Video of Virginia Man Being Arrested For Remaining Silent and Not Showing I.D.

[smitbret]

I don't know about the US but in my country if you don't have it with you, the police still have a right to identify you, like if they're searching for criminals or illegal immigrants, so they can force you to go with them (it's not an arrest since there is no charge) for proper identification.

If they had no right to identify people, all illegals could simply refuse to show ID and that would be it.

I guess that's why we live here instead of there. There is (supposed to be) this ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty. But we have seen that erosion in recent years and if more people would learn about and stand up for their civil liberties these kinds of things would stop happening. Unfortunately, as long as everyone is apathetic it will continue until we live in a military state.

 

[smitbret]

That's what I don't understand. All it takes is about 5 seconds (read name on ID and verify it's the same person pictured) and move along.

Looks like Hammond was baiting for a confrontation with a cop and waited to see what happens. Cop calmly asked what was he doing here and filming a FBI office.
The potential scenario could be to identify possible undercover agents while entering/leaving the building or plan a future attack, like planting a bomb. Concerned personnel called the police to check out this guy
and ask what his intentions were. If they were legit I don't think there would have been no problem of him being there filming. There was reasonable suspicion on his acts, remaining silent and not complying with
the cops request for an ID. All he had to say to the cop was he was filming for a project about Federal buildings so as to remove the suspicions. He didn't do anything of that sort.

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/henrico/article_88ab239d-8db2-5b31-aae4-0ec6af4613b7.html

Except that we don't answer to the police. They are civil servants. If the PoPo is that concerned then he can sit back and observe until an illegal act actually occurs. He is always free to create a report, too. But the proper answer to this will always be, "With all due respect officer, until I have committed an actual crime I am free to do as I wish. Thank you and have a nice day."

 

[jlee]

Except that we don't answer to the police. They are civil servants. If the PoPo is that concerned then he can sit back and observe until an illegal act actually occurs. He is always free to create a report, too. But the proper answer to this will always be, "With all due respect officer, until I have committed an actual crime I am free to do as I wish. Thank you and have a nice day."

That's incorrect. This example is from Connecticut, but as it refers to the US Constitution as well, it's applicable enough.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm

INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION

Under the United States Constitution and Article First, §§ 7 and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75, (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968)).

The police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity (State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006)).

The Fourth Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions (Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372, (1993)).

The Terry court recognized one such exception when it held that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling his suspicions.

But a police officer is not entitled to detain or search every person whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes inquiries. Before he does so, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so. For example, in the case of the self-protective search for weapons, he must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968)

Reasonable and articulable suspicion is an objective standard. It focuses not on the police officer's actual state-of-mind, but on whether a reasonable person, having the information available to and known by the police, would have had that level of suspicion (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75 (2001)).

Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person, such as “articulable reasons” and “founded suspicion.” But such terms fall short of providing clear guidance for the factual situations that arise. But the essence is that the totality of the circumstances must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture, the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped (State v. Nash, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).

When engaging in a Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry, courts ask whether a person of reasonable caution knowing the facts available to the officer at the moment of the detention would believe that the action taken was appropriate (United States v. Newton, 369 F3d 659, 673-674 (2d Cir. cert denied 543 U.S. 947 (2004)). In the Newton case the court held that the seizure was not a de facto arrest under the Fourth Amendment when it lasted only a few minutes, occurred at a residence rather than the police station, and resulted from a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous. To satisfy the reasonableness standard, officers conducting stops on less than probable cause must employ the least intrusive means reasonably available to carry out their legitimate investigative purposes. But the law recognizes the important need to allow authorities to graduate their responses to the demands of any particular situation (State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006)).

Where an officer has a reasonable basis to think that the person stopped poses a present physical threat to the officer or others, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to take necessary measures to neutralize the threat without converting a reasonable stop into a de facto arrest. This doctrine has supported a range of restraints incident to a stop, from the pat-down at issue in Terry, to the drawing of firearms, to the use of handcuffs (State v. Nash).

Similarly, requiring a suspect to accompany a police officer to another place does not necessarily transform what would otherwise be a permissible investigatory detention into an arrest (State v. Nash). In State v. Mitchell (204 Conn. 187, 199, cert denied 484 U.S. 927 (1987)), the court held that transporting the defendants to the hospital for viewing by the victim did not exceed the permissible scope of an investigative detention (204 Conn. 187, 199, cert denied 484 U.S. 927 (1987)). (Also see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, (1983) in which the Court stated that there are undoubtedly reasons of safety and security that would justify moving a suspect from one location to another during an investigatory detention.)

The Connecticut Supreme Court determined that handcuffing and removing the defendant to a secure location one-half block away from the gathering crowd does not, as a matter of law, exceed the permissible scope of an investigative stop and protective pat down. But the court agreed with the defendant's position that the police may not bring him to the police station as part of an investigative detention. The court concluded that it would not be within the narrow scope of a permissible investigative stop to handcuff and transport a detainee to a police station solely for the purpose of interrogation (State v. Nash; State v. Edwards, 214 Conn. 57, 70-71(1999)).

