I’d prefer if they didn’t frequently discriminate against certain groups of people. Since they do, I’d prefer to assert my rights anytime I can (even though I’m not the normal type to be discriminated against…but you never know, and you can’t trust someone like that). Usually they seem to view me as a naive victim of some scary minority guy, but there’s no reason to think they might not see me as an accomplice instead. I used to be more cooperative with the police until I learned more about how they operate (earning a bachelors degree in Law and Justice; working for the state Dept. of Corrections; etc.).
I can’t speak on your Canadian police though–maybe they’re tireless crusaders of justice. I hope they are. Around here, though, not so much. They’re not all bad or anything, but it would be misguided and possibly detrimental to implicitly trust them.
What if you do have ID and the officer asks to see it? Aren’t you obstructing his investigation by refusing to produce it? Or refusing to give your name?
I understand the 5th amendment and everything, but how does giving your name, showing your ID, or telling your address incriminate you in any way?
I turned 18 in the Vietnam era. I was required to register for the draft. (In case anyone is wondering whether I was faced with the draft, I first had a student deferment and then a fairly high draft number.) What I was told was that the requirements for a male of draftable age were both to register and to carrry one’s draft card at all times in public. With the exeptions of times walking down my street to the corner (in a tranquil, residential neighborhood with light police presence) I never conciously left home without my card-containing wallet. I was no doubt absent-minded enough to do so a few times while going a significant distance, but an equal or greater concern there would be being stopped while driving without my license. Fortunately, the second never happened.
Is what I was told about being a card-carrying member of draftable U.S. manhood true?
Really what did you acomplish by being an obstinate ass? Maybe if you were polite he would have let you keep charging your laptop.
Or if you want to have it out with some powermad rentacop, do it right. Tell him “fuck you! I’m charging my laptop, bitch.”
It isn’t about “standing up for your rights”. People like you and **Crafter_Man **have a problem with authority. You don’t like being told what to do because you think the cop or Homeland Security guy is a stupid jerk who is beneath you and you shouldn’t have to answer them. Hey, so do I! The difference is that it’s not important to me to “one up” him so I have no problem going along with the system to expediate my travel.
Let me relate a story that happened to my girlfriend on New Years Day. We’re walking to the ferry landing to Manhattan and a cop sitting in his car stops us:
Facist Cop: Where are you guys going?
Me: I don’t have to tell you. I am exercising my rights!
Facist Cop: Are you going to the Ferry?
Me: That’s none of your business! How dare you impede my right to travel where I please!
Facist Cop: Th…
Me: No more questions! Either arrest us or let us be on our way!
Facist Cop: Ok, fine.
30 minutes later, coming back the same way
Facist Cop / Me: Ferry’s not running today…
Actually the whole exchange between “where are you going” and “ferry isn’t running” was made up.
Yes. 32 CFR 1617.1 mandated that draft registrants registrants keep their registration certificates in their “personal possession at all times.” Deliberate violation of this requirement was a criminal offense under 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6).
The constitutionality of these regulations was upheld (at least implicitly) in US v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). O’Brien involved a registrant who burned his draft card and ran foul of another law that punishes a person who “…forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such [draft] certificate . . .” He argued, inter alia, that since Congress had already provided a penalty for non-possession, they could not create an additional penalty for destroying the card unless their motive was to stifle expressive speech. In their decision upholding O’Brien’s conviction, the Supreme Court makes clear that the non-possession law is also valid.
As a former cop I can tell you that nothing pisses one off faster than somebody challenging their authority. It is imperative that officers know what they can and can’t do under the law when it comes to detaining, questioning and arresting people. When John Q. Public is right you have to just let him walk away. But when he is not right often the only way he is convinced (and sometimes not then) is when he has been arrested and convicted.
Cop (with legitimate reason for asking): Hey, who are you?
You (not believing there is a legitimate reason): Why do you want to know?
Cop (option A): Something about your behavior or appearance has caused me to think you might be up to no good and it is my sworn duty to investigate such things. Now, what is your name?
Cop (option B): None of your business. I’m asking the questions here.
You (option A): Oh, I’m John Smith and I live right over there.
You (option B): What specifically about my behavior or appearence? Its because I’m_______ isn’t it?
You (option C): I know my rights. I don’t have to talk to you. I’m outta here.
Cop (option A): Ok. have a nice night.
Cop (option B): I don’t have to explain that to you right now and no, its not because you’re______. What is your name?
