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

[Humpy]

+infinity

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

"Show me your ID!" is just euphemism for "Give me your money!" or "Take out your penis!". It seems to have reached a point where the pendulum has swung too far and it is reasonable to push back a little.

 

[Ns1]

"Show me your ID!" is just euphemism for "Give me your money!" or "Take out your penis!". It seems to have reached a point where the pendulum has swung too far and it is reasonable to push back a little.

I guess, or if I know I'm not being hunted I can just give the nice officer my ID and move on with my life.


Of course, if I'm a wanted man I'll deny deny deny and the cops can't do anything cuz they don't got probable cause amirite?

 

[Zorkorist]

They just detained you.

And this is what they do, they detain people.

How do you think you are doing a good thing by being cooperative?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

They might detain a million people...

"Papers, please."

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

It's sick and wrong, and our Government used to not allow that.

It's changed.

-John

 

[Ns1]

They just detained you.

And this is what they do, they detain people.

How do you think you are doing a good thing by being cooperative?

-John

because I'm not a wanted criminal and I respect police rights to stop and question people that look like wanted criminals?

not sure if srs.

 

[Humpy]

I guess, or if I know I'm not being hunted I can just give the nice officer my ID and move on with my life.

If everyone is being pleasant with each other I would tend to take the same approach.

If I'm at the park for a walk with my wife during lunchtime and we see a sketchy guy kick his dog and we go ask the cop on his bicycle to maybe keep an eye on the douche with the dog, but the cop instead begins to question why we are at the park, and what our relationship is, then I may feel inclined to resist the cop's unreasonable line of questioning.

I feel like I have a good sense of when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

 

[Zorkorist]

Cops, as we know, are an adversarial relationship.

Government, is an adversarial relationship.

Once Government wields uncontested power, it's all over.

-John

 

[The 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

I was referring to an officer, not a friend or relative.

And around here, there is no arrest just for fingerprinting/ID/classification and no hold for 72 hours. If the officer only has reasonable suspicion, it's going no further than a detention.

- Merg

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Why not? The Supreme court has ruled that passengers do not have to provide ID even when asked....... How did this guy know the cop was telling the truth.....just because you look like somebody...that's a poor excuse.....especially when you are not that person...

Your tax dollars hard at work....

Plus Cops are legally allowed to lie to you........yet you cannot lie to cops..interesting...huh..

This is a huge point. If cops are legally allowed to lie to you, how are you supposed to determine if their demand to see your license truly is a lawful order? What if they completely made up the story that he looks just like a felon?

I eagerly await responses from people who despise the idea that citizens should have rights.

 

[her209]

The Supreme Court case was solely to determine whether the passenger can argue the validity of the stop. In the original case, the Appeals Court ruled that the passenger does have standing to argue the validity. Since the lower court had ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion to hold the vehicle after the tags were determined to be valid, the Appeals' Court decision meant that the passenger could challenge his detention. With no reasonable suspicion to continue to hold the vehicle, his detention was improper and any evidence obtained was not admissable.

In that case from what I can find, the court stated that the officer did not have a reason to stop the vehicle in the first place as the tags were not actually expired. Thus, there was no reason that the passenger should have been detained to begin with (as part of a traffic stop).

In this case, the officer did have a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The driver's license was listed as being expired. As the officer confirmed whether she was licensed or not (as she apparently now had an out of state license), the officer also confirmed that the subject the passenger was looking like was still wanted. At that point, the officer can turn the stop into a detention of the passenger for investigatory purposes.

Nope, once the officer confirmed that the driver's license was valid, he no longer has a lawful right to detain the vehicle and the occupants and they are free to leave. By refusing to let the vehicle leave by the actions of the officers, they have committed a de facto arrest of the occupants.

When told to exit the vehicle, the passenger refused. The Supreme Court stated that if you are told to exit the vehicle that you have to. By refusing, he is now committing obstruction. At that point it does not matter if he is providing ID or not, he can be placed under arrest.

