Comments on: Photographer detained in California for photographing barbed wire fence

By: JeffC

JeffC — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:35:03 +0000

Sara, because Mr. Cichowski’s responses were “voluntary,” he wasn’t detained. Usually, the only way to really find out is to ask, “Am I free to go?” One of the sad facts about claiming one’s rights is the need to stick one’s neck out, sometimes risking arrest for perfectly legal behavior.

Mr. Cichowski should be the one to see an attorney; many will offer a 30-minute consultation for free. Getting one’s name in a database from which it may never be removed, all for perfectly legal behavior, is one of the problems with identifying oneself to police, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned in Lawson v. Kolender (the Supremes did not address the Fourth Amendment issue when they upheld this decision in Kolender v. Lawson). As Carlos mentioned, Mr. Cichowski was probably screwed in either event, but it might have been interesting to see if the cops would actually have arrested him (at least for those of us on the sidelines …).

Be assured that I fully support legitimate law enforcement; unfortunately, “stop and identify” laws lend themselves to abuse, much like laws for “resisting or obstructing an officer.” The San Jose Mercury News have written a series of articles about arrests for the latter by the SJPD.

I would caution anyone looking at the Wikipedia article to carefully read the entire article, because it’s more complicated than just a list of states with “stop and identify” laws. The situation in California is a good example, and it’s discussed in some detail. Even though the consensus is that a person other than the driver of a vehicle is not required to identify herself to a cop, there are some (such as the Alameda County DA’s office, linked in the article) who disagree.

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:35:28 +0000

Thanks goldfish. I’m thinking it wouldn’t hurt to carry a printout of that if your state’s not on the list.

Jeff~ It sounds like he voluntarily cooperated during his illegal detainment. Do we have any lawyers on board who can offer an opinion as to whether or not he has a case? Also why did the cops ask for his social? I thought they already had access to that once you give them your name. Does anyone know if police databases list our s.s. numbers?

By: akagoldfish

akagoldfish — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:08:39 +0000

Here’s a useful link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

By: JeffC

JeffC — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:26:00 +0000

In theory, it might have been better had Mr. Cichowski stood his ground. He could have asked, “Am I free to go?”; assuming the answer was no, he might have followed with, “What sort of crime do you think I might be involved in?” The answer to the second question would have been interesting, though it probably would have been something evasive like, “We’re investigating a report of someone photographing the train station.” The cops probably would have soon followed with a request for ID, to which Mr. Cichowski could have responded with “Why?” or simply declined to comply. Even if there were grounds for detention, California doesn’t require a person detained to identify himself, though the SJPD might rely on a couple of aberrant court decisions (one in San Jose) as justifying such a demand. So it’s hard to say what might have resulted had Mr. Cichowski not cooperated.

So I agree with Florida that it’s unfair to be to harsh on someone who had no reason to be familiar with laws he wasn’t breaking, and had only seconds to make a decision while being stared down by People with Guns, right after an implied threat to use them. I’m not sure what I would have done myself.

It can’t hurt to speak with a lawyer, but I doubt there is much of a case. The police would almost certainly claim that Mr. Cichowski’s responses were voluntary, and a court would probably agree, so there would be no cause of action. It’s not right, but it is as it is.

By: Florida

Florida — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:40:14 +0000

Some of you are being too hard on this kid because you’re more versed in pig behavior and would’ve seen this coming a mile away. Don’t underestimate the mind fuck of being surrounded, falsely accused and treated like a criminal, all with only a seconds notice. This kid responded like any honest person with nothing to hide would. He cooperated, thus proving to them (and now to himself) that he’s a good person.

With the only other option being thrown in jail, stripped searched, and having false charges lobbed against him, I can’t say he made the wrong choice. He does needs to contact a lawyer though, the fact that he wasn’t arrested can only help his case.

By: John T

John T — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:17:44 +0000

Worse is caving in and confirming the police’s belief that we do not have a Constitution and Bill of Rights

Besides a 6 to 7 figure payday after a false arrest sounds pretty good to me.

By: Jon Quimbly

Jon Quimbly — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:22:16 +0000

“No officer, I do not consent to any searches.”

Which is worse, refusing to be searched and having your frickin’ memory cards copied by cops, and risk going to jail because of your refusal? Or to cave in and give them whatever they want?

By: Kol. Klink

Kol. Klink — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:28:53 +0000

East Germany

By: capn_amurka

capn_amurka — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:46:53 +0000

It’s a shame he gave consent.

A copyright infringement suit might have put some interesting spin on the seizure of his intellectual property