Cop (option C): You are not free to leave. I am conducting an investigation.
Cop (option D): [Wham!] O.K. wise guy! Where did you get your law degree?!
Things have to go just right for the encounter to end w/o confrontation and possible arrest and that is most likely to happen if you cooperate with the cop. Like it or not, the cop does not have to explain to you why is is questioning you. In some cases it is to his advantage and in some cases it is not. They are not looking to debate you in any case. They are properly trained to maintain control of situations and defiance sets off all kinds of alarms. Do you really want a guy with a gun and the ability to lock you up getting angry, nervous or fearful for his safety?
Some cops are just pricks and challenging that type is likely to end badly for you. If you have to deal w/one of these then be polite and later contact the Chief (or Mayor, if its a small enough town. Elected officials sometimes take these things seriously). Make your complaint unemotional and professional. In most cases, the pricks have a history and enough complaints will result in action. But not always. Hey, nobody said life was fair.
You may be correct for Ohio. AFAIK - not very far - you may be correct for my state as well. Perhaps I should phrase it as “there are circumstances where the cops can compel you to give identifying information. But you don’t have to carry ID, nor produce it on demand.”
IAStillNAL. But I don’t think you ever need to answer questions unless you have been subpoenaed and put under oath. Then you can be compelled to answer questions, providing they do not tend to incriminate you (unless you have been given immunity and your answers will not be used against you no matter what you say, if you abide by the terms of the agreement).
I don’t think you can lie to the cops, but you don’t have to tell them anything. That is to say, “I am not answering questions” is a valid response, but “I didn’t see anything” is not.
It is better to say nothing than to say something stupid, On the other hand, it is more common than not (in my experience) that cops don’t want to waste time any more than I want my time to be wasted. So “I am just out for a walk” is not necessarily the worst thing to say.
I often go for a walk of an evening, to smoke a cigar and look up at the stars and think and pray and generally relax before bed. And it has happened that one of the cops cruising my neighborhood has thought “I wonder what that crazy-looking old guy with the cigar is up to”. And I gave him my identifying information, and I told him what I was up to - going for a walk. Both because that was the fastest way to clear things up, and also so that he would get to know me and my neighborhood and next time, just say to himself “It’s that crazy Shodan wandering around after dark again” and think of me as a harmless eccentric rather than a potential burglar/Peeping Tom/pet rapist/whatever.
I have had varying levels of interaction with the local *gendarmarie * ranging from the pleasant and sociable up to traffic tickets and letting me know that my parking brake went out and my car was up on the neighbor’s lawn. I have not encountered the power-mad bullies that others have. Possibly this is because I am of a certain age, white, and also, possibly, because I am neither defensive nor intimidated. I know my rights quite well, and consider it rather an advantage than otherwise that the police station in my town is one right turn and about a half-mile away. It sure came in handy when I reported people breaking into mailboxes.
I had pondered during my posting that the question could be answered with a good enough word search. But even so, it’s unlikely that I could have found all of your info, including the relevant SCOTUS decision.
I was once stopped by a couple of pig-headed eedjits (sorry, security guards) in the Stockholm underground who wanted to know why I had made an arrow in chalk on the floor at the exit out from a station. Being a polite person I said something like “The natural explanation why someone draws an arrow is to show the way to something. Isn’t it?”.
After some discussion, during which I was told that I had an attitude problem (I had a different opinion about who had it) and asked “How would you like it if we called the police?”, I just told them that I had no more time for their idiotic little games and left. Afterwords I asked a friend, who happens to be a dispatching officer at the Greater Stockholm area police headquarters, what would have happened if they had contacted him. His answer was that he would have told them to shove their miniscule brains where the sun doesn’t shine and stop disturbing him while he’s working.
Wait, you were marking up the subway station floor?
I mean, I’m completely in agreement with the OP (except I would have tried to be a little more polite about disagreeing with his statement of the law), but here you’re defacing someone else’s property, and being questioned by the representative of the owner of the property. This pretty much seems like a time when the cops are entitled to a direct and clear answer, and I really couldn’t fault them for insisting you give a reason.
Well, that was Sweden. Don’t know the rules over there, but here in the United States, the only time the police are entitled to a direct and clear answer is when they ask you to identify yourself. If they ask for anything else, you don’t have to say a damn thing, and although you may undergo a bit of hassle while things get sorted out, you will not face legal penalties for refusing to answer.
