diamond2.0
- 1,148
- 163
- Status
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Well no need to stop now. Heres another example of Cops gone wild.
See Denver Cop Punch Suspect Six Times in Face, Trip Pregnant Woman
The Denver Police Department didn't need this. On an evening of largely peaceful protest in the Mile High City after a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury's failure to indict a police officer who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown, video has surfaced in which a Denver cop can be repeatedly punching a drug suspect in the head, as well as tripping a woman said to have been seven-and-a-half months pregnant. Details and the video below. But first, a warning: The images may disturb some readers.
Fox31 brings us the story, told largely in video shot by Levi Frasier, a bystander to an incident that took place in August near the intersection of West 5th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.
According to Frasier, police approached a vehicle occupied by a man subsequently identified as David Flores when the suspect shoved a white sweat sock into his mouth.
The presumption: The sock contained heroin, and Flores was trying to swallow it.
Shortly thereafter, Officer Charles "Chris" Jones IV and other DPD personnel took Flores to the ground, yelling "Spit the drugs out! Spit the drugs out!" And to assist him doing so, Jones punched Flores in the face six times.
Follow link below for video.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...ve_force_charles_jones_david_flores_video.php
See Denver Cop Punch Suspect Six Times in Face, Trip Pregnant Woman
The Denver Police Department didn't need this. On an evening of largely peaceful protest in the Mile High City after a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury's failure to indict a police officer who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown, video has surfaced in which a Denver cop can be repeatedly punching a drug suspect in the head, as well as tripping a woman said to have been seven-and-a-half months pregnant. Details and the video below. But first, a warning: The images may disturb some readers.
Fox31 brings us the story, told largely in video shot by Levi Frasier, a bystander to an incident that took place in August near the intersection of West 5th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.
According to Frasier, police approached a vehicle occupied by a man subsequently identified as David Flores when the suspect shoved a white sweat sock into his mouth.
The presumption: The sock contained heroin, and Flores was trying to swallow it.
Shortly thereafter, Officer Charles "Chris" Jones IV and other DPD personnel took Flores to the ground, yelling "Spit the drugs out! Spit the drugs out!" And to assist him doing so, Jones punched Flores in the face six times.
Follow link below for video.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...ve_force_charles_jones_david_flores_video.php
diamond2.0
- 1,148
- 163
Man Harassed by Cop in Snowy Weather for Suspicious Act of Walking with Hands in His Pockets
By Cassandra Rules
Pontiac, MI– Brandon B Waxx McKean was walking down the street Thursday when he was approached by a deputy for his “suspicious behavior” of walking down the street with his hands in his pockets.
"You were walking by," the deputy states.
"Walking by and doing what?" McKean asked.
"You were making people nervous," the deputy said.
"By walking by?"
"Yeah, they said you had your hands in your pockets."
The officer then pulls out his IPhone and bizarrely begins filming McKean and acting as sweet and innocent as possible while asking what McKean is up to.
“Is it an inconvenience to talk to me right now?” the officer asks.
“Hell yeah, just because of the whole police situation going across the country- this is outrageous that you would let somebody tell you ‘oh there’s somebody walking down the street with their hands in their pockets’… there’s 10,000 people in Pontiac right now with their hands in their pockets!”
“You’re right, but we do have alot of robberies… so I’m just checking on you.”
If McKean had not had the good sense to film the encounter, this could have gone far differently. I doubt this officer would have been offering high fives and playing good guy had the camera not been rolling.
Since this event occurred McKean has already gone out and filmed police to protect the rights of another random citizen, declaring he wants to make sure another Mike Brown doesn’t happen.
Always film police encounters. You never know, it may save a life.
What a moron !
By Cassandra Rules
Pontiac, MI– Brandon B Waxx McKean was walking down the street Thursday when he was approached by a deputy for his “suspicious behavior” of walking down the street with his hands in his pockets.
"You were walking by," the deputy states.
"Walking by and doing what?" McKean asked.
"You were making people nervous," the deputy said.
"By walking by?"
"Yeah, they said you had your hands in your pockets."
