It is the fact that such an opinion is not troubling to the officers of the law here present that is the root of peoples disquiet. I clearly have no knowledge of American law so I shall refrain from any definitive statements other than giving vent to my opinions (such being worth exactly what is paid for them).
These are that policeman should have no right to demand ID or control the activities of a citizen/subject who is not in direct and clear breach of the law. I have seen far too many comments from the officers on MT that give a distinct impression that they don't think that is the way things are and, even worse, don't think it should be a matter of any concern.
A policeman is not a sgt-at-arms for the local liege-lord and the citizens are not the peasantry to be ordered at his whim. That might seem an inappropriate analogy but that is the extent of the powers that have been voiced as being desired. Again a flag to note I am spouting rather than speaking from a learned postion but, as far as I know, Citizens have the rights they took for themselves when the Constitution was written - it is not up to the officer to decide which ones he will let them have on his own recognisance or for his own convenience.
There are strict limits to when a police officer may demand ID or detain a person. These limits are derived from the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, and the decisions of the various courts, especially the US Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment specifically states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It prohibits any
unreasonable search unless a warrant has been issued by a neutral party (usually a magistrate or judge) who has determined, after receiving information under oath, that it is more likely than not that the person named committed the crime in question, or that the specific evidence is more likely than not to be found in the specific location. Police encounters move around the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." The general rule is that, to deprive a person of their liberty at all, or to intrude upon their person or effects, a warrant is required.
The least intrusive contact is a consensual encounter. A police officer has every right to walk up to anyone in public and say "Hi, howdy do..." We can
ask for identification during this or not, as we like. Of course, the person we're talking to has every right to tell us to screw off, and walk away, or refuse to give us their ID.
Lots of things can give rise to suspicion -- but if they're only a hunch or guess without some specific, articulable combination of facts and circumstances, we can't go further than a consensual encounter. We can see something that's just not right or hinky, and chat with someone -- if they'll stay. Sometimes, making them move along by being "friendly" satisfies the goal; they won't commit a crime in my area if they decide that I'm too "friendly."
But... if the combination of facts and circumstances, evaluated in the light of our training and experience, give rise to some unspecified quantum of evidence that the person in question may be committing a crime, may be about to commit a crime, or may have recently committed a crime, we can detain that person briefly for the specific purpose of confirming or dispelling that suspicion. In doing so, if there is a state law supporting it, we can then demand identification. If the crime we suspect involves weapons, or we can otherwise justify the suspicion of weapons, we can conduct a brief, limited search of the outer clothing specifically to find weapons. (See
Terry v Ohio and
Hiibel v Nevada; note that these are articles about the decisions, not the actual decisions. I don't vouch for everything in them without reading them more carefully than I have time for.)
This isn't a blanket authority to stop anyone; there must be specific, articulable facts that a reasonable officer in the same position would likely agree lead to the logical inference that "crime is afoot." They don't have to be things that would be meaningful to the ordinary person, without an officer's training and experience. Nor is it a blanket search of the person; the pat down or frisk is limited to the areas that the person might be concealing an immediately available weapon. In
Terry, a detective observed a group of people loitering outside a business. They would take turns passing in front of the business, peering in, and then return to a somewhat secluded area around the corner. One would frequently pat his pocket. The detective knew that there had been stickups in the area, and knew the beat well. He made contact with them, and in the course of that contact, grabbed one of them, checking his pockets and found a handgun. Notice that this wasn't just "gee, those guys are odd..." -- but specific behaviors that he recognized as being consistent with the behavior of someone casing a place for a stickup. Other rulings have defined some of the things that can be considered, like several that have addressed complainants and reports received. An anonymous complaint by itself needs more, either specific observations by the officer to support it or some other indication that the person making the tip has specific knowledge and information and is credible.
Probable cause allows an officer to make an arrest (subject to specific state laws regarding when an officer may make an arrest without a warrant). Probable cause is facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person in question more likely than not committed the offense in question. Notice that this moves beyond the realm of specific knowledge and training; the facts or circumstances must be such that any person of normal intelligence, education, and judgment would say that it's more likely than not.
We're not jack-booted thugs grabbing people at random; these sorts don't last as a general rule. They get too many complaints too fast, and their poor judgment gets them fired. (Most agencies try to catch 'em before they even go to the academy.) But knowing who we're talking to is often very important; asking for or compelling the production of an ID is one way to have some confidence that you do know who it is that you're dealing with.
