Guy Records Cops Allegedly Lying & Illegally Searching His Car Threatening To Take...

[HumblePie]

Correct. The Supreme Court has stated that a detention can be for as long as that is reasonable. Previoulsy, the court has stated that for a traffic stop that is about 30 minutes, but they have recently removed that time restriction. Reasonable suspicion allows police to detain someone for a reasonable amouint of time. In this case, it does not seem like the time it would take to confirm his identity (or confirm that he wasn't the wanted subject) does not seem unreasonable.

I think we differ on when reasonable suspicion is over. I don't think the person just saying that they are not the person is enough, especially, if they truly look like the wanted person. In a way, you can even articulate that by refusing the ID yourself that you are adding to the reasonable suspicion. Even if he had provided a name, any name, that might have lessened reasonable suspicion to an extent.

- Merg

To the bolded, the reasonable suspicion is over when the individual confirms orally that they are not who they are. There is zero legal requirement to obtain and carry state provided identification. Unless the cop has reasonable suspicion the individual is lying when orally giving their identification, the detention is OVER. That is the law.

 

[The Merg]

To the bolded, the reasonable suspicion is over when the individual confirms orally that they are not who they are. There is zero legal requirement to obtain and carry state provided identification. Unless the cop has reasonable suspicion the individual is lying when orally giving their identification, the detention is OVER. That is the law.

Right. The fact that the cop thinks he is the wanted person and he looks just like him is enough to believe that the subject is lying, thus there is still reasonable suspicion.

- Merg

 

[OutHouse]

To the bolded, the reasonable suspicion is over when the individual confirms orally that they are not who they are.

umm no its not.

"honest officer, im not the guy who looks just like the guy you are looking for and i'm not giving you any ID."

do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Yeah, bad wording on my part. He could challenge the reason for the detention and the prosecution would have to show that they had reasonable suspicion or probably cause for the stop.

Once again, the Supreme Court was not ruling on the validity of the stop. They were only ruling on whether the passenger could challenge the validity of the stop. The lower courts are the one that would rule whether the stop was valid or not.

- Merg

Mr. nincompoop the cops need to show a valid reason to run the car's license. Besides Black While Driving. It is a first cause kind of thing. Do they run every plate they see?

 

[The Merg]

Mr. nincompoop the cops need to show a valid reason to run the car's license. Besides Black While Driving. It is a first cause kind of thing. Do they run every plate they see?

The police can run any tag they see. As long as they are randomly running tags and are not targeting a specific group of people (like all young, blonde females), the courts have said it is not an issue.

With regards to this case, you did watch the video and saw who was driving, right?

- Merg

 

[OutHouse]

Mr. nincompoop the cops need to show a valid reason to run the car's license. Besides Black While Driving. It is a first cause kind of thing. Do they run every plate they see?

cops can run any plate they want any time they want. automatic license plate scanners are being used more and more.

 

[HumblePie]

Right. The fact that the cop thinks he is the wanted person and he looks just like him is enough to believe that the subject is lying, thus there is still reasonable suspicion.

- Merg

No, it is not. Not at all.

There is no legal requirement to obtain a state ID. No legal requirement to prove identity except in the case of probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is not enough. The cops can't use the argument, you look like a bad guy so I can now treat you like one, as justification for their actions. There has to be a clear and articulate-able reason for a cop to continue with an investigation.

Reasonable suspicion does not allow for indefinite detention. Not at all. Cops can detain someone under reasonable suspicion, especially in the case of mistaken identity, and attempt to clear up your identity, but they can't compel you to present ID unless there is more than reasonable suspicion. They can ask you who you are, and if you state who you are, that is the legal requirement to remove reasonable suspicion. Again, the cops HAVE to have a valid reason to believe you are lying with oral identification to continue to detain you. The cops had nothing in this case. Once the man made oral identification, the cops no longer have any reason to hold the couple. The legal probable cause reason for the original stop is over due to proof provided by the driver. The extra detention on the passenger based upon reasonable suspicion by mistaken identity is now over. The cops have NOTHING left to hold them on legally in any state. Continuing to do so is violating civil rights and breaking the law.

This all goes back to this supreme court case.

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

Stop and ID laws only can only compel ORAL ID of your name except in the case where your name could actually incriminate yourself. Although that last part would be very hard to prove.

