By Carlos Miller
In the above video, a news videographer is standing on public property when approached by a cop who demands his identification (starting at 1:40).
The videographer refuses to provide his identification on the grounds that he is not doing anything illegal.
The cop, of course, gets irritated and calls for more cops.
But the videographer continues to refuse. And he continues to film, much to the dismay of the cop who comically places his hat in front of the lens.
Did the videographer have the legal right to refuse to provide ID?
Yes.
But only because he was not being lawfully detained (the key word being “lawfully” as the officer did tell him he was being detained at 4:20).
After several minutes of bullying, the videographer was allowed to leave without producing his identification because they really had no reasonable suspicion to detain him.
However, he was ordered to leave the area when it is clear from the video that other civilians are casually strolling the same area. That was another unlawful order.
But at that point, he probably didn’t want to push his luck.
He was in Texas, after all.
Contrary to what some might believe, there is no federal law mandating that we must provide identification when asked by police.
However, several states have “stop and identify” statutes that require people to produce identifications if they are being legally detained. And police can only legally detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you have committed or are about to commit a crime.
Texas recently joined the ranks of states that have these statutes. And the following 24 states also have stop and identify statutes, according to Wikipedia.
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2
New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
The Wikipedia entry breaks down police interactions into three categories; consensual, detention and arrest.
A consensual interaction is no different than an interaction between two civilians on the street. It gives the cop the right to ask the civilian questions, but it also gives the right for the civilian to refuse to answer those questions, including providing identification.
A detention interaction is where a person is being legally detained, meaning the officer needs to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. This is generally known as a “Terry Stop.” In the states that have stop and identify laws, the person could be arrested for refusing to provide identification.
The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending on the jurisdiction. You might remember last year’s article about a New Hampshire man who spent several weeks in jail for refusing to provide his real name.
Some police apologists might argue that if a person refuses to provide identification during a consensual argument, then that automatically turns it into a detention interaction because it gives the cop reasonable suspicion that he is trying to hide something.
But even an article written by a senior legal advisor from the Plano, Texas Police Department published in The Police Chief, described as the “Professional Voice of Law Enforcement,” confirms that an officer must be engaged in a Terry Stop before he can demand identification.
To further confound things, the rules supposedly differ when a person is operating a vehicle because state laws usually require people to produce identification upon request.
But even that has been challenged by a couple of Arizona activists who were arrested after refusing to comply with authorities after having been stopped at Border Patrol check points, including one who recently had his charges dismissed.
-30-
Take a couple of minutes and vote for Photography is Not a Crime in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Best of Blogs Awards contest. The main category is the Best Overall Blog category. That’s the grand prize.
I was also nominated for the “Politics” category, the “Art/DIY” category and the “Photography” category. You need to register to vote, but once you do, you can stuff the ballot box by voting for each category at least once a day until the contest ends.
It only takes a couple of minutes. Think of all the time I spend updating this damn blog. It would be well appreciated.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
51 responses so far ↓
1 Odin Zifer // Feb 18, 2010 at 6:06 AM
papers please
That statement that scars the crap out of me.
I would have asked for his name badge number and filed a complaint.
2 Polish-Guy // Feb 18, 2010 at 7:04 AM
Very interesting views shared.
3 torgeaux // Feb 18, 2010 at 8:14 AM
Don’t overstate it too much. Not all stop and ID laws require that you PRODUCE identification…only that you tell them your identity. In fact, it’s always available to you to state (absent some circumstance where you have to have ID, like when driving), that you don’t have an ID with you.
4 Pythias // Feb 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM
There is no law that requires you to CARRY ID, so there is no law that can make you produce it. Generally, if asked by police you must identify yourself, but you don’t have to hand them anything.
5 Rob Molecule // Feb 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Civilians? Police are civilians too.
6 mepsipax // Feb 18, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Ridiculous.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Why I don’t take meds
7 Joel Chandler // Feb 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM
I’m not an attorney, but my reading of Florida law (FS 856.021) is that LEOs are authorized to ascertain your identity. There is no requirement that a person produce any document (“travel documents” or “papers”).
