Good Cop / Bad Cop

[Drac]

I'll have to go back and look at the discussion on that - it might have been an preservation of rights issue. Sounds like it.

Having grown up in a more respectful era if a cop would stop and ask for my ID I would give it to him and answer whatever questions put to me...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What a cop -wants- is not always what he is -legally- entitled to.
Even if he thinks he is.

Last I checked, I don't live in a nation that requires me to have my papers to move about.
I need a licence to operate a government registered vehicle on a public road. Cop has the right to ask me for it, and if I do not comply to detain me.
He doesn't have that same right if it's noon and I'm walking to the post office. Assk my nephew for his ID. He has none. He's 14. What is he supposed to provide?
Etc.

Theres more on the ID issue in that other thread.

7. When do I have to show ID?

This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is required when you’re driving or flying. Driving without a license is a crime, and no one is allowed to board an airplane without first presenting an ID. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as 'stop and identify' statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI

Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.

If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If the officer detains you, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. ‘Reasonable suspicion' is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#02

I see I was somewhat wrong. I do live in a State that requires me to have my papers after all. How interesting.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

For example, New York's “stop-and-identify” law[16] apparently allows a police officer to demand that a suspect identify himself but does not require the suspect to do so, and its “obstructing” law[17] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction.[18] Laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California’s “stop-and-identify” law, Penal Code §647(e) has wording[19] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973) , 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[20]

N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50(1)

§ 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.

But I don't need to show my papers. I am only required to provide my "name, address and an explanation of his conduct.". So name, address and "going to the post office and taking a walk" should suffice.

Unless I'm wearing a skimask, carrying a prybar, and wearing a "born to steal" tee shirt.....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Something to keep in mind.
NY law is not Ohio Law, and Cleveland OH law may have some significant differences from Brooklyn OH law, even though they are right next door. Actually, I know they have differences as that string of porn shops across the street from the churches on the way to the airport will show. LOL! (I miss Parma) (Different zoning regs I believe, btw)

My point is, a cop familiar with his areas laws may be both right and wrong. Right where he is, wrong where I am. More problems arise when we mix different jurisdictions laws in discussions like this. So, it's important we keep our perspectives when discussing these things I think.

Getting the input from officers from varying jurisdictions on these discussions is a great way to better understand the whole issue, be it ID requirements, or case particulars.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

More from Wiki


# The Fifth Amendment prohibits only communication that is testimonial, incriminating, and compelled; see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), at 34–38. Hiibel held that a person's name is not incriminating, and consequently is not protected by the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.


# Texas Penal Code, Title 8, §38.02(a), reads
“A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.”

Based on these and similar, if a cop stops you and asks who are you, where are you going, and why, it's usually a good idea to answer, and if requested, provide your ID. As always, cooperation and politeness usually results in less problems than arguing.

 

[jks9199]

Hmm... this is an interesting idea, and a good topic for discussion... Under what circumstances would a reasonable person feel justified in defying the police? To the LEO here, under what circumstances would you feel a person would be justified in denying your requests and or walking away from you without you deciding they were being problematic or difficult and escalating the situation?

For me, that's easy. If I don't have grounds to detain, it's reasonable for you to refuse. If I don't have PC and an exception to the warrant requirement, it's reasonable for you to refuse to consent to a search. In other words -- if I'm giving you a choice, it's reasonable for you to say no.

I'll admit; I use careful phrasing and other tactics to hopefully get the result I want, just like a salesman does. "Do you have ID?" is really a yes or no question -- but typically results in someone handing me an ID card.

It can be frustrating; I know of several incidents where the person almost certainly had something on them -- but the facts and circumstances I had didn't rise to reasonable suspicion, so when they said no -- I had to respect that. And saying no doesn't count as "proof" that you're hiding something. I know several people who say no on principle; one of them hasn't flown, gone into museums or libraries, or quite a few other things because he refuses to consent to being searched.

One more thing... If you can't tell, I make it a point to know the laws and decisions. I use them. I'm not stopping or detaining you if I walk alongside and talk to you. It's not generally a detention if I haven't blocked your travel or changed your path. "Can I talk to you?" "Do you mind if..." "May I?" are all very different then "Stop!", "I need to talk to you?" "I'm going to..." I'll openly admit that I take advantage of the way many people are likely to comply with requests from authority, too. Or that a criminal may feel that refusing will make them look guilty.

 

[jks9199]

Something to keep in mind.
NY law is not Ohio Law, and Cleveland OH law may have some significant differences from Brooklyn OH law, even though they are right next door. Actually, I know they have differences as that string of porn shops across the street from the churches on the way to the airport will show. LOL! (I miss Parma) (Different zoning regs I believe, btw)

My point is, a cop familiar with his areas laws may be both right and wrong. Right where he is, wrong where I am. More problems arise when we mix different jurisdictions laws in discussions like this. So, it's important we keep our perspectives when discussing these things I think.