The officer then pulls out his IPhone and bizarrely begins filming McKean and acting as sweet and innocent as possible while asking what McKean is up to.
“Is it an inconvenience to talk to me right now?” the officer asks.
“Hell yeah, just because of the whole police situation going across the country- this is outrageous that you would let somebody tell you ‘oh there’s somebody walking down the street with their hands in their pockets’… there’s 10,000 people in Pontiac right now with their hands in their pockets!”
“You’re right, but we do have alot of robberies… so I’m just checking on you.”
If McKean had not had the good sense to film the encounter, this could have gone far differently. I doubt this officer would have been offering high fives and playing good guy had the camera not been rolling.
Since this event occurred McKean has already gone out and filmed police to protect the rights of another random citizen, declaring he wants to make sure another Mike Brown doesn’t happen.
Always film police encounters. You never know, it may save a life.
What a moron !
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
http://www.policebrutality.info/2014/05/graphic-video-homeless-man-shot-during-camping-arrest.html
New Mexico police officers have shot a homeless man dead after an argument over illegal camping. The helmet camera video of the shooting has caused public outrage, but the department calls the killing justified.
The 38-year-old James Boyd set camp in the Albuquerque foothills in the area where camping is illegal. He was surrounded by several officers while he was asleep. Woken by the police, Boyd engaged in an argument that lasted for over three hours.
A helmet cam footage shows Boyd finally agreeing to pick his belongings up and leave. As he’s walking downhill, one of the officers is heard saying “Do it!” and another throws a stun grenade at Boyd. While disoriented Boyd drops hi s backpack, they release a police dog at him, yelling “Get on the ground!”. Boyd lifts his hands up in the air and turns his back to them, which provokes officers Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy to shoot him.
Officers, who suspected that he was trying to pull out a knife, yell at Boyd who’s at this point lying still on the ground to drop the knife. When he doesn’t answer, they fire several beanbag rounds at his motionless body and release the K-9 at him once again. Boyd is finally taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead a day later.
During a news conference, Police Chief Eden justified the shooting saying that Boyd was a “direct threat” to the officers. He reportedly left the conference after being asked why the officers didn’t use stun guns instead of lethal force.
Officers Perez and Sandy have both been placed on paid administrative leave. Sandy was fired from the New Mexico State Police in 2007 over fraud accusations, and was supposed to work only as a civilian employee without a badge or a gun.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ring-camping-arrest.html#sthash.WntiIHVG.dpuf
New Mexico police officers have shot a homeless man dead after an argument over illegal camping. The helmet camera video of the shooting has caused public outrage, but the department calls the killing justified.
The 38-year-old James Boyd set camp in the Albuquerque foothills in the area where camping is illegal. He was surrounded by several officers while he was asleep. Woken by the police, Boyd engaged in an argument that lasted for over three hours.
A helmet cam footage shows Boyd finally agreeing to pick his belongings up and leave. As he’s walking downhill, one of the officers is heard saying “Do it!” and another throws a stun grenade at Boyd. While disoriented Boyd drops hi s backpack, they release a police dog at him, yelling “Get on the ground!”. Boyd lifts his hands up in the air and turns his back to them, which provokes officers Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy to shoot him.
Officers, who suspected that he was trying to pull out a knife, yell at Boyd who’s at this point lying still on the ground to drop the knife. When he doesn’t answer, they fire several beanbag rounds at his motionless body and release the K-9 at him once again. Boyd is finally taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead a day later.
During a news conference, Police Chief Eden justified the shooting saying that Boyd was a “direct threat” to the officers. He reportedly left the conference after being asked why the officers didn’t use stun guns instead of lethal force.
Officers Perez and Sandy have both been placed on paid administrative leave. Sandy was fired from the New Mexico State Police in 2007 over fraud accusations, and was supposed to work only as a civilian employee without a badge or a gun.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ring-camping-arrest.html#sthash.WntiIHVG.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Cop Tasers Handcuffed Girl
http://www.policebrutality.info/2013/10/cop-tasers-handcuffed-girl.html
This video showing cop tasering handcuffed girl helped clear 267-pound Trooper Daniel Cole of wrongdoing and have released this disturbing dash cam video that captured him tasing a 100 pound, 20 year old handcuffed girl in the back as she fled.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined Trooper Daniel Cole’s “use of force” was justified when he tased the woman last September at the FHP Pinellas Park Substation and cleared him of wrongdoing.
