Pixiq

papers please
That statement that scars the crap out of me.

I would have asked for his name badge number and filed a complaint.

Very interesting views shared.

Don’t overstate it too much. Not all stop and ID laws require that you PRODUCE identification…only that you tell them your identity. In fact, it’s always available to you to state (absent some circumstance where you have to have ID, like when driving), that you don’t have an ID with you.

Re: Alabama code

"whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.."

Alabama code says "reasonable suspicion". Insert "articulable" between the two words which comes from SCOTUS. Notice also that it does not require the subject to present any form of ID, just give his name and address. Absent RAS, even that is not necessary.

We run into a lot of law enforcement who either do not know the law or who try to make up the law. We have evolved some strategies for dealing with them that may be of help to you.

The right we stand up for? The Second Amendment. I am a member of both OpenCarry.org and AlabamaOpenCarry.com. We stress professionalism in dealing with law enforcement and it seems to go a long way except with those who have the "I am the Law and you will obey me" syndrome.

Mr. Miller, you keep up the good work you are doing. You are not alone and, while we may be engaged in slightly different struggles, it is still about our rights as citizens.

If this happens to you call us, attorneys Viles and Beckman. We'll come to you, if need be. Put our number in your speed dial of your cell phone: 800-648-4537 or 239-334-3933.

If you want, you can visit us and get a free case review at http://www.vilesandbeckman.com

The best part is, if we don't win for you, you don't pay!

The Colorado link goes to the laws about "Home detention" and nothing about ID.

There is no law that requires you to CARRY ID, so there is no law that can make you produce it. Generally, if asked by police you must identify yourself, but you don’t have to hand them anything.

Civilians? Police are civilians too.

Ridiculous.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Why I don’t take meds

I’m not an attorney, but my reading of Florida law (FS 856.021) is that LEOs are authorized to ascertain your identity. There is no requirement that a person produce any document (“travel documents” or “papers”).

In Florida, unless it is a “Terry Stop” there is no requirement to speak at all and then only to identify oneself. But of course, in the event of a Terry Stop the LEO would need to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion for making the stop in the first place and detailing the suspect.

The US Supreme Court in Hiibel simply upheld the constitutionality of state “stop and identify” laws. It did not create a federal requirement to produce papers. So it all comes down to the individual state.

Regardless of state laws, the disposition of the officer involved will determine the outcome of the encounter. When I know I am going to encounter a LEO (as a pedestrian) I make every effort to not have ANYTHING in my pockets, including ID. My logic is that as there is no requirement to carry “travel documents”; I can’t be made to produce what I don’t have; a “Terry Frisk” only allows a superficial pat-down of the exterior clothing, unless the LEO feels something that might be a weapon – nothing in my pockets no possibility of a weapon; and I want to see what happens.

I was told recently by a friend who showed a Tampa Police Sergeant a video of my recent encounter with ICE in downtown Tampa that I could expect a very different outcome if I “tried that with him.” It was something to effect that he would “ruin my night.” I’m looking forward to testing that assertion.

This issue is important and pretty fundamental. Our ability to travel freely is a critical component to the exercise of other freedoms such as religion, assembly, press, etc. Like any freedom, we lose those that we fail to exercise.

Joel is correct. In Hiibel V The State of Nevada, the Supreme Court said that it was reasonable for a n officer to ask for and get your name. No demands for ID, address or any other information is in that decision.

The officer may ask for you name in the purposes of a Terry Investigation, but until it goes into being ‘detained’, that is all you are required to do, by Law.

Thanks for this information. I am in California and here press passes are issued by county and state law enforcement agencies. When using a camera without displaying press credentials I have been asked for ID too many times to count. Sometimes I want to use my creds other times I don’t and it it nice to have additional mental support regarding ID and probable cause.

Thanks for the post.

Lots of interesting stuff here.

Video: Second trooper comes in figures out the videographer isn’t doing anything suspicious with a few simple questions and the situation is over. Why couldn’t the first trooper do that? It’s obvious his attitude got in the way, you could smell it the moment he started walking towards the videographer.

Civilian: Police are 1st and foremost civilian organizations. It’s not like they are law enforcement and we are civilians. I know that there is some cop think like that. Police are given a few powers but they are still civilian authorities.

Arrest and detention: When are you arrested? Some say the moment you are detained and that even if you are released you were still arrested just no charges were filed. Doesn’t matter if you have handcuffs on or not as long as you aren’t free to go, like when the first trooper said “stay right there, don’t go anywhere” or something like that. So the steps are actually arrest or detention and filing of charges.

