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

[HumblePie]

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?

For whatever length of time it takes for police to assuage reasonable suspicion with what allows them to articulate that suspicion.

To use Merg's example of a robbery.

I come home and see someone rummaging around one of my vehicles. They spot me and take off running. I get a good look and call the cops. Cops get my info, description of the perp, and the direction he headed.

Cops head that direction as routine and happen upon someone matching the description I gave. They pull over and detain the guy. They ask him if he was burglarizing my vehicle, but he says no.

So the length of time it takes to contact me, get me over to the perp they have in custody, and verify if I think he is the guy or not would be reasonable. If I show up and say that isn't the guy, any length of time they hold him after that is too long as well.

For a traffic stop, it is the length of time required for the stop. Speeding? Length of time required to write a speeding ticket and run plates which is about 15 minutes or so. If the officer smells weed in the vehicle while writing a ticket? The length of time to either search the vehicle, or if the driver doesn't consent to a search, the length of time it takes a K9 unit to arrive and smell from the outside. If the dog smells nothing, then anything longer is too long to hold the person.

It also depends upon the crime type to a degree and the area. If the crime is minor, not a lot of time is required for investigating. If the crime is something like murder, the police can detain you for a long time as needed in some cases to investigate.

 

[The 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.

I think I see a bit of the confusion. You refer to mistaken arrests due to "reasonable mistake clause". Someone cannot be arrested due to reasonable suspicion. There has to be probable cause for the person to be arrested. Reasonable suspicion only allows an officer to detain someone while they perform their investigation.

In this case, the officer does not have probable cause. The officer does have reasonable suspicion. He knew the subject was wanted and the passenger looks like him (I assume those are their photos at the start of this thread. They look almost identical.). When the subject refuses to ID himself by providing a name, that adds to a reasonable belief that he had the right subject. The only thing to consider is if it was reasonable for the officer to think that the subject he had stopped was the wanted subject.

Let's alter the robbery example a bit... There's no real clothing description and the witness is unavailable to ID the subject. Can that person be detained for an investigation?

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

For whatever length of time it takes for police to assuage reasonable suspicion with what allows them to articulate that suspicion.



To use Merg's example of a robbery.



I come home and see someone rummaging around one of my vehicles. They spot me and take off running. I get a good look and call the cops. Cops get my info, description of the perp, and the direction he headed.



Cops head that direction as routine and happen upon someone matching the description I gave. They pull over and detain the guy. They ask him if he was burglarizing my vehicle, but he says no.



So the length of time it takes to contact me, get me over to the perp they have in custody, and verify if I think he is the guy or not would be reasonable. If I show up and say that isn't the guy, any length of time they hold him after that is too long as well.



For a traffic stop, it is the length of time required for the stop. Speeding? Length of time required to write a speeding ticket and run plates which is about 15 minutes or so. If the officer smells weed in the vehicle while writing a ticket? The length of time to either search the vehicle, or if the driver doesn't consent to a search, the length of time it takes a K9 unit to arrive and smell from the outside. If the dog smells nothing, then anything longer is too long to hold the person.



It also depends upon the crime type to a degree and the area. If the crime is minor, not a lot of time is required for investigating. If the crime is something like murder, the police can detain you for a long time as needed in some cases to investigate.

Pretty much on the money...

Couple of clarifications...

With regard to traffic stops, SCOTUS at one time said that 30 minutes was about appropriate. There was another case recently where an officer requested a K9 as the person stopped was a known drug user. The officer had no other evidence of drug use or possession on that stop. The K9 took about an hour to arrive. The courts stated that was fine and said that the time just have to be reasonable (gotta love the vagueness of court rulings).

If an officer smells weed, that is probable cause for a search of the vehicle. While officers will sometimes still request a K9 to come out, they don't need it at that point.

- Merg

 

[HumblePie]

I think I see a bit of the confusion. You refer to mistaken arrests due to "reasonable mistake clause". Someone cannot be arrested due to reasonable suspicion. There has to be probable cause for the person to be arrested. Reasonable suspicion only allows an officer to detain someone while they perform their investigation.

