Maybe. It’s so hard to tell. The OP did ask “May I go?” when the officer asked them to stay while he checked with his supervisor, and the officer told them to wait, which puts them into the detaining mode.
However, you and others have commented that the officer isn’t required to tell the detainee their RAS, so we don’t know if there actually was one - I’m going on the assumption that the OP acting oddly and then refusing to show ID, and then refusing to identify themselves (three separate issues) was what the officer was thinking of as their RAS.
What matters is that the officer did actually check on the statutes and let the OP go immediately upon receiving confirmation that they were right about the law (useless bragging and posturing notwithstanding).
So I’d say that judging SOLELY by this account, the officer was skirting the edge of the detaining without reasonable suspicion area while checking the relevant statutes, as the RAS could have been their odd behavior and refusal to identify themselves when asked (I don’t know the OPs home laws, but where I live, you have to identify yourself when asked, but you don’t have to show ID).
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if the post-detaining knowledge that the OP doesn’t have to show ID would invalidate the rest of the RAS in the first place, therefore making it an unlawful detention altogether. One would think there is reasonable assumption that an officer would actually know the laws they’re supposed to be enforcing, but I’d not want to depend on that myself.
Crafter_Man - If a cop were to say to you “Good evening, sir, how are you?”, would you really reply “Am I free to go?”? While I recognize that this might be a technically legal response, it seems nearly guaranteed to move you from encounter to detainment. That’s a move I would prefer not to make, even if there might be repercussions for the cop later.
If I understand correctly, drivers are always required to avoid accidents if they can, so your ex-wife would actually have been at fault as well. And, for the record, she has a truly lousy attitude towards driving. Who wants all the pain, expense, and hassle of an easily-avoided accident?
What are “vents?”
My husband always makes me take ID with me when I go out for a walk in case something happens - he doesn’t want me languishing in a hospital with “Jane Doe” as my name, and him not getting the phone call about where I am and what happened to me.
Regarding the OP, I’m currently reading about Soviet Russia, and swinging back and forth between thinking that a tiny little abrogation of the OP’s civil rights is no big deal, and thinking that stepping on that slippery slide really is a bad thing.
Thing is, Americans have never been required to have “papers”, and as far as I know (Hiibel and the realities of life in the Electronic Age notwithstanding), this is still the case. A fair number of Americans–politically left, right, and sideways–believe this is an important principle of law to uphold. And, if everyone automatically behaves exactly the same as if Americans were legally required to have “papers” whenever they left their houses, then pretty soon, sure enough, Americans will, de facto at least, be required to have “papers” whenever they leave their houses.
Also, let’s face it–more Americans could probably stand to walk to the grocery store now and then (or even more often than that). We need the exercise, and it’s better for the planet and our national economic security. Of course, it was cold out when the O.P. decided to walk a few blocks instead of drive, and it was a little bit late at night–but then again, it’s always cold out, or it’s too hot, or it’s raining, or you’ve had a long day at work and just don’t feel like it…there’s always some perfectly good, completely reasonable excuse to hop in the old gas-guzzler and drive three blocks to the grocery store, isn’t there?
As an individual whose mouth has gotten him arrested in the past, I say “why be a dick?” Being intentionally obtuse and confrontational doesn’t help. Cops have a job to do, and just because you don’t understand what it is and how to do it effectively doesn’t mean you have to assert your rights.
A reasonable explanation would have let both of you get on your way quickly. It’s win-win.
As an individual who spent many years as a cop, I say “why be a dick?”
You have zero idea about what was running through his head and why he stopped you.
In many statesyou do have the obligation to produce ID. Contrary to movies, cops don’t just make up shit for no reason.* Especially when it’s 9 degrees and snowing or whatever it was.
I’ve been around cops for over 22 years, and while I have certainly met some jerks, I have only encountered 2 that I saw crossed legal lines, and I reported both.
I know many people despise the “If you don’t have anything to hide…” position, but it works for me.
A few days before Xmas, I was out shopping while Mrs. and the kids were at a movie. When they got out, they called said we’d meet for dinner after Mrs. picked up a couple of things. I was literally across the street at a store finishing up, so I found a nearby place to park out of the way and wait for their call. Minutes later, she called and we’re discussing restaurants when a police car drove by, stopped, and whipped over to my right side. See, it’s crime-time of the year, and I’m backed up and blacked out next to a jewelry store! My windows are down, and he hears me telling my wife “I have to go tell the nice police-man why I’m in the dark”. He says stay there, I’ll come over, and he came to my passenger window. I had already turned on my dome light so he could see me better, and as he approached I pointed out the large gun tucked in the seat beside me. He says “I see it, thanks.” and we start chatting. Now he’s seen the FD plate on the front of my truck, he’s looking at a stack of radios, the dash-cam, and the red strobes on my dash, and I suspect his pucker factor dropped a bit.