The Nash court also held that a full pat-down search of the defendant for weapons in the lobby of the police substation, to which the defendant had been transported following an investigatory stop, did not violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[jlee]

I guess that's why we live here instead of there. There is (supposed to be) this ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty. But we have seen that erosion in recent years and if more people would learn about and stand up for their civil liberties these kinds of things would stop happening. Unfortunately, as long as everyone is apathetic it will continue until we live in a military state.

This is also incorrect. The judicial system presumes innocence - i.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the accused party to prove innocence. A law enforcement officer responding to a report of a suspicious person is not going to respond with the mindset that anyone he encounters must be innocent until they show indisputable proof that they are guilty. If that actually were the case, how would any crimes be solved at all?

Let's use an example. You're at home one evening and someone kicks your door down. He sees that you're inside and runs away. You call 911 with a reasonable description. Police respond and see someone matching the description running down the street. According to you, they have no right to stop him because they didn't see any illegal acts.

That's absurd.

 

[smitbret]

This is also incorrect. The judicial system presumes innocence - i.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the accused party to prove innocence. A law enforcement officer responding to a report of a suspicious person is not going to respond with the mindset that anyone he encounters must be innocent until they show indisputable proof that they are guilty. If that actually were the case, how would any crimes be solved at all?

Correct, but they must have probable cause. They don't get to detain just because they feel like it and certainly not because the citizen refused to identify.

 

[jlee]

Correct, but they must have probable cause. They don't get to detain just because they feel like it and certainly not because the citizen refused to identify.

This is also incorrect.

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officers should be allowed stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer.

Probable cause is required for arrest, but not for a brief detention. In the aforementioned example, if three officers responded from three different directions to your neighborhood and each of them saw someone fitting the description you provided, each of the three would be justified in briefly detaining and identifying the person they found. It is impossible for them to have probable cause in this case, as only one of the three could potentially be the criminal.

 

[glenn1]

I guess that's why we live here instead of there. There is (supposed to be) this ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty. But we have seen that erosion in recent years and if more people would learn about and stand up for their civil liberties these kinds of things would stop happening. Unfortunately, as long as everyone is apathetic it will continue until we live in a military state.

If you think being asked for your name by a police officer in response to a suspicious behavior complaint against you represents a "police state" then I guess we live on entirely separate realities. It also shows you've never seen a repressive state in real life either.

 

[shortylickens]

I don't know if you've checked the price for lawyers lately, but it isn't cheap to enforce your rights through the judicial system. And just because you can't readily afford to enforce your rights through the judicial system doesn't mean you should abandon your rights.

There are DOZENS of watchdog groups who would gladly pay to enforce your civil liberties.

But you missed my point completely. Most of the blowhards in America (and especially this forum) dont give a shit enough about their Constitutional Rights to fight for them. they just feel like being dicks to cops and then whining about it after the fact. If they wanted their lives to be easier they would work with the cops to make everything run smoothly.

 

[Red Squirrel]

This kind of crap is probably going to start happening in Canada too, because of Bill C-51. That bill basically overrides the charter of rights.

Governments need to see this as a way to downsize police forces. If cops arn't busy enough dealing with actual real crime and instead spend their spare time pestering people, then obviously they are overstaffed. Then again why would government care it's not their money it's tax payers'.

 

[jlee]

This kind of crap is probably going to start happening in Canada too, because of Bill C-51. That bill basically overrides the charter of rights.

Governments need to see this as a way to downsize police forces. If cops arn't busy enough dealing with actual real crime and instead spend their spare time pestering people, then obviously they are overstaffed. Then again why would government care it's not their money it's tax payers'.

So your ideal society is one so full of crime that police are always busy?

I prefer having police available for when shit does happen - like when the neighbor across the street was shouting "I'm gonna fucking kill you", and six Calgary PD guys/girls showed up within ~2 minutes of my call.

 

[shortylickens]

So your ideal society is one so full of crime that police are always busy?

I prefer having police available for when shit does happen - like when the neighbor across the street was shouting "I'm gonna fucking kill you", and six Calgary PD guys/girls showed up within ~2 minutes of my call.

In my area we have tons of cops and most of them are bored all day.
They do not show up in two minutes or less, I know this for a fact.


American cops are more about maintaining control over the lower class and milking the middle class. Protection and safety are much lower priorities. And in the big cities they are usually too understaffed to cope with real crime.

 

[jlee]

In my area we have tons of cops and most of them are bored all day.
They do not show up in two minutes or less, I know this for a fact.


American cops are more about maintaining control over the lower class and milking the middle class. Protection and safety are much lower priorities. And in the big cities they are usually too understaffed to cope with real crime.

You only see what you want to see. Meanwhile, parents raise their kids to hate / be scared of police, which doesn't help.

Stories like this, this, and this don't make the news. Why? Nobody cares - they'd rather be angry at "the man."