In this case, the officer does not have probable cause. The officer does have reasonable suspicion. He knew the subject was wanted and the passenger looks like him (I assume those are their photos at the start of this thread. They look almost identical.). When the subject refuses to ID himself by providing a name, that adds to a reasonable belief that he had the right subject. The only thing to consider is if it was reasonable for the officer to think that the subject he had stopped was the wanted subject.

Let's alter the robbery example a bit... There's no real clothing description and the witness is unavailable to ID the subject. Can that person be detained for an investigation?

- Merg

If there is no corroborating evidence the police cannot detain the person. Police cannot simply patrol a neighborhood, see someone that looks like someone off an arrest warrant, and detain them beyond asking them who they are without corroborating evidence. When such has happened in the past, and it has, the police tend to get sued for violating civil rights and they tend to loose those law suits.

Just because some random person sort of matches a description of a known criminal that police just happen upon doesn't give the police anything more than reasonable suspicion to ask who the person is. If the person refuses to ID themselves outside one of the 5 mandatory must orally ID yourself states, the police can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[Ns1]

Just because some random person sort of matches a description of a known criminal that police just happen upon doesn't give the police anything more than reasonable suspicion to ask who the person is. If the person refuses to ID themselves outside one of the 5 mandatory must orally ID yourself states, the police can't do a damn thing about it.

that sounds unreasonable.

 

[Dari]

For whatever length of time it takes for police to assuage reasonable suspicion with what allows them to articulate that suspicion.

To use Merg's example of a robbery.

I come home and see someone rummaging around one of my vehicles. They spot me and take off running. I get a good look and call the cops. Cops get my info, description of the perp, and the direction he headed.

Cops head that direction as routine and happen upon someone matching the description I gave. They pull over and detain the guy. They ask him if he was burglarizing my vehicle, but he says no.

So the length of time it takes to contact me, get me over to the perp they have in custody, and verify if I think he is the guy or not would be reasonable. If I show up and say that isn't the guy, any length of time they hold him after that is too long as well.

For a traffic stop, it is the length of time required for the stop. Speeding? Length of time required to write a speeding ticket and run plates which is about 15 minutes or so. If the officer smells weed in the vehicle while writing a ticket? The length of time to either search the vehicle, or if the driver doesn't consent to a search, the length of time it takes a K9 unit to arrive and smell from the outside. If the dog smells nothing, then anything longer is too long to hold the person.

It also depends upon the crime type to a degree and the area. If the crime is minor, not a lot of time is required for investigating. If the crime is something like murder, the police can detain you for a long time as needed in some cases to investigate.

And this detention can take place in a cell?

 

[The Merg]

And this detention can take place in a cell?

If you are moved from the location of the detention, it becomes an arrest. A short amount of movement is allowed, such as moving out of a roadway.

- Merg

 

[ch33zw1z]

Another day, another donut.

 

[emperus]

No. That is stupid. No one in this thread said that and you know it. The police have a right to ask for an ID in this case as the dude did in fact match the description of a felon they were looking for. He was already wound up before the police asked for his ID. Self inflicted IMO. I would say the same regardless of what race the suspect was.

So explain to me what you think the quote below means. Would you ever call a white person uppity for saying the same? I think at this point most reasonable people understand the "Coded" language.

Another uppity african American person trying to bring himself more problems. All he had to do was show ID and none of this would be an issue.

Obviously they were looking for a show so they can get youtube famous.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/traversing-the-inner-terrain/201102/the-victim-identity

 

[Dari]

If you are moved from the location of the detention, it becomes an arrest. A short amount of movement is allowed, such as moving out of a roadway.

- Merg

I see. Thanks. Good to know.

 

[The Merg]

I see. Thanks. Good to know.

That's why when the police do a show up, the victim is supposed to be bought to the suspect and the suspect is not supposed to be brought back to the scene.

- Merg

 

[Humpy]

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.

