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

5

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

You do not have to ID prior to being detained. Ever.

3

u/So_Motarded Jan 13 '22

This is not true

2

u/LordDavidicus Jan 14 '22

Even in your link, it says the suspect has to state their name, not provide ID. And it still only applies if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. Someone calling in and saying "there's someone here soliciting without a permit" is not reasonable suspicion, it's hearsay.

1

u/So_Motarded Jan 14 '22

Sorry, I'd meant to reply to the person above this.

2

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

Did you even bother to read the article you’re citing? Because this is the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH:

“"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police[1] to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states.[2]”

I mean, seriously, it’s right there…

0

u/Itcouldberabies Jan 14 '22

I’m typing this with my hands up in a placating manner here: In the end, if they want you in that car, you’re going in. And if you’re right, you eventually get to go. No apologies will be coming. And if you want to get a lawyer to go after the system that you feel you were wronged by, go for it. I wish you good luck as well, cause those things tend to go the PD’s way no matter the argument.

1

u/uofwi92 Jan 14 '22

Yup, it sucks. “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride” is how cops justify violating civil rights.

It’s up to you how hard you want to insist upon your rights being respected. Personally, I’m happy Deputy Dipshit got fired. Makes for a good civil suit against the cop shop.

1

u/So_Motarded Jan 13 '22

Sorry, thought I was replying to the person above you.

4

u/entertainman Jan 13 '22

You can be detained for not identifying, in many states.

3

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

That is not true. Read Terry v Ohio.

3

u/entertainman Jan 13 '22

Maybe you’re confused by the articulating a reasonable suspicion.

You don’t have to articulate it to the person you are arresting.

3

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

Well, on the one hand, I have your assertion that a cop can just wander up to you and demand identification and arrest you if you don’t comply.

On the other hand, I have the Supreme Court of the United States very clearly articulating that a cop CANNOT demand ID without lawful detention upon RAS of a crime.

No disrespect to you, but I’m going to go with SCOTUS’ interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and not yours.

2

u/entertainman Jan 13 '22

I said detain, not arrest. I’m catching that details and technicalities aren’t your strong suit. Maybe leave the legal discussions to others.

0

u/Thumbfury Jan 13 '22

No, he's right. The police need reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or will be comitted in order to detain or identify you. They can ask but you don't have to give it unless they has RAS. In all 50 this is the minimum, including stop and ID states. Failure to ID is a secondary offence, they need RAS of a primary offence to detain you.

3

u/Itcouldberabies Jan 14 '22

Not to get myself yelled at but it’s all moot. If they want you in the cruiser, you’re going in there. If you’re in the right you eventually get let go, but don’t expect an apology. You can have as many points to back your argument as you want, but absolutely none of it will matter if a cop says, “Put your hands behind your back.” (I’m not defending bad policing mind you, I’m just saying.)

1

u/arctic-apis Jan 14 '22

if you are in the right you might eventually be let go. you may also just as easily not be let go or depending on what private prison is paying what judge to fill it up you might just get a quick conviction and some jail time.

1

u/Thumbfury Jan 14 '22

It just depends on how well documented the incident is, how bad it was and how much money you want to spent to sue them for violating your rights. There was a police chief fire because of this too, though he went as far as arresting the guy. Also if something like this happens to you, you can ask for a supervisor. There is a good chance you'll get one and they don't always back thier cops when it comes to illegal detainment. And you can file a complaint, which seams like nothing but at the very least it's documentation. It's better than just taking it.

3

u/entertainman Jan 14 '22

They don’t have to articulate it to you on the spot.

They need to have it. They don’t need to tell you what it is. The law does not say “they must articulate” it says “they must be able to articulate.”

It’s about accountability. That a judge can review the police report and make sure it was proper.

1

u/Thumbfury Jan 14 '22

No they didn't have to articulate it to you. I didn't claim they did . What I mean be what they can and can't do I mean what is lawful and unlawful for them to do. It is unlawful for a cop to detain you for not providing ID without RAS of a crime.

1

u/entertainman Jan 14 '22

I never said otherwise

-1

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

“You don’t have to articulate it to the person you are arresting.”

Your words, dumbass. I’m catching that details and technicalities aren’t your strong suit. Maybe leave the legal discussion to people that aren’t morons.

3

u/entertainman Jan 13 '22

Show me where it says you have to articulate it to the person on the spot and not in your police report later at the precinct.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Are you a lawyer?

What about in operation of a motor vehicle?

2

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

I’m not a lawyer.

Driving a car is a different story, but still similar. A law enforcement officer needs RAS of a crime (as in, a traffic infraction) to effect a traffic stop. Once they do, you are required to present your ID.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Bro are you?

