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.
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.
Or as you show, answer a question with a question...
Specific to this forum, of all the "Terry stops" I like to see the examples of the "Terry Bressi stop" - CheckpointUSA.org - Best now observed at his YouTube channel: CheckpointUSA's Channel - YouTube
Check it out, there is quite a bit of reading and watching videos on YouTube, but it is a great primer about checkpoints...
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.
I did notice as I have stated above in post 67You'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.
Sorry on a Terry stop you need to give your name. But that is it. No ID. Nothing else. And only in those states with a statutory requirement that you do so.
A passenger in a car is not terry stopped. See Stufflebeam v. Harris, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7156 (8th Cir. 2008).
Sorry but I don't think Justice Ginsburg disagreed with that at all.
So let us get it straight. In a Terry stop or a traffic stop...you can be required to give your name...and actually the driver his license and other docs.
But the passengers are not parties to the Terry Stop and are not required to give even their names.
Sorry on a Terry stop you need to give your name. But that is it. No ID. Nothing else. And only in those states with a statutory requirement that you do so.
A passenger in a car is not terry stopped. See Stufflebeam v. Harris, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7156 (8th Cir. 2008).
Sorry but I don't think Justice Ginsburg disagreed with that at all.
So let us get it straight. In a Terry stop or a traffic stop...you can be required to give your name...and actually the driver his license and other docs.
But the passengers are not parties to the Terry Stop and are not required to give even their names.
Based on Hibel: Stopping a car for a traffic infraction is a detention, and therefore, getting the names of the individuals involved (all persons in the vehicle) is a 'government interest'.
As for Stufflebeam: In applying the principles from Hiibel to the circumstances involving Shufflebeam’s arrest, the court noted that Officer Harris had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Shufflebeam was involved in criminal activity; he was merely a passenger in a vehicle stopped for motor vehicle violations. As such, Hiibel would not justify his arrest since the rule from Hiibel requires that the person(s) being asked to identify themselves must be the subject of a valid Terry stop, i.e. they must be suspected of criminal activity and that suspicion must be supported by reasonable suspicion. Even though Arkansas is one of the states that has a statute requiring person(s) to identify themselves during a validTerry stop, the court concluded that Shufflebeam was not the subject of such a stop. Thus, the court concluded that Mr. Shufflebeam’s lawsuit against the officer should go on to a jury. http://www.patc.com/enewsletter/lega.../2-apr08.shtml
The 8th Circuits ruling was:
[LEFT]The Unites States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing United States Supreme Court precedent concludes that it is not unconstitutional to merely ask for identification. Note, some states would consider this an expansion of the scope of the stop under state constitutions. [/LEFT]
[LEFT]The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing Hiibel concluded that arresting a passenger for refusing to identify himself/herself where the officer has no independent reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger is involved in criminal activity does violate the Constitution.[/LEFT]
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-12-2011 at 10:25 PM..
Sorry on a Terry stop you need to give your name. But that is it. No ID. Nothing else. And only in those states with a statutory requirement that you do so.
A passenger in a car is not terry stopped. See Stufflebeam v. Harris, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7156 (8th Cir. 2008).
Sorry but I don't think Justice Ginsburg disagreed with that at all.
So let us get it straight. In a Terry stop or a traffic stop...you can be required to give your name...and actually the driver his license and other docs.
But the passengers are not parties to the Terry Stop and are not required to give even their names.
Is it not mandatory that people over the age of 18 must carry some form of personal ID, either in the form of a DL or state ID card?
Why in the world would anyone who has nothing to hide not present their ID to a peace officer if asked for it? If you stonewall a peace officer when asked for something as basic as ID, you obviously have something to hide. Why are you so against an officer wanting to know who he or she is dealing with? They have a dangerous job as it is. People who are clean usually cooperate with law enforcement.
How does refusal to coorperate not constitute probable cause?
Is it not mandatory that people over the age of 18 must carry some form of personal ID, either in the form of a DL or state ID card?
Why in the world would anyone who has nothing to hide not present their ID to a peace officer if asked for it? If you stonewall a peace officer when asked for something as basic as ID, you obviously have something to hide. Why are you so against an officer wanting to know who he or she is dealing with? They have a dangerous job as it is. People who are clean usually cooperate with law enforcement.
How does refusal to coorperate not constitute probable cause?
Because we are Americans and it is none of the States business.
this is a long and standard American trait. We do not tell the government anything that they don't have a court order to get.
Why is it that we don't have a national ID card? Because we believe it gives too much power and information to the government.
