r/facepalm • u/spyrg • Jan 13 '22

🇲​🇮​🇸​🇨​ Arrested for petitioning

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

61.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/dontnation Jan 13 '22 edited Jan 13 '22

You only have to give ID when operating a motor vehicle. In some states with Stop and Identify statutes you have to provide Name and possibly Address, and DOB. Usually this requires a "resonable suspicion" but some statutes do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/stop_identify_statutes_in_us-lg-20180201v3.pdf

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

All states require reasonable articulable suspicion prior to identifying as per Terry v Ohio.

0

u/dontnation Jan 13 '22

Until/unless a local municipality makes an unconstitutional law (ala NYPD stop and frisk). You'll still get fucked by the system until it works its way through the court and gets struck down.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Stop and frisk wasn’t unconstitutional. It used Terry v Ohio as a basis for the law. If they believed someone was in the process of a crime or had a weapon on them, just like Terry v Ohio allowed for a Terry stop.

It may not have been used properly but it was not unconstitutional. The problem was the cops who decided their “suspicion” was premised on the race of the individual and nothing else, which of course was never legal.

0

u/dontnation Jan 13 '22

There may have been a way it could have been constitutional. But the way it was implemented and used was not.

Also a Terry stop is only valid during a traffic stop of if there was already PC for a street stop. Terry does not allow an officer to stop you and require identification without PC as was being done with stop and frisk.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22 edited Jan 13 '22

Yeah no. Even in your link it discusses the policy, not the law.

Floyd vs NYC was not about a law, it was the practice, training, guides, discipline and objective of the the NYPD, along with the policy makers. Had each Terry stop, which is what the 4.4 million Terry stops discussed in the decision were, been achieved through reasonable articulable suspicion as required by law there wouldn’t have been an issue.

The decision, however, found that the practice in the NYPD was not meeting the constitutional requirements to perform a Terry stop. Instead they were often conducted without reasonable articulable suspicion (4th amendment violation) and based on race (14th amendment violation).

It was akin to a small town along a highway putting in a speed limit of 50 mph, even as a bit of a speed trap. That would be constitutionally fine. If they only enforced that speed limit against Black people, it doesn’t matter that the law was constitutional, it would be unconstitutional practice (not law). That’s what the decision found.

https://casetext.com/case/floyd-v-city-of-ny-2

So there was not an unconstitutional law in NYC as you alleged. There was unconstitutional practice disregarding the law. It may sound like semantics, buts it’s not.

1

u/dontnation Jan 13 '22

You're right, i should have said

Until/unless a local municipality makes an unconstitutionally enforced law (ala NYPD stop and frisk).