The fleeing woman, Danielle Maudsley, 20, suffered severe brain damage after hitting her head on the concrete and has been in a persistent vegetative state ever since.
The video shows Maudsley fleeing a back door of the substation with Cole following closely behind.
Maudsley was arrested for her alleged involvement in two hit-and-run crashes and driving without a license.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2013/10/cop-tasers-handcuffed-girl.html#sthash.PITxFpqA.dpuf
http://www.policebrutality.info/2013/10/cop-tasers-handcuffed-girl.html
This video showing cop tasering handcuffed girl helped clear 267-pound Trooper Daniel Cole of wrongdoing and have released this disturbing dash cam video that captured him tasing a 100 pound, 20 year old handcuffed girl in the back as she fled.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined Trooper Daniel Cole’s “use of force” was justified when he tased the woman last September at the FHP Pinellas Park Substation and cleared him of wrongdoing.
The fleeing woman, Danielle Maudsley, 20, suffered severe brain damage after hitting her head on the concrete and has been in a persistent vegetative state ever since.
The video shows Maudsley fleeing a back door of the substation with Cole following closely behind.
Maudsley was arrested for her alleged involvement in two hit-and-run crashes and driving without a license.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2013/10/cop-tasers-handcuffed-girl.html#sthash.PITxFpqA.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Texas Cop Rapes a 19-Year-Old Girl
Jackie Len Neal, a 40-year-old San Antonio police officer, is facing charges for handcuffing and raping a 19-year-old girl during a traffic stop. He got arrested after showing up at her front door just hours after the assault.
The girl whose name remained undisclosed was driving to a friend’s house near Zarzamora Street and Hutchins Place around 2 a.m. when she noticed Neal’s patrol SUV following her. She was pulled over on Betty Street, allegedly for driving a stolen car. The girl told Neal it was impossible because the car was bought recently and provided him with a sales slip to prove it. Regardless of it, Neal made her get out of the car so he could search her and started groping her. She yelled at him to stop and asked for a female officer, which enraged Neal who dragged her to his SUV where he raped her. Neal warned the victim that he knew where she lived before leaving but she gathered the courage to report him.
Just 20 hours after the incident, Neal showed up at the victim’s house looking for her and identified himself as ‘Jack’. Her grandmother threatened to call the police and Neal was arrested for civil rights violation.
The rape investigation showed that there was no footage in the video cameras installed in the SUV at the time of the assault because the hard drive was missing. Nevertheless, the GPS tracking system showed that the car was parked on Betty Street for 18 minutes, which corresponds with the girl’s story.
The most terrible part is that this is not Neal’s first sexual assault. A similar scenario took place several years ago, but the woman who was assaulted changed her mind and decided not to cooperate, so the charges were dropped. Neal even had a sexual relationship with a 18-year-old high school girl who was on the Police Explorers program designed to prepare young people for a career in law enforcement. He was punished with a 3 day suspension after he disobeyed the orders to stay away from the girl and sent her sexually explicit text messages.
Neal was released on a $20,000 bond and will be facing charges for sexual assault, civil rights violations and official oppression.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2014/02/texas-cop-rapes-a-19-year-old-girl.html#sthash.4WJQA38g.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2014/02/texas-cop-rapes-a-19-year-old-girl.html#sthash.4WJQA38g.dpuf
Jackie Len Neal, a 40-year-old San Antonio police officer, is facing charges for handcuffing and raping a 19-year-old girl during a traffic stop. He got arrested after showing up at her front door just hours after the assault.
The girl whose name remained undisclosed was driving to a friend’s house near Zarzamora Street and Hutchins Place around 2 a.m. when she noticed Neal’s patrol SUV following her. She was pulled over on Betty Street, allegedly for driving a stolen car. The girl told Neal it was impossible because the car was bought recently and provided him with a sales slip to prove it. Regardless of it, Neal made her get out of the car so he could search her and started groping her. She yelled at him to stop and asked for a female officer, which enraged Neal who dragged her to his SUV where he raped her. Neal warned the victim that he knew where she lived before leaving but she gathered the courage to report him.
