otherwise. She wasn't required to identify herself until she was arrested, and that still didn't demand a gov't issued ID.
But it never really needed to get to that point. The officers could have backed down (!) and moved on.
Im sure they had much more fun harrassing an innocent jogger than they would have fighting real crime.
No.
You are required to identify yourself to police if they ask.
You are NOT required to carry any documentation.
According to reports down here, she was arrested for "failure to identify", which means she excersized her 5th ammendment right and didn't answer the cops questions.
Wanna know how to piss off a cop?...pull a constitution out of your pocket and demand they obey it....it makes them fuming mad every time.
If anyone of us did what those pigs did to that woman, we would be in jail for assault and kidnapping, which is exactly where they should be, but that'll never happen. They'll get paid vacation while the police department investigates itself and finds nothing wrong.
They weren't doing anything in the interest of "public safety". They were posted up on the corner issuing thousands of dollars in tickets for harmless, victimless, so-called "crimes" in order to bring revenue into the department, and that is all they were doing.
Wanna know how to piss off a cop?...pull a constitution out of your pocket and demand they obey it....it makes them fuming mad every time.
If anyone of us did what those pigs did to that woman, we would be in jail for assault and kidnapping, which is exactly where they should be, but that'll never happen. They'll get paid vacation while the police department investigates itself and finds nothing wrong.
They weren't doing anything in the interest of "public safety". They were posted up on the corner issuing thousands of dollars in tickets for harmless, victimless, so-called "crimes" in order to bring revenue into the department, and that is all they were doing.
Of course, the best possible outcome of this would be if it sparked a discussion about improving pedestrian facilities in the area. With so many pedestrian accidents, it's obviously a problem around Austin. A study by landscape architects and civil engineers would surely yield recommendations for roadway improvements, medians, rights-of-way, and so forth.
Yes, this might seem pie-in-the sky, but no number of tickets is going to change the way people walk--frequently distracted, and maddeningly disengaged. Even in Texas, I don't think it's possible to arrest all of them.
Yes, this might seem pie-in-the sky, but no number of tickets is going to change the way people walk--frequently distracted, and maddeningly disengaged. Even in Texas, I don't think it's possible to arrest all of them.
If you've ever driven around UT campus, you will see that the bright little futures of america around here still don't know how to cross the street.
Unless you're breaking a law. Then you can additionally be charged with failure to identify.
Hopkins
Commercial User
If being charged you have to provide your name and address. You do not have to have a photo ID on your possession.
You still don't have to have government issued ID on you. If arrested, you are legally compelled to provide identifying information (name, DOB, Address), but you don't have to produce ID to verify the information given.
Yeah, you might be right. Pretty much they're just looking to match your name with something (an address, DL#, or something). If the info you give them doesn't match anything, then that's when problems start. If you refuse to give them any info, and there was a crime or infraction behind the original stop (which they have to identify) then they can take you in to ID and to determine if they're going to charge you with anything. A lot of the time, guys with outstanding warrants will do this. They'll fail to brandish ID, or try to give incorrect ID (knowing that their ID will pull up warrants - even outstanding parking fines show up <-- I had a cop talk to me about my parking tickets once
). So if you're a guy that is adamantly defending their right to privacy, you've know piqued their interest in you because they probably suspect you have warrants or something. They'll also treat you as high-risk and handle you more heavy handed because if you come back 932F (wanted for outstanding felony arrest warrants) you could be dangerous because you'll be desperate to escape. Look folks, I'm not one to go crazy and blindly defend overly aggressive cops (if you know me of facebook, I'm pretty vocal about police abuse), and I even posted this exact case in the other cop thread as an example of how cops wrongly escalate situations that don't need to be escalated (which often winds up with someone getting hurt, killed, or having legal ramifications). I'm just not a person to blindly rage and stereotype an entire part of society. All these cases we read about (while there are a lot of them), represent a very small fraction of all the stops and interactions police have everyday. The media will have you believing that cops are a band of roving thugs that are out of control just looking to bust heads, but in reality, these cases (locally I think of Kelly Thomas case in Fullerton, CA) are pretty isolated and quite small in frequency when you consider all the police and all the interactions they have. Doesn't mean that it makes it acceptable, or that this is something we have to tolerate, but most of the time, the cops are just doing their job. There are probably incidents that go unreported, but luckily because of things like this situation with this jogger and others, more and more cops are being filmed, so I would venture to guess that less and less is going unreported.
With that said, I am very concerned about certain trends I'm seeing. The militarization of our police force, the random traffic checks by certain agencies like Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, etc. But that's an entirely different subject for entirely different threads.
This particular case, with this girl jogging is missing a lot of info. We didn't see the actual stop. We don't see how that went down. We don't see, know, or have any idea what she said or did when the cops stopped here after their initial request. All we see is the girl freaking out with cuffs on from what originated from a jaywalking ticket. Perhaps she didn't want to give them her name. Perhaps she DID give them her name and it didn't work, or perhaps she was completely cooperative and these cops are just dicks. We just don't know all the info. This particular case DOES however reflect how a simple stop can go south if a cop is perpetually escalating the situation, and it has been further exasperated by an idiot police chief saying stupid stuff.
