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

[The Merg]

In MD v. Wilson"?

That's where we are having our debate. When did the stop end? If the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the passenger was the wanted subject, the stop has not ended. If there was no reasonable suspicion, the stop was over.

Also, in AZ v. Johnson

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.

That's not what happens in AZ v. Johnson. In that case, the officer pulled the passenger out of the vehicle and began to question him on things unrelated to the initial stop without any knowledge of any other criminal activity. This extended the stop without just cause.

That is not the issue here if there is cause to believe that the officer had reasonable suspicion that the passenger was wanted.

Reasonable suspicion

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"?

Here's something to consider...

The initial traffic stop was due to the officer seeing that the owner/driver of the vehicle had an expired driver's license when he ran the license plate. Normally, just a return showing the owner of the vehicle is not licensed is not enough to stop the vehicle. The officer would need to articulate that the owner was the one driving the vehicle. There are two main ways that this could be done: via physical descriptors from the DMV return that show that the driver is a match to the DMV return OR the officer views the DMV photo of the owner and sees that it matches the driver. The courts routinely allow both of these as ways to identify someone. By doing this, the officer has met the burden of reasonable suspicion and can then stop the vehicle.

Now, let's take this from the point of view from the passenger being wanted. The wording the officer uses is that he looks just like a person with warrants. He doesn't say that the his description matches, but rather that he looks just like him. I'll imply (we don't know exactly how/why the officer recognized him) that means that the officer has seen a photo of the wanted subject in order to say that he looks like the subject. Now using the same burden of proof that would be needed for reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, wouldn't this meet the same burden of proof for the wanted subject. And it's not like he thought the subject was wanted. He confirmed first that the subject was still wanted before going back up and speaking with the passenger.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

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.

Hospital administrators???

- Merg

 

[z1ggy]

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

In many cases, individuals will realize that they are the target of false arrest and attempt to resist or flee. This is known as resisting unlawful arrest, and is a justification for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest, flight to avoid prosecution, assault, or even murder).[citation needed] Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as:
the person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping or robbery.
the reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator with the intent of victimizing the defendant.
the reasonable belief that the defendant would be the victim of police brutality if taken into custody by that individual.

Furthermore:

In the 1960s, courts began to limit the right to resist an unlawful arrest, apparently influenced by Warner and by the Model Penal Code, which had eliminated the right.[31] In 1965, the first court struck down the right in New Jersey.[32]

Although a few states adopted the Uniform Arrest Act, a majority of the states did not.[fn 1] The Model Penal Code in 1962 eliminated the right to resist an unlawful arrest on two grounds.[34] First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue; second, resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest.[35] By 2012, only fourteen states allowed a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest

Only in a select few states, is resisting an unlawful arrest legal all together. Otherwise, unless noted by the above, you still must comply. Then after the fact, like this gentleman's case, you should sue and file complaints against the police if the conduct was illegal.

And to whom ever said I haven't been profiled:

You're correct. I have not. I can't help if certain cops are racist, or have an agenda on their minds. I understand this guy's frustration, but is it really worth making a giant deal? Maybe so, but I wouldn't.

 

[DrPizza]

So, let me get this straight. If Saddam Hussein had been hiding in a hole in the United States, and an officer found him hiding, "Are you Saddam Hussein?" "No, that's not me! I just look like him. I'm some other guy. I'm not telling you my name or showing you ID."
"Okay, sorry to bother you sir, you're free to go."


Is that what you're saying, Humble Pie? That looking just like a wanted person is not reasonable suspicion the moment the person says they're not the person you're looking for?

 

[The Merg]

@z1ggy:

Good to know, thanks.

I'm guessing that since Virginia is a common law state, that is why the right still exists here.

- Merg

 

[Ns1]

So, let me get this straight. If Saddam Hussein had been hiding in a hole in the United States, and an officer found him hiding, "Are you Saddam Hussein?" "No, that's not me! I just look like him. I'm some other guy. I'm not telling you my name or showing you ID."
"Okay, sorry to bother you sir, you're free to go."


Is that what you're saying, Humble Pie? That looking just like a wanted person is not reasonable suspicion the moment the person says they're not the person you're looking for?