Obstruction not found. The officer was able to conduct an investigation of the validity of the driver's license with no obstruction from the driver or passenger. Secondly, the SC has ruled that the officer can order occupants out of the vehicle for the purpose of controlling the occupants and the safety of the officer. Clearly, this was not the reason the officer was asking the passenger to step outside to investigate him, therefore, the order to exit the vehicle was unlawful and the removal of the driver and passenger from the vehicle was a violation of their 4th Amendment right.

With regard to ID'ing himself, you are correct in that you don't need to provide a physical ID, but the officer can continue to detain you until he can prove that you are who you say you are or also that you are not the person that is the target of the detention. This can be as simple as the subject providing a name and date of birth and the officer confirms that information is valid or even that they can pull up a DMV photo and see that it is the same subject.

And if asked if you are a wanted person and responding "No" does not remove probable cause. All an officer needs to detain you is Reasonable Suspicion. In this case, is it reasonable to believe that the person in passenger seat was the wanted subject? If so, the officer can detain the passenger while they investigate that. Just responding that I am not that person does not mean that reasonable suspicion is gone.

- Merg

Once the license was determined valid, the investigatory stop is consider complete and the occupants are no longer detained. Stockett has no legal obligation to answer the officer's request for ID.

 

[The Merg]

Nope, once the officer confirmed that the driver's license was valid, he no longer has a lawful right to detain the vehicle and the occupants and they are free to leave. By refusing to let the vehicle leave by the actions of the officers, they have committed a de facto arrest of the occupants.

That's where we differ. Due to the officer recognizing the passenger as a person that he thought was wanted subject, he had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation and hold the vehicle there. I agree, that if he had no reasonable suspicion, then the detention would be unlawful.

Obstruction not found. The officer was able to conduct an investigation of the validity of the driver's license with no obstruction from the driver or passenger. Secondly, the SC has ruled that the officer can order occupants out of the vehicle for the purpose of controlling the occupants and the safety of the officer. Clearly, this was not the reason the officer was asking the passenger to step outside to investigate him, therefore, the order to exit the vehicle was unlawful and the removal of the driver and passenger from the vehicle was a violation of their 4th Amendment right.

The obstruction occurred when the officer told the passenger to exit the vehicle and he refused. SCOTUS has ruled that the order to exit the vehicle can be for any reason.

PA v. Mimms - The driver can be ordered out for any reason.

MD v. Wilson - This was expanded to passengers in a vehicle.

Once the license was determined valid, the investigatory stop is consider complete and the occupants are no longer detained. Stockett has no legal obligation to answer the officer's request for ID.

Normally, that would be true. However, since the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that a wanted subject was still in the vehicle, the stop can continue for investigatory purposes. As for Stockett not having to answer the officer's questions, I don't have an issue wth that. However, by not providing his information, the officer can continue the detention for a reasonable amount of time to determine whether or not the subject he has there is in fact the wanted subject or not.

I think we are all pretty close on this topic except where we think what amounts to reasonable suspicion.

The big question is if a subject looks like a wanted subject, is that enough to detain them under reasonable suspicion?

- Merg

 

[z1ggy]

The passenger should just have given the cop his ID. It's one of those cases where you need to swallow your pride, and just smile and give the guy what he wants. Technically, if the police really thought he was the felon they were looking for, they had probable cause to see passenger's ID.

Once ID was established and he was cleared of suspicion, then he should no longer be detained.

 

[emperus]

The passenger should just have given the cop his ID. It's one of those cases where you need to swallow your pride, and just smile and give the guy what he wants. Technically, if the police really thought he was the felon they were looking for, they had probable cause to see passenger's ID.

Once ID was established and he was cleared of suspicion, then he should no longer be detained.

I assume a lot of these type of responses are from people that don't have this happen to them on a regular basis. After the 5th time getting pulled over or questioned for "looking like someone" who is wanted, I guess you'd be more inclined to be more vocal about your rights.

 

[Matt1970]

They just detained you.

And this is what they do, they detain people.

How do you think you are doing a good thing by being cooperative?

-John

Because it gets you on your way quicker and the cops back to their job. Or you can sit there and bicker back and forth with the cops until they decide to let you go.

