Oh come on, this wasn’t a Gene Kelly moment, it’s someone who is looking at houses in the rain with no identification. It screams creepy and someone made a phone call. People don’t like to read about their neighbors in the newspaper and a little diligence goes a long way.
There is no law against creepy but it’s just common sense that it be checked out. It’s reasonable that police follow up on someone who looks like Charles Manson and claims to be a famous musician. It moves creepy up a notch.
First, they had no way of knowing he had no ID with him, so you can’t use that to justify their decision to call the police. Second, what’s so terrifying about looking at houses while walking? Are we supposed to wear blinkers, in case our gaze weirds out the muggles?
I’ll try to use small words and simple concepts, as it appears that they’re needed. It isn’t “against the law” to be out in the rain. But it is outside the norm. And when you add up a number of things that are outside the norm – out in the rain, freaking out the neighbors, claiming to be a famous guy, no id – then we get to “this is suspicious.” The police aren’t simply charged with finding lawbreakers; they’re also charged with helping the public. And one way you figure out that someone needs help is (wait for it) if they’re acting outside of normal.
It likely would be helpful if you were to read more than just wikipedia. I’d suggest reading not only Terry but its progeny to understand the issue of reasonable suspicion. In Terry, for example, the guy appeared to be “casing the joint” – walking back and forth in front of a store, wearing inappropriate clothing for the weather, and generally pinging the detective’s radar. A Terry stop (and note, we didn’t even get to a Terry stop here) doesn’t require a lot. But here, by contrast, Mr. Dylan cooperated without the police. He didn’t stand on his Fourth Amendment rights, and so it really doesn’t matter what Terry or any of the other cases say. Mr. Dylan exercised his First Amendment right to cooperate with the police. So Terry is inapplicable, as, frankly, are all Fourth Amendment cases. It seems to me that what you’re actually arguing is not that the police should have stopped Mr. Dylan, but instead that Mr. Dylan shouldn’t have cooperated with them (although he unquestionably has the right to cooperate).
You’d be what we call “not normal,” then; or, as I previously pointed out, an “outlier.” And, frankly, you’re being deliberately obtuse.
This is beyond absurd. When it’s raining, people stay in, or they hurry to their destination. That is normal human behavior. You can certainly posit all sorts of reasons why someone might not be hurrying to get out of the rain, but if you do, you’re rationalizing.
Besides, bottom line – police asked Mr. Dylan a question, he chose to respond, and he chose to continue the encounter. So what?
Just because you dont take the rights you have as a citizen of the United States (that countless Americans have fought and died for) seriously dosent mean the rest of us should not.
I can’t help but picture the RO thread if the cop had let him go, and it turned out he wasn’t Bob Dylan, and then went and raped or killed someone. :rolleyes:
Everyone that is now bashing the cop now would be bashing her then for not verifying the identity of someone claiming to be a famous person.
Talk about a Koboyashi Maru scenario, the cop can’t win.
Those rich fucks! This whole fucking thing…I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that Bob Dylan could exercise his rights to comply with the police!
Stranger
I never said the caller knew the person didn’t have an ID. The lack of ID made it impossible to identify him to the police. The call was made because a strange person was walking around and they wanted him investigated. That’s what neighbors do for each other. I’ve stopped 2 burglaries doing this.
Magiver (et al; there were fewer replies before I refreshed), what does the level of government have to do with the question of whether someone can/should be compelled to provide identification and a plausible reason for being somewhere? While it makes for a nice and tidy claim of but “it didn’t involve a national police force,” that sort of jumps over the question. Are you saying that every state could pass a compulsory identification law?
I really don’t know if/how this is a left/right issue, if the distinction is that it’s OK for each state to have such a law—because it’s quite arbitrary to say that that’s OK as long as the Federal government doesn’t partake. Could certain states voluntarily share information? Why not? Couldn’t all states pool their information?
