Civil Rights Lawyer

[sparkofcreation 0]

wow, dumb cops that can barely interpret the constitution.. just what we need..

and all this time i thought that was the job of the judges, not the police......

Of course it is. But the courts (the US Supreme Court) have ALREADY SAID that what the cop did was illegal. Therefore the cop should have known not to do it, just like they know they can't stop your car unless you've committed a traffic violation and can't detain you longer than necessary to write a ticket unless you agree to keep talking to them.

So it wasn't a matter of the cop interpreting the Constitution, but rather following the interpretation of the Constitution that the Supreme Court has already made.

[sparkofcreation 0]

I do believe that you are required to identify yourself to a peace officer when requested.

With the evidence suppressed, not much the state can do...ask for a dismissal. Hope you nail them.

You are required to give your name (and, according to some, your birthdate). You are not required to show ID or to keep talking to them unless you are under arrest.

Case has already been dismissed, AIUI.

[Artegal 1]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

pedroh, the police enforce the law, the judges interpret the law

But its the Police that are entrusted to defend, support, and protect the constitution--and therefore they the police have a higher calling then simply interpreting the constitution!

Florida Statute mandates that Police Officers take and subscribe to the Oath of Office, and a Loyalty Oath, prior to appointment and before undertaking the duties of office.

PROCEDURE

2.01.1 It shall be the policy of the Police Department to comply with State and Federal law and to preserve and protect the constitutional rights of the community. It shall further be the policy of the Department that all sworn personnel will abide by the Canon of Ethics as set forth in policy directive 2.02.

PROCEDURE

OATH OF OFFICE

2.01.2 Oath of Office State of Florida:

I do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Florida and the Ordinances of the City of ______________: that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer of the City of ______________.

The Public Employees (Loyalty) Oath is mandated in Chapter 876.05, of the Florida State Statutes. The following oath shall be sworn and subscribed to by all Department personnel, and filed prior to the approval of any salary, expenses, or compensation:

LOYALTY OATH

2.01.3 Loyalty Oath:

I,_____, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an official of the City of ___________ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Artegal

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

pedroh, the police enforce the law, the judges interpret the law

But its the Police that are entrusted to defend, support, and protect the constitution--and therefore they the police have a higher calling then simply interpreting the constitution!

Florida Statute mandates that Police Officers take and subscribe to the Oath of Office, and a Loyalty Oath, prior to appointment and before undertaking the duties of office.

PROCEDURE

2.01.1 It shall be the policy of the Police Department to comply with State and Federal law and to preserve and protect the constitutional rights of the community. It shall further be the policy of the Department that all sworn personnel will abide by the Canon of Ethics as set forth in policy directive 2.02.

PROCEDURE

OATH OF OFFICE

2.01.2 Oath of Office State of Florida:

I do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Florida and the Ordinances of the City of ______________: that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer of the City of ______________.

The Public Employees (Loyalty) Oath is mandated in Chapter 876.05, of the Florida State Statutes. The following oath shall be sworn and subscribed to by all Department personnel, and filed prior to the approval of any salary, expenses, or compensation:

LOYALTY OATH

2.01.3 Loyalty Oath:

I,_____, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an official of the City of ___________ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

perhaps for florida, but it's questionable whether such applies to every policeman throughout the usa. the only ones i know of that "...defend, support, and protect the constitution..." are the military.

[sparkofcreation 0]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

pedroh, the police enforce the law, the judges interpret the law

But its the Police that are entrusted to defend, support, and protect the constitution--and therefore they the police have a higher calling then simply interpreting the constitution!

Florida Statute mandates that Police Officers take and subscribe to the Oath of Office, and a Loyalty Oath, prior to appointment and before undertaking the duties of office.

PROCEDURE

2.01.1 It shall be the policy of the Police Department to comply with State and Federal law and to preserve and protect the constitutional rights of the community. It shall further be the policy of the Department that all sworn personnel will abide by the Canon of Ethics as set forth in policy directive 2.02.

PROCEDURE

OATH OF OFFICE

2.01.2 Oath of Office State of Florida:

I do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Florida and the Ordinances of the City of ______________: that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer of the City of ______________.

The Public Employees (Loyalty) Oath is mandated in Chapter 876.05, of the Florida State Statutes. The following oath shall be sworn and subscribed to by all Department personnel, and filed prior to the approval of any salary, expenses, or compensation:

LOYALTY OATH

2.01.3 Loyalty Oath:

I,_____, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an official of the City of ___________ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

perhaps for florida, but it's questionable whether such applies to every policeman throughout the usa. the only ones i know of that "...defend, support, and protect the constitution..." are the military.

Actually that's in the Oath of Office for every person who works for the federal government, from the President down to the file clerks. I had to say it myself.