Driving: If you’re in a motor vehicle and stopped you have to always show that you have a permit to operate the motor vehicle.

911: Rears it’s ugly head again.

Videographer: One very cool dude. Didn’t get flustered at all.
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..Frame

I understand the whole debate about using the term “civilian” to differentiate from police officers, but I use that term for simplicity in my writing.

How else can I describe a non-police officer without using the awkward phrase of “non-police officer”?

The distinction between a “Terry Stop” or temporary detention and an “arrest” is as follows:

Terry Stop – brief detention (with or without cuffs) in order for the LEO to determine if there is PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest. The LEO may perform a “Terry Frisk” if they reasonably believe that the suspect maybe armed. Such a frisk is to be cursory (external – no reaching into pockets or purses, etc.) unless the LEO feels something that reasonably feels like a weapon. A “Terry Stop” must be brief (no exact time, but courts have referred to a fifteen minute time frame).

An arrest would be when a LEO can articulate PROBABLE CAUSE to a judge. Also, as soon as you are removed from the original location – no matter what the LEO may tell you – you have been arrested. During an arrest the LEO may do a thorough frisk, including your pockets and anything within reach. This one great argument for locking your car door during a traffic stop if and when you are ordered to exit the vehicle. In such an event a search of your vehicle would be impermissible without probable cause for a search.

Here is my response to invasive cops. Show me some money… If you give me $50.00 and I will go and get my ID. Unless you are willing to pay me for my time then I can’t help you.

If I can’t make some money from my video, I will make it from the cop or whoever.

I believe we need to check on the ID statutes being needed when you are detained.

I have found nothing eluding to being detained saying you have to produce ID.

In states that have Stop and Identify laws you must give your name and in some states geographical information such as address, what you are doing. This may someday be challenged because the SCOTUS ruling was that only your name must be given.

In all those states according to Hiibel vs Nevada you still are only required to do so during a reasonable suspicion stop, (Terry stop). Under a Terry stop you are being detained according to SCOTUS.

Possibly someday Stop and Identify may go back to SCOTUS when someone gives their name and this does incriminate them. Because that will violate their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves.

http://knol.google.com/k/tom-williams/stop-and-identify-laws/68gu50dopcp...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_...

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

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think these stop and identify statutes are unconstitutional.

Great video. The guy was not intimidated. Love it when he said “Dont touch my camara.” and right then and there the police officer knew what he got himself into.

Using the word “citizen” works well.

What if they’re not United States citizens?

Granted, police are also citizens. But they’re also civilians, so semantically it’s the same. However, I don’t think any cops are going around thinking they are not citizens, so this places them on the same level as those they police.

Sorry, that reply was too myself. I don’t know, denizen? That sounds awful tough.

Person? People?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

nice high def video work…btw, does everyone really wear a god damned cowboy hat there? holy shit!

The cowboy hats are part of the uniform.

You guys are right in that you don’t have to produce any ID unless you are operating a vehicle. However be aware that if you are being stopped for any kind of ticket worthy offense (such as being in the street, crossing against the light, ect, ect) the officer can always just arrest you instead of giving a ticket.

My department has a policy that no citations will be issued until the subject is positively identified. If you don’t have an ID and I think you are playing games, I will arrest you and have you fingerprinted. I’ve had folks with warrants try to get out of it by not carrying an ID and they gave me fake names. They all got caught by the fingerprints though.

Now if the officer does not have an actual violation to stop you with, then he should not be demanding ID. I always ask and if someone tells me no, then I deal with it. The worst thing a cop can do is give an order but not be able to legally back that order up. That is why I cringe when I see them tell people to turn their cameras off. If they say no, the cop ends up looking stupid.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

I get a kick out of this whole civilian/cop label debate. It’s just a simple way to call identify non-police. My department also calls officers “sworn employees” and non-police (“civilian”) employees are called “non-sworn employees”.

Big deal. It seems to get the anti-cops types in a tizzy though and I don’t know why.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

This is just another ridiculous waste of taxpayers dollars.

Man-with-camera taping in area where bad-thing-happened. Police reaction? Detain the obvious miscreant.

When are cops gonna learn that cameras and crime (and terrorism) rarely go together? Idiots.

And that first cop, he looked hopped-up and paranoid – and not used to citizens politely refusing his orders.

And that was a key aspect of this encounter: the videographer was very polite, stuck by his rights, and in the end he walked away. That he was detained is utter B.S. More vids like this need to get out there.