In Florida, unless it is a “Terry Stop” there is no requirement to speak at all and then only to identify oneself. But of course, in the event of a Terry Stop the LEO would need to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion for making the stop in the first place and detailing the suspect.
The US Supreme Court in Hiibel simply upheld the constitutionality of state “stop and identify” laws. It did not create a federal requirement to produce papers. So it all comes down to the individual state.
Regardless of state laws, the disposition of the officer involved will determine the outcome of the encounter. When I know I am going to encounter a LEO (as a pedestrian) I make every effort to not have ANYTHING in my pockets, including ID. My logic is that as there is no requirement to carry “travel documents”; I can’t be made to produce what I don’t have; a “Terry Frisk” only allows a superficial pat-down of the exterior clothing, unless the LEO feels something that might be a weapon – nothing in my pockets no possibility of a weapon; and I want to see what happens.
I was told recently by a friend who showed a Tampa Police Sergeant a video of my recent encounter with ICE in downtown Tampa that I could expect a very different outcome if I “tried that with him.” It was something to effect that he would “ruin my night.” I’m looking forward to testing that assertion.
This issue is important and pretty fundamental. Our ability to travel freely is a critical component to the exercise of other freedoms such as religion, assembly, press, etc. Like any freedom, we lose those that we fail to exercise.
8 Simon Jester // Feb 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM
Joel is correct. In Hiibel V The State of Nevada, the Supreme Court said that it was reasonable for a n officer to ask for and get your name. No demands for ID, address or any other information is in that decision.
The officer may ask for you name in the purposes of a Terry Investigation, but until it goes into being ‘detained’, that is all you are required to do, by Law.
9 Rick Moore // Feb 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Thanks for this information. I am in California and here press passes are issued by county and state law enforcement agencies. When using a camera without displaying press credentials I have been asked for ID too many times to count. Sometimes I want to use my creds other times I don’t and it it nice to have additional mental support regarding ID and probable cause.
Thanks for the post.
10 Duane Kerzic // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Lots of interesting stuff here.
Video: Second trooper comes in figures out the videographer isn’t doing anything suspicious with a few simple questions and the situation is over. Why couldn’t the first trooper do that? It’s obvious his attitude got in the way, you could smell it the moment he started walking towards the videographer.
Civilian: Police are 1st and foremost civilian organizations. It’s not like they are law enforcement and we are civilians. I know that there is some cop think like that. Police are given a few powers but they are still civilian authorities.
Arrest and detention: When are you arrested? Some say the moment you are detained and that even if you are released you were still arrested just no charges were filed. Doesn’t matter if you have handcuffs on or not as long as you aren’t free to go, like when the first trooper said “stay right there, don’t go anywhere” or something like that. So the steps are actually arrest or detention and filing of charges.
Driving: If you’re in a motor vehicle and stopped you have to always show that you have a permit to operate the motor vehicle.
911: Rears it’s ugly head again.
Videographer: One very cool dude. Didn’t get flustered at all.
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..Frame
11 Carlos Miller // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM
I understand the whole debate about using the term “civilian” to differentiate from police officers, but I use that term for simplicity in my writing.
How else can I describe a non-police officer without using the awkward phrase of “non-police officer”?
12 Joel Chandler // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:20 PM
The distinction between a “Terry Stop” or temporary detention and an “arrest” is as follows:
Terry Stop – brief detention (with or without cuffs) in order for the LEO to determine if there is PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest. The LEO may perform a “Terry Frisk” if they reasonably believe that the suspect maybe armed. Such a frisk is to be cursory (external – no reaching into pockets or purses, etc.) unless the LEO feels something that reasonably feels like a weapon. A “Terry Stop” must be brief (no exact time, but courts have referred to a fifteen minute time frame).
An arrest would be when a LEO can articulate PROBABLE CAUSE to a judge. Also, as soon as you are removed from the original location – no matter what the LEO may tell you – you have been arrested. During an arrest the LEO may do a thorough frisk, including your pockets and anything within reach. This one great argument for locking your car door during a traffic stop if and when you are ordered to exit the vehicle. In such an event a search of your vehicle would be impermissible without probable cause for a search.
13 Bentor Tazenda // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Here is my response to invasive cops. Show me some money… If you give me $50.00 and I will go and get my ID. Unless you are willing to pay me for my time then I can’t help you.