Getting the input from officers from varying jurisdictions on these discussions is a great way to better understand the whole issue, be it ID requirements, or case particulars.

Great point. If you pay attention, I often differentiate in my posts on topics like this between general principles (Terry stops & frisks) and specific instances (Virginia's law about giving false identity to a LEO) for just that reason. The big things kind of stay the same. The NY law you posted where you're required to identify yourself and explain your conduct in many ways is just a codification of a Terry stop... But specifics can be very different; you aren't required to have any ID on you, unless you're driving or riding a moped, generally, in Virginia.

 

[Archangel M]

In NY there is the case of People vs. DeBour that you should be aware of. It was a landmark case that describes the legal levels of police contact and what they can and cannot do:

Level One permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality. This could be just walking in a certain area of town at a strange time. The officer has the right to drive up and talk to you. This is not a stop since you dont have to answer. Cops have the same right to talk to some stranger as anybody else. They just have to be able to state why.

Level Two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Here they can say, "hey you come here for me please..." and ask you for ID..you dont have to give it but they can ask.. this is typically stopping and talking to anybody walking around in an area where a suspect may have fled to. If you dont have a description you can talk to people in the general area and "ask" for ID.

Level Three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor. Here you are not going anywhere till I figure out what is going on and if you are involved. If you are in the area of a fleeing suspect and you match the description, and you say you came from the same location as the BG I can hold you till I figure out if you are my guy.

Level Four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. Here you will be taking a ride with me in the fancy car.

The things to remember is that you dont know at the time if the officer has a "reasonable or credible" reason to stop you. So you better ask before you decide to walk or run away. And furthermore, most police contacts start and one level and move up or down depending on what happens. If the cop is at level one and you lie to him that you came from a place that he knows you didnt you may have just moved up to level 2 or 3.

 

[jks9199]

Another way to articulate the levels of police encounters would be:

Consensual Encounter: either party can terminate the encounter at any time. This is the simple "can I talk?" or just walking up and chatting. It can go on as long and be as thorough as you permit. In theory (ONLY!), a police officer could consensually conduct a strip search and cavity search, if you let them. (Not that ANY US police department's general orders would actually permit this!) (Level 1, above)

Terry Stop/detention: a brief detention based on reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The detention can only go on as long as necessary to either confirm or dispel the suspicion, and the actions taken should be tied to that goal, as well. Frisks for weapons are permitted, if supported by the facts. (Level 2 and 3)

Arrest: Based on probable cause (which may be dispelled by the end of the encounter), an officer deprives the person of their freedom of movement, using whatever force may be reasonably necessary to do so. A full search may be conducted incident to arrest, without a warrant. (Level 3 and 4)

 

[Drac]

Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But WHY is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But WHY is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....

Absolutely Drac. I cannot count the times where being polite has paid off. Even more important than that though is that by being polite in turn people have in general treated me very well and I in turn have made some great friendships because of it!

 

[Empty Hands]

Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But WHY is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it????

In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all. However, the necessity of internal papers and the requirement to produce them on demand of the authorities is a hallmark of authoritarian societies that in the past the US has prided itself on being different from. In the comparisons with say the Communist USSR, we would point to the necessity of papers as a hallmark of an unfree nation, unlike ourselves. Thus, the modern necessity of producing one's papers reminds some of us uncomfortably of these historical comparisons. Like it or not, we are not required by law to have official papers simply to move about in society (yet).

Sometimes, I also have to wonder what producing ID is supposed to accomplish. In some places, like the airport, it makes sense. Your picture confirms your identity, which can be matched against your ticket. Or in your car, your ID can prove that the car is yours and that you are certified to drive. To get into a venue though or when walking around on the sidewalk, what is it supposed to accomplish? You have an identity, please enter? No official ID holders try to smuggle weapons into a stadium or commit crimes? It's bizarre. Even in the case of the police, if they want your name in case you cause trouble later, I would presume that arresting you later when you commit the crime would be sufficient. Are names from incident reports collected into databases? Can the police or others determine that you have been stopped for ID by the police without being arrested?

In more pessimistic moments, I think the constant demands of ID are simply to condition us to the demands of authority and our developing security state. I rather hope that is wrong.

 

[Archangel M]

Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.

 

[Drac]

In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all.

That's all I wanted to know....

 

[Drac]

Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.

If they wind up in court the officer testifys that the subject LIED about his identity..It never ends good...

 

[Archangel M]

In theory people dont show their ID because they are "protecting their freedoms". In practice though most refuse because they are wanted. The trick is finding out while staying within the limits of the law.

 

[jks9199]

Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.

