Police Checkup

I though that I would post my own reply to my question since
the Supreme Court has recently answered it.

Basically if the police make a "Terry Stop" they you are required
to identify yourself. No other information is required. Silence is
a good answer to "Do you have a drivers license with you?".

If it is not a "Terry Stop" (see below) then it seems that we don't
have to stop, reply or even listen to a police officer:

(from http://archive.aclu.org/court/wardlow1.html)

"Since Terry, this Court has repeatedly recognized, without dissent,
that absent reasonable suspicion, the Fourth Amendment grants
individuals an affirmative right to avoid police encounters and move
on. Moreover, the choice to refuse police contact cannot be used as a
bootstrap to justify an investigative stop."

(lots of information is available from a yahoo search of "Terry Stop")

From:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/rep...ch2_part1.html

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids police
from conducting "searches and seizures" without "probable cause."3 For
example, the police may not effect a full-scale "seizure of the
person" -- that is, an arrest -- absent "probable cause" to believe
that the individual has committed a specific crime to be charged.4
This "probable cause" standard is an essential bulwark against
arbitrary arrest under our constitutional scheme.5

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court carved out an exception to
the "probable cause" requirement. In the landmark case Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer may
detain a person briefly on the street for limited interrogation in the
absence of "probable cause," so long as a lesser standard of
"reasonable suspicion" has been satisfied.6 To justify a patdown
frisk, a police officer must have a reasonable fear that he or she "is
dealing with an armed and dangerous individual."7

Not every police-civilian interaction implicates the Fourth Amendment
"probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" standards. For example, a
non-coercive conversation between an officer and a civilian does not
require any articulable basis under the Fourth Amendment. For Fourth
Amendment analysis to apply, a "seizure of the person" must occur.8
The least intrusive form of constitutional "seizure" -- but one which
still requires "reasonable suspicion" -- is a Terry "stop."9

Under Terry, a "stop" occurs when, "by means of physical force or by
show of authority,"10 a police officer briefly detains a civilian such
that "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to
leave."11 Factors that distinguish a Fourth Amendment "seizure" from
something short of that include:

The threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon
by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or
the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with
the officer's request might be compelled.12

For a police officer properly to effect a Terry "stop," the officer
must be able to articulate "reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable
suspicion" is a reasonable belief on the part of the officer -- based
on experience, observations, and/or information from others -- that
criminal activity is "afoot" sufficient to warrant police
intervention.13

On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:04 -0700, 14allnall41 wrote:

What is the legally REQUIRED information a person (in such a
circumstance) must give to the police?

If you don't have to identify yourself what would be a good
answer to "Do you have a drivers license with you?" so not
to lie to the police? "Yes, but you can't see it" does not seem
like a very good reply.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:12:25 GMT, "Journalist-North"
wrote:


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
.com...

The officer
asked me if I had taken pictures of the bank.

--------

Cop: "Did you take pictures of the bank?"

Answer: "No"

What do you think he would have, could have, done?

Answer: Not a damn thing.

If he PERSONALLY didn't see you do it, and apparently he didn't but rather
was called by someone else who "claimed" to see you, and he asked you the
question, "did you take...", to which you answered in the negative, there is
no reasonable suspicion - even for a Terry stop (frisk and ID). There is no
law against taking pictures of a bank from the outside... so no reasonable
suspicion that you have done anything unlawful... even if you did take a
picture to which question you declined to answer truthfully....

Just tell him "no" and walk away. You have an absolute right NOT to
cooperate. Walking away is not a basis for reasonable suspicion, much less
probable cause, of anything either... so he can't stop you for that.

Can you lot in Amerika, who responded to this, spell: S H E E P L E ?

Journalist

14allnall41 wrote in message
...
I though that I would post my own reply to my question since
the Supreme Court has recently answered it.

Basically if the police make a "Terry Stop" they you are required
to identify yourself. No other information is required. Silence is
a good answer to "Do you have a drivers license with you?".

If it is not a "Terry Stop" (see below) then it seems that we don't
have to stop, reply or even listen to a police officer:

---------

That SCOTUS decision post-dates my previous comments. Even now I agree with
you that the "identification" you provide need only be as little as a
business card, or even a card with no more then your name written or printed
on it - no address and no telephone number being necessary for the purpose.
That was the essential essence of the NV case that SCOTUS actually
considered. In that case, as well, the individual wouldn't even identify
himself verbally by stating his name. He was arrested under a NV state law
which does not have a parallel law in all states.

