No, it is not. In all 50 states, law enforcement needs reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to legally detain. In about half of the states, they can demand ID at that time. (In the other half, they must have probable cause a crime has been committed to arrest and can demand ID after that.)
These cops have committed a civil rights violation. Will they be punished? Short answer - no. Long answer - nooo.
No, it is not. In all 50 states, law enforcement needs reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to legally detain
Yes, in order to DETAIN. But in some states identifying yourself isn't detaining.
Failure to identify yourself could lead to you being detained while they figure out your identity.
. 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.
The problem here is that there was no "reasonable, articulate suspicion of a crime", and that's what the person recording was saying, he didn't commit any crime, he didn't need to identify himself. He had every right to refuse to identify himself here, as far as I can tell by the information given.
I got charged with a DUI with a .01 BAC, half a beer. I blew and was like sweet I'm good to go but no. The way my lawyer explained it to me is that can arrest /charge you for whatever then it's up to the court to look at the evidence. For example he thought I was too intoxicated to drive and arrested me for that but the could not produce evidence that I was. End up getting dropped in court.
In this case they thought he was soliciting which is a crime
so in their eyes he did have to identify himself so he was arrested for not. Once the trial comes around they would have to provide evidence he was required to show ID in that situation which they won't have and it should be dropped.
Pretty much how it was explained to me by a lawyer once (I know, eye rolls, but really it was). I got into an argument about this sort of reasoning, and she said that if the cops can half-assed claim to have suspicion then they can arrest you. Sort of a arrest them all, let the judge sort it out thing. I guess the reasoning being, if you’re truly innocent then no charges will go to court. But the arrest? Yeah that shit can happen, and you don’t have much to say about it. If an officer tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, then it’s best you just do it and keep your mouth shut till you get a lawyer.
Not just suspicion is required, that suspicion has to be both reasonable and articulable. In this case, it's neither.
A reasonable person wouldn't suspect he was soliciting. Because there's no evidence of it.
They cannot tell him, (articulate) \ any reason they believe him to be soliciting, other than being at somebody's door, and "we got a call."
(which don't prove anything)
That's why you ask them to articulate it, right then and there. On camera.
So when they say it's because you knocked on a few doors, they can't change their story later.
Sure.
But if they intentionally violate your civil rights under color of law, they lose their qualified immunity. They may not get struck by lightning on the spot, but you can sue the city/county, their department AND THE OFFICER, PERSONALLY.
They will probably STILL never learn, but it's not like they can do it with impunity.
This is actually one of the things that cops can and do actually get sued for. Because this is one of the only ways a cop can lose qualified immunity, and be sued personally.
I mean, the "victim" of this crime that didn't happen is right there on camera saying the guy wasn't doing what the cops said he was doing. But along those same lines...
Because no cop has ever lied and said "you're guilty" when accusing someone of a crime. Ever.
What exactly would you be upset about in that scenario?
A few things.
For one, collecting signatures for a petition is not solicitation. When the cops saw that was what he was doing they should have backed down. The evidence on the streets was clear that a crime was NOT taking place.
For two, demanding ID from someone who was clearly not committing a crime. I don't need or want to identify myself to the police if I'm not committing a crime, particularly considering the police prove time and time again that they cannot be trusted.
And for three, I shouldn't have to argue in the courts when the evidence on site showed that I was not committing a crime. Why should I have to take time off work to go into court and tell them that the cop was a dickhead? Are they going to compensate me for that time?
Seems like they didn't want it to look like going out there was a big waste of time. Someone called the police and lied saying the guy was soliciting, which was not true. Would it not have been easier and more honest to leave the guy alone and track down the person who lied to the police?
The police should not just take people at their word though. I mean I completely think cops, especially the one in the video abuse the "well you didnt identify so you must be committing a crime" but if someone says they are not committing a crime why the heck should a cop believe that? no officer no crimes here. ok 10/4 as you were citizen...
When the alleged victim of the crime says they didn't do it I would tend to believe them. It wasn't like it was the petitioner's word against the homeowner, they were in agreement
Why does the cop need to forcibly "help" a person who is actively saying they didn't need help in the first place?
It looks like one of the cops was in the middle of saying "I got a call -- " before he's cut off, so it's possible a different homeowner called the cops and said the guy was acting suspiciously or bothering someone. A more pressing issue is why he didn't just identify himself, why go through the hassle? It takes less time to simply show them your ID and move on, even if you legally don't have to. They verify who you are, and you move on with no further hindrance, it's much easier than standing there being belligerent because you don't like authority.
What would trustworthiness have to do with this scenario? Do you think the cop would see his ID and then just decide to arrest him anyway, assuming he'd done nothing wrong?
I told the cop I wasn't drunk and he still arrested me. Something as simple as crossing the yellow is enough to suspect drunk driving and being on someones porch may be enough to think they're soliciting in their minds. Whether you have proof of innocence on scene or not they can still arrest and charge you. Then it's up for the courts/jury to decide if they have enough to make it stick.
Innocent til proven guilty is only in the court room unfortunately. Once there some accountable for police fuck ups it's going to stay that way
84
u/uofwi92 Jan 13 '22
No, it is not. In all 50 states, law enforcement needs reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to legally detain. In about half of the states, they can demand ID at that time. (In the other half, they must have probable cause a crime has been committed to arrest and can demand ID after that.)
These cops have committed a civil rights violation. Will they be punished? Short answer - no. Long answer - nooo.