Papers Please!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:45am

Robert Treder wrote:May I remind us that there's no need to be talking about probable cause...the issue on the table is checking ID...which does not require a search warrant, since it doesn't even belong to you.

And legalistics aside, what the fuck is the big deal about showing people your ID? What harm can possibly come from it? If it's just a "principle of the thing" thing, pick another thing to be principled about. It's not wise to fuck with the police, and not just because they carry weapons; you owe them a lot, and they've got a hard job, and the least you can do is to cooperate with them, especially when all they're asking for is your fucking ID. If they were asking you to bend over and close your eyes, it'd be another story, but, fortunately, that's not what's happening.

It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:46am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
A car is private property (as in a possession, not a dwelling) and the rules on searchs are different. They can't just arbitrarily search it but the threshold for it isn't terribly high.

Can I see precedent? I would love to see how that would apply...

What the hell precendent are you looking for? There are plenty of roadside searches that've gone on. SCOTUS hasn't overturned them yet.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:46am

No, because at that point it's none of my business why.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:48am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:My position as an authoritarian has nothng to do with the fact that cops don't like wasting their time dealing with bleeding-heart tinfoilers with personal vendettas and misplaced principles.

Well it certainly fits your ideas on " personal rights crap" now doesnt it? I have no personal vendetta against law enforcement, I dont wear a tinfoil hat, and I fail to see how fighting for my constitutional rights is misplaced.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:48am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?

I might be. But then again, unlike you, I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonize said cop nor demand that his reasons have to satisfy me. Frankly, what you're doing is just asking for you to get hauled in one day. And the courts aren't likely to toss aside reasonable police discretion because you've got a grievance against The Man.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-02-24 12:50am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Plus, if the bar employees cas ask for ID, so can the police.

When it comes to intoxicating beverages, you're dealing with the 21st Amendment which gives the states the sole regulatory power. Under that, the states can write laws, in NJ for example, that mandate that any person purchasing alcohol must provide ID. This then does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

For the officers in the bar, again it could be a considered a case of regulatory enforcement. Here in Delaware, it is illegal for a minor to be in a bar/tavern/liquor store or even the bar area of a restaurant or hotel.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:51am

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
A car is private property (as in a possession, not a dwelling) and the rules on searchs are different. They can't just arbitrarily search it but the threshold for it isn't terribly high.

Can I see precedent? I would love to see how that would apply...
What the hell precendent are you looking for? There are plenty of roadside searches that've gone on. SCOTUS hasn't overturned them yet.

They probably should. Though, those roadside searches I am sure occured wuth the owners pemission/ if the officer had an actual reason. Which of course any competant officer would generally tell the person. "Hey I am searching your car for open alcohol containers because you were driving recklessly" that is probable cause, that is fine.

But if I am driving the speed limit, obeying all traffic laws, my vehicle is in perfect working condition, and a cop pulls me over and asks to search, it is my right to refuse. If he tries to arrest me, he can go right ahead.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:55am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:But if I am driving the speed limit, obeying all traffic laws, my vehicle is in perfect working condition, and a cop pulls me over and asks to search, it is my right to refuse. If he tries to arrest me, he can go right ahead.

Last time I checked, you don't have a right to interfere with police business.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-02-24 12:59am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?

Uh, no, unlike you (apparantly), I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the cop is part of some sort of crazy conspiracy to violate my rights just because he asked for my ID.

Also, I would ask him what the problem was after I handed him my ID (if he didn't come out and state it), rather than being confrontational and refusing to hand him my ID until he satisfied my curiosity.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 01:00am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:They probably should. Though, those roadside searches I am sure occured wuth the owners pemission/ if the officer had an actual reason. Which of course any competant officer would generally tell the person. "Hey I am searching your car for open alcohol containers because you were driving recklessly" that is probable cause, that is fine.

Actually, no they shouldn't and thankfully won't. Simply because it is inconvienent and offende Alyrium, Bastion of all that is THE LEFT, doesn't mean they should strip cops of necessary and reasonable powers. And no, they don't need to owner's permission as again, it's done on probable cause. Nor do they need to provide an in-depth explanation.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:But if I am driving the speed limit, obeying all traffic laws, my vehicle is in perfect working condition, and a cop pulls me over and asks to search, it is my right to refuse. If he tries to arrest me, he can go right ahead.

And he probably will. Further more, provided he has a reason to have done so any court will back you for it.

Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's illegal.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:02am

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?
I might be. But then again, unlike you, I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonize said cop nor demand that his reasons have to satisfy me. Frankly, what you're doing is just asking for you to get hauled in one day. And the courts aren't likely to toss aside reasonable police discretion because you've got a grievance against The Man.

I woldnt go out of my way to piss them off. It isnt as if I hate law enforcement, but if they cant give me even a shred of a reason why they want to search my car, then I have no choice but to assume that the search is arbitrary.