The cop had reasonable suspicion for a stop and ID on the passenger. The passenger complied with oral ID. The cop has nothing else under reasonable suspicion according to the Hiibel ruling. The cop must let them go.

 

[HumblePie]

umm no its not.

"honest officer, im not the guy who looks just like the guy you are looking for and i'm not giving you any ID."

do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

That is EXACTLY how the supreme court has ruled in many such Stop and ID law cases. Oral ID is all the cops can compel based off old Terry and vagrancy laws. They have to have further evidence to compel further or detain longer. Otherwise they are violating civil rights.

 

[HumblePie]

cops can run any plate they want any time they want. automatic license plate scanners are being used more and more.

Yes and no. Cops can't run your license plate while driving due to them having to follow the laws in regards to using electronic devices while in a moving vehicle in most places. However, the moment they stop because you stop, your license is fair game to be read.

 

[dmcowen674]

The situation is as follows. The police believe they have a right to stop the vehicle in this case. That thought is valid. The cop pulls over the vehicle and asks for proof that the person driving the vehicle is legal to do so. Proof is provided. The stop is OVER once that proof is provided. Unless the people in the vehicle are demonstrating more criminal activity at that very moment then the police have no valid reason to continue to detain the occupants of the vehicle.

The cops may ask the person legally who they are, per a Terry stop, but the person has no legal need to identify them self to the officer either. Cop can ask, are you so and so? (in this case so and so being a criminal with warrants). All that is required by the person is to state Yes or No to the question. Stating No removes all probable cause at that point. The police have no further legal means by which to detain the person in most states. There are a few states that have laws that allow cops to legally compel people to provide further identification beyond their word. The story from the OP was not from such a state.

Disgusting to see the people in here that believe the cop was right in his actions but I am not surprised sadly.

 

[The Merg]

No, it is not. Not at all.

There is no legal requirement to obtain a state ID. No legal requirement to prove identity except in the case of probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is not enough. The cops can't use the argument, you look like a bad guy so I can now treat you like one, as justification for their actions. There has to be a clear and articulate-able reason for a cop to continue with an investigation.

Reasonable suspicion does not allow for indefinite detention. Not at all. Cops can detain someone under reasonable suspicion, especially in the case of mistaken identity, and attempt to clear up your identity, but they can't compel you to present ID unless there is more than reasonable suspicion. They can ask you who you are, and if you state who you are, that is the legal requirement to remove reasonable suspicion. Again, the cops HAVE to have a valid reason to believe you are lying with oral identification to continue to detain you. The cops had nothing in this case. Once the man made oral identification, the cops no longer have any reason to hold the couple. The legal probable cause reason for the original stop is over due to proof provided by the driver. The extra detention on the passenger based upon reasonable suspicion by mistaken identity is now over. The cops have NOTHING left to hold them on legally in any state. Continuing to do so is violating civil rights and breaking the law.

This all goes back to this supreme court case.

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

Stop and ID laws only can only compel ORAL ID of your name except in the case where your name could actually incriminate yourself. Although that last part would be very hard to prove.

The cop had reasonable suspicion for a stop and ID on the passenger. The passenger complied with oral ID. The cop has nothing else under reasonable suspicion according to the Hiibel ruling. The cop must let them go.

But in this case the subject did not orally ID himself. He refused to provide any information and just said, that's not me. The fact that he looks just like wanted subject and then fails to ID himself IS reasonable suspicion. And as I stated, I agreed that the detention cannot be indefinite. The courts have ruled that it can be whatever is deemed reasonable.

As for the ruling that you posted, it actually supports the argument that the passenger was in the wrong. If Ohio has a statute that says you must ID yourself if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, then he needed to ID himself (with an ID or orally). The officer here had reasonable suspicion that the passenger was a wanted subject. The passenger refused to provide his info and only stated that it was not him.

Now, as far as I can tell, Ohio does not have an ID law, however, that does not mean that the reasonable suspicion the officer has is now gone since the passenger refused to ID himself (even orally).

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Yes and no. Cops can't run your license plate while driving due to them having to follow the laws in regards to using electronic devices while in a moving vehicle in most places. However, the moment they stop because you stop, your license is fair game to be read.

