Stop and Identify

[Shotgun]

As I have said here before, "I am stuned, stuned I tell you(!)", at the frequency of line-of-duty interactions suffered by our correspondents.

My last traffic citation, of three in my life, was in 1977. (While I owned, but was not driving, my '73 911.) I was accosted by a motorist when I was an armed bicyclist and he called the cops but I did not have to give my ID/CWP as required in particular circumstances.

Other than that, all my police interactions have been as friends and acquaintances.

Doug, most of us aren't living the life of a recluse on an island so perhaps we have more opportunities to interact with the Polizei. Three traffic citations? Naughty boy!

 

[Gunslinger]

Its good public relations to be nice to cops whenever possible. They are just trying to get through their day and back home again like all of us.

Yes indeed. The Jews were very polite to the SS. How did that work out?

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Yes indeed. The Jews were very polite to the SS. How did that work out?

Ah... Godwin's law strikes!

Are you suggesting that if the Jews had been rude they would have faired better?

Stand up for your rights. That is what matters.

If you think you'll have better luck being an ass while you do it, go for it.

 

[Max]

If you think you'll have better luck being an ass while you do it, go for it.

Being an ass never works out to your advantage. Ask yourself how you react when someone treats you like an ass****?
Well, that is how the cops are going to react to you. Be respectful, but firm in defending your rights. If you are recording the incident (which you should be) and you sue if your rights are violated, what do you want the court to hear, you being a belligerent ass**** or being knowledgeable, polite and firm in defending your rights?

 

[Doug Huffman]

Offense (being an ass), like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues:

 

[Captain Nemo]

I have two asses. I find that they are very smart. Thier names are Barney and Zero.

 

[xenophon]

Ah... Godwin's law strikes!

Are you suggesting that if the Jews had been rude they would have faired better?

Stand up for your rights. That is what matters.

If you think you'll have better luck being an ass while you do it, go for it.

That's what I'm saying. Standing up is the point. If officer is nice, I'm nice. If he/she gets belligerent, well, then I'm not going to stoop to their level, just stand my ground.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Being an ass never works out to your advantage. Ask yourself how you react when someone treats you like an ass****?

I agree... But some people need to learn it for themselves.

 

[Spartacus]

Offense (being an ass), like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues:

Oh just shut the hell up with the Shakespeare crap and speak straight will you?

I take that back. Heres a piece of The Bard for you Dougie... "An ass by any other name is still an ass".

 

[Citizen]

Ah... Godwin's law strikes!

For myself, I never really saw any value in Godwin's Law. Of course people are going to refer to Nazis when they see a similarity (rightly or wrongly). It is recent history known to practically every person on the planet. Who really thinks someone is going to dig up, or even know the initials of the old Bolshevik intelligence service from 1918? Or, some other obscure historical bad-guy where nobody has any frame of reference except a vague recollection of his name. Even if the writer did know, what percentage of readers would, too?

If a comparison is valid, its valid. If it is not, its not. Godwin's Law or no Godwin's Law.

Does a writer really have to use the NKVD (old Soviet secret police, forerunner of KGB) instead of the Gestapo just to avoid hearing "Godwin's Law" in reply?

Also, I figure that responding with "Godwin's Law" is as lazy as making an unapt comparison to Nazis. Why not just point out the differences that distinquish the situation from the Nazis?

 

[Citizen]

Its good public relations to be nice to cops whenever possible. They are just trying to get through their day and back home again like all of us.

(whoop, whooop, wrreeeeeeee) (siren, in case you were wondering)

Personally, I think that if cop bashing is inappropriate, so should generalized cop supporting, apologizing, and excusing be inappropriate.

At least he didn't put them on the Heroes-in-Blue pedestal.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP In my experience cops use your attitude as a barometer as to whether to take things to the "next level" or not.

Ummm. Wait a minute. I thought the police were "just trying to get through their day and get home like all of us."