If they ask for my ID, i will ask why. Tey need not give a specific answer, they must have a reason for wanting to see it, and I want to know what this reason is. he reason doesnt have to be that great, but dan give me a reason that is slightly more in depth than "we are investigating something" if they suspect I have done something, let them say it as they investigate me. If it is a safety concern for the area, let me know.

"Can I see your ID?"
"May I ask why?"
"We are investigating a murder in the area"
"Oh ok*gives id* anything i need to worry about"

Pretty simple. Not specific,wont compromise an investigation, and ives me a headsup that a killere running around.

Now if it goes something like this...

"Can I see your ID?"
"May I ask why?"
"We are investigating"
"I live in this neighborhood, is there somethng going on that I should know about?"
"No, I just need to see your ID"
" And I have no issues with that, but I would like to know why you have singled me out to search?

Pretty simple to avoid. Why the hell would he need to see my ID?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 01:05am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is a combination of several things . Not only principle, but also a simple question... "Why the fuck does he want to know" If some cop pulled you over, checked your ID, looked at your name, then let you go, you would probably be pretty miffed wouldnt you?
I might be. But then again, unlike you, I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonize said cop nor demand that his reasons have to satisfy me. Frankly, what you're doing is just asking for you to get hauled in one day. And the courts aren't likely to toss aside reasonable police discretion because you've got a grievance against The Man.
I woldnt go out of my way to piss them off. It isnt as if I hate law enforcement, but if they cant give me even a shred of a reason why they want to search my car, then I have no choice but to assume that the search is arbitrary.

If they ask for my ID, i will ask why. Tey need not give a specific answer, they must have a reason for wanting to see it, and I want to know what this reason is. he reason doesnt have to be that great, but dan give me a reason that is slightly more in depth than "we are investigating something" if they suspect I have done something, let them say it as they investigate me. If it is a safety concern for the area, let me know.

"Can I see your ID?"
"May I ask why?"
"We are investigating a murder in the area"
"Oh ok*gives id* anything i need to worry about"

Pretty simple. Not specific,wont compromise an investigation, and ives me a headsup that a killere running around.

Now if it goes something like this...

"Can I see your ID?"
"May I ask why?"
"We are investigating"
"I live in this neighborhood, is there somethng going on that I should know about?"
"No, I just need to see your ID"
" And I have no issues with that, but I would like to know why you have singled me out to search?

Pretty simple to avoid. Why the hell would he need to see my ID?

Most cops aren't going to be the dicks in your hypotheticals. But the simple fact is though that the police don't have to satisfy you to reasonably request your ID.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 01:05am

Simply put, Al, your method of dealing with the situation will give them a reason to suspect.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-24 01:08am

Alyrium, if the cops pull you over for a routine traffic stop and you are hostile and uncooperative, they might consider that reasonable grounds to suspect that you're hiding something.

Just replace "routine traffic stop" with "questioning you because of a telephone tip" and you have this scenario.

The reason people object to things like racial profiling is that it's unreasonable to go after people because of race or religion, etc. But people who are hostile and uncooperative to police officers conducting routine business? Get a grip.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:10am

Actually, no they shouldn't and thankfully won't. Simply because it is inconvienent and offende Alyrium, Bastion of all that is THE LEFT, doesn't mean they should strip cops of necessary and reasonable powers. And no, they don't need to owner's permission as again, it's done on probable cause. Nor do they need to provide an in-depth explanation.

How is arbitrarily searching someones car reasonable? If they have probable cause let them show it in court. They do need my permission to seach if they dont meet the requirementsof probable cause.

And he probably will. Further more, provided he has a reason to have done so any court will back you for it.

If he can show in court that he had probable cause I will walk myself to jail and plead no contest within 48 hours. But if he cant...

His probable cause need not be in depth. a simple sentence would suffice. But I will not allow them to search my car unless they have a warant, or can demonstrate probable cause.

It does however, seem as if we have reached a philosophical impasse

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 01:15am

How is arbitrarily searching someones car reasonable? If they have probable cause let them show it in court. They do need my permission to seach if they dont meet the requirementsof probable cause.

You're ignoring the simple fucking fact that it's not you that tells them what's probable cause! It's as simple as that. An officer is under no legal obligation to make you happy and no court's going to side with you if you try and argue that.

If he can show in court that he had probable cause I will walk myself to jail and plead no contest within 48 hours. But if he cant...

His probable cause need not be in depth. a simple sentence would suffice. But I will not allow them to search my car unless they have a warant, or can demonstrate probable cause.

