Must show id when ask

Augustin said:

In People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal. Rptr. 208 (1987) it was ruled that "We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of indentification".

Click to expand...

Could you give more of a reference for this case please?
It looks like it could be useful & I'd like to add it to my blog page of useful quotes & court decisions.
What court was it? (What state, circuit, district, or was it SCOTUS?)
Does "241 Cal. Rptr." mean it was in CA?

Citizen said:

He's got his past and future tenses contradicting themselves.
Txtim49 is a former LEO who will ask for an ID.
According to him, if you don't consent to show an identity document during this consensual encounter, he's going to seize you.

Click to expand...

He can ask all he wants, just like any other citizen.
And just like any other citizen, if he seizes someone because they choose to maintain their privacy, that person can fight back to the extent necessary to stop the illegal interference.
Touching someone without their consent is battery.
Have fun not being immune from lawsuits.

txtim49 said:

As a former LEO ,I think it is stupid,to challenge police about your right to show id, when doing OC, how do they know if you have a current restraining order ,or dv , out on you , they do not, how do they know that your mentally stable,they don't , how do they know if you are a felon,they don't it was my job to protect and serve , protect the people in my area and serve the people of my town, so yes I will ask for an ID, if you refuse the I now have ras to believe, you my be hiding something which, now gives me PC, for a investigator stop, ask for your ID , helps you promote are cause not hurt it,cooperate with local LEO, it just the smart thing to do.

Click to expand...

Wow. I am so glad you have the word "former" to go along with "LEO". Your knowledge of the law is abysmal.

Hopefully you're just trolling to get a rise out of folks. If so, you've picked a good place to do it because the folks here are going to have a ball with you.

MKEgal said:

SNIP He can ask [for ID] all he wants, just like any other citizen.
And just like any other citizen, if he seizes someone because they choose to maintain their privacy, that person can fight back to the extent necessary to stop the illegal interference.

Click to expand...

Before offering any physical resistance to an illegitimate temporary seizure, a citizen should check his state law. In VA, the state Court of Appeals has ruled* there is no right to resist an illegal Terry Stop/detention/detainment.** If the reader's state has a similar law, striking an officer, even accidentally while trying to squirm away, could get you convicted for assaulting a police officer.



*For a while now, I've been citing this case as Christian v Commonwealth. But recently another poster couldn't find the case under that name on the Ct of Appls website, so I'm not so sure anymore. Since this post is a plea/strong recommendation to first check state law in the reader's state, rather than a debate rebuttal, I'll leave the cite for the moment unless someone demands I pull it.


**Whatever the name of the case, the court rationalized that the existing right to resist false arrest did not extend to Terry Stops. So, as far as I know Virginians still have a right to resist false arrest.

Citizen said:

Before offering any physical resistance to an illegitimate temporary seizure, a citizen should check his state law. In VA, the state Court of Appeals has ruled* there is no right to resist an illegal Terry Stop/detention/detainment.** If the reader's state has a similar law, striking an officer, even accidentally while trying to squirm away, could get you convicted for assaulting a police officer.



*For a while now, I've been citing this case as Christian v Commonwealth. But recently another poster couldn't find the case under that name on the Ct of Appls website, so I'm not so sure anymore. Since this post is a plea/strong recommendation to first check state law in the reader's state, rather than a debate rebuttal, I'll leave the cite for the moment unless someone demands I pull it.


**Whatever the name of the case, the court rationalized that the existing right to resist false arrest did not extend to Terry Stops. So, as far as I know Virginians still have a right to resist false arrest.

Click to expand...

Does VA law define what a "false arrest" is and how to resist it?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

There is no way of knowing, at the time, whether or not a stop or arrest is lawful. I will not resist unless I believe life or limb is in danger, and then I don't care who or what the threat is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

There is no way of knowing, at the time, whether or not a stop or arrest is lawful. I will not resist unless I believe life or limb is in danger, and then I don't care who or what the threat is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

That's why I was curious about the VA statute. I've heard of similar things in other states. A "duty" to resist unlawful arrest. The problem is the case isn't decided on the street so how do you definitively know its unlawful? I understand and agree with the threat to life and limb that applies to all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

That's why I was curious about the VA statute. I've heard of similar things in other states. A "duty" to resist unlawful arrest. The problem is the case isn't decided on the street so how do you definitively know its unlawful? I understand and agree with the threat to life and limb that applies to all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If it comes down to my life or the officer, so sorry, so sad, just too effin bad. Anybody who breaks into my home without IDing themselves are home invaders and will be treated as such.