I like how the police officer kept parroting the same thing over and over, “I need to see your ID.” No reason other than “being suspicious”, well there’s nothing illegal about being suspicious even if some cops think there is.

What scares me more is the attitude of the public. I constantly bring up issues with police abusing their power and am shouted down. People don’t care if anyone’s rights are abolished. They go on to say that if you’re not doing anything wrong what have you to hide. I’m sick of this attitude but it prevails just about everywhere these days. Lately my rant has been about the city police running SWAT operations in the unincorporated county areas. They even investigated a highly publicized homicide that was totally outside the city from start to finish. They dug up a garage to find the body.

They come to my home and I won’t be cooperative. In this state the sheriff issues them deputy cards and they would have no authority here without them. Just let them catch me taking photos around here and see how uncooperative I can be! The sheriff’s dept. couldn’t care less about people taking pictures.

A few years ago in Arizona, I had a similar incident take place while taking photos of vandalism that had been done to a temporary Army recruiting station setup on the mall of the local campus.

A writeup, photos and video of the incident are available at:

https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2007/12/12/p74

My commentary regarding Arizona’s ‘Stop and Identify’ statute appears towards the end of the blog entry.

Unless I’m driving a motor vehicle, I don’t even carry my drivers license on me.

If and when asked, I cheerfully produce my Federally Issued Veterans Identification Card.

It has my full legal name and a color photo.

Period!

No expiration date, no numbers…

It drives the cops crazy.

the first cop is a trumped up asshole, whom if I ever meet in a bar may just decide to get into an arguement with, total scumbag asshole. My guess is he was the rookie who was sent over to see what the guy with the camera wants, he had to exert his “authority.” It’s always tempting when they are walking towards you like that to finger them while they are coming up to you. Just tell them your name and say that you don’t need to produce ID. Not that I advocate it but one of these days one of these trumped up cops is going to get a big surprise. I just wish they would become peace officers and keep the peace instead of being law enforcement officers and generate revenue for the state.

@Jody

How much revenue did that stop produce for the state?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Johnny,

If that man did not have the balls to stand up to the cop he may have been arrested for contempt of cop, the charge those asshole cops always throw out whenever someone does not respect their “authority.” You then need to pay a fine or “fee.”

Like I said before, I am going to fucking love it when those asshole filth (cops), lose their jobs when governments across the country go broke and the US dollar tanks and is worth less than the Indian rupee, good fucking riddance. I never asked for their protection and I sure the hell don’t want it, not to mention the fact that numerous supreme court cases have stated cops have no obligation to protect those they supposedly serve.
Jody´s last blog ..Small Plane Crashes Into IRS Building in Austin, Texas

Incidentally, and not responding to anyone in particular, (and noting that I’m not a lawyer) the legal standard that LEOs have to meet and be able to articulate for a detention (Terry stop, etc., and the trigger for most if not all states’ stop-and-identify laws) is “reasonable suspicion” of criminal behavior, while the standard for arrest is the stricter “probable cause” that you have committed a crime.

As it relates to photography, I see no reason that a police officer needs to demand ID or one’s name from someone who is not breaking any laws, is photographing something visible from a public place, and who is standing on public property. There’s no need to detain them, since there can be no “reasonable suspicion” based on that behavior alone. (There always could be ancillary factors: did the cop recently receive a report that someone matching your description and carrying a camera was seen fleeing a crime scene, for instance? but the “reasonable suspicion” articulation would have to depend on that, and not one’s perfectly-legal photographic activities.)

Where I live, in New York State, the law is more granular and actually outlines a middle ground between what Carlos describes above as a “consensual interaction” and detention or a Terry stop. Under People v. De Bour, a 1976 decision, there are four levels of acceptable intrusion in a police investigation — the “consensual interaction” stage, where an officer can ask someone about their identity (but the subject does not have to answer the question or even reply at all) and other information. This level requires “an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.” The second tier is called “the common-law right of inquiry”, and allows the officer to question the subject more closely. The character of the interaction can be more intimidating, but the subject always remains free to go and is not detained. This level requires “a founded suspicion that ‘criminal activity is afoot’” but not necessarily that the subject himself is involved. Levels three and four correspond to a Terry stop and an arrest.

One other important thing to note is that an appellate court held that “innocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand.” So legal behavior like photography (when you’re not breaking any other laws like trespassing, etc.) cannot be used to articulate a suspicion that allows LEOs greater latitude of intrusion.

Lots more information and links to the actual court decisions quoted are here, in a blog entry I wrote a couple years back after researching New York State law after being hassled by police for perfectly legal photography.