If I can’t make some money from my video, I will make it from the cop or whoever.
14 MacK // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:42 PM
I believe we need to check on the ID statutes being needed when you are detained.
I have found nothing eluding to being detained saying you have to produce ID.
In states that have Stop and Identify laws you must give your name and in some states geographical information such as address, what you are doing. This may someday be challenged because the SCOTUS ruling was that only your name must be given.
In all those states according to Hiibel vs Nevada you still are only required to do so during a reasonable suspicion stop, (Terry stop). Under a Terry stop you are being detained according to SCOTUS.
Possibly someday Stop and Identify may go back to SCOTUS when someone gives their name and this does incriminate them. Because that will violate their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves.
http://knol.google.com/k/tom-williams/stop-and-identify-laws/68gu50dopcpx/2#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada#See_also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
15 Hazy // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think these stop and identify statutes are unconstitutional.
16 Steve M. // Feb 18, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Great video. The guy was not intimidated. Love it when he said “Dont touch my camara.” and right then and there the police officer knew what he got himself into.
17 Rob Molecule // Feb 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Using the word “citizen” works well.
18 Carlos Miller // Feb 18, 2010 at 4:19 PM
What if they’re not United States citizens?
19 Rob Molecule // Feb 18, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Granted, police are also citizens. But they’re also civilians, so semantically it’s the same. However, I don’t think any cops are going around thinking they are not citizens, so this places them on the same level as those they police.
20 Rob Molecule // Feb 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Sorry, that reply was too myself. I don’t know, denizen? That sounds awful tough.
21 Michaelk42 // Feb 18, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Person? People?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it
22 the bulldog // Feb 18, 2010 at 6:03 PM
nice high def video work…btw, does everyone really wear a god damned cowboy hat there? holy shit!
23 Tom // Feb 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM
The cowboy hats are part of the uniform.
24 Johnny Law // Feb 18, 2010 at 6:53 PM
You guys are right in that you don’t have to produce any ID unless you are operating a vehicle. However be aware that if you are being stopped for any kind of ticket worthy offense (such as being in the street, crossing against the light, ect, ect) the officer can always just arrest you instead of giving a ticket.
My department has a policy that no citations will be issued until the subject is positively identified. If you don’t have an ID and I think you are playing games, I will arrest you and have you fingerprinted. I’ve had folks with warrants try to get out of it by not carrying an ID and they gave me fake names. They all got caught by the fingerprints though.
Now if the officer does not have an actual violation to stop you with, then he should not be demanding ID. I always ask and if someone tells me no, then I deal with it. The worst thing a cop can do is give an order but not be able to legally back that order up. That is why I cringe when I see them tell people to turn their cameras off. If they say no, the cop ends up looking stupid.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches
25 Johnny Law // Feb 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM
I get a kick out of this whole civilian/cop label debate. It’s just a simple way to call identify non-police. My department also calls officers “sworn employees” and non-police (“civilian”) employees are called “non-sworn employees”.
Big deal. It seems to get the anti-cops types in a tizzy though and I don’t know why.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches
26 Jon Quimbly // Feb 18, 2010 at 7:14 PM
This is just another ridiculous waste of taxpayers dollars.
Man-with-camera taping in area where bad-thing-happened. Police reaction? Detain the obvious miscreant.
When are cops gonna learn that cameras and crime (and terrorism) rarely go together? Idiots.
And that first cop, he looked hopped-up and paranoid – and not used to citizens politely refusing his orders.
And that was a key aspect of this encounter: the videographer was very polite, stuck by his rights, and in the end he walked away. That he was detained is utter B.S. More vids like this need to get out there.
27 Hazy // Feb 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM
I like how the police officer kept parroting the same thing over and over, “I need to see your ID.” No reason other than “being suspicious”, well there’s nothing illegal about being suspicious even if some cops think there is.