Just 20 hours after the incident, Neal showed up at the victim’s house looking for her and identified himself as ‘Jack’. Her grandmother threatened to call the police and Neal was arrested for civil rights violation.
The rape investigation showed that there was no footage in the video cameras installed in the SUV at the time of the assault because the hard drive was missing. Nevertheless, the GPS tracking system showed that the car was parked on Betty Street for 18 minutes, which corresponds with the girl’s story.
The most terrible part is that this is not Neal’s first sexual assault. A similar scenario took place several years ago, but the woman who was assaulted changed her mind and decided not to cooperate, so the charges were dropped. Neal even had a sexual relationship with a 18-year-old high school girl who was on the Police Explorers program designed to prepare young people for a career in law enforcement. He was punished with a 3 day suspension after he disobeyed the orders to stay away from the girl and sent her sexually explicit text messages.
Neal was released on a $20,000 bond and will be facing charges for sexual assault, civil rights violations and official oppression.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2014/02/texas-cop-rapes-a-19-year-old-girl.html#sthash.4WJQA38g.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/2014/02/texas-cop-rapes-a-19-year-old-girl.html#sthash.4WJQA38g.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
California Cops Burn Man’s Genitals For Littering
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is getting sued by 26-year-old Daniel Johnson who suffered burns in his genital region after being tased by cops.
Johnson was making dinner at his parents’ home in Altadena when a man knocked on the door to inform them that Johnson’s father was getting fined for throwing a cigarette butt on the ground. According to the lawsuit, the 58-year-old man is disabled and walks with the assistance of a cane and because of the nerve damage in his hands often drops things on the ground.
Johnson went outside to talk to the officers and saw Deputy Abdulfattah writing a $1000 fine for loitering. He asked if he could pick the cigarette butt instead but according to Johnson’s statement Deputy Abdulfattah replied “I can write you a ticket too if you want”.
Johnson’s mother got out of the house just as her son turned his back to the cops and walked away, when Deputy Russell grabbed him from behind. He held Johnson in a full nelson grip and tackled him to the ground while the other cop hit his elderly father in the face. She watched the cop repeatedly tase her son in the genitalia while looking at her.
“He’s looking directly at me every time he pulls that trigger, and at one point my son says, ‘Mom, I’m OK. So at that point, I realize this guy is doing this because I am reacting”, said Rose Gonzales, Johnson’s mother.
Johnson, who is a Berkeley graduate with no criminal record, was arrested for battery on a police officer but the charges were never filed. He hopes there is an audio or video recording of the incident that could help him win the case against L.A. County Sheriff’s Department.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...itals-for-littering.html#sthash.DLz51RyB.dpuf
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is getting sued by 26-year-old Daniel Johnson who suffered burns in his genital region after being tased by cops.
Johnson was making dinner at his parents’ home in Altadena when a man knocked on the door to inform them that Johnson’s father was getting fined for throwing a cigarette butt on the ground. According to the lawsuit, the 58-year-old man is disabled and walks with the assistance of a cane and because of the nerve damage in his hands often drops things on the ground.
Johnson went outside to talk to the officers and saw Deputy Abdulfattah writing a $1000 fine for loitering. He asked if he could pick the cigarette butt instead but according to Johnson’s statement Deputy Abdulfattah replied “I can write you a ticket too if you want”.
Johnson’s mother got out of the house just as her son turned his back to the cops and walked away, when Deputy Russell grabbed him from behind. He held Johnson in a full nelson grip and tackled him to the ground while the other cop hit his elderly father in the face. She watched the cop repeatedly tase her son in the genitalia while looking at her.
“He’s looking directly at me every time he pulls that trigger, and at one point my son says, ‘Mom, I’m OK. So at that point, I realize this guy is doing this because I am reacting”, said Rose Gonzales, Johnson’s mother.