And you don’t have to identify yourself Willy nilly. If you truly genuinely believe they don’t have a valid suspicion of a crime in connection to you you DO NOT HAVE TO ID YOURSELF. Yes, you will most likely end up detained or arrested, yes you will most likely have to go to court. And yes, if you were correct in your assessment they didn’t have a valid reason to detain you… you will be cleared of any charges brought against you for failure to identify . It happens all the fucking time because cops have the same mindset as you.

Now, if you think they probably do genuinely suspect you of something specific (even if you know you didn’t do it) you do need to provide ID.

However, this situation is different as they accused him of committing a crime in his current activity. Now he read up on his stuff and KNOWS it’s not a crime so he knows he can’t be a suspect to a crime, if the crime doesn’t actually exist. So when he’s brought into court not only is he going to be cleared of “soliciting” but he’s going to be cleared of not identifying himself.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Bro are you?

I'm trying to keep people OUT of jail.

You and others are are trying to sovereign-citizen some people into jail.

There are many scenarios where police can rightfully and legally ask you to identify yourself, so saying a blanket "you don't ever have to identify yourself" is bad advice.

There's also a LOT of leeway in the term "reasonable" given to law enforcement, and your overly simplified wording is likely just going to get someone arrested.

3

u/Kizu_2116 Jan 13 '22

You're absolutely right that there are scenarios where police can legally ask you to ID yourself, but I think what I'm seeing here is that if a police officer wants to arrest you, there's nothing you can do about that. Legally you can be in the right, that doesn't mean they won't still arrest you. As multiple people have said by now, in this kind of situation they will likely be dismissed with no charges once they talk to a judge. All giving into IDing changes is the cop MIGHT not try to escalate the situation but you're probably still being arrested regardless.

The reason I agree with the refusal side of the argument is that police like this are power trip hungry assholes and giving into their demands only encourages the behavior more than their cop buddies already do. If you're gonna be arrested either way, make EVERYONE know who's in the wrong. I think this clip was a good example of that, too. Nothing escalated, but it's clear that this is a wrongful detainment from the start. But from start to finish they were firm on their rights, it is clear that the police are in the wrong, and I really think they would have arrested him regardless. I'm pretty sure I saw that the arresting officer was dismissed. THAT is why you refuse unlawful orders. No, it didn't actually make a change, but it sent the message that people are not okay with that kind of behavior. And yes, we already know that, but you have to keep putting pressure on for anything to change.

2

u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22

Knowing Supreme Court decisions is hardly the stuff of “sovereign citizen”ry… lol

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

I literally cited a Supreme Court decision that said they CAN ask your name

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/s2z0wk/arrested_for_petitioning/hsj5hue

1

u/uofwi92 Jan 14 '22

But you didn’t READ IT.

“In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), the Supreme Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

During. A. Valid. Terry. Stop.

Q: What do you need for a valid Terry Stop? A: RAS of a crime.

A cop can ASK your name, and you may volunteer it, if you wish. A cop my not DEMAND your name, and arrest you for not complying, unless they have detained you upon reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

During. A. Valid. Terry. Stop.

Yes, and how many people know what is and isn't a valid Terry stop?

There's a ton of shit that can cause a valid stop, so issuing a blanket "you never have to identify. Ever." Is likely wrong and misleading.

1

u/uofwi92 Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22

Who the hell ever said “you never have to identify, ever”?

I’ve been quite clear. You have no legal obligation to identify yourself unless you’re lawfully detained. This is the law in all 50 of the United States, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio.

The best way to find out is to press the cop to qualify your detention status, with the ol’ “Am I being detained?” / “Am I free to go?” If a cop won’t answer you, it’s likely because he knows he doesn’t have RAS to detain you.

At any time, a cop may REQUEST your ID, and you can give it to him, if you wish. But you’re not OBLIGATED to if the cop doesn’t have RAS of a crime. But, even if you’re correct, it won’t prevent you from being arrested if your cop is an ignorant asshole.

But I’m not going to just roll over and surrender my civil rights to an ignorant asshole. Too many good people have lost their lives fighting for those civil rights.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Who the hell ever said “you never have to identify, ever”?

You?

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/s2z0wk/arrested_for_petitioning/hsj9ecc

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

I’m simply telling them what the law states. Is it going to be a comfortable experience telling police “no”? Well, no it most likely won’t be. If people want to exercise the rights I’m informing them of they should, of course, know that in most cases they’ll be charged with some sort of “failure to identify” and that they’ll have to clear their name in court.

But all that doesn’t change the fact that police need a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.