A lot of this really turns on pragmatic implementation. Your other point, that it’s not wrong—and taking it further, is inherently part of a policeman’s duty—to question someone who is acting or appearing out of the norm isn’t disagreeable. I’ll even go so far as to grant that a beat cop can/should mosey from person to person chatting up a storm and (politely) asking who they are and what they’re doing, and whether they’ve tried Mrs. Crabapple’s lemon pie at the corner store. In fact come to think of it, since Casa Dvl is now just a short hop outside New York City with several acres between houses and at the end of a mile-long, out-of-the-way cul-de-sac, and there are no parking lots, train stations, or even bus stops for miles, damn straight if I see someone just standing there (in the rain no less) on the street, I’d want the police to authoritatively question him.
How that turns out walks the fine line of pragmatic implementation. As from the OP, do they question him so forcefully that he feels compelled, under pain of resisting a lawful order, to produce ID or a reason for being there? Despite my personal, emotional desires (which make awful laws and legal theory) for them to do so, I say no. I think that barring certain outlying situations, a person should not be compelled to produce identification or a justification for existing in a public space. That doesn’t mean the police can’t ask. That doesn’t mean that I think the police have infinite training opportunities such that they can be effectively trained to ask without infringing on that right. That doesn’t mean the police were wrong or malignant in this situation. But I do think that in Great Debates, the nuance of the question deserves better treatment than in the Pit.
The perspective is that the police didn’t randomly pounce on him. The gray area is the need to protect people versus the freedom to act in a manner some people find strange. The controlling factor is a judgement call by the police and that BEGINS with the ability to identify someone. From there an officer needs to feel the person is, in fact, just walking around enjoying the day. It’s hard to express this in debate form but even an untrained person can quickly tell if someone is lying or acting in manner that warrants further investigation.
I have to believe that Mr. Dylan understood that his appearance walking in the rain looking at houses could be construed as suspicious and that not having any ID made it difficult for the police to accept he isn’t a crackpot or ner-do-well with an arrest warrant.
The fuck? Are you suggesting his rights were in some way violated? Exactly which of his rights were violated, and how?
Actually, she did not “offer him a ride”. Read what I quoted in the OP again:
To me, that was an order to get in the car. And she didn’t seat him up front, but in the back, where he is locked in and cannot get out. She basically imprisoned him in her car, didn’t she? I mean, if you can’t get out on your own, aren’t you imprisoned?
Again I would ask: is there anyone who in this situation would have felt free to leave at any time, or to not answer the officers questions?
To me this is more of a GQ issue. Whether or not anyone has the right to loiter in the rain is not really an issue here. Legally a police officer has every right to ask questions and to make a request that a citizen produce identification and to request that a citizen get in the car and get driven to where the citizen states they are staying. Legally the citizen has every right to comply or to refuse and even to leave unless they are given an “order” to stay, right? I think there was a thread before about leaving after a police officer questions without being told you are free to go but my search skills cannot bring it up.
What is legally needed to allow a police officer to give the order to stay, what is needed to order someone into the vehicle, and what is required to justify an arrest?
This isn’t a cop tasering a “soccer Mom” after having apparently lied to her about having seen her with a cell phone and having clocked her going 5 mph over the speed limit, or even like in the Gates case where the officer’s version of events conflicts with both the arrested individual’s version and other witnesses versions, including the person who called in the “suspicious event”. This officer was polite, made requests, and Dylan willingly complied. On the scale of offense this is a non-event.
Wearing a bowler is outside the norm. According to you, this is reason for the police to pull up next to a person walking down the street, ask them what he’s doing, after getting a reasonable answer asking him his name, and if this person has a famous name asking for ID, and if the person isn’t carrying ID (which isn’t required) tell that that they should go for a ride and get that ID so his identity could be verified? This is all reasonable to you?
Shit, I see a lot more people walking in the rain then wearing a bowler. Where are you people from where the streets are barren when some water falls from the sky and if someone should be outside, the police ought to have their suspicions raised?
Exaggerate much?
The situation should never have gotten as far as the police asking him his name. And he was a famous person. That’s not a valid reason for police to take you to another location to produce identification.
Nothing suspicious about that. ID is not required and there’s no reason anyone going for a walk in the rain to look at houses should bring it along.
In your paranoid world, maybe. Not enough reason to pull along folks, ask them what they’re doing and after getting a reasonable answer have it escalate to driving that person to produce identification.