"I am not the dictator you are looking for. Move along"

 

[HumblePie]

Hospital administrators???

- Merg

Have you seen the cost of healthcare in the US? What group of people have more control over those costs than anyone else? Why is a procedure done in other countries, even sometimes using the same doctors, cost a fraction of the cost despite similar operating costs and operational parameters?

Mostly because of greedy effing hospital execs/admin

 

[The Merg]

Have you seen the cost of healthcare in the US? What group of people have more control over those costs than anyone else? Why is a procedure done in other countries, even sometimes using the same doctors, cost a fraction of the cost despite similar operating costs and operational parameters?

Mostly because of greedy effing hospital execs/admin

:thumbsup:

I'll add to that with health insurance claim adjusters.

- Merg

 

[bshole]

No brainer, these guys DO look alike. He should have produced an ID. The cop would have been negligent not to check....

 

[HumblePie]

So, let me get this straight. If Saddam Hussein had been hiding in a hole in the United States, and an officer found him hiding, "Are you Saddam Hussein?" "No, that's not me! I just look like him. I'm some other guy. I'm not telling you my name or showing you ID."
"Okay, sorry to bother you sir, you're free to go."


Is that what you're saying, Humble Pie? That looking just like a wanted person is not reasonable suspicion the moment the person says they're not the person you're looking for?

Correct, that is not enough evidence in itself. If the officer does not know the person they have suspicion about, or can't produce more evidence in a reasonable time frame, they legally MUST LET THEM GO.

There has to be more evidence than that, and typically there is. How? Behavior of the person under suspicion in question is one way. This is why the officer in the video was trying to assert that the driver was acting "nervous" because that could be construed in a court of law as allowing the cop to have reasonable suspicion that someone is lying and trying to not be caught.

 

[z1ggy]

So, let me get this straight. If Saddam Hussein had been hiding in a hole in the United States, and an officer found him hiding, "Are you Saddam Hussein?" "No, that's not me! I just look like him. I'm some other guy. I'm not telling you my name or showing you ID."
"Okay, sorry to bother you sir, you're free to go."


Is that what you're saying, Humble Pie? That looking just like a wanted person is not reasonable suspicion the moment the person says they're not the person you're looking for?

If the officer has a reasonable suspicion this man (in your case good ol Saddam) is in the act of or has committed a crime (warrant for his arrest is outstanding) this person shall provide an ID to the officer. If you don't have one on you, you are likely getting arrested until you can be positively ID'ed.

The grey part is what really constitutes a cops "reasonable suspicion". Just looking like a guy IMO isn't a good reason for an officer to arrest you... But often times they will. Even though it is some serious BS and a hit to one's ego, if you are indeed not this person, it is probably best to just appease the police, and give your ID. You can move on- ego and pride maybe a bit hurt for not "sticking it to the man" by resisting- by not being in jail.

 

[z1ggy]

@z1ggy:

Good to know, thanks.

I'm guessing that since Virginia is a common law state, that is why the right still exists here.

- Merg

It's no problem. I read about this on Reddit 2-3 weeks ago under the TIL section. I then clicked the article and discovered there's maybe 5 or so states in the entire country where you are allowed to resist. My state not being one of them, which is good to know...

Don't get me wrong, it's total BS, but I'd rather comply and know my rights, then think I know what's best for me and wind up behind bars. I have a good government job, and if I get arrested and convicted, I might lose it.

Edit: Additionally, Ohio is a "Stop and Identify" state. So as much as it sucks for this guy, he should have just given the cop his ID. Terrible job on the cop's part though to threaten the man. Totally unprofessional and unwarranted.

Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.

 

[The Merg]

If the officer has a reasonable suspicion this man (in your case good ol Saddam) is in the act of or has committed a crime (warrant for his arrest is outstanding) this person shall provide an ID to the officer. If you don't have one on you, you are likely getting arrested until you can be positively ID'ed.

The grey part is what really constitutes a cops "reasonable suspicion". Just looking like a guy IMO isn't a good reason for an officer to arrest you... But often times they will. Even though it is some serious BS and a hit to one's ego, if you are indeed not this person, it is probably best to just appease the police, and give your ID. You can move on- ego and pride maybe a bit hurt for not "sticking it to the man" by resisting- by not being in jail.