28 Theywantyoufired // Feb 18, 2010 at 10:53 PM
What scares me more is the attitude of the public. I constantly bring up issues with police abusing their power and am shouted down. People don’t care if anyone’s rights are abolished. They go on to say that if you’re not doing anything wrong what have you to hide. I’m sick of this attitude but it prevails just about everywhere these days. Lately my rant has been about the city police running SWAT operations in the unincorporated county areas. They even investigated a highly publicized homicide that was totally outside the city from start to finish. They dug up a garage to find the body.
They come to my home and I won’t be cooperative. In this state the sheriff issues them deputy cards and they would have no authority here without them. Just let them catch me taking photos around here and see how uncooperative I can be! The sheriff’s dept. couldn’t care less about people taking pictures.
29 Terry // Feb 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM
A few years ago in Arizona, I had a similar incident take place while taking photos of vandalism that had been done to a temporary Army recruiting station setup on the mall of the local campus.
A writeup, photos and video of the incident are available at:
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2007/12/12/p74
My commentary regarding Arizona’s ‘Stop and Identify’ statute appears towards the end of the blog entry.
30 The Boise Picayune // Feb 19, 2010 at 1:55 AM
Unless I’m driving a motor vehicle, I don’t even carry my drivers license on me.
If and when asked, I cheerfully produce my Federally Issued Veterans Identification Card.
It has my full legal name and a color photo.
Period!
No expiration date, no numbers…
It drives the cops crazy.
31 Jody // Feb 19, 2010 at 2:06 AM
the first cop is a trumped up asshole, whom if I ever meet in a bar may just decide to get into an arguement with, total scumbag asshole. My guess is he was the rookie who was sent over to see what the guy with the camera wants, he had to exert his “authority.” It’s always tempting when they are walking towards you like that to finger them while they are coming up to you. Just tell them your name and say that you don’t need to produce ID. Not that I advocate it but one of these days one of these trumped up cops is going to get a big surprise. I just wish they would become peace officers and keep the peace instead of being law enforcement officers and generate revenue for the state.
32 Johnny Law // Feb 19, 2010 at 2:47 AM
@Jody
How much revenue did that stop produce for the state?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches
33 Jody // Feb 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM
Johnny,
If that man did not have the balls to stand up to the cop he may have been arrested for contempt of cop, the charge those asshole cops always throw out whenever someone does not respect their “authority.” You then need to pay a fine or “fee.”
Like I said before, I am going to fucking love it when those asshole filth (cops), lose their jobs when governments across the country go broke and the US dollar tanks and is worth less than the Indian rupee, good fucking riddance. I never asked for their protection and I sure the hell don’t want it, not to mention the fact that numerous supreme court cases have stated cops have no obligation to protect those they supposedly serve.
Jody´s last blog ..Small Plane Crashes Into IRS Building in Austin, Texas
34 Vidiot // Feb 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Incidentally, and not responding to anyone in particular, (and noting that I’m not a lawyer) the legal standard that LEOs have to meet and be able to articulate for a detention (Terry stop, etc., and the trigger for most if not all states’ stop-and-identify laws) is “reasonable suspicion” of criminal behavior, while the standard for arrest is the stricter “probable cause” that you have committed a crime.
As it relates to photography, I see no reason that a police officer needs to demand ID or one’s name from someone who is not breaking any laws, is photographing something visible from a public place, and who is standing on public property. There’s no need to detain them, since there can be no “reasonable suspicion” based on that behavior alone. (There always could be ancillary factors: did the cop recently receive a report that someone matching your description and carrying a camera was seen fleeing a crime scene, for instance? but the “reasonable suspicion” articulation would have to depend on that, and not one’s perfectly-legal photographic activities.)
Where I live, in New York State, the law is more granular and actually outlines a middle ground between what Carlos describes above as a “consensual interaction” and detention or a Terry stop. Under People v. De Bour, a 1976 decision, there are four levels of acceptable intrusion in a police investigation — the “consensual interaction” stage, where an officer can ask someone about their identity (but the subject does not have to answer the question or even reply at all) and other information. This level requires “an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.” The second tier is called “the common-law right of inquiry”, and allows the officer to question the subject more closely. The character of the interaction can be more intimidating, but the subject always remains free to go and is not detained. This level requires “a founded suspicion that ‘criminal activity is afoot’” but not necessarily that the subject himself is involved. Levels three and four correspond to a Terry stop and an arrest.
