I thought GQ had a higher standard than that. The above is false and shouldn’t stand in GQ without a cite.
Reported.
Note that violating section (a) requires that the person be under arrest before refusing to give identifying information, and violating (b) requires that the person deliberately give false information after being arrested, lawfully detained, or witnessing an offense. Section 38.02 does not prohibit a random person, one not suspected of anything, from just walking away if asked for ID during a consensual encounter.
Since this is GQ I’ll just go with the old standby. Cite?
If somebody makes a statement, and you demand they produce a “Cite”, don’t get mad when you now have to live up to your own standard.
Since Loach is a cop he is citing his own personal experience. He doesn’t have to post it in a blog and provide you with a hyperlink to his blog to make it a “cite”.
And didn’t you read my post above about not pissing off a police officer if you don’t have to. :rolleyes:
Oh wait, yes you did. :smack:
If you are pissed off because somebody asks you to do the same thing you demand somebody else do, then you got a problem.
Oh wait, that is pretty much the thread at this point.
By law, and in principle, no law enforcement officer can just stop and demand you do anything. There has to be a lawful investigation, and a real cop knows this. Detaining or arresting somebody with no cause is a serious offense. If you are not a cop, it’s a felony.
If you are a cop, it’s just part of the job. You can be arrested for failing to do what a cop tells you to do. It happens all the time.
Failure to halt, follow instructions, it’s considered a crime. The catch is, that unless it’s in the course of conducting a lawful investigation, it’s illegal to detain or arrest a US citizen. Or to ask them for ID
Not carrying ID and refusing to identify yourself are two different things. Assuming you’re not driving, you’re not required to carry ID. If you’re detained, however, you are required to identifiy yourself, at least in my state - TX (see above).
Who makes the initial decision whether you’re being detained? The officer, of course. Not you.
You can always contest that decision, of course, weeks or months later, in court, if its worth it to you.
It is?
Send me your ID, please, right now.
What crime did I just commit?
There’s no crime I know of in asking anyone for ID. Just as with police officers, any person is entitled to walk up to anyone else and ask them questions. As long as the person is free to disregard those inquiries and go about his business, I’m not aware of any state that would criminalize that encounter.
Any cop, and any person, can approach you for any reason they please and ask you questions about anything…as long as you are free to disregard those inquiries and go about your business.
Nonsense. Police officers are not allowed to ask anyone, at anytime, anywhere, any question they please. In fact, doing so could legally speaking be a crime.
You are mistaking the burden of proof here. The burden of proof rests with the person making the initial claim, since it’s a claim of the existence of certain facts.
The person denying the truth of your claim does not have the burden of proof, since he’s denying that any such events exist. He cannot “cite” the lack of any such events; YOU must cite the presence of at least one.
Once you’ve done so, the burden then shifts to him to rebut or distinguish your example.
If this were a courtroom, you might have a point. No wait, it’s still not true.
Well, “anytime” and “anywhere” are untrue. Police may not enter your home uninvited and ask you questions while you relax in your hot tub, for example.
But of course I didn’t say that, did I? Those words are your invention.
What I said was: “Any cop, and any person, can approach you for any reason they please…”
And this is true. The police may not trespass. If you are already under arrest and have demanded a lawyer, they may not then question you. But those are special cases. The general rule is that if you’re simply walking down the street, or sitting at your favorite cafe, or fishing off the city pier, or admiring Vermeer’s Woman with a Lute, a police officer may approach you for any reason he pleases and ask you any question he pleases, as long as you are free to disregard that question and go about your business.
Out of morbid curiousity – what crime did your imagination conjure up, when you said, “…doing so could legally speaking be a crime?”
Of course they are. A cop can walk up to anyone, and ask any sort of question, just the same as you or me. And that person is free to answer or not answer the cop’s questions, the same as they are free to answer or not answer a question from you or me.
A cop can only compel you to answer questions under certain very limited circumstances, generally only for identification purposes or during life threatening emergencies.
A cop does have the power to detain you, or arrest you, or search you, again under certain circumstances.
And it is certainly true that if a cop walks up to someone and asks questions they like to give the impression that you are obligated to answer the questions, or that you can’t leave. Even though legally they are just asking you to voluntarily answer questions and stay put, they prefer to maintain ambiguity about what is actually happening. That’s the whole point of “Am I being detained? No, I don’t give you permission to search my car. Am I free to go?”
As we see every day on “Cops”, lots of people are under the impression that if a cop asks to search your car, you have to consent, if a cop asks you questions you are obligated to answer and can’t just walk away.
Obviously if a cop has the legal right to search your car he doesn’t need your consent. If he has detained or arrested you, you have the right to remain silent unless you waive that right. People confess criminal actions to cops all the time because they are under the impression that if they confess the cops will go easy on them, or something. Experienced criminals know that you should shut your mouth and ask for a lawyer, not try to talk the cops out of arresting you by confessing.
So the point is, the cops know how to use the psychology of authority to get people to answer questions, consent to searches, and confess to crimes, even though no one is obligated to do any such things, even when doing so is disastrous. You don’t have to answer questions (aside from sometimes identifying yourself), you don’t have to consent to searches, you don’t have to confess to crimes. People do it anyway because they think they’ll get in trouble if they don’t. Well, cops can hand out extrajudicial punishments like long annoying detentions, beatings, bogus arrests, planting evidence, lying on the witness stand about what you did, and so on. It could happen, but probably not because what’s in it for them?
In this language “stopping” means “detaining”, not walking up to you and asking questions. That’s what “Am I free to go?” is all about. Cops don’t have the right to detain you for no reason and demand that you answer questions. Cops do have the right to ask that you answer questions, which you are then free to answer or not, stick around or walk away. Cops like to give the impression that you’re obligated to answer questions, but you aren’t. And they like to give the impression that you can’t leave even when they have no grounds to detain you, but you can.
If they have grounds to detain you, and you ask if you’re free to leave, they’ll let you know. That’s why you don’t want to just walk away without confirming that you’re free to leave, otherwise you could get charged with resisting arrest or some such nonsense.
This is it. IIRC, the case that made it to the Supreme Court was simple - there was a report of a possible crime, the police were investigating, the guy fit the description (in fact, it was him. IIRC, he had a loud disagreement with his daughter that alarmed observers who called the police. They arrived after it was all over, investigated, and so asked him his name - he refused to tell them.)
The SCOTUS decision basically said when the police have reason to believe you are connected to a possible crime, and are investigating, and you appear to be connected to the incident, you cannot simply refuse to identify yourself and walk away. Otherwise, how would they ever investigate anything?
Note this related to a specific reason, a specific incident (possible crime) under investigation. All screaming headlines aside, this is a reasonable requirement - when the police stop you regarding a specific incident which they have reason to believe involves you, they are entitled to ask who you are and you must tell them. This is very different from “I saw him walking down the street looking suspicious”, NYPD style. Also, you must identifiy yourself - it says nothing about the requirement to produce papers please, Gestapo style.
No, and there are actually laws on the books, not just policy for Police departments about this.
I’m familiar with case law, which is why I know it’s quite illegal for a police officer to ask certain questions, as well as to ask them for no reason.
Can I request a cite please? 