I posted this above...

Here's something to consider...

The initial traffic stop was due to the officer seeing that the owner/driver of the vehicle had an expired driver's license when he ran the license plate. Normally, just a return showing the owner of the vehicle is not licensed is not enough to stop the vehicle. The officer would need to articulate that the owner was the one driving the vehicle. There are two main ways that this could be done: via physical descriptors from the DMV return that show that the driver is a match to the DMV return OR the officer views the DMV photo of the owner and sees that it matches the driver. The courts routinely allow both of these as ways to identify someone. By doing this, the officer has met the burden of reasonable suspicion and can then stop the vehicle.

Now, let's take this from the point of view from the passenger being wanted. The wording the officer uses is that he looks just like a person with warrants. He doesn't say that the his description matches, but rather that he looks just like him. I'll imply (we don't know exactly how/why the officer recognized him) that means that the officer has seen a photo of the wanted subject in order to say that he looks like the subject. Now using the same burden of proof that would be needed for reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, wouldn't this meet the same burden of proof for the wanted subject. And it's not like he thought the subject was wanted. He confirmed first that the subject was still wanted before going back up and speaking with the passenger.

Now, that doesn't mean the officer can arrest the subject, but it does give the officer enough to detain someone.

- Merg

 

[z1ggy]

I posted this above...



Now, that doesn't mean the officer can arrest the subject, but it does give the officer enough to detain someone.

- Merg

The thing is, if you showed a picture of the wanted man, next to a picture of the man this article was written about, would a jury of his peers (whom are all deemed reasonable people) find that the officer was acting within the law (ie, detaining this person via the stop and identify statute of OH)? Oh and key words here are "detained" vs arrested.

Meh, I'd rather not take my chances.

But can somebody who knows more about law tell me would a resisting arrest charge actually go to court? How often does that really happen?

 

[piasabird]

I think an expired license plate is a valid reason to pull over a person. Then the people in the car told the police officer they would not identify themselves which is illegal. So at this point they all should be arrested.

Not only that the plates on the car were registered in one stat and the license plate was for another state. There are laws which state that after a certain number of days in a state you have to get the car registered in that state. Otherwise the cops will just assume it is a stolen car and they will have to run the plates and your name for out of state tickets and warrants. They might also have laws about insurance and ask to see your insurance.

If you don't have a valid license and or registration, they may choose to impound the vehicle. You don't have a right to drive, it is a privilege.

 

[HumblePie]

The thing is, if you showed a picture of the wanted man, next to a picture of the man this article was written about, would a jury of his peers (whom are all deemed reasonable people) find that the officer was acting within the law (ie, detaining this person via the stop and identify statute of OH)? Oh and key words here are "detained" vs arrested.

Meh, I'd rather not take my chances.

But can somebody who knows more about law tell me would a resisting arrest charge actually go to court? How often does that really happen?

I was explaining the proper course of action this should have taken in a PM to Merg.

Police pull over driver for potential expired license. Find out license is valid. In doing so, notice passenger matches description of a wanted criminal. Police have reasonable suspicion now to detain them and question further. They ask the man for ID. Man reasonably responds, "What for?" Officer articulates that he matches the description of a wanted criminal. Stockett responds that is not him and denies being a wanted criminal. Officer calls him Mr Newel, the name of the wanted criminal. Stockett responds that he is not Mr Newel. At this point, for the police to continue to detain him with reasonable suspicion they can either produce the official description of Mr Newel or his picture in a reasonable time frame to Mr Stockett. At which point the picture or description then gives them legal authority to maintain reasonable suspicion of who he is. At which point Stocket then should produce ID disproving that he is Mr Newel or face arrest as he can no longer disprove the corroborating evidence which the police produced as to mistaking him for Mr Newel.

That is the order things should have gone, but they didn't./ The police didn't follow the proper order here and jumped the gun. Which happens, but then becomes a violation of rights to do so. Which happens with police as they don't always go with the right steps to get where they are intending to go with their investigation sometimes.

