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.
What law are you basing this on? As far as I'm aware of, there is no order the officer has to follow. As long as he tells you at some point, whether it be at the beginning, middle, or end of the contact, why he's stopping you, he fulfilled his legal obligation.
If you are in a vehicle the police do have a lot more leeway and can usually just make up an excuse, however it's important to state politely that you do not consent to a search.
It's also important in the US to keep your hands where they can see them and to remain calm.
Favourite excuses for a stop include minor road infractions and vehicle defects, whilst in terms of a search the favourite is always 'I can smell Marijuana', which is often total nonsense.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-25-2018 at 07:42 AM..
I don't understand why some people are reluctant to give their name or ID if a police officer asks. Maybe the officer is looking for a crime suspect and just wants to clear you? You know that's their job, right?
If you did nothing wrong, then what's the problem? Do you think a police officer can't easily find out your information some other way? I don't get it.
A suspected warrant is another favourite of the US Police, again be polite and clearly state you don't have a warrant or you could end up dead like the poor man on the tractor in the first video. He was wrinfully susoected of having a warrant but didn't live to tell the tale. The secind video involves an officer planting drugs, which led to 263 further cases being discovered.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-25-2018 at 08:03 AM..
I don't understand why some people are reluctant to give their name or ID if a police officer asks. Maybe the officer is looking for a crime suspect and just wants to clear you? You know that's their job, right?
If you did nothing wrong, then what's the problem? Do you think a police officer can't easily find out your information some other way? I don't get it.
The police must adhere to the law, they should not go around demanding names at will or identities, as that's harassment, especially when targeted against people based on race, religion, culture, sexuality, disability etc.
A police officer must have a reasonble or probable cause to believe you have committed a crime or are about to, and should not use stop and search as a means to finding a probable cause as they should have the probablr cause in the first place.
In terms of identity, the police should have probable cause to stop you on the street and a geniune reason to carry out a search in a vehicle.
You do have to give licence and insurance details when in a vehicle, however you can do this by simply hading them your documents. However you do not have to agree to a search of the vehicle and any search must have a probable cause.
In terms of photography, public photography is allowed in most countries, however there are certain restricted areas but these are usually well defined and sign posted.
Have you noticed that police seem to always want an ID when ever you come into contact with them. Most states only allow them to do that if you are suspected of a crime. When you get pulled over for speeding I get that they can ask for ID. I'm seeing so many videos now online where people are constantly asked for ID. Personal example was wife went home for lunch saw a man standing on my neighbors lawn didn't know him she called me asked what to do. I thought it was someone putting fliers on doors, so we didn't do anything. Later that day his alarm goes off someone was trying to break into the home.
When I get home I go over there and tell the officer who is taking a report what my wife say he asks for her name and Date of birth. I asked him why do you need that if you want to talk to her I can call her outside I can give you her phone number. He didn't want that at all I gave it to him even though I shouldn't have. What I suspect he wanted to run her name see if she had warrants had nothing to do with her being a witness. People in this country who are law abiding should not have be subjected to constant background checks what happend to the presumption of innocence.
I haven't had a negative experience with a police officer in 30 years. That is something that you kind of grow out of once you stop breaking the law and going out every Friday night. If a cop asks me for my ID, I give it to him, knowing I have nothing to hide...
I haven't had a negative experience with a police officer in 30 years. That is something that you kind of grow out of once you stop breaking the law and going out every Friday night. If a cop asks me for my ID, I give it to him, knowing I have nothing to hide...
I will give a police officer my name but only if I legally need to.
The police are not above the law and should not just be demanding names.
The police must adhere to the law, they should not go around demanding names at will or identities, as that's harassment, especially when targeted against people based on race, religion, culture, sexuality, disability etc.
Sadly, it is a fact that in the United States most crimes in many cities are committed by low-income black and Hispanic males.
That doesn't give the police the right to target based on race. However, it does mean that this demographic is disproportionately arrested and shows up in criminal records.
A suspected warrant is another favourite of the US Police, again be polite and clearly state you don't have a warrant or you could end up dead like the poor man on the tractor in the first video. He was wrinfully susoected of having a warrant but didn't live to tell the tale. The secind video involves an officer planting drugs, which led to 263 further cases being discovered.
If the "poor man on the tractor" didn't have a warrant, all he had to was comply with LEO and he would still be sitting on his tractor. It's that simple.
If the "poor man on the tractor" didn't have a warrant, all he had to was comply with LEO and he would still be sitting on his tractor. It's that simple.
He didn't have a warrant the Police should have checked their facts first and people don't always comply for a number of reasons such as having bad previous experiences with the police or even having mental heath problems.
There is no excuse for what happened, indeed they could have checked before strangling the man and I suggest the police actually get their facts right in the first place relation to warrants rather than ignoring peoples rights.
As soon as you falsely arrest or detain someone it becomes assault and false imprisonment, by laying hands on the person it is battery but not satified with that they managed to add murder. Although in the US cops are rarely found guilty and they just walked free.
The onus in all such situations is for the police to prove your guilt and to make sure they check and double check before denying anyone of their liberty or putting hands on anyone. It is not for the individual to prove any inncent and the murdered man Armando Frank did deny having a warrant and even asked to see the warrant, which meant they should have checked in the first place.
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.
