A few posters in rapid succession have brought up “showing ID.” The cops (at least according to the OP) weren’t asking for ID, they were asking for his name.
If the cops were in the mood to make a dickish power play, they would have taken him to the police station. They outright begged him to just give them his name so that they could move on. If they were really in the mood to be pricks they wouldn’t have been nice, they’d have immediately started busting his balls for being in the park and been rude. Even the OP presented them as acting in a nice, professional manner.
You committed at least two crimes and refused to identify yourself to the police.
If you had committed no crimes, I’d say that you were totally in the right. But, you trespassed and were carrying an illegal weapon. You definitely should have cooperated, especially since the police seemed like they would be willing to leave you alone afterwards.
I disagree and it also appears that you’ve failed to read the OP in its correct chronological order.
It’s the job of the police to investigate things that are abnormal or out of line. Police don’t cruise around at midnight for their health, it’s their job to try and stop crimes at night as well as during the day. When they see two people hanging around in a park where they are not supposed to be, they have an obligation to investigate. Do they have to cite them for trespassing? Of course not. But to just drive on and hope that nothing bad is going on would be unethical, “protect and serve” doesn’t mean you only check out a problem when you get a 911 call asking you to come help. You investigate potential problems, too.
The police in the OP were portrayed as professional and polite. There is an entirely different way they could have done everything if they were just interested in being authoritarian pricks, and they didn’t do that.
They were well within their proper authority to come up and question what him and his friend were doing. You do have to identify yourself to police, they do not have to arrest you to have the authority to ask you to identify yourself. If they want to force you to identify yourself, then sure, they’ll have to arrest you, but they don’t have to have probable cause to ask two people who are somewhere they aren’t supposed to be what they’re doing.
The reason I mention you mess the chronology up is the OP puts things in this order:
-Police come up and ask them what they are doing
-OP tells them
-Police ask if they can search him, he consents
-They find a concealed weapon that is in violation of statute
The police are perfectly within their authority to search you at any time if you consent. There are rules about when police can search you without a warrant against your consent, but once you give consent, the search is by its very nature considered reasonable and proper.
It was not until after they found the weapon, and were ready to leave, that they asked his name. At that point they were within their authority to ask that, they had caught him with a concealed weapon (that they found after a search to which he consented.)
If the police stop you on the street or come up to you and ask you ‘what are you doing?’ You have the right to ask them “why do you want to know/why did you stop me?” If they don’t have a reason, then it’s not a proper stop. I imagine if the OP had asked the cops that they would have said, “because you two are in a public park after operating hours and we were wondering what was going on” and that would have been more than sufficient enough reason for them to stop and question.
I don’t know what you’re doing right now, but I suspect you’re in violation some minor local ordinance. Of course, you’ll be happy for “the authority” to show up at your door, demand your name, arrest you if you don’t comply, just to make sure you’re not guilty of something more serious. Right?
[/QUOTE]
They don’t need a reason under the law to search you if you consent to the search. Consenting to a search is in effect waiving your 4th Amendment rights.
As it is, if I read correctly they didn’t find the knife during the consensual search, but after they asked the OP if he had any weapons and he produced the knife (which I realized after making my above post.)
When the police approached him and his friend to question him they were effectively detaining them under “reasonable suspicion” (which is all you need to stop someone, you need probable cause for arrests and warrants, not stops.) Any time the police detain someone, even if it is not for the purpose of arresting them, they can pat you down for weapons or ask you if you have any weapons, for their own safety. They can’t use the pat down as a cheap excuse to perform a full search.
In any case, the OP consented to an actual search.
Anyone else suspect the OP isn’t getting quite the response he had hoped for?
I agree, it is hard to believe he would consent to searches of his car and person (rarely if ever a good idea IMO), but then get all pissy when asked his name.
Reply, if you don’t like the way this incident turned out, next time cops approach you at 1:30 in the morning why don’t you try running away from them, occasionally turning back to point your arm at them? Might be an effective way to guarantee you never have to worry about this kind of inconvenience again.
This claim shows up with some frequency — the idea that there are a plethora of minor local ordinances such that an ordinary person is often unknowingly in violation of one or more, entirely innocently.