I was polite, and explained just why I was where I was, and apologized for getting his adrenaline up. I had just picked a quiet spot between 2 stores, visible from the main road, but away from the noise so I could talk on the phone.
He asked about all the gear, and I explained everything. He never once even asked for ID. Why?
I was polite, helpful, honest, and my “story” was plausible and acceptable.
Why be a dick if you don’t have to be? The bottom line is, you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride. Being an asshole on principles clinches it.
Yeah, I know. Somewhere, sometimes it happens. The true number is vanishingly small IMHO. It’s not SOP anywhere in this country.
I always take my ID with me when I leave the house for a similar reason - my husband really wants me to, and I think it makes sense, at least for me. It’s a long shot, but I have a seizure disorder (granted, no seizures for two years, but you never know), and I’d rather not have any confusion as to who I am if I’m unable to answer for myself.
Back to the OP: the more I think about it, the more I think that it’s sort of understandable that the cop would at least stop you to ask how you were and possibly to see why you were out on such a cold night on foot. That said, my opinion is that the questioning should’ve stopped when you said you lived nearby.
You know, the more I think about this thread, the more I realize that police depend quite a bit on the cooperation of law-abiding citizens to effectively do their jobs. I really can’t think of anything wrong with complying with a reasonable request from an officer of the law even if you aren’t legally required to do so.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s living within a society. I’m sure being a cop is hard enough without people taking an adversarial stance for no good reason. It just amazes me how paranoid people can be.
ducati, per your link, it looks like only Colorado requires an actual ID, instead of giving your name verbally in many other states. Quite a few where it says that officers may demand you identify yourself don’t actually specify a penalty for failing to do so.
Wheelz, I know I’d be OK with casually giving my name (as it’s really unlikely that anyone else in the world has it, preventing mistaken identity issues), but not, say, warrantless car or home searches. There are lots of ways that this sort of “we’re living in a society here” type of ‘helping’ can really fuck you over needlessly.
Agree; in the OP’s case, we do not know if the LEO had RAS.
If so, the LEO needs to be educated. Because acting oddly is not a crime. And refusing to identify yourself when you are not detained is also not a crime. Remember, an LEO is only allowed to detain you if he/she has RAS you have committed a crime.
No. I only “lawyer up” during an official encounter, wherein I believe I am part of an LEO’s criminal investigation.
But, there’s a line somewhere where a “reasonable” request becomes unreasonable.
I think that being asked for ID from armed law enforcement while walking to the store and back is likely to feel unreasonable to the askee.
Normal behavior, even if it is atypical (like, apparently, walking outside in the cold to the store) should NEVER result in a stop from police.
It is possible that the OP matched a profile for a recently-committed crime, but a much more likely situation is that the cop was fishing for wrongdoers because the OP walking in his own neighborhood was ‘suspicious.’ Well, fuck that noise.
The last place in this world I want to live is one in which simply being out of doors qualifies as a suspicious action.
It may be that the cop had information that made this pedestrian stop necessary.
Other than traffic stops, I can’t recall one single instance in which a cop has asked me questions, and then it amounted to “Do you know why I stopped you?”
On the other hand, on several occasions I’ve asked cops who happened to be around questions, like, “Any idea if there’s a men’s room around here?”
Sure, I’ll agree that not everybody has the same personal definition of “reasonable.” But even the OP himself seemed to admit that his behavior may have seemed odd to the officer.
I think we’ve established that the cop was mistaken (or, less likely, lying) about the legal requirement for carrying ID as a pedestrian. Even so, under the circumstance, I personally don’t think it was unreasonable to ask the OP who he was, and it would have been no skin off his nose to say “I guess I left my wallet at home, but my name’s rostfrei and I live down the road a couple blocks on Maple.” No, he didn’t legally have to do so. I just don’t get the point of getting all bent out of shape about it.
Ferret Herder, I agree with you about warrantless searches, but IMO this situation doesn’t rise to that level of invasiveness, not by a long shot.
(snipped for the bits I’m responding to, because I agree with you on the walking.)
I never said that we’re required to have papers of any sort, just that most people do, and most people carry them around as a matter of course. The officer was probably just working from his standard encounter cheat sheet, expecting the OP to be just a run-of-the-mill average everyday Joe. I’m willing to bet that the officer deals with a lot of people telling him a lot of stories all the time, and one of the first things he’s going to want to do is confirm that story as quickly and efficiently as he can. (Especially if it’s 9 degrees out!)
Is it LEGAL for him to ask for the OP’s name and their ID immediately? Yes it is legal for him to ask, and if someone doesn’t know any better and just gives it to him because he asked for it, then that’s a quick no-hassle way for the cop to confirm at least part of the person’s story right there.
Polite nice interaction, and if the citizen in question doesn’t know that officer didn’t have a right to that info, it isn’t hurting them any to have provided it. In my case, even KNOWING that the officer doesn’t have a right to it, I would still provide it politely, and argue about it later. It’s the safest and easiest way to get out of what is essentially a misunderstanding.