 

[z1ggy]

I assume a lot of these type of responses are from people that don't have this happen to them on a regular basis. After the 5th time getting pulled over or questioned for "looking like someone" who is wanted, I guess you'd be more inclined to be more vocal about your rights.

Doesn't matter. If the police have a reasonable suspicion you look like a wanted person, you must comply with their demand. It's reasonable that if who they are looking for is a medium build, bearded black man with short hair/bald, and you fit that... Then expect to be questioned. If it's not you, a simple ID check will quickly dispel the suspicion and you *should* be on your way.

Now if you are a 5 foot 7, 140lb white guy, being detained on suspicion that you fit the above match, then yes, voicing your rights is warranted. However, in many states, it is still illegal to resist unlawful arrest. So in that case, you comply then file complaints/lawsuits after the fact.

 

[The Merg]

Doesn't matter. If the police have a reasonable suspicion you look like a wanted person, you must comply with their demand. It's reasonable that if who they are looking for is a medium build, bearded black man with short hair/bald, and you fit that... Then expect to be questioned. If it's not you, a simple ID check will quickly dispel the suspicion and you *should* be on your way.



Now if you are a 5 foot 7, 140lb white guy, being detained on suspicion that you fit the above match, then yes, voicing your rights is warranted. However, in many states, it is still illegal to resist unlawful arrest. So in that case, you comply then file complaints/lawsuits after the fact.

I don't know anywhere where it is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. That goes back to the 4th Amendment that you cannot be subject to an illegal search or seizure.

- Merg

 

[emperus]

Doesn't matter. If the police have a reasonable suspicion you look like a wanted person, you must comply with their demand. It's reasonable that if who they are looking for is a medium build, bearded black man with short hair/bald, and you fit that... Then expect to be questioned. If it's not you, a simple ID check will quickly dispel the suspicion and you *should* be on your way.

Now if you are a 5 foot 7, 140lb white guy, being detained on suspicion that you fit the above match, then yes, voicing your rights is warranted. However, in many states, it is still illegal to resist unlawful arrest. So in that case, you comply then file complaints/lawsuits after the fact.

And of course all black people look alike.

Again, you sound like you aren't accustomed to being pulled over and questioned unwarranted and don't ever expect you'll be in that position.

I love how some people can acquiesce on rights that they feel they'll never need.

 

[her209]

The obstruction occurred when the officer told the passenger to exit the vehicle and he refused. SCOTUS has ruled that the order to exit the vehicle can be for any reason.

PA v. Mimms - The driver can be ordered out for any reason.

MD v. Wilson - This was expanded to passengers in a vehicle.

- Merg

In MD v. Wilson

In summary, danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.

Also, in AZ v. Johnson

(b) The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that, initially, Johnson was lawfully detained incident to the legitimate stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, but concluded that once Officer Trevizo began questioning him on a matter unrelated to the traffic stop, patdown authority ceased to exist, absent reasonable suspicion that Johnson had engaged, or was about to engage, in criminal activity. The court portrayed the interrogation as consensual, and, Johnson emphasizes, Trevizo testified that Johnson could have refused to exit the vehicle and to submit to the patdown. But Trevizo also testified that she never advised Johnson he did not have to answer her questions or otherwise cooperate with her. A lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for investigation of a traffic violation. The temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave. An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as the inquiries do not measurably extend the stop’s duration.

The stop was complete. Detaining the vehicle beyond the original reason for stopping the vehicle is an unlawful seizure and a violation of the 4th.

Reasonable suspicion

A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

Can the officer point to "specific and articulable facts" beyond "You look exactly like a person who has warrants."? I mean, Stockett's height, weight, distinguishing characteristics or features that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Stockett is "Mr. Newell"?

 

[HumblePie]

Want to know something sad I just realized. I'm here defending the actions of the person and decrying the actions of the police. The person I'm defending happens to be black and the cop is white, but that doesn't matter to me. There are several big race baiters posting in this thread though which won't remember this. And the next time the situation is reversed, because someone is doing something wrong that I am arguing against, and they happen to be black, I am going to be called racist on it. Funny how that works around here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Doesn't matter. If the police have a reasonable suspicion you look like a wanted person, you must comply with their demand.