Johnson, who is a Berkeley graduate with no criminal record, was arrested for battery on a police officer but the charges were never filed. He hopes there is an audio or video recording of the incident that could help him win the case against L.A. County Sheriff’s Department.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...itals-for-littering.html#sthash.DLz51RyB.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Cops Who Shot Innocent Women Will Be Sent Back Into Field
Eight South-Californian police officers who mistakenly shot two innocent women during the hunt for a spree killer last February are returning to the field. The cops who shot at the wrong pickup truck over 100 times injuring both women will soon continue to work on California streets.
“I have confidence in their abilities as LAPD officers to continue to do their jobs in the same capacity they had been assigned,” said Police Chief Charlie Beck.
“In the end, we as an organization can learn from this incident and from the individuals involved.”
Former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner went on a killing spree in February 2013, leaving four people dead and three injured. LAPD organized one of the largest manhunts in its history, searching for Dorner in two U.S. states and Mexico.
On February 7, 48-year-old Margie Carranza and her 71-year-old mother Emma Hernandez were driving around delivering newspapers when their blue Toyota pickup was mistaken for Dorner’s gray Nissan Titan by the police. They fired more than 100 shots at the vehicle, injuring the women and demolishing the pickup. The city of Los Angeles agreed on a $4.2 million settlement plus the $40,000 compensation for the truck. During the trial, Chief Charlie Beck claimed that all responsible officers would be severely punished.
“Discipline could be anywhere from extensive retraining up to termination,” said Beck, but the only disciplinary action was to place the officers on desk duty. A recent internal memo revealed that the officers will undergo additional training and then join their colleagues in patrolling the streets.
“I trust that the training will be extensive and the department and officers will move forward from this tragic incident stronger and wiser from the lessons learned,” said Steve Soboroff, the president of the civilian Police Commission.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ent-back-into-field.html#sthash.3HhDKFKA.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ent-back-into-field.html#sthash.3HhDKFKA.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/category/police-violence#sthash.4a5la7VZ.dpuf
Eight South-Californian police officers who mistakenly shot two innocent women during the hunt for a spree killer last February are returning to the field. The cops who shot at the wrong pickup truck over 100 times injuring both women will soon continue to work on California streets.
“I have confidence in their abilities as LAPD officers to continue to do their jobs in the same capacity they had been assigned,” said Police Chief Charlie Beck.
“In the end, we as an organization can learn from this incident and from the individuals involved.”
Former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner went on a killing spree in February 2013, leaving four people dead and three injured. LAPD organized one of the largest manhunts in its history, searching for Dorner in two U.S. states and Mexico.
On February 7, 48-year-old Margie Carranza and her 71-year-old mother Emma Hernandez were driving around delivering newspapers when their blue Toyota pickup was mistaken for Dorner’s gray Nissan Titan by the police. They fired more than 100 shots at the vehicle, injuring the women and demolishing the pickup. The city of Los Angeles agreed on a $4.2 million settlement plus the $40,000 compensation for the truck. During the trial, Chief Charlie Beck claimed that all responsible officers would be severely punished.
“Discipline could be anywhere from extensive retraining up to termination,” said Beck, but the only disciplinary action was to place the officers on desk duty. A recent internal memo revealed that the officers will undergo additional training and then join their colleagues in patrolling the streets.
“I trust that the training will be extensive and the department and officers will move forward from this tragic incident stronger and wiser from the lessons learned,” said Steve Soboroff, the president of the civilian Police Commission.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ent-back-into-field.html#sthash.3HhDKFKA.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...ent-back-into-field.html#sthash.3HhDKFKA.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/category/police-violence#sthash.4a5la7VZ.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
NYPD Cop Breaks 10-Year-Old’s Leg for Filming Him
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...leg-for-filming-him.html#sthash.Li6wz2ll.dpuf
diamond2.0
- 1,148
- 163
Right on Jumpincatus. I ive seen all those. Remember this one.
True colors !
Man Claims Cops Sodomized Him With a Gun
By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN
Tweet
CHICAGO (CN) - Chicago police officers sodomized a man with a gun, "laugh(ing) hysterically," until he agreed to buy drugs for the cops in a sting, the man claims in court.
Angel Perez sued Chicago and its police Officer Jorge L. Lopez in Federal Court.