One other important thing to note is that an appellate court held that “innocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand.” So legal behavior like photography (when you’re not breaking any other laws like trespassing, etc.) cannot be used to articulate a suspicion that allows LEOs greater latitude of intrusion.
Lots more information and links to the actual court decisions quoted are here, in a blog entry I wrote a couple years back after researching New York State law after being hassled by police for perfectly legal photography.
Again, not all of this will apply in every state, but there are definitely Supreme Court rulings that state that one doesn’t have to establish one’s identity or even talk to the police at all unless they can establish specific articulable levels of suspicion, and that they can’t construe one’s refusal to talk to them as suspicious behavior in itself.
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here
35 Rail Car Fan // Feb 19, 2010 at 12:13 PM
“Johnny Law” said.. “Big deal. It seems to get the anti-cops types in a tizzy though and I don’t know why.”
If you don’t understand it, then there’s NO hope for you. On second thought.. considering your “pro-cop” we can’t do anything wrong attitude, then I CAN understand why you said what you did.
Rail Car Fan
36 Rail Car Fan // Feb 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Read you blog on the vandalism. It’s quite obvious that your “Anti-Military” from your comments. I’m NOT!
Vietnam Vet 64-67.. and PROUD of it!!
Rail Car Fan
37 Rail Car Fan // Feb 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Once again.. “Johnny Law” shot down (don’t you like my pun) again. God, ya gotta love it!!
Rail Car Fan
38 capn_amurka // Feb 19, 2010 at 1:36 PM
I think your statement is overly broad.
I can see how some of Terry’s comments might be anti-recruiter, (“Stumble into their lair”, etc.) but that’s *not* the same as anti-military.
A reasonable person can have a beef with military recruiters or the way military recruiting is done and still honor and respect those who have served as well as the military generally.
39 genewitch // Feb 19, 2010 at 2:05 PM
The only problem is once you say “Am i free to go” and they say “no” – you might want to ask “why?” which is a perfectly legitimate question. I think they should be able to articulate to YOU what their articulated reasoning is for the Terry stop. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t have stopped you.
However I’ve seen the typical person that says “why are you arresting me” and they annoy the hell out of me, so i am going to stick with “am i being detained/free to go” and if the answer is that i am in fact being detained then i will immediately ask to speak to a lawyer.
Even in California people think you need to carry ID on you. You don’t, even post 9/11 when news outlets were talking about people being stopped and arrested for not showing ID (like that girl on the bike in that new york bike rally video)
40 Johnny Law // Feb 19, 2010 at 2:24 PM
@ genewitch
“I think they should be able to articulate to YOU what their articulated reasoning is for the Terry stop. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t have stopped you.”
Maybe they are able to but I prefer not to argue my probable cause or reasonable suspicion on the sidewalk. If the person is calm and the situation is under control, I will usually explain. However if the person is looking for a debate, I won’t bother.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches
41 Vidiot // Feb 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Yes. I’ve decided in the future to ask if I am being detained (or am free to go). I totally agree that if an LEO is prepared to take the step of detaining someone and is able to articulate the basis for that detention to the courts, they should be required to articulate those reasons to their detainee as well. I’m not sure how wise asking “why” is (though I think I’d wonder that myself, and it’s a totally reasonable question), given that most cops would see that as a challenge to their authority…and we know where that leads lately.
I’ve given ID to the cops upon request in the past, and not liked doing it. That was what spurred me to research exactly what the law says in New York, so I can comply with the law when I am legally required to identify myself, but still exercise my Constitutional rights.
Part of me wants to ask them to go ahead and arrest me, if they believe that I’m so clearly breaking the law. After all, recent settlements for photographers who were unlawfully arrested in New York have been in the five figures, and if I’m arrested for violating a law that doesn’t exist, I’m pretty sure the judges will throw the case out. (I wouldn’t mind the money from a settlement, but then again as a taxpayer I’d rather that public employees didn’t engage in behavior that leads to taxpayer money being spent on setttlements like this.)
That said, it sounds like it wouldn’t be fun at all, and a massive inconvenience, and I don’t especially want the NYPD to ruin my day.