Now, why would these paragons of public virtue and selfless service be considering taking things "to the next level."? A grumpy or rude person can be issued a citation just as easily as a polite person, without any escalation on the cop's part.

It sounds to me like you just revealed that cops are calculating and deliberate in their escalation, including specifically if the detainee commits the heinous crime of not showing the cop the deference, respect, or submissiveness he thinks he deserves.

I don't know about the other OCers on this forum, but I somehow make it through my day and home again without "escalating" on people to "the next level".

 

[Doug Huffman]

Open Source Shakespeare Concordance suggests not

Oh just shut the hell up with the Shakespeare crap and speak straight will you? I take that back. Heres a piece of The Bard for you Dougie... "An ass by any other name is still an ass".

http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/concordance/

Sniff. I smell the stench of the arrant I_Knight errant. So I will use simple concepts. What is found to be offensive is entirely under the control of the hearer, as in "political correctness". For example, I knew a Senior Chief Boatswains Mate that could curse in perfect rhyme and scansion for many seconds without repeating himself. It was profane, obscene and hugely vulgar but *I* did not find it offensive as Chief Bentley intended.

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/08/muslim-is-the-new-code-for-rac.html

 

[KansasKraut]

Odd question...

Hello all. I have an odd question. According to the statute, you are required to verbally provide your name, address, and an explanation of your activity. Say, for purposes of argument, that I'm a Pollack and my name is Andrej Wijnchamzsanyk. If the officer asks me to clarify the spelling of my last name so he can search for it in a database, am I legally required to do so? I'm asking because my last name is, in real life, Germanic and somewhat difficult to spell. Thanks in advance, fellas.

 

[minuteman]

Hello all. I have an odd question. According to the statute, you are required to verbally provide your name, address, and an explanation of your activity. Say, for purposes of argument, that I'm a Pollack and my name is Andrej Wijnchamzsanyk. If the officer asks me to clarify the spelling of my last name so he can search for it in a database, am I legally required to do so? I'm asking because my last name is, in real life, Germanic and somewhat difficult to spell. Thanks in advance, fellas.

The whole issue is that you do not have to give your name and address. You have the right to remain silent.

If they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime or that you were about to, they will detain you and explain why. Then they will ask you for your ID or name and address, where you still do have the right to remain silent. But if they tell you that they believe you might have committed a crime or were about to, and you dont identify yourself, there is a very good chance they will place you under arrest and try to determine who you are. Reasonable suspicion coupled with failure to identify would be considered probable cause to arrest you.

If the police detain you and demand to know your name and address it is smart to comply, but only if they have clearly explained what law they believe you have broken or were about to break. I would ask if I am being detained, and if so for what reason. Remember that police are there to keep the peace and safety, they are not lawyers. If they make a mistake and you argue on the street it probably will not get you very far.

 

[Nutczak]

Here is the problem in many instances. A person who is very polite, but at the same time exercising their rights to not be searched, or to remain silent is often seen as being rude or an ass by the police officer who is making contact with them.
THIS WAS VERY CLEARLY SHOWN IN RACINE WITH Frank!

Some (possibly several) members of the law enforcement community typically have very little tolerance for people that choose to exercise their rights and not submit to an unwarranted search, or that do not answer questions they are not required to answer.
I got to experience this myself recently.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Hello all. I have an odd question. According to the statute, you are required to verbally provide your name, address, and an explanation of your activity.

:banghead:

But if they tell you that they believe you might have committed a crime or were about to, and you dont identify yourself, there is a very good chance they will place you under arrest and try to determine who you are. Reasonable suspicion coupled with failure to identify would be considered probable cause to arrest you

False

Failure to identify yourself does not = probable cause to arrest you.

Reasonable suspicion gives the officer the authority to stop you, detain you in the vicinity of that stop and frisk you for weapons "for their safety". During that Terry stop the officer will attempt to obtain probable cause to arrest you.

Refusing to give your name does not provide that probable cause.

If an officer does not have reasonable suspicion, any encounter you have with them is consensual on your part. How do you know if they have reasonable suspicion or not? First, ask if you are free to go. If they say "no" then you are being detained.