Who would ever say "yes" when asked if they are a specific wanted person? Wouldn't it be a better strategy for the police to not ask the specific question of "are you Mr. Newell?" or are they compelled to ask it?

From what I've seen (doesn't mean it's correct) is that, with reasonable suspicion, the police can detain you until, in order for them to eliminate you from suspicion (determine who you are not), they positively identify who you are. This is not true?

 

[The Merg]

Who would ever say "yes" when asked if they are a specific wanted person? Wouldn't it be a better strategy for the police to not ask the specific question of "are you Mr. Newell?" or are they compelled to ask it?

From what I've seen (doesn't mean it's correct) is that, with reasonable suspicion, the police can detain you until, in order for them to eliminate you from suspicion (determine who you are not), they positively identify who you are. This is not true?

To an extent or to prove that you are not the person for whom they are looking. Although, the detention can only be for a reasonable amount of time.

For example, in the case of a wanted person, that could be the 10 minutes that it takes for someone that personally knows the subject to arrive on scene, but holding them there for 3 hours to wait for the person would be pretty unreasonable.

With regard to asking the person if they are Mr. Newell, it's not really a question of strategy. Some people don't realize they are wanted and will answer with their real name. Some people know they aren't wanted and still will not answer with their real name. Of course, the opposite exists as well.

- Merg

 

[zanejohnson]

lol either way they had to sit in jail, wait to be arraigned, and bond out, possibly overnight....

and who took the kid?


if anyone thinks this is an example of "protect and serve," you might as well join up with the jackboots.

shits ridiculous, those people were just going about there normal daily lives until that cop decided he needed to bust a nut because of the huge power boner he was getting during the stop.

 

[Humpy]

To an extent or to prove that you are not the person for whom they are looking. Although, the detention can only be for a reasonable amount of time.

For example, in the case of a wanted person, that could be the 10 minutes that it takes for someone that personally knows the subject to arrive on scene, but holding them there for 3 hours to wait for the person would be pretty unreasonable.

With regard to asking the person if they are Mr. Newell, it's not really a question of strategy. Some people don't realize they are wanted and will answer with their real name. Some people know they aren't wanted and still will not answer with their real name. Of course, the opposite exists as well.

- Merg

Just to be clear, assume there is an intelligent, honest cop who pulls someone over because his in-car display indicates that there is a problem with the driver's license. He makes the stop but finds his information was incorrect. OK that was easy, there is no problem.

He then realizes the passenger looks exactly like the person in a picture of a dangerous, wanted felon.

According to what I've read in this thread, our good cops only course of action (in most states) is to ask the passenger if he is "Mr. Newell". If the answer is yes then an arrest is made. If the answer is no then there is no choice but to let the guy who looks just like the dangerous felon go freely on his way.

 

[zanejohnson]

To an extent or to prove that you are not the person for whom they are looking. Although, the detention can only be for a reasonable amount of time.

For example, in the case of a wanted person, that could be the 10 minutes that it takes for someone that personally knows the subject to arrive on scene, but holding them there for 3 hours to wait for the person would be pretty unreasonable.

With regard to asking the person if they are Mr. Newell, it's not really a question of strategy. Some people don't realize they are wanted and will answer with their real name. Some people know they aren't wanted and still will not answer with their real name. Of course, the opposite exists as well.

- Merg

you actually think they are going to try to contact someone who knows the person to come to the scene and verify who the person was?

no.

it's a holding cell, for 72 hours.

at the very least an overnight stay at the station for fingerprinting/id/classification

 

[zanejohnson]

Just to be clear, assume there is an intelligent, honest cop who pulls someone over because his in-car display indicates that there is a problem with the driver's license. He makes the stop but finds his information was incorrect. OK that was easy, there is no problem.

He then realizes the passenger looks exactly like the person in a picture of a dangerous, wanted felon.

