You’re kind of all over the place on that post.
I don’t see how asking for someone’s SS# is in any way illegal. The only thing that would be illegal is if there was an actual consequence for not providing it. But the idea that it cannot even be asked for is ludicrous.
And don’t forget, cops can lie to get the information they want. SCOTUS ruled on that decades ago.
But it seems schools need to start teaching civics again.
Cops asking people for their SSN (or really, anything else) in a voluntary encounter is perfectly legal. Police telling people that they must provide their SSN or it would violate a made-up federal law is dicey at best and the circumstances matter. Would a reasonable person under the circumstances feel free to leave without answering the question? If the cop has been trained that the person must answer, I’m guessing that cop isn’t letting the person leave freely. Police telling people they are not free to leave until they provide their SSN are either coercing a statement (in violation of the person’s fifth amendment privilege and MIranda) or are subjecting people who won’t answer to unconstitutional detention. If police have been trained to unlawfully detain people who don’t answer, unlawfully detained people will have no redress.
I’m sorry I didn’t spell all that out before. People can read and interpret.
Presumably the schools need to teach children about dishonest cops and why recording encounters with the police might be advisable.
Perhaps the cops should be the ones taking the class first.
Why? As has been posted they don’t seem to be doing anything illegal or against their department polIcy.
But citizens Should know they don’t have to talk to police except to id themselves in limited situations.
This might be a little heavy content wise for High School since it’s from a law school lecture–but it’s actually a talk from a lay person (at the time–a cop who was a law student), and mostly using plain language not complicated legal talk–but I’ve always thought this video is something 12th grade civics teachers should consider having their students watch: (1) Don’t Talk to the Police - YouTube
Maybe with a decent civics education, cops wouldn’t believe in fake federal laws that violate the US Constitution.
The problem, as I noted, is that cops are protected by their ignorance, so they have every reason to foster it.
It’s worth noting that none of that makes anything they collect impermissibly admissible in court, their ignorance or notwithstanding. Departments that foster bad behavior also generally get hit with fairly crippling amounts of civil litigation. It may sound like nothing but that’s not really true, some cities have had to pay out over $100m/yr in police misconduct lawsuit claims.
This does have a real effect on setting policy, and in general sees many poor policies corrected, which removes the “I was trained bad” shield you’re alluding to existing.
You haven’t made any case that they’ve violated any provision of the constitution.
Second of all, you’re thinking of ethics, not civics.
Lying certainly is not ethical but the OP is about legality, not ethics. What is legal is not always ethical and sometimes vice versa.
Stupid question from a non-American - but can the average US citizen reliably recite their SSN, or do they always carry ID that has it? (Let alone your average street encounter type who may not be up to the national IQ average?)
Important to is the qualifier for identifying yourself - " Police may briefly detain a person if the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime"
But of course, reasonable suspicion can be fabricated if necessary (like a crime in the area was recently reported involving a matching gender or ethnicity); plus I see the OP’s point, the saying is “you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride”. Whether the officer is justified or not, what are the consequences for them if they turn out to have arrested you (for being uncooperative, for making their life difficult, or just because they’re bored) and it turns out they shouldn’t have?
Social Security cards and numbers aren’t supposed to be used as a form of ID but in reality they many times are. I believe some states may use them as a DL number but am not certain of that.
The question that needs to be answered is what happens when folks refuse to provide it? An obstructing charge seems extremely far fetched to me. I can’t see that standing up in court.
Making a false arrest is a very serious trick bag no cop wants to find himself in.
I made a case that police can use their deficient training about a made-up law to violate people’s civil rights without recourse. I consider that adequate for the purposes of our discussion. I’m not sure what case you think I should be making.
Decent civics education might teach LAPD officers that:
(1) they are charged with enforcing the law so they should know something about it,
(2) LAPD officers enforce state law, not federal law, so they should know that when a trainer tells them there is a federal law that requires citizens to provide LAPD officers with an SSN, the LAPD officers would recognize that the law is bullshit.
(3) the US constitution prohibits illegal seizures and compelled testimony so if an LAPD trainer tells them they can stop people against their will and compel them to provide information like their SSN, they know the trainer is an idiot and the training is bullshit.
Absolutely, but Americans also know not to give it to just anyone because it can be used to commit fraud.
As a practical matter, there are no consequences because of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the difficulty of “clearly establishing” rights, and because it’s very hard to prove that a cop really isn’t as ignorant as they say they are when asked if they knew what they were doing violated the constitution.
Except you incorrect in your thinking,
Asking people for their SS# is not violating someones civil rights.
Officers lying to people is not violating their civil rights.
And what “civil rights” are you talking about, any way?
If they arrested someone for not providing a SS#, NOW you’d possibly have a civil rights violation.
Do you have a cite, example or other evidence showing such a situation has occurred? Specifically, that of a policy of training officers to deliberately violate the law to insulate them against penalty, due to being able to cite their improper training? If so, could you provide evidence of such occurring for the thread?
This thread at least ostensibly was about what information police can collect without a warrant. The answer is–if police collect information in a manner that conflicts with constitutional law, their evidence is inadmissible in court. Police generally like to see their arrests become convictions, and police officers who routinely collect evidence in a way that fucks cases, and gets them thrown out in pre-trial motions, become very unpopular in their department. Most police evidentiary policies and procedures are designed to get evidence necessary to obtain convictions, in a way that will not see the cases lost on procedural grounds at trial.
According to SSA, 29 states put your SSN on your driver license.
In the rest of the country, the standard advice is to not carry one’s SS card in one’s wallet because of the potential for identity theft. Surely there can be no legal penalty for not having your SS card on you.
And it would be truly bizarre for a law to require one to memorize one’s SS number.
I can’t see how there could possibly be a legal penalty for refusing to provide a SSN during a random police detention.
Seriously?
I’ve watched countless videos on YT of people getting arrested for refusing to give ID or a name when they were not suspected of a crime or suspected of intending to commit a crime.
FYI: There is no state in the union that requires citizens to give ID or give a name unless they are suspected of a crime or suspected to commit a crime.
What were they charged with?
And did the charges stick?
If the charges stuck or not is beside the point. They still got arrested and hauled off to jail.
The charges are usually “Obstruction” or "failure to ID.
Just go to YT and search: “Arrested for failure to ID”
Differening state laws, differening dept policies, but giving which piece(s) of info generally qualifies as identifying oneself enough to PD such that you aren’t required to provide any of the other piece(s)?
I said, “Cops asking people for their SSN (or really, anything else) in a voluntary encounter is perfectly legal.” Where is my thinking wrong?
I never said the officers were lying. I said they were ignorant because, in this case at least according to the article, they were trained to be.
Civil rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Have you heard of them? They teach people about them in civics.
Hey, you’re catching on! But let’s not forget about the Fifth Amendment, when cops get the answer they wanted by threatening to arrest people who don’t comply. After all, they were trained that federal law requires people to provide it. Why wouldn’t they threaten to arrest people who don’t comply?
Other than the statement in the article, I don’t have a specific example of police being trained in the law falsely to insulate them from accountability. This is the first potential example I have heard of, which doesn’t mean it is the only example. I learn new things all the time. It is possible the poor training is an innocent mistake but I remain suspicious. It’s also possible the article is wrong about how officers are trained.
Yes, the exclusionary rule, which offers no protection to people who are harassed, detained (however briefly), and not charged with a crime. So everyday citizens who are not even suspects get no protection whereas defendants get the bare minimum.
The exclusionary rule protects only the person whose rights were violated. So, if the police use my illegally obtained social media data to implicate my husband, well, he’s out of luck.