Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might want to re-read your link as it refers to a Nevada State Statute and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights.
Ahhh you don't know a Supreme Court case when you see one?
118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Quote:
To read furtherThen we get to the actual opinion of the 6th District
Why would you read a 6th District Case after the USSC has spoken?
Quote:
And finallyAnd you imply I am "not American"? That "I lost my skill"? You may need to rethink your claims as this case doesn't help you in any way and confirms my comments.
Boy are you off the wall tonight.
Miss a supreme court decision and then try and duck behind a lower court?
The Supreme Court is quite clear. If the LEO has a reason you must tell him your name. Other than that...nothing. Read it again...
Olecapt is correct. When dealing with police volunteer nothing. Ask a cop what they would do if questioned by another cop. Officer am I under arrest? If so then I want to call my lawyer. If not I have nothing to say.
Ahhh you don't know a Supreme Court case when you see one?
118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Why would you read a 6th District Case after the USSC has spoken?
Boy are you off the wall tonight.
Miss a supreme court decision and then try and duck behind a lower court?
The Supreme Court is quite clear. If the LEO has a reason you must tell him your name. Other than that...nothing. Read it again...
So by going to the link you provided I am somehow not following a SCOTUS Ruling? I am ducking? So because I stated 6th District vs SCOTUS I am off the wall? Actually if you read it again, you will come to this actual statement
Quote:
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley,469 U.S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
:The officer still has the option to arrest and detain if not co-operating as there is actually no case law, as per Brown.
So by going to the link you provided I am somehow not following a SCOTUS Ruling? I am ducking? So because I stated 6th District vs SCOTUS I am off the wall? Actually if you read it again, you will come to this actual statement:The officer still has the option to arrest and detain if not co-operating as there is actually no case law, as per Brown.
Do you know what a Terry stop is?
In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
But what we are discussing is not a Terry stop. They have no reasonable suspicion. So they don't even have the right to make you tell them your name.
Now they can ask anything they want. And if you answer you will harm your position.
So don't answer.
This is pretty clear stuff...sorry you can't follow it.
Officer can always arrest and detain. He can also be sued or even go to jail for doing so. The ability to do it does not make it right or legal.
Olecapt is correct. When dealing with police volunteer nothing. Ask a cop what they would do if questioned by another cop. Officer am I under arrest? If so then I want to call my lawyer. If not I have nothing to say.
Olecapt is incorrect, one must give their name as per his link. Beyond that it is up to the officer to determine based on State "Stop and Identify" Laws. From the Wiki page where he obtained his info, even the NLG and ACLU recommend:
Quote:
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.....give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.
Again, an officer can detain and arrest you for failing to disclose your name during a stop.
Olecapt is incorrect, one must give their name as per his link. Beyond that it is up to the officer to determine based on State "Stop and Identify" Laws. From the Wiki page where he obtained his info, even the NLG and ACLU recommend:Again, an officer can detain and arrest you for failing to disclose your name during a stop.
I stand corrected, but still agree with him that one should volunteer as little as possible.
In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
But what we are discussing is not a Terry stop. They have no reasonable suspicion. So they don't even have the right to make you tell them your name.
Now they can ask anything they want. And if you answer you will harm your position.
So don't answer.
This is pretty clear stuff...sorry you can't follow it.
Officer can always arrest and detain. He can also be sued or even go to jail for doing so. The ability to do it does not make it right or legal.
You are aware that a traffic stop is considered a Terry Stop, right? Finish reading your wiki page for Terry Stop (your original comment claims: It is blatantly illegal. In fact unconstitutional. Violates the fourth amendment. The AZ and other laws tries to get around it by requiring the LEO have some other reason for the stop. But note that the cop has no right to question the driver about anything but driving...and the driver is under no obligation to show anything other than his drivers license, registration and proof of insurance if required. The cop particularly has no right to question any else in the car and they are under on requirement to identify themselves or answer any questions. When dealing with the Police the correct answer is always not to answer. You never gain anything from talking to a police officer. It is only a lose situation regardless of your status.).
Quote:
A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] In the interest of officer safety, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.[16][17]
Without a warrant, probable cause, or the driver’s consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the “plain view” doctrine may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.[18]
Writing for a unanimous Court in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), Justice Ginsburg gives a comprehensive summary of most of the above-cited jurisprudence relating to traffic stops.
What you are attempting to elude to is if an officer was to question you while walking next to you and out of the blue began to ask you questions, for which you would then be correct. But for any law violation, an officer can detain and arrest if you refuse to give your name.
The case I linked to originally was a Terry Stop case (based on your comment). All my further comments have been in regards to a Terry Stop situation. The one failing to follow along appears to be you as you are implying my previous paragraph.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-12-2011 at 09:31 PM..
Olecapt is incorrect, one must give their name as per his link. Beyond that it is up to the officer to determine based on State "Stop and Identify" Laws. From the Wiki page where he obtained his info, even the NLG and ACLU recommend:Again, an officer can detain and arrest you for failing to disclose your name during a stop.
You reading what you write?
First off your whole discussion is about a Terry Stop. that requires reasonable suspicion. You did not notice that part. If no reasonable suspicion no name.
What the ACLU is pointing out is that LEOs do not neccessarily follow the law and may well arrest you even though it is illegal to do so. So you have to decide what side of the law you are on. Note that an actual illegal should always refuse as he has much to gain from illegal cop procedures and nothing to lose.
Whether a regular American should refuse to communicate is a different and more interesting queston. Hey remember Joan Benay Ramsey? The Ramsey's gave the cops the finger. And they were absolutely correct. If they had chosen to cooperate they would almost certainly have been indicted and tried...the cops were out to get them. But they did not cooperate and the cops eventually discovered it was probably not them.
My standard is reasonable politeness and nothing more. "How fast were you going". "Well how fast was I going"? "Where were you going" "East on Tenaya". "Have you had anything to drink". "Do you have something specific in mind"? "An alcoholic beverage"? "Why do you ask"
And if it gets touchy you clam up. Just refuse to answer.
But what we are discussing is not a Terry stop. They have no reasonable suspicion. So they don't even have the right to make you tell them your name.
Accept we have been discussing a Terry Stop. Your original comment made light of a Terry Stop, now somewhere along the line you are changing it? Even your SCOTUS link was a Terry Stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
You reading what you write?
First off your whole discussion is about a Terry Stop. that requires reasonable suspicion. You did not notice that part. If no reasonable suspicion no name.
I did notice as I have stated above in post 67
Quote:
What you are attempting to elude to is if an officer was to question you while walking next to you and out of the blue began to ask you questions, for which you would then be correct. But for any law violation, an officer can detain and arrest if you refuse to give your name.
You've claimed for a Terry Stop passenger: The right answer...is silence. When he asks where you are going...silence...whe he asks for ID...silence...whe he asks if you are legal....silence. Even Justice Ginsburg disagrees with that, and she is probably one of the most Liberal Judges on the SC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