Nonsense. Pick people out of a crowd and any one of them is “acting outside the norm” in some way. Not enough to be questioned by police.
I’m not normal because I sometimes walk in the rain? I wasn’t being obtuse for questioning why walking in the rain is suspicious. Long Branch is busy tourist destination. You’ll find people walking in the rain there all the time and there’s nothing suspicious about it.
Which part is absurd? Rationalizing? You’ve rationalized that being in the rain is suspicious behavior that is abnormal and a reason for being questioned by police. Who’s rationalizing?
They asked him several questions and took him to another location to produce identification. Don’t turn the encounter to being one that Dylan is responsible for and downplaying the actions of the police. “He chose to continue”, sheesh!
This is prolly the only part that I disagree with you on. Any police officer anywhere is justified in walking up to anyone and striking up conversation. To not allow an officer to do this would make them nearly unable to do their job, and would disallow them to, through socialization while in uniform, form bonds with citizens within the community.
You’re aware this wasn’t a situation where the police were “striking up conversation” and “forming bonds” and I wasn’t advocating disallowing police officers from doing anything, right?
Yeah; I’m just saying that as a rule, officers are well within their rights, as well as the scope of their job, to speak with people and ask them questions.
And since there had been a call placed, the officer was pretty much bound to do what they could to at least try and determine some facts about the situation, hence asking for the man’s name.
It’s the stuff that happened afterwards that bothers me, not the least because SCOTUS rulings seem to indicate that, in fact, whenever an officer stops you, you are detained.
In this case, it seems to me that the intent to restrain was unclear, until the officer “put” (the officer’s words, not mine) the gentleman into the backseat of the car, where he was, in fact, unable to leave without the officer releasing him. He was effectively seized at that point, since he was now restrained.
Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that any reasonable person would not have felt unable to just walk away. If being in the rain is suspicious, if giving a name and not having ID is suspicious, then wouldn’t saying “ok, I don’t want to talk to you anymore” be likely to raise the officers hackles even more? Is that how they train officers? Is that the kind of thought process and logic that we want our police force working with?
Can you stop leaving pertinent facts out of the suppositions you are basing your posts on? Dylan was “looking at houses” in the rain because he was “on tour with other famous rockstars” (figurative quotes, not literal).
These are not things that normal, everyday people will say.
No, you said you disagreed with me and gave reasons that were irrelevant to the situation and inferred that I was advocating something that I didn’t.
The police were not bound to ask a man for his name because a call was placed. He was walking down the street and when he answered that he was looking at houses, he should have been left alone.
Snowboarder Bo was responding to posters that claim that Dylan could have walked away and is responsible for the situation escalating to the point it did. Whether someone could have just walked away has nothing to do with him being a rock star and looking at houses, so he didn’t leave out pertinent facts.
Most people aren’t law experts and aren’t up on what we can and can’t do when being asked questions and asked to do things by police. That’s why most of us are taught to just cooperate with police and make police complaints later. Those that are claiming “he was offered a ride” and “he chose to respond” are downplaying the actions of the police.
At a certain point, a person’s behavior goes past that of normal and into the realm of abnormal. Abnormal behavior can turn into dangerous or criminal behavior at the drop of a hat, and you don’t know when that’s going to happen.
An old man wandering aimlessly looking at houses in the rain is abnormal. Today, it’s an eccentric music legend. Tomorrow, it’s a guy looking for an empty house to steal something out of. The day after, it’s a stroke victim who doesn’t know where he is. Once the police get called in by a concerned citizen, they have to see it through to the end, which means the “suspicious person” is going to be positively identified, come hell or high water.
You can do it the Bob Dylan way, cooperate fully and in 20 minutes everything is hashed out (heh.) and you go on with your day. Or you can be the “I don’t have to show you my papers, Comrade.” type and spend the next 8 hours getting it sorted out.
No, he was rehashing what happened and supposed that the mere act of being in the rain and not giving ID was not suspicious. What actually occurred was not merely being in the rain and not giving ID. The devil is in the facts, overlooked regularly in this thread.