[pedroh 21]

and no, u are not to show ID to a police officer just because he wants to know.. thats illegal...

[aussiewench 9]

and no, u are not to show ID to a police officer just because he wants to know.. thats illegal...

Thats why the judge ruled yesterday as she did.

From the transcript of the motion to dismiss....The courts have held that there are three levels of interaction between officers of the government and private citizens. There is a voluntary encounter in which the private citizen may leave any time. Second, the police may briefly detain a person if they believe that criminal activity has occurred. Third, the police may arrest someone if they know the person has committed a felony or has committed a criminal offense in the police presence.

With the voluntary encounter you do not have to give even your name. That is.....if they are just making an inquiry and there is no reason for them to have any suspicion that you are doing something wrong. The moment the officer in my BIL case demanded his ID, she was committing an unlawful detainment........and thus everything else that followed was also unlawful, including threatening him with a taser.

Edited December 8, 2006 by aussiewench

[Heracles 417]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

Don't tell me a cop in the US cannot ask for someone's ID?

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

Don't tell me a cop in the US cannot ask for someone's ID?

apparently not. maybe that was the problem with rodney king, he didn't have any id and he had to run.

[Heracles 417]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

Don't tell me a cop in the US cannot ask for someone's ID?

apparently not. maybe that was the problem with rodney king, he didn't have any id and he had to run.

That is ridiculous. In this day of age when the right hand cannot trust the left a cop should have the right to ask for someone's Id. Otherwise we might as well go back to the wild wild west era.

Aussiewrench, if you genuinely feel the the cop was out-of-line, you did the right thing by reporting them.

I tell you what though, damn would I hate to be a public servant. Damned if they do damned if the do not.. I hear it all the time from teachers about stupid know-it-all free loading parents.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Infidel

[Artegal 1]

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

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.

[pedroh 21]

well i think it's up to the cops mood how to interpret if a 'suspect' wants to show or not ID..

that sucks.. how do u use the 4th then?

Don't tell me a cop in the US cannot ask for someone's ID?

apparently not. maybe that was the problem with rodney king, he didn't have any id and he had to run.

That is ridiculous. In this day of age when the right hand cannot trust the left a cop should have the right to ask for someone's Id. Otherwise we might as well go back to the wild wild west era.

Aussiewrench, if you genuinely feel the the cop was out-of-line, you did the right thing by reporting them.

I tell you what though, damn would I hate to be a public servant. Damned if they do damned if the do not.. I hear it all the time from teachers about stupid know-it-all free loading parents.

there has to be a cause for a police officer to ask you for ID.. it can't be only for ####### and giggles..

[Heracles 417]

there has to be a cause for a police officer to ask you for ID.. it can't be only for ####### and giggles..

Maybe the female cop was tying to pick him AussieWrench's partner up..

-----

Why would a cop approach someone if they are not suspicious of something to begin with?

[aussiewench 9]

there has to be a cause for a police officer to ask you for ID.. it can't be only for ####### and giggles..

Maybe the female cop was tying to pick him AussieWrench's partner up..

-----

Why would a cop approach someone if they are not suspicious of something to begin with?

Not my partner, it was hubby's brother.

The issues with my BIL case is that there has been an ongoing issue. There is no law against fishing, parking, parking overnight etc in this particular spot. However there is a guy that lives across the water that is a big wig who has taken a dislike for people parking overnight to fish along the water, particularly if you have an older model car. He apparently has some pull with the police as they harrass people down there and trespass them. That in itself is illegal. This female officer with the Explorer in toe got the call that my BIL van was there again so she set off to arrest him believing he had an earlier trespass. He didn't and she went on hearsay from another officer without checking it out. BIL was fishing, thats it. The officer was intent on an arrest and even admitted in court that she had no idea that it was legal to park their overnight. BS. Same must be of all the officers that go there to harrass. They are out of control in our area. The moment she demanded his ID, there was an unlawful detention. Even if that wasn't held to be so by the judge, there would of been another unlawful detention the moment she ordered him to stop when he was walking away. He was lawfully allowed to do so. There was no reasonable suspicion, only hearsay that she should of confirmed. Had she done she would of known there was no trespass against him. What horrified us even more was that they are allowing Explorers (boy scouts) to participate in police activities which is against policy and rules. Heads are going to roll all over the place here.

As for why a cop would approach if there was not suspicion in the first place. Take eg you were in a car and the car is pulled over by the police. They cannot legally ask to see a passengers ID unless they had reasonable suspicion they were doing something illegal. They can ask, and they do.....but you have the right to say nothing. Here is an example of what recently happened to a women in Colorado when her husbands car was pulled over. Legally she did not have to give her ID when asked for it. Read what happened http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/27122prs20061017.html

Edited December 8, 2006 by aussiewench

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

very good post

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

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.