Stop and Identify

[Gunslinger]

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.

The one time the Jews weren't 'polite'--in the Warsaw Ghetto, they made the SS pay. Better to die like a bull in the ring than a steer in a slaughterhouse. And to stand up for your rights than be a bootlicker to some cop because he has a badge falls into that same ethos.

As to your incorrect usage of Godwin's Law: it makes no qualitative judgement as to whether or not the allusion, simile or metaphor is correct. In the case I used it, it is completely apt.

 

[aadvark]

The reason why Hiibel was upheld, as it pertains to Nevada State, is because Nevada has a Law that Authorizes Law Enforcement Officers to inquire as to a Persons Name, but nothing more.

Hiibel did not divulge any deeper than that, beyond a Persons name.

The neighboring State of Arizona followed suit..., behind Nevada, BUT only with a Persons Name..., under either Statute.

 

[xenophon]

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).

There's no penalty associated with 968.24 for not providing name. There would have to be a statute to apply to penalize you for not giving a name. I think that'd fall under obstructing normally. BUT... Since our "obstructing" statute doesn't provide a penalty for not providing a name, there is no statute to charge you with.


I have a follow up question though. If the officer says you are under arrest, you have to then provide name, right? Or can you still remain silent?

 

[Doug Huffman]

Remain silent.

 

[minuteman]

Theres no chance that type of scenario would ever happen in court. They would have to have reasonable suspicion you committed a crime to even detain you, that is what they would charge you with no doubt. And your right, it says they can demand it, but it does not say you must comply.

Once again, I am not saying they can charge you with something if you just remain silent. But if you are detained and refuse to to give your name they are probably just going to get hostile about it. As wrong as it might be that is how it plays out in the real world.

They are annotating the Hiibel case in the statutes for what reason? Are there any local ordinances related to this or whats the deal there?

 

[logan]

I wish I could find the link to this...

I read a story posted by a cop about his encounter with an OCer. The officer was pulling into a gas station, and noticed a truck with a tail light out. As the guy got out of the vehicle, he was also OCing. The officer went inside, and politely wanted to ask the guy about his gun (make/model, maybe how he liked it, etc), and then tell him "by the way, your tail light is out and you might want to get it replaced." Instead, the OCer rudely said "I don't need to talk to you" and left. As he left, the cop pulled him over and gave him a ticket. When the officer was issuing the ticket, the OCer said "can't you just give me a verbal warning?" and the officer replied "I tried letting you know about it inside and you didn't want to talk to me."

If an officer was nice as he approached me, I might see what he wants before I decline to talk to him. Otherwise I would politely refuse and continue what I am doing. If i'm not busy and have no where to be, I may even talk one for a bit if he seems nice.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

If the officer says you are under arrest, you have to then provide name, right? Or can you still remain silent?

You always have the right to remain silent. That I know.

After that I believe if you remain silent, and the police THINK they have PC to arrest they take you into custody and book you as John Doe.

Then you go in front of a judge as John Doe. If the judge agrees they have probable cause then you are bound over for trial or whatever that process is called.

Having said that, my beliefs and what I "think" don't constitute fact, so please don't rely on them and conduct your own research.

 

[J.Gleason]

I wish I could find the link to this...

I read a story posted by a cop about his encounter with an OCer. The officer was pulling into a gas station, and noticed a truck with a tail light out. As the guy got out of the vehicle, he was also OCing. The officer went inside, and politely wanted to ask the guy about his gun (make/model, maybe how he liked it, etc), and then tell him "by the way, your tail light is out and you might want to get it replaced." Instead, the OCer rudely said "I don't need to talk to you" and left. As he left, the cop pulled him over and gave him a ticket. When the officer was issuing the ticket, the OCer said "can't you just give me a verbal warning?" and the officer replied "I tried letting you know about it inside and you didn't want to talk to me."

If an officer was nice as he approached me, I might see what he wants before I decline to talk to him. Otherwise I would politely refuse and continue what I am doing. If i'm not busy and have no where to be, I may even talk one for a bit if he seems nice.

I remember this post and yes this guy handled it all wrong. It is one thing when the cops casually mentions something such as in this story as obviously he had no problem with the guy OCing. It is another thing when they stop you specifically for OCing when OCing is 100% legal.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Theres no chance that type of scenario would ever happen in court. They would have to have reasonable suspicion you committed a crime to even detain you, that is what they would charge you with no doubt.

Happens all the time.

Also, you can't get arrested for reasonable suspicion. The must have probable cause. (a higher standard)

Just because the police think they have probable cause doesn't mean they do. There are plenty of cases when an officer arrested someone and a judge later determined they don't have probable cause.

 

[xenophon]

I wish I could find the link to this...

I read a story posted by a cop about his encounter with an OCer. The officer was pulling into a gas station, and noticed a truck with a tail light out. As the guy got out of the vehicle, he was also OCing. The officer went inside, and politely wanted to ask the guy about his gun (make/model, maybe how he liked it, etc), and then tell him "by the way, your tail light is out and you might want to get it replaced." Instead, the OCer rudely said "I don't need to talk to you" and left. As he left, the cop pulled him over and gave him a ticket. When the officer was issuing the ticket, the OCer said "can't you just give me a verbal warning?" and the officer replied "I tried letting you know about it inside and you didn't want to talk to me."

If an officer was nice as he approached me, I might see what he wants before I decline to talk to him. Otherwise I would politely refuse and continue what I am doing. If i'm not busy and have no where to be, I may even talk one for a bit if he seems nice.

Yeah, that's doing it wrong, IMO. I'll talk to a cop just like any other person, but if they are actively trying to gain some information on me or give me a hard time, and I sense that, well, then that changes.

Every circumstance is different, and your mileage may/will vary, so you just have to keep on your toes.

 

[xenophon]

Just adding one more tidbit from Henes v. Morrisey.

"All crimes in Wisconsin are statutory. Section 939.10, Stats. 1991-92, declares that "[c]ommon-law crimes have been abolished in Wisconsin." A crime is made up of two parts: proscribed conduct and a prescribed penalty. "The former without the latter is no crime." Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, sec. 1.2(d) at 9-10 (2d ed. 1986). In this case no statute penalizes a refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and no penalty is set forth in the statute for refusing to identify oneself. Section 968.24, upon which the deputies and the majority opinion rely, is not in any chapter defining crimes and setting forth penalties. This statute is part of Chapter 968 entitled "Commencement of Criminal Proceedings 363*363 By its very terms sec. 968.24 empowers a law enforcement officer to stop and question "in the vicinity where the person was stopped." The statute does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest."


968.24 (temporary questioning) has no penalty, so any cop trying to tell you they are going to arrest you for not giving a name is doing two things: 1) Changing 968.24 at their whim to have a penalty, and 2) trying to change 946.41 at their whim to include not giving a name as part of obstructing conditions.

Enough time has passed since 1995 where I believe they lose their qualified immunity as a cop too (in 1995 it was too early and unclear, thus in Henes V Morrisey, it was stated they still had qualified immunity. These days, it's not going to fly.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Good post.

any cop trying to tell you they are going to arrest you for not giving a name is doing two things: 1) Changing 968.24 at their whim to have a penalty,

Arrest is not a penalty.

 

[xenophon]

Good post.Arrest is not a penalty.

thanks. Not saying Arrest is a penalty, but one shouldn't be arrested if there is no penalty set in the first place.

 

[TyGuy]

Thanks for the info. I will keep my mouth shut, apart from "am I free to go."