I made a t-stop on a guy one time who tried to convince me that he left his wallet home when he came into my area for work... for a couple of weeks. Uh, right.

Ran the name he gave me. OOPS... Not licensed. As I ask him to step out of the car to discuss the issue... I see a wallet at his feet. We call that a clue...

Somebody went to jail that day for driving after having been adjudicated a habitual offender (felony), among other charges...

Moral of the story: If you're gonna lie about your name, make sure the name you use has a license!

 

[Archangel M]

LOL! Ive had guys give me false names that came back to wanted persons. They quickly figure out that what they are wanted for (plus the false impersonation they just bought) is better than going down as the person they were pretending to be.

Sometimes the "game" can be fun though. When you know they are lying to you and you start getting them all tripped up on their story.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to confess that I am of mixed feelings on this aspect of police-work.

On the one hand, I can see that it is easy for police to use a refusal to provide ID as an 'acid test' of possible malfeasance. On the other, I do find it to be an insidious creeping towards "papieren bitte!".

For myself, if a copper asks me my name and address, I'm going to tell him. It makes his job and my life easier. But I can see why some people would take umbridge at 'groundless' (as they see it) intrusion and harassment.

 

[jks9199]

In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all. However, the necessity of internal papers and the requirement to produce them on demand of the authorities is a hallmark of authoritarian societies that in the past the US has prided itself on being different from. In the comparisons with say the Communist USSR, we would point to the necessity of papers as a hallmark of an unfree nation, unlike ourselves. Thus, the modern necessity of producing one's papers reminds some of us uncomfortably of these historical comparisons. Like it or not, we are not required by law to have official papers simply to move about in society (yet).

Sometimes, I also have to wonder what producing ID is supposed to accomplish. In some places, like the airport, it makes sense. Your picture confirms your identity, which can be matched against your ticket. Or in your car, your ID can prove that the car is yours and that you are certified to drive. To get into a venue though or when walking around on the sidewalk, what is it supposed to accomplish? You have an identity, please enter? No official ID holders try to smuggle weapons into a stadium or commit crimes? It's bizarre. Even in the case of the police, if they want your name in case you cause trouble later, I would presume that arresting you later when you commit the crime would be sufficient. Are names from incident reports collected into databases? Can the police or others determine that you have been stopped for ID by the police without being arrested?

In more pessimistic moments, I think the constant demands of ID are simply to condition us to the demands of authority and our developing security state. I rather hope that is wrong.

Let me address this...

Part of what it shows me when you present an ID is that it gives me an idea about how cooperative you're going to be. It supports who you claim to be, and gives me some idea whether or not you're probably legit to be where I've come across you.

Yeah, I'll probably run your name, just to make sure you're not wanted. And, in some cases, I'm required to document who I made contact with. It's a lot easier to copy that off your ID than to ask you "how do spell that?" several times. And where I work -- in a single day, I can get Pakistani, Korean, Vietnamese, Spanish, English, Eastern European, and more names. Not to mention some of the "special" spellings of ordinary names -- or just "ordinary" spellings. Just how do you spell "Jennifer?" One N, or two, with a G, or a PH... and so on. Helps if it's already spelled for me on an ID...

Let me try to give a couple of examples to pull a couple of things together... A few years back, I'm on patrol in the early afternoon when I notice a guy walking up a street that's a little off the beaten path. He's dressed in black, carrying a bag, and has some sort of long object sticking out of a backpack. He's looking awful hard at the house he's passing by... Note that NONE of this is illegal by itself. But it's more than passing strange... so I went and made myself a "new friend." Guy claimed to live in the area. H'mmm... most times when I notice a resident acting unusual, I get a thank you -- because they get that I probably would have noticed and stopped the guy breaking into their house, just like I noticed them. But this guy is pissed. He's not being cooperative, says he lives around the corner. H'mm... No law broken. Had to let him go on his way... but I do know that no house got broken into in my area that afternoon. Can't prove there's a connection... Had he given me an ID, I'd have known where he lived. Could it have supported his story? Sure. Or it might have clinched my suspicions.

Another time... we're responding to an alarm. Two cops go into the office building, and I stay in the area because there have been a lot of business burglaries of late. While I'm there, I see a guy walk out from the back area of the building. Not sure he came out of the building, and people do walk through there... Still, I make contact with the guy. He starts to give a story about being inside. Meanwhile, I'm getting a radio message that there was a burglary inside. I ask the guy for ID -- and he's from out of state. H'mm... One thing led to another, and we ended up arresting him. He was good for more than 100 business burglaries in the region. And a string of residential burglaries magically stopped that day, too...

Am I starting to give you a little insight into how at least one cop's mind works, when he's talking to someone on the side of the street?

 

[Archangel M]

We here in the US probably have the most restrictions on "requesting papers" from citizens than almost any other country in the world.