Perez was working as a delivery driver on Oct. 20, 2012, when cops in an unmarked car pulled him over, handcuffed him and took him to the Harrison Street Police Station, he says in the complaint.
There, "Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street area," the complaint states. "Plaintiff responded that he did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer was never contacted and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an individual by the name of 'Dwayne' in his telephone."
Perez claims the police released him after two hours of questioning, but Officer Lopez called him the next day, "told the plaintiff that what took place the night before was a mistake and that he needed the plaintiff to sign some papers so that his car would not be towed. Defendant Lopez instructed the plaintiff to meet him at Al's Beef on Taylor Street at 3:00 p.m. that day," the complaint states.
But when Perez arrived at Al's Beef, an officer with Lopez, known to Perez only as the Sergeant, "grabbed the plaintiff and slammed his head on to the trunk of his car, searched plaintiff, handcuffed plaintiff with his hands behind his back and placed him in the squad car."
The complaint continues: "Plaintiff was then taken back to the Harrison Street Police station to a second floor room with chairs and a table. Again, plaintiff was handcuffed to a bar, and this time he was also placed in ankle shackles.
"Plaintiff was held against his will in the room for several hours handcuffed and shackled, and not free to leave the custody of the defendants. While the in the room several other officers (approximately six officers) entered the room during the next several hours joining defendant Lopez and the Sergeant threatening the plaintiff with sending him to the Cook County jail to be raped by gang members. Further, that the[y] (the officers) could do whatever they wanted and that they would plant evidence on him and his family members if he continued to refuse to cooperate with them. Still, further that if he did not cooperate they would charge him a conspiracy to obstruct justice. One of the officers in the room identified himself as the 'Commander.'
"Plaintiff repeatedly requested his lawyer; that request was not acknowledged by the officers.
"The officers wanted the plaintiff to call or text 'Dwayne' and set up a drug purchase, but he refused to call or text Dwayne.
"After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff's body while he was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the plaintiff's chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff's eye sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff's back and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at the time and did not intervene.
"In an attempt to contact the outside world, plaintiff agreed to make the call and he attempted to call a friend of his to inform him what was transpiring, at which time an officer took plaintiff's telephone and hung up the call.
"After several hours of verbal and physical torture, defendant Lopez and the Sergeant were alone in the room with the plaintiff. The officers told plaintiff that if he refused to cooperate with them that they were going to give him a 'little taste' of what he would be getting at the Cook County jail. They put plaintiff over a chair and pulled down his pants, and defendant Lopez said, 'I hear that a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass.'
"Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one of officer's service revolvers, into the plaintiff's rectum, causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the plaintiff's rectum.
"The Sergeant then said 'I almost blew your brains out.' The officers told the plaintiff that they would continue to insert the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with them.
"Plaintiff began to cry and agreed to cooperate with the officers."
Perez called Dwayne and arranged to buy one gram of heroin, according to the complaint.
"The police then brought plaintiff to his car, provided the plaintiff with money to purchase the heroin, a box believed to be a GPS device and an audio recording device to record the transaction.
"Plaintiff completed the purchase from Dwayne for the Chicago Police and returned the drugs and equipment to the police. The officers then wanted plaintiff to sell drugs to Dwayne. Plaintiff told the officers that he would not be involved again with them," according to the complaint.
Perez claims that Lopez continued to call his cell phone, asking to meet with him again, until Perez contacted the Independent Police Review Authority.
"At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012, prior to plaintiff's seizure and torture, did the plaintiff commit a crime," Perez says in the complaint.
Perez seeks punitive damages for excessive force, failure to intervene and emotional distress.
He is represented by Dennis DeCaro with Kupets & DeCaro.
True colors !
Man Claims Cops Sodomized Him With a Gun
By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN
Tweet
CHICAGO (CN) - Chicago police officers sodomized a man with a gun, "laugh(ing) hysterically," until he agreed to buy drugs for the cops in a sting, the man claims in court.
Angel Perez sued Chicago and its police Officer Jorge L. Lopez in Federal Court.