Still not always true. There is generally an exemption for law enforcement for using electronic devices as long as it is in the course of their duties. Otherwise, they couldn't even have their laptop in view as most places state that a computer or video screen cannot be in view of the driver.

- Merg

 

[HumblePie]

But in this case the subject did not orally ID himself. He refused to provide any information and just said, that's not me. The fact that he looks just like wanted subject and then fails to ID himself IS reasonable suspicion. And as I stated, I agreed that the detention cannot be indefinite. The courts have ruled that it can be whatever is deemed reasonable.

As for the ruling that you posted, it actually supports the argument that the passenger was in the wrong. If Ohio has a statute that says you must ID yourself if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, then he needed to ID himself (with an ID or orally). The officer here had reasonable suspicion that the passenger was a wanted subject. The passenger refused to provide his info and only stated that it was not him.

Now, as far as I can tell, Ohio does not have an ID law, however, that does not mean that the reasonable suspicion the officer has is now gone since the passenger refused to ID himself (even orally).

- Merg

To the bold, that is oral identification enough to dispel mistaken ID under stop and ID law.

Cops can ask the person, under reasonable suspicion, if he was a specific person that also happens to have warrants out for their arrest. The person states no, they are not that person. With that oral notification, the cop MUST have reasonable suspicion the person is lying, and I'm talking the legal bar for reasonable suspicion, to continue with the detention and investigation.

You are completely incorrect here as has been shown in multiple SCOTUS rulings. Cops have a legal right to ID you under reasonable suspicion. Oral confirmation is ALL that is required to satisfy that reasonable suspicion. Open and shut case. The cops fucked up here and had zero ground to continue to detain the people past his oral admission he was not the person they thought he was. Looking like someone else is NOT grounds for continued reasonable suspicion either. The moment the person stated, I am not Mr. Newell" was all that is required legally in Ohio for resolving the reasonable suspicion he was and the ID asked for. Ohio does not have a compelled name giving ID law, as such the cops cannot compel him fr further ID once he has stated he was not the man they were looking for and was not the person they think he is.

 

[HumblePie]

Still not always true. There is generally an exemption for law enforcement for using electronic devices as long as it is in the course of their duties. Otherwise, they couldn't even have their laptop in view as most places state that a computer or video screen cannot be in view of the driver.

- Merg

That all depends on the area, which is why I said yes and no. Many places, like around here, cops can NOT have their laptops open while driving. To do so is violating the law themselves. Doesn't stop them, but they do it all the time. I know because my buddy wrote the damn software notification for their laptops to tell the cops to turn off the laptop while in transit. It also tracks when cops are running plates while moving for reviews by their supervisors. Again, it is against the law in many places, but where it is against the law is still rarely enforced amongst the cops themselves. Again who watches the watchers?

 

[The Merg]

To the bold, that is oral identification enough to dispel mistaken ID under stop and ID law.



Cops can ask the person, under reasonable suspicion, if he was a specific person that also happens to have warrants out for their arrest. The person states no, they are not that person. With that oral notification, the cop MUST have reasonable suspicion the person is lying, and I'm talking the legal bar for reasonable suspicion, to continue with the detention and investigation.



You are completely incorrect here as has been shown in multiple SCOTUS rulings. Cops have a legal right to ID you under reasonable suspicion. Oral confirmation is ALL that is required to satisfy that reasonable suspicion. Open and shut case. The cops fucked up here and had zero ground to continue to detain the people past his oral admission he was not the person they thought he was. Looking like someone else is NOT grounds for continued reasonable suspicion either.

The case you provided was that the subject had to provide his name. I have not seen any posts here where SCOTUS says that just a verbal denial that you are not a person satisfies the requirement.

And looking like someone who has just committed a crime or is wanted is definitely grounds for detaining someone under reasonable suspicion.

For example, someone is robbed and the lookout is for a white male, 6', with brown hair and a mustache wearing blue jeans with the first name of Joe. If a cop sees someone matching that description, they can stop them. So, if the cop asks is your name Joe and the guy says it isn't, the cop has to let him go? Absolutely not.

- Merg

 

[HumblePie]

The case you provided was that the subject had to provide his name. I have not seen any posts here where SCOTUS says that just a verbal denial that you are not a person satisfies the requirement.