The problem comes in when the officer in question doesn’t actually know the laws, and thinks that it is legal to REQUIRE the person to do whatever they asked, instead of just letting the officer ask for it as a polite and time-saving measure that the citizen can demur. When that happens, you get stuff like the OP, or even worse issues like cops confiscating people’s cellphones or cameras for videotaping them. It’s legal to videotape an officer, but most officers don’t know that, so problems occur.
The OP was within their rights to refuse the officer’s request, and as the officer obviously didn’t know the law, I actually think that it’s a good sign on his part that he called in and checked, instead of assuming the OP was lying and continuing to get on their case (which has happened, and people have gone to jail). Yes, it took him a few minutes to find out, and he should have known the laws before, but at least he checked and admitted that the OP was right.
I’m not saying the officer had a right to see the ID, just that it isn’t illegal for him to ASK to see it, and most people simply comply because they don’t care, or they’re intimidated, or they don’t know that they don’t have to. It’s probably very rare for someone who isn’t “up to something” to refuse a request from a cop purely because their civil rights allow them to do so. The officer in question has perhaps not even encountered it before. I have a feeling that Civil Rights 101 isn’t on the roster of most required police academy classes. (Which I think is a shame.)
Please don’t think I’m blaming the OP or trying to exonerate the officer - the officer was wrong (but I don’t think illegally wrong), and the OP was totally within their rights.
Encounters like this rarely end with butterflies and kum-ba-yah campfire songs. The officer is embarrassed because he didn’t know the laws, and he’s deflated because he thought the OP was suspicious and they weren’t, so you can’t really expect for him to be thankful and happy that the OP proved him wrong twice within about 5 minutes.
I would love for all officers to be perfect gentlemen and ladies and totally aware of their sense of self-importance and to be able to put their personal feelings and biases aside when they are in uniform. That ain’t gonna happen. They’re all humans. Because of that, I’d rather work WITH the officer if possible (even letting some of my civil rights slide for the occasion) and try to let us both win so I can go home safely and quickly and the officer doesn’t need to feel that I’m an enemy.
Is this right that I have to be worried about their feelings over my rights? Nope, but it’s the way it is. Same with anyone in authority. My personal method of dealing with it is: Suck up and get over it, and fight my battle later when I’m not under suspicion.
Now, I’m impressed and totally happy that other people are more willing to be confrontational. The more officers realize that they aren’t all-powerful and that there are limits to what they can ask for, the better everyone is. I’m just not going to kid anyone that I’m that person.
Sure. And, were I the OP, I’d probably just give the guy my license and be done with it. However, as MEBuckner said earlier in the thread:
I’m certainly glad someone is standing up for our right to walk about on public property without providing ‘papers’ to government agents. And, if the story is accurate, I think you could not find a more polite and reasonable way to do so than the OP.
It might be easier and more practical for everyone to waive certain freedoms, but it’s also important to exercise those freedoms occasionally before they disappear.
That’s true, but I do see the “just make it easier on the cop and yourself” argument coming up in those kinds of discussions, so I just wanted to contrast ways that being “helpful” could be a whole lot worse.
The thing is, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I’m just not as worried as some seem to be about the inevitablity of living in the Gestapo state you describe.
I don’t really buy into “Slippery Slope” arguments like this, because in my opinion they’re seldom as slippery as people fear. I’ll happily tell a cop where I live if he asks, but if he says he wants to come into my house and look around, I’ll tell him he needs a warrant. That’s not inconsistent, it’s just setting the line where I think it’s reasonable. And I tend to trust society as a whole to do the same.
It’s fairly cut and dry, actually. When it comes to RAS, the LEO must be able to *articulate *to a judge as to why he or she suspected you committed a crime and hence detained you. “He was acting strangely” does not count. “He looked out of place” does not count. “He looked suspicious” does not count. “A store was robbed a couple hours ago, and he fit the description” counts. “We saw fresh graffiti down the street, and noticed paint on his face” counts.
I have a number of friends who are LEOs. And the stories they tell. I am convinced 99% of LEOs know the law, but many simply don’t care if they break it. In other words, ignorance is not the problem, unfortunately.
Being aware that many Americans on the right understand Britain is a police state with survelliance helicopters, ‘Papers, please’ and cameras in our homes, I am pleased to point out we are far too incompetent to run one.
I’ve walked wherever I liked on public roads, in the town and in the country, at any time, in all weathers and never once been stopped by a cop. Nor usually have I had any form of ID.
New Labour desperately wanted a police state, to be modern and technocratic and cool; but our traditional apathy not only enabled them to pass such laws, but worked at the same time against them since even the bureaucrats and police couldn’t really care less.
I am convinced 99% of LEOs know the law, but many simply don’t care if they break it. In other words, ignorance is not the problem, unfortunately.