Again, not all of this will apply in every state, but there are definitely Supreme Court rulings that state that one doesn’t have to establish one’s identity or even talk to the police at all unless they can establish specific articulable levels of suspicion, and that they can’t construe one’s refusal to talk to them as suspicious behavior in itself.
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here

“Johnny Law” said.. “Big deal. It seems to get the anti-cops types in a tizzy though and I don’t know why.”

If you don’t understand it, then there’s NO hope for you. On second thought.. considering your “pro-cop” we can’t do anything wrong attitude, then I CAN understand why you said what you did.

Rail Car Fan

Read you blog on the vandalism. It’s quite obvious that your “Anti-Military” from your comments. I’m NOT!

Vietnam Vet 64-67.. and PROUD of it!!

Rail Car Fan

Once again.. “Johnny Law” shot down (don’t you like my pun) again. God, ya gotta love it!!

Rail Car Fan

I think your statement is overly broad.

I can see how some of Terry’s comments might be anti-recruiter, (“Stumble into their lair”, etc.) but that’s *not* the same as anti-military.

A reasonable person can have a beef with military recruiters or the way military recruiting is done and still honor and respect those who have served as well as the military generally.

The only problem is once you say “Am i free to go” and they say “no” – you might want to ask “why?” which is a perfectly legitimate question. I think they should be able to articulate to YOU what their articulated reasoning is for the Terry stop. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t have stopped you.

However I’ve seen the typical person that says “why are you arresting me” and they annoy the hell out of me, so i am going to stick with “am i being detained/free to go” and if the answer is that i am in fact being detained then i will immediately ask to speak to a lawyer.

Even in California people think you need to carry ID on you. You don’t, even post 9/11 when news outlets were talking about people being stopped and arrested for not showing ID (like that girl on the bike in that new york bike rally video)

@ genewitch

“I think they should be able to articulate to YOU what their articulated reasoning is for the Terry stop. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t have stopped you.”

Maybe they are able to but I prefer not to argue my probable cause or reasonable suspicion on the sidewalk. If the person is calm and the situation is under control, I will usually explain. However if the person is looking for a debate, I won’t bother.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Yes. I’ve decided in the future to ask if I am being detained (or am free to go). I totally agree that if an LEO is prepared to take the step of detaining someone and is able to articulate the basis for that detention to the courts, they should be required to articulate those reasons to their detainee as well. I’m not sure how wise asking “why” is (though I think I’d wonder that myself, and it’s a totally reasonable question), given that most cops would see that as a challenge to their authority…and we know where that leads lately.

I’ve given ID to the cops upon request in the past, and not liked doing it. That was what spurred me to research exactly what the law says in New York, so I can comply with the law when I am legally required to identify myself, but still exercise my Constitutional rights.

Part of me wants to ask them to go ahead and arrest me, if they believe that I’m so clearly breaking the law. After all, recent settlements for photographers who were unlawfully arrested in New York have been in the five figures, and if I’m arrested for violating a law that doesn’t exist, I’m pretty sure the judges will throw the case out. (I wouldn’t mind the money from a settlement, but then again as a taxpayer I’d rather that public employees didn’t engage in behavior that leads to taxpayer money being spent on setttlements like this.)

That said, it sounds like it wouldn’t be fun at all, and a massive inconvenience, and I don’t especially want the NYPD to ruin my day.
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here

We were chased away this week from taking photos of an accident in Hialeah. What’s up with that?

I joined the military 25 years ago. At that time, I’d literally never heard anyone use the term “civilian” to mean “non-cop.”

As a former soldier, I find this particular piece of cop-speak quite jarring. And more to the point, it speaks to the militarization of the police culture over the past generation.

I’ve been to Baghdad. Trust me: you don’t want the military — let alone military wanna-be’s — policing your city.

The link to “Texas recently joined the ranks of the states…” is broken.

I’m not aware of Texas passing any stop-and-identify legislation. Can you clarify?

I’ll fix the link but here’s the story

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/041609/sta_429768083.shtml

“Am I free to go?”

if the answer is no …

“What is your reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify detaining me?”

If no adequate answer …

“Am I free to go?”

That should be all that is said unless they come up with a decent answer to the second question. Asking to see a lawyer following that “decent answer” would be a good next step.

Wow.. yeah, different rules in Texas. Scariest PINAC-related encounter I ever had was in San Antonio – (Carlos blogged about it back then):

http://www.cosmictap.com/an-accidental-interview-with-lieutenant-phil-dr...

Really was not a fun experience.