Have a look at this, though, and you tell me if this was a Terry stop [was
there "articulatable suspicion" AND a specific chargeable offence in the
officer's mind?]; was it an unlawful seizure beyond Terry [was there
probable cause?], or was it just out and out (unlawful) police harassment
(especially the second time they did it)

Read the official incident report here first:
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/...ent_report.gif

Then go to the narrative here (5 pages)
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/#
this URL is page 1 of 5 - advance using the link at the bottom of each page

My view is that this, if accurately reported here, was an unlawful "seizure"
beyond a mere Terry, as described in your message, and as such deserved a
formal complaint to every police agency involved, if not a lawsuit:

Factors that distinguish a Fourth Amendment "seizure" from something short
of that [a Terry stop] include:

The threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon
by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or
the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with
the officer's request might be compelled.

NOTES: 1) Cops have a nearly universal habit of resting their hand on the
butt of their sidearm. That is not always necessarily calculated to
intimidate (sometimes it is) but it does and, as that is the case, could be
noted as a factor (intimidating body language) moving the encounter beyond a
mere Terry stop in a less than entirely friendly and casual encounter with
them.;
2) in a similar encounter to the one reported, especially with the feds that
were involved, I would have invited an arrest. Probably could have made more
money off the wrongful arrest law suit, that would surely have followed,
then I can in my regular line of business.

Lastly, click here and enjoy...

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/bb4lclan/Bob Marley - Bad Boys (1).mp3

Journalist

14allnall41 wrote in message
...
I though that I would post my own reply to my question since
the Supreme Court has recently answered it.

Basically if the police make a "Terry Stop" they you are required
to identify yourself. No other information is required. Silence is
a good answer to "Do you have a drivers license with you?".

If it is not a "Terry Stop" (see below) then it seems that we don't
have to stop, reply or even listen to a police officer:

---------

That SCOTUS decision post-dates my previous comments. Even now I agree with
you that the "identification" you provide need only be as little as a
business card, or even a card with no more then your name written or printed
on it - no address and no telephone number being necessary for the purpose.
That was the essential essence of the NV case that SCOTUS actually
considered. In that case, as well, the individual wouldn't even identify
himself verbally by stating his name. He was arrested under a NV state law
which does not have a parallel law in all states.

Have a look at this, though, and you tell me if this was a Terry stop [was
there "articulatable suspicion" AND a specific chargeable offence in the
officer's mind?]; was it an unlawful seizure beyond Terry [was there
probable cause?], or was it just out and out (unlawful) police harassment
(especially the second time they did it)

Read the official incident report here first:
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/...ent_report.gif

Then go to the narrative here (5 pages)
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/#
this URL is page 1 of 5 - advance using the link at the bottom of each page

My view is that this, if accurately reported here, was an unlawful "seizure"
beyond a mere Terry, as described in your message, and as such deserved a
formal complaint to every police agency involved, if not a lawsuit:

Factors that distinguish a Fourth Amendment "seizure" from something short
of that [a Terry stop] include:

The threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon
by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or
the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with
the officer's request might be compelled.

NOTES: 1) Cops have a nearly universal habit of resting their hand on the
butt of their sidearm. That is not always necessarily calculated to
intimidate (sometimes it is) but it does and, as that is the case, could be
noted as a factor (intimidating body language) moving the encounter beyond a
mere Terry stop in a less than entirely friendly and casual encounter with
them.;
2) in a similar encounter to the one reported, especially with the feds that
were involved, I would have invited an arrest. Probably could have made more
money off the wrongful arrest law suit, that would surely have followed,
then I can in my regular line of business.

Lastly, click here and enjoy...

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/bb4lclan/Bob Marley - Bad Boys (1).mp3

Journalist

That last link should have been constructed as follows with the spaces
coded:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/bb4lclan/Bob%20Marley%20-%20Bad%20Boys%20(1).mp3

J

"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
I just got back from a walk to the Post Office, where I dropped off my
most recent Netflix movie. As I left, I decided to take some pictures
snip snip
If nothing else it keeps the police out of trouble.
MikeS

"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
I just got back from a walk to the Post Office, where I dropped off my
most recent Netflix movie. As I left, I decided to take some pictures
snip snip
If nothing else it keeps the police out of trouble.
MikeS