 

[z1ggy]

I was explaining the proper course of action this should have taken in a PM to Merg.

Police pull over driver for potential expired license. Find out license is valid. In doing so, notice passenger matches description of a wanted criminal. Police have reasonable suspicion now to detain them and question further. They ask the man for ID. Man reasonably responds, "What for?" Officer articulates that he matches the description of a wanted criminal. Stockett responds that is not him and denies being a wanted criminal. Officer calls him Mr Newel, the name of the wanted criminal. Stockett responds that he is not Mr Newel. At this point, for the police to continue to detain him with reasonable suspicion they can either produce the official description of Mr Newel or his picture in a reasonable time frame to Mr Stockett. At which point the picture or description then gives them legal authority to maintain reasonable suspicion of who he is. At which point Stocket then should produce ID disproving that he is Mr Newel or face arrest as he can no longer disprove the corroborating evidence which the police produced as to mistaking him for Mr Newel.

That is the order things should have gone, but they didn't./ The police didn't follow the proper order here and jumped the gun. Which happens, but then becomes a violation of rights to do so. Which happens with police as they don't always go with the right steps to get where they are intending to go with their investigation sometimes.

Agree with everything you've stated.

 

[The Merg]

I was explaining the proper course of action this should have taken in a PM to Merg.

Police pull over driver for potential expired license. Find out license is valid. In doing so, notice passenger matches description of a wanted criminal. Police have reasonable suspicion now to detain them and question further. They ask the man for ID. Man reasonably responds, "What for?" Officer articulates that he matches the description of a wanted criminal. Stockett responds that is not him and denies being a wanted criminal. Officer calls him Mr Newel, the name of the wanted criminal. Stockett responds that he is not Mr Newel. At this point, for the police to continue to detain him with reasonable suspicion they can either produce the official description of Mr Newel or his picture in a reasonable time frame to Mr Stockett. At which point the picture or description then gives them legal authority to maintain reasonable suspicion of who he is. At which point Stocket then should produce ID disproving that he is Mr Newel or face arrest as he can no longer disprove the corroborating evidence which the police produced as to mistaking him for Mr Newel.

That is the order things should have gone, but they didn't./ The police didn't follow the proper order here and jumped the gun. Which happens, but then becomes a violation of rights to do so. Which happens with police as they don't always go with the right steps to get where they are intending to go with their investigation sometimes.

And that's where we diverge (a little)...

The officer does not need to produce an official description of the wanted subject or a photo of the subject to Stockett. Now, they can obtain a copy of one to determine if the subject they have there is the in fact the wanted subject or not while they detain the passenger for a reasonable amount of time. If it's going to take an hour to produce the photo that might very well be unreasonable.

Now since Ohio is a Stop and ID state, we could even state that since the officer has reasonable suspicion that Stockett is the wanted subject Newell (reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred is that he is wanted) and he fails to provide ID to the officer, the officer can arrest him at that time for failing to ID himself. The officer would then find that Stockett was not Newell, although at that point he would already be under arrest for the fail to ID charge.

It seems the officer went the route of trying to have Stockett exit the vehicle and when he refused to do so, he charged him with obstruction and for failing to provide ID.

I did find the docket listing for Stockett... http://www.sanduskymunicipalcourt.org/cgi-bin/mcaseno.cgi?pre=CRB&num=1404210&sub=&type=CR&acc=

He was charged under their Obstruction code section.

But I see that we agree that the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue to detain Stockett while trying to determine if he was Newell or not.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Automatic license readers are all the rage these days, no human input required.

 

[Darwin333]

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

Isn't it funny how their job is to "protect and serve" but during pretty much the most dangerous aspect of their jobs (same as everyone else), while they are driving, they are exempt of all of the really important road safety laws? To my knowledge there is no adequate training to train someone to drive while looking at a laptop full of data unrelated to the vehicle they are currently driving. I can see down the road just as far as a cop but if I send a text its a crime, as it should be, because I am endangering the lives of other people on the road. Everything in the above sentence holds true to a cop except they almost never get charged or go to jail when they do the same thing. Innocent person dies due to negligence of the driver, in one case it is a crime that can very likely ruin the drivers life, in the other its almost guaranteed he never sees a jail cell and fairly good odds his life doesn't change much at all.