According to what I've read in this thread, our good cops only course of action (in most states) is to ask the passenger if he is "Mr. Newell". If the answer is yes then an arrest is made. If the answer is no then there is no choice but to let the guy who looks just like the dangerous felon go freely on his way.

well first off, if his computer shows there is a problem with the license, your getting arrested right then until it gets sorted out, while your in a holding cell, not on the side of the road...not any documentation you have on you is going to change that.

 

[Humpy]

well first off, if his computer shows there is a problem with the license, your getting arrested right then until it gets sorted out, while your in a holding cell, not on the side of the road...not any documentation you have on you is going to change that.

I'm sure that is true in some instances and I often share your cynicism. In my case, when pulled over for going through a yellow/red light, and not having my wallet on me, I gave my name and SSN and he looked me up in his computer to verify I had a valid license. He let me go with a warning that sometimes their in-car network is down and they can't easily look stuff up.

 

[zanejohnson]

I'm sure that is true in some instances and I often share your cynicism. In my case, when pulled over for going through a yellow/red light, and not having my wallet on me, I gave my name and SSN and he looked me up in his computer to verify I had a valid license. He let me go with a warning that sometimes their in-car network is down and they can't easily look stuff up.

i mean if his computer is showing your license is invalid (which has actually happened to me before, because for some reason the in car computer network hadn't updated that i had renewed my license), arrested, bonded out in the morning...200 dollars later car out of impound... later proved my license was valid in court (some 6+ months later) and it was dropped......still had to bail out, still had to miss a day of work, still had to sit in the holding cell for 12+ hours..

i'm not disagreeing with you or anything, i'm just saying it's getting so far out of hand, it's ruining peoples lives... on a daily basis.

imagine a minimum wage worker, with a kid... kid would go to cps, min wage worker would have a hard time explaining the arrest to his employer, and why work was missed...and in that type of work, that can easily mean terminated in a right to work state...and that's assuming the min wage worker has a few hundred bucks in his wallet to even make bail. and another couple hundred bucks for the impound fees.... that's already 400 bucks, that you can never get back, for a mistake the POLICE made.

 

[zanejohnson]

in dfw now, also, if your car gets impounded, and you dont have the money to get it out in two weeks (with about 150 dollars a day accruing to the cost of the impound fee daily) it gets auctioned off...

 

[sourn]

He should have listened to the cops.

A lesson to everyone here. Listen to the police.

Always.

if you don't want an altercation with a cop all you need to do is listen.

Not hard is it?

People would rather bitch and moan instead.

Yes, cops can and do overstep, but when all their asking for is your ID stfu and give them your ID and don't be a little bitch about it.

 

[zanejohnson]

People would rather bitch and moan instead.

Yes, cops can and do overstep, but when all their asking for is your ID stfu and give them your ID and don't be a little bitch about it.

what if you dont have anything to lose? wouldn't it kinda sorta, be the right thing to do to sacrifice your freedom for a short while to expose corruption? or should we just look the other way, let it fester?

 

[Ns1]

People would rather bitch and moan instead.

Yes, cops can and do overstep, but when all their asking for is your ID stfu and give them your ID and don't be a little bitch about it.

+infinity

you can "fight the man" or just give your ID card and move on with life.

 

[Zorkorist]

This new era of accountability and responsibility being placed on Government can only help. We do, have new weapons including video cameras and phones, to document abuse.

Everyone of us has a duty, to NOT let Government run all over us. This is what has KILLED other cultures. American Government is considered an EXPERIMENT in Government.

Fight the man.

-John

 

[cubby1223]

My longest encounter with an officer was in Wisconsin when pulled over for speeding, the officer was questioning the registration, that the plates were coming up as registered to a different vehicle. Honestly, I just let the officer do what he wanted to do, a half hour later I was back driving my way home.

Next day I checked with the Illinois DMV and learned that plate numbers are duplicated between vehicle classes, the WI officer looked up the plate as if it was a class D vehicle when it was actually a class B vehicle.

I guess looking back, the proper procedure when the officer questioned me about the registration was not to allow him to check things out, rather to look him straight in the eyes and say "Fuck you, you fucking pig!" That totally would have been in my best interest!