Not only is there a question of authority to do as the deputy did it was outright STUPID. There is no reason they could not have arrested him outside his home, or searched the home when he was not there if it was that important. Most no knock warrants, IMO, are from cops watching TV, and wanting to be some kind of super hero. The only purpose for a no knock is in exigent circumstances, and then no warrant is needed. As the story stands I hope the suspect/victim is vindicated.

Stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce!

Primus said:

That's why I was curious about the VA statute. I've heard of similar things in other states. A "duty" to resist unlawful arrest. The problem is the case isn't decided on the street so how do you definitively know its unlawful? I understand and agree with the threat to life and limb that applies to all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

There is no "duty" to resist an unlawful arrest. I would submit that such a requirement would be as immoral as a prohibition.

There is a right to resist arrest. However, ya better be sure it was unlawful. I am sure that not knowing the arrest was lawful won't be accepted as a defense.

Assume any and all stops are lawful. Record everything. Assert all rights. Do not talk to the cop beyond meeting statutory requirements for telling him who you are. Do not show any ID unless you are participating in an activity that requires you produce a license upon request.

You can fix almost anything later. So why raise the issues on the street?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

There is no "duty" to resist an unlawful arrest. I would submit that such a requirement would be as immoral as a prohibition.

There is a right to resist arrest. However, ya better be sure it was unlawful. I am sure that not knowing the arrest was lawful won't be accepted as a defense.

Assume any and all stops are lawful. Record everything. Assert all rights. Do not talk to the cop beyond meeting statutory requirements for telling him who you are. Do not show any ID unless you are participating in an activity that requires you produce a license upon request.

You can fix almost anything later. So why raise the issues on the street?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Well said. I wasn't trying to assert anyone has the duty too. I was just regurgitating garbage I've seen before to make an example of my point. That's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Well said. I wasn't trying to assert anyone has the duty too. I was just regurgitating garbage I've seen before to make an example of my point. That's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I have never seen anyone here assert a duty to resist. A right, yes; a duty, no.

MKEgal said:

Could you give more of a reference for this case please?
It looks like it could be useful & I'd like to add it to my blog page of useful quotes & court decisions.
What court was it? (What state, circuit, district, or was it SCOTUS?)
Does "241 Cal. Rptr." mean it was in CA?

Click to expand...

You can read it at:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/195/996.html

About halfway down it states:

"[4b] We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of identification. Nor do we hold that each time an officer conducts a Terry stop he may immediately conduct a search for identification. The rule we announce does not provide officers with unfettered discretion and does not open citizens to harassment. Our decision, allowing the officer to seize the wallet, is limited to the unique facts of this case, where defendant lied to the officer and himself created the confusion as to his own identity. The seizure of defendant's wallet was minimal and strictly limited to the legitimate inquiry into his identity. We conclude that the seizure of defendant's wallet was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

(end of quote)

My understanding is that under Terry v. Ohio a cop may conduct a patdown ONLY for weapons. They cannot remove any object from your person (such as a wallet, ID card, or cash) that doesn't feel like a weapon. Yet we see this routinely violated on TV on shows like Cops Reloaded. If a cop does take your wallet out of your pocket during a weapons frisk, I'd recommend reminding him/her that People v. Loudermilk reaffirmed the ruling in Terry v. Ohio that they cannot take possession of any object other than a weapon.

Citizen said:

Before offering any physical resistance to an illegitimate temporary seizure, a citizen should check his state law.
In VA, the state Court of Appeals has ruled* there is no right to resist an illegal Terry Stop/detention/detainment.
If the reader's state has a similar law, striking an officer, even accidentally while trying to squirm away, could get you convicted for assaulting a police officer.

Click to expand...

I was talking specifically about the OP, and he's admitted he's not an officer, so that doesn't apply to him.

Simply lawyer up at all times... No need for ideal chat with Leos who are sniffing around for a bone..

Lawyer up. end of story...

Best regards.

CCJ

MKEgal said:

I was talking specifically about the OP, and he's admitted he's not an officer, so that doesn't apply to him.

Click to expand...

I know. I wasn't particularly trying to contradict you. I just wanta make sure nobody takes away the wrong impression or attempts it without knowing the risks.

eye95 said:

There is no "duty" to resist an unlawful arrest. I would submit that such a requirement would be as immoral as a prohibition.