And looking like someone who has just committed a crime or is wanted is definitely grounds for detaining someone under reasonable suspicion.

For example, someone is robbed and the lookout is for a white male, 6', with brown hair and a mustache wearing blue jeans with the first name of Joe. If a cop sees someone matching that description, they can stop them. So, if the cop asks is your name Joe and the guy says it isn't, the cop has to let him go? Absolutely not.

- Merg

No, SCOTUS stated that for stop and ID laws in states that have them, orally giving their name is enough to satisfy the law. That is the same as saying that orally giving the name is the bare minimum to satisfy the law either. It was also stated in the majority that giving the name can not be compelled if the giving of the name would incur incrimination and thus a violation of the fifth. Read that further.

So the moment the cop tries to call him Mr Newell and the person states that they are NOT Mr Newell, that is what satisfies the law requirement in Ohio, which isn't even a stop and ID state, for removing the reasonable suspicion the cop has in regards to his identity. Unless the cop has proof the guy is lying about his claim that he is not Mr Newell, the cop can not detain him further. Your failure to understand that basic principle is fucking mind boggling.

 

[The Merg]

That all depends on the area, which is why I said yes and no. Many places, like around here, cops can NOT have their laptops open while driving. To do so is violating the law themselves. Doesn't stop them, but they do it all the time. I know because my buddy wrote the damn software notification for their laptops to tell the cops to turn off the laptop while in transit. It also tracks when cops are running plates while moving for reviews by their supervisors. Again, it is against the law in many places, but where it is against the law is still rarely enforced amongst the cops themselves. Again who watches the watchers?

Around here cops can use them with "due regard to safety". Basically, if the cop wrecks and was using it at the time, the cop is at fault. It's usually pretty easy for supervisors to determine that.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

No, SCOTUS stated that for stop and ID laws in states that have them, orally giving their name is enough to satisfy the law. That is the same as saying that orally giving the name is the bare minimum to satisfy the law either. It was also stated in the majority that giving the name can not be compelled if the giving of the name would incur incrimination and thus a violation of the fifth. Read that further.



So the moment the cop tries to call him Mr Newell and the person states that they are NOT Mr Newell, that is what satisfies the law requirement in Ohio, which isn't even a stop and ID state, for removing the reasonable suspicion the cop has in regards to his identity. Unless the cop has proof the guy is lying about his claim that he is not Mr Newell, the cop can not detain him further. Your failure to understand that basic principle is fucking mind boggling.

I do understand your point. We just disagree. What about answering the example I gave just above about the robbery.

With regards to self-incrimination, SCOTUS stated that the subject needed to tell the officer that it might incriminate himself.

I see your argument reference that since the officer refers to him as Newell and he says that it is not him that should satisfy the ID requirement. I would disagree with the same argument as the robbery example.

- Merg

 

[ivwshane]

Unless you guys start citing a specific law, I think you will both have to agree to disagree.

 

[HumblePie]

I do understand your point. We just disagree. What about answering the example I gave just above about the robbery.

With regards to self-incrimination, SCOTUS stated that the subject needed to tell the officer that it might incriminate himself.

I see your argument reference that since the officer refers to him as Newell and he says that it is not him that should satisfy the ID requirement. I would disagree with the same argument as the robbery example.

- Merg

Without reasonable suspicion of another crime, the cops have no valid further reason to investigate. The person in the video provides no such evidence the allow the cops to hold reasonable suspicion and continue an investigation. The stop was legal for checking for a valid drivers license due to out of state tags. The proof against that was provided by the driver which satisfies the probable cause part of the stop. Under normal circumstances, the car can no longer be detained. However, the cop believes one of the passengers is a wanted criminal. Asks if the person is Mr Newel, the wanted criminal. The person responds they are not. That oral confirmation is enough to satisfy the reasonable suspicion for his identity. The police in Ohio have no further legal justification for that stop or their actions any further in the scenario as shown in the video. This has been covered in previous rulings and case law.