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here
42 Pepe // Feb 19, 2010 at 7:19 PM
We were chased away this week from taking photos of an accident in Hialeah. What’s up with that?
43 Jake // Feb 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM
I joined the military 25 years ago. At that time, I’d literally never heard anyone use the term “civilian” to mean “non-cop.”
As a former soldier, I find this particular piece of cop-speak quite jarring. And more to the point, it speaks to the militarization of the police culture over the past generation.
I’ve been to Baghdad. Trust me: you don’t want the military — let alone military wanna-be’s — policing your city.
44 KBCraig // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM
The link to “Texas recently joined the ranks of the states…” is broken.
I’m not aware of Texas passing any stop-and-identify legislation. Can you clarify?
45 Carlos Miller // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:28 PM
I’ll fix the link but here’s the story
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/041609/sta_429768083.shtml
46 Keith Hamburger // Feb 20, 2010 at 2:32 PM
“Am I free to go?”
if the answer is no …
“What is your reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify detaining me?”
If no adequate answer …
“Am I free to go?”
That should be all that is said unless they come up with a decent answer to the second question. Asking to see a lawyer following that “decent answer” would be a good next step.
47 Anthony Citrano // Feb 26, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Wow.. yeah, different rules in Texas. Scariest PINAC-related encounter I ever had was in San Antonio – (Carlos blogged about it back then):
http://www.cosmictap.com/an-accidental-interview-with-lieutenant-phil-dreyer/
Really was not a fun experience.
48 Andrew // Mar 7, 2010 at 4:08 AM
I think it’s hilarious that the filmer is bothering to adjust the white balance.
49 Michaelk42 // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Officer injured as traffic stop escalates to violence
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/SE/20100310/NEWS/3100315
“Ealing told Joyner the boy was “mouthy” as Ealing turned his attention toward him and demanded identification. The boy refused, Ealing said, and Ealing instructed the boy to put his hands on the car, Joyner wrote.
“As Ealing was patting the boy down, Ealing told Joyner the boy elbowed him in the mouth, the report said.
“Ealing then called for backup and pepper-sprayed the boy, sending him face-down to the ground, the report said. As Ealing was attempting to handcuff the boy, however, he rose with Ealing on his back. The boy then lifted Ealing over his head and tossed him head-first onto the road, the report said.
“The group fled, leaving Ealing struggling to breathe and bleeding from the back of his head, Joyner wrote.”
…
I hope he had a good, articulate reason to demand ID, otherwise that beating he took just wasn’t worth it.
…
“One of the boys on the mo-ped told police it was his brother who assaulted Ealing and provided officers with his home address.”
…
Guess why this kid is still alive?
…
“As Ealing was being transported to Parkview Hospital, police went to a home on Sherrill Drive, two blocks east of the incident. The boy’s mother told officers she did not know her son’s whereabouts, but officers found the boy inside the home.
“The boy ran from officers but was apprehended quickly. Officers did use a Taser on the boy twice before he could be handcuffed and arrested, a report said.
“The News-Sentinel is not identifying the boy because he is a juvenile. He was taken to the Allen County Juvenile Center on unknown charges.
“Ealing was released Monday from Parkview Hospital. Police spokeswoman Raquel Foster said Tuesday that Ealing suffered injuries to his shoulder and ribs during the incident, but could not comment on the severity of the injuries.
“On Ealing’s Facebook page, though, the officer said he had a broken clavicle and four broken ribs.”
…
OK, I’m sure everyone here’s going to have a field day with this one.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Tumblr roundup
50 ioResult // Apr 24, 2010 at 7:37 PM
You can use the term ‘actor’ to refer to anyone who is an active participant in an event. The word doesn’t simply mean someone who is part of a theatrical performance.
51 Cindy Smith // Jun 5, 2010 at 3:16 AM
Carlos, thanks for trying, but you got this one wrong. You confused the requirement to identify oneself (stop and identify laws), with a requirement to CARRY some sort of ID, which was the topic of discussion. If you live in a state that has “stop and identify” laws, they can only require you to identify yourself by stating who you are. Even in these states, if they wanted to require you to CARRY identification, that would have to be a SEPARATE law in addition to “stop and identify.” Thank you.
Leave a Comment