There is a right to resist arrest. However, ya better be sure it was unlawful. I am sure that not knowing the arrest was lawful won't be accepted as a defense.

Assume any and all stops are lawful. Record everything. Assert all rights. Do not talk to the cop beyond meeting statutory requirements for telling him who you are. Do not show any ID unless you are participating in an activity that requires you produce a license upon request.

You can fix almost anything later. So why raise the issues on the street?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

With respect to illegal detentions, I don't think that is entirely true.

This is not an advocacy for physically resisting an illegal detention.

I think that after their rookie year, cops know that it often costs more than its worth to "fix" an illegal detention or other rights violation. For example, I recall that the guys in the Tony's Incident in early 2007 were advised by an attorney that they were definitely illegally detained by the unlawful identity document demand, and the first cop's loud, authoritarian tone. But, the OCers were also advised that by the time it got thru the legal process and was settled, they probably wouldn't get enough cash to make it worthwhile.

I think cops have some sense of where that line is. The one's who would violate or ignore rights at any rate. I think there are tons of rights violations occurring everyday that even if recognized by the citizen, wouldn't yield enough settlement to make it worth pursuing.

I think you only have a chance to "fix" the blatant stuff of some duration. For example, a forty-five minute illegal detention that you can prove. Stuff of shorter duration or lacking strong, almost completely unrebuttable proof is a long shot at best, meaning likely to not be fixed.

Sorry. I know that will stick in the craw of some. But, this is not an advocacy for physically resisting a rights violation just because you can't fix it later. That's just the view of a guy who's been paying close attention for six years. And, a really good reason to carry a recording device and use it where legal.

Does VA law define what a "false arrest" is and how to resist it?

Click to expand...

Readers must understand that VA, being a former British colony, has a body of common law tradition that predates the Norman Conquest in 1066 AD.

If there is a VA statute that defines false arrest, I am unaware of it. I'm guessing the actual legal definition of false arrest, if any specialized definition exists beyond the meaning of the words themselves, is scattered across a number of court cases across a few hundred years or more. But, I'm also guessing it boils to one thing: a custodial arrest done without legal authority. No warrant or no probable cause.

As far as how to resist, I recall reading that the use reasonable force to resist was recognized as legitimate. I couldn't tell you anymore where I read that, though.

Primus said:

Even I'm just shaking my head at this thread.....

Click to expand...

I'm shaking my head at the fact that otherwise intelligent posters (okay, most of them are, anyway ) actually have the desire to respond to an obvious troll rather than just ignoring it.

:uhoh: :uhoh:

Moving on...

txtim49 said:

As a former LEO ,I think it is stupid,to challenge police about your right to show id, when doing OC, how do they know if you have a current restraining order ,or dv , out on you , they do not, how do they know that your mentally stable,they don't , how do they know if you are a felon,they don't it was my job to protect and serve , protect the people in my area and serve the people of my town, so yes I will ask for an ID, if you refuse the I now have ras to believe, you my be hiding something which, now gives me PC, for a investigator stop, ask for your ID , helps you promote are cause not hurt it,cooperate with local LEO, it just the smart thing to do.

Click to expand...

People exercising CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is reason for you to stop and ID? I think not. Last time I checked your actually need a REAL reason to make an assumption somebody has or was about to commit a crime. If somebody is exercising their 1st amendment rights with a sign at an intersection is THAT reason for you to stop and ID them? Is free speech reason for you to make the assumption that they have something to hide? If your a cop and don't realize that the criminals don't OC for everybody to see.....well, toss your badge on your bosses desk and find a new career. Because that's common sense 101! I cooperate with LEO's that deserve my cooperation, not nosy people with badges wasting my time. Do you stop Black people in White neighborhoods under the assumption their about to commit a crime? How about white kids in a black neighborhood, aren't they their to buy drugs? That's the problem with PC, cops get to make up the definition of it on an as needed basis.

I'm not anti-cop, I've got enough of them in my family, as well as friends with a few, but I'm anti this crap. You should apply for NYPD, they'll love your way of thinking.

I see no troll in this thread. I see someone who doesn't accept a lot of the dogma around here. But he is, for the most part, posting quite rationally and being responded to, in many cases, quite juvenilely.

While I disagree with most of what he says, the tons of crap around his posts just keep me moving right on by.

I can't think of a single item of the original poster's interminably long run-on sentence that I agreed with. The fact that he was abashed enough not to show his face around here speaks volumes about how right he thought he was; not many people will post an opinion and then not even stick around to defend it when it's been roundly castigated.