I'll go back to my barbecue example. I COULD be a total dick. Get everyone around the barbecue's ID. FI all of them. Cite the person claiming the barbecue and pour water on their chicken. But weighing the pros and cons of that, I want people to come to the beach and have a good time. I want them to perceive the lifeguards as a group of people that are friendly to interact with, that we're approachable, that we use common sense, that they're overall experience at the beach including the people running it, is pleasant. That works in our favor because they tell friends and their friends tell friends and we get good PR out of it. I'm not a cop, but I do have close friends that are, that I'm not just friends with, but also have worked closely with them at the beach at a professional capacity. But all of them are very mellow approaching a situation. They seek voluntary compliance. They don't push the people. The operate from the idea of dispelling information and educating the person they're dealing with about why they're being talked to. This is kind of where I learned my approach when dealing with code enforcement. I don't have a gun. I have boardshorts and flip flops. I have never felt in danger when dealing with the public and I feel this is mostly because I have this approach. Just my two cents.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Yeah, you might be right. Pretty much they're just looking to match your name with something (an address, DL#, or something). If the info you give them doesn't match anything, then that's when problems start. If you refuse to give them any info, and there was a crime or infraction behind the original stop (which they have to identify) then they can take you in to ID and to determine if they're going to charge you with anything. A lot of the time, guys with outstanding warrants will do this. They'll fail to brandish ID, or try to give incorrect ID (knowing that their ID will pull up warrants - even outstanding parking fines show up <-- I had a cop talk to me about my parking tickets once
Look folks, I'm not one to go crazy and blindly defend overly aggressive cops (if you know me of facebook, I'm pretty vocal about police abuse), and I even posted this exact case in the other cop thread as an example of how cops wrongly escalate situations that don't need to be escalated (which often winds up with someone getting hurt, killed, or having legal ramifications). I'm just not a person to blindly rage and stereotype an entire part of society. All these cases we read about (while there are a lot of them), represent a very small fraction of all the stops and interactions police have everyday. The media will have you believing that cops are a band of roving thugs that are out of control just looking to bust heads, but in reality, these cases (locally I think of Kelly Thomas case in Fullerton, CA) are pretty isolated and quite small in frequency when you consider all the police and all the interactions they have. Doesn't mean that it makes it acceptable, or that this is something we have to tolerate, but most of the time, the cops are just doing their job. There are probably incidents that go unreported, but luckily because of things like this situation with this jogger and others, more and more cops are being filmed, so I would venture to guess that less and less is going unreported.
With that said, I am very concerned about certain trends I'm seeing. The militarization of our police force, the random traffic checks by certain agencies like Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, etc. But that's an entirely different subject for entirely different threads.
This particular case, with this girl jogging is missing a lot of info. We didn't see the actual stop. We don't see how that went down. We don't see, know, or have any idea what she said or did when the cops stopped here after their initial request. All we see is the girl freaking out with cuffs on from what originated from a jaywalking ticket. Perhaps she didn't want to give them her name. Perhaps she DID give them her name and it didn't work, or perhaps she was completely cooperative and these cops are just dicks. We just don't know all the info. This particular case DOES however reflect how a simple stop can go south if a cop is perpetually escalating the situation, and it has been further exasperated by an idiot police chief saying stupid stuff.
I'll go back to my barbecue example. I COULD be a total dick. Get everyone around the barbecue's ID. FI all of them. Cite the person claiming the barbecue and pour water on their chicken. But weighing the pros and cons of that, I want people to come to the beach and have a good time. I want them to perceive the lifeguards as a group of people that are friendly to interact with, that we're approachable, that we use common sense, that they're overall experience at the beach including the people running it, is pleasant. That works in our favor because they tell friends and their friends tell friends and we get good PR out of it. I'm not a cop, but I do have close friends that are, that I'm not just friends with, but also have worked closely with them at the beach at a professional capacity. But all of them are very mellow approaching a situation. They seek voluntary compliance. They don't push the people. The operate from the idea of dispelling information and educating the person they're dealing with about why they're being talked to. This is kind of where I learned my approach when dealing with code enforcement. I don't have a gun. I have boardshorts and flip flops. I have never felt in danger when dealing with the public and I feel this is mostly because I have this approach. Just my two cents.
If you're being lawfully detained you have limited protection for not giving them your name, age, and address. And aster commuting an additional crime by giving them false information. If you're not being legally detained you owe them nothing.
"Am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go?"
Memorize those two phrases and repeat them often.
That is not necessarily true. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the United States Supreme Court held that a "stop and identify" statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The statute in question provided as follows:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
. . . . .
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
. . . . .
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
The Supreme Court upheld Hiibel's conviction under the statute, and rejected his Fifth Amendment argument, because his "refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him ...." The court also noted that, "[a]nswering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
You are correct. I had said last time I checked. The last time I checked was in 92/93 or so. I stumbled on the book couple months ago but cant find it in garage now. Wanted to make sure I wasnt remembering wrong. Oh well, its neither here nor there I suppose.
Yes. This is correct. They do have to say it. They might try to trick you into 'voluntarily' going along with their detainment though.
- Status