And again, it's not the officers obligation to satisfy you that he has probable cause. Ninety nine percent of officers aren't going to pull you over for shits and giggles but the simple fact is that being surly and uncooperative is a good way to get yourself in trouble.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:18am

Frankly Mike with a traffic stop you know what you did wrong already

or the cop will tell you "You were speeding"

My argument applies to specific cases where the cop is searching arbitrarily. If they have probale cause, as is the case of a lawful traffic stop, or if my car fits the description of a stolen vehicle. I will happily comply with a request. But if, when asked what i am suspected of, the cop wont even tell me, that tells ME the officer does not have probable cause. Now, I may comply anyway to avoid arrest, but I will be filing an inquiry, following up on it, and possibly suing if I need to. But my car is stil one of my personal effects and I have a constitutional right to be secure in my effects. It is that bleeding simple. If they cant even tell me what they suspect me of, how the hell are they going to convince a judge?(Again, if they can, I will walk myself to a jail cell)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-24 01:19am

Alyrium, how many cops are picking up people on total arbitrary choices? You are assuming this is common, but you have yet to show this.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-02-24 01:21am

You know of course, that in the USA a policeman can take you downtown, and hold you for questioning 23hours 59 minutes, 59 seconds, and let you go without charging you for a crime, and there is NOTHING you can do about it?
Refusing to produce ID in a case like this, after the police recieving a complaint, is all they need to haul your ass in. Just who ARE you?
After seeing the video footage, I see exactly WHY he was arrested.
Pick your battles folks, as winning can still cost you vey much.
Why does this set people off so much? What is with the pathological distrust/hatred of authority? The policeman wasn't even rude until the attitude showed up. Guess what, police, being people, act like people. Piss them off by making their job harder, and being an ass, and you get the emotional baggage of the frustration that being a cop gives you dumped in your lap. Also the wisdom of the ages about how to get away with venting on you!
Show the man your fucking ID, get it over with. You are NOT going to win this one at a tactical level. You WILL produce ID, even if is after you are arrested. Don't spend 10 minutes arguing about saving yourself the 30 seconds you could save not producing it.
How about, "Here is my ID officer. Honey, show him your ID. Now, about why I am here and now officer. We had a heated arguement, and I got so mad I asked my daughter to pull over, as I was so mad I thought about walking home. After cooling off a bit, both in temper and temperature, I feel dumb.
Can we go now?"

Police see so much domestic fighting, that this story will ring true, and fitting so well into the category of "harmless but stupid," you will be on the road quickly. You might even get sympathy, as they roll their eyes, and think carefuly about how little paperwork can be done to explain this in the duty log.
Ask Perenguus. Cops don't want trouble, but they also have this thing called "escalation." They always respond with the minimun force needed, and always are one level higher than the public.
This means, they asks you politely at first. If you are ude, they get firm, but insistant. If you get beligerant, or uncooperative, they get minimaly physical. Hands on. You get hands on, and they pull out the club, pepperspey, or gun, depending on the tactical situation. Every time you up the stakes, they see you raise, and raise you one as well. Ask the Branch Dividians in Waco about not submitting to authority.
If need be, they use the military. (NG)

Bottom line, there was no WAY he wasn't going to show his ID.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:21am

I will conceed the point that a citizen is not the arbiter of probable cause. However... Any search conduced without it... well, I suppose that is what exclusion is for.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 01:22am

And Alyrium, making demands of cops is a good way to give them all the probable cause they need. Whether you agree with a stop or not (and again 99.9% of cops are pulling you over for a reason) getting surly with a cop is a bad idea and will most likely only wind you up in trouble.

Cops have a fairly wide discretion out of necessity and few are the court that will side against them.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:23am

SirNitram wrote:Alyrium, how many cops are picking up people on total arbitrary choices? You are assuming this is common, but you have yet to show this.

I am not assuming by any means that it is common, the vast majority of police officers would never dream of doing something like that(I come from a family full of police oficers on my moms side... so I most definently do not hate cops). All it takes is one asshole who has had a bad day though.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:25am

Stormbringer wrote:And Alyrium, making demands of cops is a good way to give them all the probable cause they need. Whether you agree with a stop or not (and again 99.9% of cops are pulling you over for a reason) getting surly with a cop is a bad idea and will most likely only wind you up in trouble.

Cops have a fairly wide discretion out of necessity and few are the court that will side against them.

I do still fail to se how asking why they need to seach my car is making a demand... If they dont give me an answer, nothing I can do about it...besides following up and filing suit if applicable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 01:25am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Alyrium, how many cops are picking up people on total arbitrary choices? You are assuming this is common, but you have yet to show this.
I am not assuming by any means that it is common, the vast majority of police officers would never dream of doing something like that(I come from a family full of police oficers on my moms side... so I most definently do not hate cops). All it takes is one asshole who has had a bad day though.

And even then you're better off being the reasonable one, not demanding a warrant or what not.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 01:28am

And even then you're better off being the reasonable one, not demanding a warrant or what not.

Then there is the problem of my constitutional rights being violated... It is a no-win for me.