If the officers says "no" you are not free to go, and that officer DOES NOT have reasonable articulable suspicion at that point, he is breaking the law. (note, he doesn't HAVE to articulate his suspicion to you, but he may have to explain to a judge later what RAS he detained you based upon)

If an officer approaches you and asks to speak to you, you ask "am I free to go" and he just keeps asking questions and doesn't answer you, he may not have reasonable suspicion and he is just relying on your voluntary consensual encounter to try to get RAS and or probable cause. At this point its your choice, but I would choose to remain silent or keep asking "am I free to go". There is a sure fire way to find out of you are being detained, and that is to walk away if the officer stops you, you are being detained. (still doesn't mean its legal, officers break the law too) but at that point the officer can't say later it was a consensual encounter and would (if the issue was raised) have to explain to a judge what his RAS was based upon)

If an officer has probable cause (which is a higher standard than just reasonable suspicion) he can arrest you.

An officer may have probable cause and not arrest you right away because he's relying on your attempt to "talk your way out of it" to give him more evidence he will use against you.

 

[minuteman]

Looking at the statute it does say they may demand your name, address, and conduct. It does not say that you must provide that, but you would be failing to comply with an officers demands. I guarantee an officer is going to use that in considering if they have probable cause to arrest you.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

968.24 - ANNOT.
The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Scroll down to "Arrest For Refusal To Identity?"
http://www.wichiefs.org/Newsletters/July2004Newsletter.pdf

Minuteman, reference this link (go to page 6 7 and 8 of the document)

An attorney explains very succinctly why the Hibel case doesn't carry the same weight in Wisconsin that it does in Nevada and other states that have different laws requiring you to disclose your name etc.

Wisconsin has a statute which codifies the right of officers to make Terry stops:
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcementofficer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such
detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

Unlike Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171. 123, however, § 968.24 does not impose an obligation upon the person stopped to identify himself.

This is a critical distinction.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to identify oneself following a Terry stop does not constitute obstructing under § 946.41, Wis. Stats. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 354, 533 N.W.2d 802, 808 (1995): “Mere silence,
standing alone, is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute.”

At present, it appears that the only statutory authority that comes close to the Nevada Statute that was critical in Hiibel is § 343.18, Wis. Stats., which states in part:
343.18 License to be carried; verification of signature.
(1) Every licensee shall have his or her license document, including any special restrictions cards issued
under s. 343.10(7)(d) or 343.17(4), in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor
vehicle and shall display the same upon demand from any judge, justice or traffic officer.
(1m) A person charged with violating sub. (1) may not be convicted if he or she produces in court or
in the office of the arresting officer a license theretofore issued to the licensee and valid at the time of his or her
arrest.
(2) For the purpose of verifying the signature on a license, any judge, justice or traffic officer may
require the licensee to write the licensee’s signature in the presence of such officer.
To invoke 343.18, an officer needs only probable cause to believe that the subject has been operating a motor vehicle and a
lawful reason to ask to see the license, which could result from reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a traffic regulation
or other law, exercise of a “community caretaker function.” 4, or a lawful “checkpoint” stop.

It is important to avoid misplaced reliance on Hiibel. An arrest without probable cause to believe an offense 5 has been committed clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. Hiibel cannot be relied upon as protection against Fourth Amendment claims unless there is a constitutionally defendable statute or ordinance that requires that a person identify himself upon request by an officer.

This is why we say over and over. If you are driving, you have to produce your drivers license for a cop. If you are not driving, you do not have to produce ID. IANAL but the information above is from one.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

I guarantee an officer is going to use that in considering if they have probable cause to arrest you.

How can they?

What are they going to tell a judge?

Judge: "Officer, why did you arrest this man..."

Officer: "Well.... he refused to identify himself."

Judge: "Thats not a crime in Wisconsin, why did you arrest this man?"

True police break the law (they did in Racine and they paid for it)