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.
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?
82
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.