And it is a very large shame that a large portion of that freedom from the state has been screwed up by the automobile and the willingness of the legislators to use it to subvert the normal view of Americans.
In any world considered by our forefathers driving would have been a right...not a privilege. But the governments of recent times have used driving to create access to the people that was otherwise blocked.
Based on Hibel: Stopping a car for a traffic infraction is a detention, and therefore, getting the names of the individuals involved (all persons in the vehicle) is a 'government interest'.
There is no traffic stop in Hiibel. So there is no people in any vehicle involved.
Quote:
As for Stufflebeam: In applying the principles from Hiibel to the circumstances involving Shufflebeam’s arrest, the court noted that Officer Harris had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Shufflebeam was involved in criminal activity; he was merely a passenger in a vehicle stopped for motor vehicle violations. As such, Hiibel would not justify his arrest since the rule from Hiibel requires that the person(s) being asked to identify themselves must be the subject of a valid Terry stop, i.e. they must be suspected of criminal activity and that suspicion must be supported by reasonable suspicion. Even though Arkansas is one of the states that has a statute requiring person(s) to identify themselves during a validTerry stop, the court concluded that Shufflebeam was not the subject of such a stop. Thus, the court concluded that Mr. Shufflebeam’s lawsuit against the officer should go on to a jury. Can Law Enforcement question Passengers During a Traffic Stop
The 8th Circuits ruling was:
The Unites States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing United States Supreme Court precedent concludes that it is not unconstitutional to merely ask for identification. Note, some states would consider this an expansion of the scope of the stop under state constitutions.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing Hiibel concluded that arresting a passenger for refusing to identify himself/herself where the officer has no independent reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger is involved in criminal activity does violate the Constitution.
Yes. That is right. Hiibel says that you must give up your name...and only your name in a Terry Stop. Shufflebeam merely states that passengers in a car per se are not involved in a Terry Stop of the driver. So they need give up nothing.
Is not this what I said a way back? Passengers should stay silent and the driver should give up nothing but required docs.
What it appears to boil down to is individual State Statutes. The Stufflebeam Opinion:
Quote:
Stufflebeam was charged with violating § 5-54-102(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing obstruction of Harris's performance of a "governmental function," which in turn is defined as "any activity that a public servant is legally authorized to undertake on behalf of any governmental unit he or she serves." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-101(6). Stufflebeam's complaint alleges that he "was not suspected of any criminal activity" and was arrested "simply because he would not identify himself." Nothing in the record suggests any obstruction other than Stufflebeam's refusal to identify himself. Thus, the primary question, one not addressed by the district court or carefully analyzed by the parties on appeal, is whether Arkansas law permits a police officer to arrest a person for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected [*5] of other criminal activity and his identification is not needed to protect officer safety or to resolve whatever reasonable suspicions prompted the officer to initiate an on-going traffic stop or Terry n2 stop. See Marrs v. Tuckey, 362 F. Supp. 2d 927, 939-46 (E.D. Mich. 2005). We conclude it does not.
and
Quote:
a)A law enforcement officer may request any person to furnish information or otherwise cooperate in the investigation or prevention of crime. The officer may request the person to respond to questions . . . or to comply with any other reasonable request.
(b) In making a request pursuant to this rule, no law enforcement officer shall indicate that a person is legally obligated to furnish information or to otherwise cooperate if no such legal obligation exists.By threatening to arrest Stufflebeam if he refused to identify himself, Harris "indicated" to Stufflebeam in no uncertain terms that he was legally obligated [*6] to furnish this information. Yet Harris cites no provision of Arkansas law that created a "legal obligation" to cooperate in this manner within the meaning of Rule 2.2(b). n3
and "reasonable suspicion".
All based on the individual States "Stop and Identify" statutes, in this case Arkansas Law.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-12-2011 at 11:02 PM..
What it appears to boil down to is individual State Statutes. The Stufflebeam Opinion:andand "reasonable suspicion".
All based on the individual States, in this case Arkansas Law.
Nah. If they go past Hiibel the language of Hiible makes it pretty clear that it would violate the fourth. Note the courts remarks on the specific nature of the NV statute. And note how it was differentiated from others.
You simply can't write a must present ID Law that does not fail Hiibel or similar reasoning.
Now of course another court may reason differently...but not likely.
It is amazing how many here consider this whole area unamerican if not unthinkable.
...It is amazing how many here consider this whole area unamerican if not unthinkable.
We are turning into a nation of pansies.
Agreed...
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.