Why is that?

 

[The Merg]

Isn't it funny how their job is to "protect and serve" but during pretty much the most dangerous aspect of their jobs (same as everyone else), while they are driving, they are exempt of all of the really important road safety laws? To my knowledge there is no adequate training to train someone to drive while looking at a laptop full of data unrelated to the vehicle they are currently driving. I can see down the road just as far as a cop but if I send a text its a crime, as it should be, because I am endangering the lives of other people on the road. Everything in the above sentence holds true to a cop except they almost never get charged or go to jail when they do the same thing. Innocent person dies due to negligence of the driver, in one case it is a crime that can very likely ruin the drivers life, in the other its almost guaranteed he never sees a jail cell and fairly good odds his life doesn't change much at all.



Why is that?

True. Cops do get s lot of training though in what would be considered offensive and defensive driving that the normal person does not get.

The whole idea of the police having immunity is so that they can do their job without fear that every decision they make might be second guessed and land them in court. Should police be wary of the decisions that they make? Absolutely. But, if a situation is a life or death situation and the officer has to take action, that second-guessing can mean they or someone else ends up dead. Also, the courts can take the immunity away.

Many states have Good Samaritan laws for the same reason so that if someone acts in good faith try to help someone, but hurts them in the process, they cannot be charged or sued. For example, someone performs CPR and they break the person's ribs and puncture their lung (not an unlikely situation), should the "victim" be able to sue the person that saved them for the additional injuries?

And you state the cop's life won't change a bit. Yes, they might not go to jail, but do you really think they don't go to sleep every night and wake up every day thinking about what they did?

- Merg

 

[z1ggy]

Oh I forgot to mention how I had a (kind of... not totally the same) thing happen to me 2 years ago.

Got pulled over by a cop and she didn't tell me why until I asked. She said there was a report of a "yellow motor cycle" that had been stolen recently. I was on a yellow and black bike. That was the only description she gave me at all. No make, no model no other discriminating factors other than the color.

Pretty much the same thing as being pulled over and said I met the description of a "tan guy" who just robbed a bank. I probably had grounds to refuse ID based on her reasonable suspicion not being warranted, but I knew I didn't steal any bike, so I gave her my ID anyway. I was on my way within ten minutes, and not in a cop cruiser.

 

[Darwin333]

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

I don't know many places that legally resisting an unlawful arrest won't get you shot, tasered, or beaten. In the VAST majority of those places the officer doing the beating, tasering or shooting will get some paid vacation and then back to work.

If a cop was arresting me on suspicion of being a female bald midget that just stuck up a liquor store, better believe I ain't resisting shit. I am perfectly happy with the current number of holes in my body thank you very much. Some of these jackboots are tasering fat women in the back while they are walking away instead of just grabbing their damn arm and putting them in cuffs, can you imagine what he might have done if it was a well built male that he might actually have trouble controlling? Fuck that shit.

 

[The Merg]

I don't know many places that legally resisting an unlawful arrest won't get you shot, tasered, or beaten. In the VAST majority of those places the officer doing the beating, tasering or shooting will get some paid vacation and then back to work.



If a cop was arresting me on suspicion of being a female bald midget that just stuck up a liquor store, better believe I ain't resisting shit. I am perfectly happy with the current number of holes in my body thank you very much. Some of these jackboots are tasering fat women in the back while they are walking away instead of just grabbing their damn arm and putting them in cuffs, can you imagine what he might have done if it was a well built male that he might actually have trouble controlling? Fuck that shit.

I'm not saying that you won't get hurt by resisting an illegal arrest, but just that the resisting is not unlawful. If the cop thinks they have the right to arrest you and you resist, they are going to use force to get you into custody even if the arrest was illegal.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

Have you seen the cost of healthcare in the US? What group of people have more control over those costs than anyone else? Why is a procedure done in other countries, even sometimes using the same doctors, cost a fraction of the cost despite similar operating costs and operational parameters?

Mostly because of greedy effing hospital execs/admin

EMTALA is a huge reason.

Billions upon billions in cost shifting.