So in that case, you comply then file complaints/lawsuits after the fact.

So you are perfectly OK with Guilty until proven Innocent.

 

[Linux23]

I assume a lot of these type of responses are from people that don't have this happen to them on a regular basis. After the 5th time getting pulled over or questioned for "looking like someone" who is wanted, I guess you'd be more inclined to be more vocal about your rights.

This. People are getting fed up for being pulled over for bullshit. Kudos to this young fella for standing up to the pigs.

 

[HumblePie]

Merg,

It may help if you read this in relation to the stop made in the original post for this scenario in Ohio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

In this situation where the man in the video stated he was not Mr Newel, that was all that is required to remove reasonable suspicion. Once removed, the police have no further reason to detain them legally. Although cops tend to do so in breaking the law in many cases.

This is basically to prevent police abuse. IT would be too easy for any police officer to just walk up to someone they don't like for any particular reason and state, "You look to me like a wanted criminal. As such I am placing you under arrest." Which is something police are not legally allowed to do. As stated, there is no law, and it is Constitutionally not allowed, to force a person to purchase a stated or federal issued ID. Nor is it lawful to force people to carry one even if they have it. Which means police an walk up to a person they think matches the description of a person that is wanted, but they can't arrest or even hold them for very long without corroborating evidence if the person denies orally to being that wanted person. The job of the police isn't suppose to be easy and that is because the rights of honest people come before laws that would make their jobs "easier" to do.

 

[cubby1223]

Want to know something sad I just realized. I'm here defending the actions of the person and decrying the actions of the police. The person I'm defending happens to be black and the cop is white, but that doesn't matter to me. There are several big race baiters posting in this thread though which won't remember this. And the next time the situation is reversed, because someone is doing something wrong that I am arguing against, and they happen to be black, I am going to be called racist on it. Funny how that works around here.

Of course a lot is race based!

I forget who it was I was arguing against over in one of recent Zimmerman threads, his opinion was, this guy *could* be a murderer, therefore we all *should* treat as if he *is* a murderer, in the off-chance it is true. It's for the good and the safety of everyone.

And now the argument is, this guy *could* be a wanted man, therefore we should allow him to state he is not and freely be on his way.

In my little town ~25 years ago a murderer made all the papers, became a national story, and a 3 year fbi manhunt. And one detail was as he was exiting the town after the crimes he was surrounded by police cars on the road but they didn't yet know to stop and detain him. Maybe that has introduced a bias into me.


But my main point in this thread was that Ohio cops harass everyone. The fact that the person in this instance was black may very well have been irrelevant.

 

[HumblePie]

Of course a lot is race based!

I forget who it was I was arguing against over in one of recent Zimmerman threads, his opinion was, this guy *could* be a murderer, therefore we all *should* treat as if he *is* a murderer, in the off-chance it is true. It's for the good and the safety of everyone.

And now the argument is, this guy *could* be a wanted man, therefore we should allow him to state he is not and freely be on his way.

In my little town ~25 years ago a murderer made all the papers, became a national story, and a 3 year fbi manhunt. And one detail was as he was exiting the town after the crimes he was surrounded by police cars on the road but they didn't yet know to stop and detain him. Maybe that has introduced a bias into me.


But my main point in this thread was that Ohio cops harass everyone. The fact that the person in this instance was black may very well have been irrelevant.

Many cops everywhere harass people. Not all, but many do. I've met some great ones in real life, even ones I have had drinks with , and some not so great ones.

Like any demographic you'll have good and bad, above average and below average. I do humbly believe though the profession is a bit skewed into the bad side in some places due to the nature of the profession and the people that would be attracted to that line of work. Same with politicians, lawyers, and hospital administrators. Those jobs just seem to attract more bad than good as of late in my opinion. That is just off my own anecdotal experience and I have no idea if that is a true statement overall, but what I have seen.