The cops have to have a reasonable suspicion the person in the video is lying with his claim to not being Mr Newel to continue. Again that is a legal bar that has to be met. Which means either catching him in a lie, or knowing him to be a liar. Mr Newel might be a liar, but as this is a case of mistaken ID, the person in question cannot be deemed to be a liar. Which is true, because he was not Mr Newel. The cops cannot assume he is once he has stated he was not unless there is a compelling reason for it. Which means another person stating something different, an item in plain sight with Mr Newel name on it, or something else like that.

As for a robbery example, I don't see anything posted in this thread about a robbery.

 

[The Merg]

Without reasonable suspicion of another crime, the cops have no valid further reason to investigate. The person in the video provides no such evidence the allow the cops to hold reasonable suspicion and continue an investigation. The stop was legal for checking for a valid drivers license due to out of state tags. The proof against that was provided by the driver which satisfies the probable cause part of the stop. Under normal circumstances, the car can no longer be detained. However, the cop believes one of the passengers is a wanted criminal. Asks if the person is Mr Newel, the wanted criminal. The person responds they are not. That oral confirmation is enough to satisfy the reasonable suspicion for his identity. The police in Ohio have no further legal justification for that stop or their actions any further in the scenario as shown in the video. This has been covered in previous rulings and case law.



The cops have to have a reasonable suspicion the person in the video is lying with his claim to not being Mr Newel to continue. Again that is a legal bar that has to be met. Which means either catching him in a lie, or knowing him to be a liar. Mr Newel might be a liar, but as this is a case of mistaken ID, the person in question cannot be deemed to be a liar. Which is true, because he was not Mr Newel. The cops cannot assume he is once he has stated he was not unless there is a compelling reason for it. Which means another person stating something different, an item in plain sight with Mr Newel name on it, or something else like that.



As for a robbery example, I don't see anything posted in this thread about a robbery.

Yes, the legal bar is that the police have to show that they reasonably believe that the passenger is lying. The fact that he looks just like the wanted subject makes it reasonable to believe that he is lying.

With regard to the robbery example:

For example, someone is robbed and the lookout is for a white male, 6', with brown hair and a mustache wearing blue jeans with the first name of Joe. If a cop sees someone matching that description, they can stop them. So, if the cop asks is your name Joe and the guy says it isn't, the cop has to let him go? Absolutely not.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Unless you guys start citing a specific law, I think you will both have to agree to disagree.

That's no fun.

How else am I supposed to get my post count up?

- Merg

 

[HumblePie]

Yes, the legal bar is that the police have to show that they reasonably believe that the passenger is lying. The fact that he looks just like the wanted subject makes it reasonable to believe that he is lying.

With regard to the robbery example:

For example, someone is robbed and the lookout is for a white male, 6', with brown hair and a mustache wearing blue jeans with the first name of Joe. If a cop sees someone matching that description, they can stop them. So, if the cop asks is your name Joe and the guy says it isn't, the cop has to let him go? Absolutely not.

- Merg

There is the case for mistaken id for arrests under the reasonable mistake clause. I know sounds silly. But basically there has to be quite a bit of similarities between parties before a legal arrest over mistaken id can be made more than similarities of looks.

In your case, such as a robbery, the person caught by police has the following:

Similar looks
In the vicinity of expectation
A way to have a eye witness confirm or deny in a reasonable timeframe

It takes more than just looks to hold a person or even arrest them legally even in the case of a mistaken ID.

In the OP, the person may have looked like some other arrested person, but unless the cops have more that they can reasonably point to, that is not enough. The person has to have things like similar tats, in company of known associates, in locality of known areas the person hangs out, or some other corroborating evidence.

Ad no, just looks is not enough t justify reasonable suspicion once the suspect IDs themself. In this case, the suspect ID was that he was not Mr Newel. He was not traveling in a car similar to Mr Newel. The woman with him was not someone known to Mr Newel. He had no similar tats. He was not in an area known to be frequented by Mr Newel based upon what the officer said, or really didn't say. As well as what was told in the articles.

So your robbery example is one of a person being legally detained or arrested through mistaken identity by way of reasonable corroborating evidence. That is not the case here.

 

[Ns1]

just show your damn ID and move on with life. not faulting the cop here.

 

[Dari]

This seems to be a good place to ask this question: How long can police detain someone? Hours? Days? Months? And if the answer is a nebulous "reasonable amount of time", are there any numbers associated with "reasonable"? Is there a maximum?