Putting aside speeding, which I think it’s doubtful that a reader of this thread is doing “right now,” I challenge this claim. It’s not at all likely that a given random person is in violation of some ordinance at any given point in time. This claim is absurd.
Cops are constantly watching a person’s behavior for indications of lying. They know when they’re dealing with someone who has nothing to hide. Reply told the truth and everything was going smooth up until the moment he refused to show his ID. In the cops mind, alarm bells are going off.
Why would someone not want to produce an ID? The most likely answer is they’re hiding something. Warrants or criminal history. Yeah, standing up for your right is also a possibility but 9 times out of 10 they’re hiding something.
And hanging around in a park in the middle of the night is always reason for suspicion whether is written or not.
I don’t really get the impression that the OP was coming at this with a cocky, assured attitude. I took away from his post that he genuinely considered it possible he could’ve been in the wrong, and that’s why he created the post.
I’m on the fence to this response. I’m not sure if the OP is looking for approval, or just for opinions. Though I fully believe he made a really stupid mistake for a nice enough guy, I don’t think he is looking for approvals.
He’s going to have to learn from this mistake, and possibly regret it when a future employer decides to pull his public record.
I didn’t pull a permit when I replaced the light switch in the bathroom. That one will be a violation until I pull the proper permit and have it inspected.
We have a pet that is not registered.
Neither of the 5 bicycles we own are registered.
There, that only took a couple of minutes and I’ve never read the local municipal code. There’s probably lots more.
I also didn’t rinse out the mustard jar before I threw it in the recycling bin.
Thanks, I had the same question. I have a Swiss Army knife, which I used to carry on planes with no problem, before 9/11. For those who don’t want to read the link, folding knives that aren’t switchblades over 2 inches are legal, but many non-folding knives are illegal. Since I doubt Reply carried an open blade in his pocket, I also wonder what kind of knife it was.
(And I agree with the general consensus if anyone cares.)
You’re kidding, right? How many people carrying a pocket knife are well-versed in the laws applying to their pocket knife, instead of assuming it’s legal to carry their “pocket knife” in their pocket. There’s a staggering array of laws applying to knives alone, the point being not only that is carrying your pocket knife probably regulated, the regulation governing the carry of said knife may vary between whatever city & county you happen to drive through.
Yes, that’s restricting it to knives at the moment, I’ll see what other examples I can come up with.
This link from the NYS Attorney General’s office describes the particular rules of New York Law as to stops… the beginning has a good explanation of a “Terry stop”; a stop & safety frisk under reasonable suspicion, based on Terry v. Ohio, which is the basic standard set by the Supreme Court (some states make the standard higher).
Hanging out in parks after hours, though, is something I would expect a police officer to investigate, especially if there’s been a rash of stabbings in the nearby area. It’s pretty common knowledge–around here, at any rate–that if you’re on a public beach, forest preserve, or park loitering after hours, eventually the police will come and ask you what’s going on. It’s happened to me several times and it’s never been much of an issue.
I think you’re way off base on this one. I think the cops were being more than reasonable until Random started the “power play” by acting like an asshole. I mean, if you’re going to pick a battle in this, at least start by not consenting to the search. That makes a heck of a lot more sense than not giving your name.
Well in actuality I know the laws in my state because I carry a pocket knife wherever I go. Have for 20 years. I carry different ones for different occasions. I have a nice Kershaw I carry to dinner events, a brand new Buck for everyday utility, and a sharp Gerber for fishing.
Something that has not received a lot of attention -
Of course you passed a field sobriety test, later, but it is interesting that one purpose of the trip to the park was to sober up, but the way to get to the park is to drive. Something to think about, at least.
Yes, I think they were. You are obligated (if the laws in your jurisdiction say so) to identify yourself if asked, you were in the park after it was closed, and you had a knife.
He sounds like he was cutting you some slack until you refused to give your name. I agree, he probably wanted to run your name thru the computer looking for warrants and past history, and that part about “just give your name and we are on our way” was probably a lie.
Still and all, I would have given him my name. And that part about “sure you can search me but I won’t tell you my name” is kind of silly. Why draw the line there?
All this is subject to the usual caveats about facts not yet revealed.