Perez was working as a delivery driver on Oct. 20, 2012, when cops in an unmarked car pulled him over, handcuffed him and took him to the Harrison Street Police Station, he says in the complaint.
There, "Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street area," the complaint states. "Plaintiff responded that he did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer was never contacted and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an individual by the name of 'Dwayne' in his telephone."
Perez claims the police released him after two hours of questioning, but Officer Lopez called him the next day, "told the plaintiff that what took place the night before was a mistake and that he needed the plaintiff to sign some papers so that his car would not be towed. Defendant Lopez instructed the plaintiff to meet him at Al's Beef on Taylor Street at 3:00 p.m. that day," the complaint states.
But when Perez arrived at Al's Beef, an officer with Lopez, known to Perez only as the Sergeant, "grabbed the plaintiff and slammed his head on to the trunk of his car, searched plaintiff, handcuffed plaintiff with his hands behind his back and placed him in the squad car."
The complaint continues: "Plaintiff was then taken back to the Harrison Street Police station to a second floor room with chairs and a table. Again, plaintiff was handcuffed to a bar, and this time he was also placed in ankle shackles.
"Plaintiff was held against his will in the room for several hours handcuffed and shackled, and not free to leave the custody of the defendants. While the in the room several other officers (approximately six officers) entered the room during the next several hours joining defendant Lopez and the Sergeant threatening the plaintiff with sending him to the Cook County jail to be raped by gang members. Further, that the[y] (the officers) could do whatever they wanted and that they would plant evidence on him and his family members if he continued to refuse to cooperate with them. Still, further that if he did not cooperate they would charge him a conspiracy to obstruct justice. One of the officers in the room identified himself as the 'Commander.'
"Plaintiff repeatedly requested his lawyer; that request was not acknowledged by the officers.
"The officers wanted the plaintiff to call or text 'Dwayne' and set up a drug purchase, but he refused to call or text Dwayne.
"After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff's body while he was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the plaintiff's chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff's eye sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff's back and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at the time and did not intervene.
"In an attempt to contact the outside world, plaintiff agreed to make the call and he attempted to call a friend of his to inform him what was transpiring, at which time an officer took plaintiff's telephone and hung up the call.
"After several hours of verbal and physical torture, defendant Lopez and the Sergeant were alone in the room with the plaintiff. The officers told plaintiff that if he refused to cooperate with them that they were going to give him a 'little taste' of what he would be getting at the Cook County jail. They put plaintiff over a chair and pulled down his pants, and defendant Lopez said, 'I hear that a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass.'
"Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one of officer's service revolvers, into the plaintiff's rectum, causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the plaintiff's rectum.
"The Sergeant then said 'I almost blew your brains out.' The officers told the plaintiff that they would continue to insert the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with them.
"Plaintiff began to cry and agreed to cooperate with the officers."
Perez called Dwayne and arranged to buy one gram of heroin, according to the complaint.
"The police then brought plaintiff to his car, provided the plaintiff with money to purchase the heroin, a box believed to be a GPS device and an audio recording device to record the transaction.
"Plaintiff completed the purchase from Dwayne for the Chicago Police and returned the drugs and equipment to the police. The officers then wanted plaintiff to sell drugs to Dwayne. Plaintiff told the officers that he would not be involved again with them," according to the complaint.
Perez claims that Lopez continued to call his cell phone, asking to meet with him again, until Perez contacted the Independent Police Review Authority.
"At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012, prior to plaintiff's seizure and torture, did the plaintiff commit a crime," Perez says in the complaint.
Perez seeks punitive damages for excessive force, failure to intervene and emotional distress.
He is represented by Dennis DeCaro with Kupets & DeCaro.
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Florida Man Mistaken For Car Thief Shot In His Driveway
Florida Man Mistaken For Car Thief Shot In His Driveway
Posted on: December 2nd, 2013 No Comments
Tagged with:florida police, law abuse, law enforcement misconduct, police misconduct, police shoots, usa police
Roy Middleton, a 60-year-old man from Pensacola, Florida, was shot at 15 times by the police after being mistaken for a car thief. Thirteen out of fifteen bullets missed the target and Middleton survived, left with a shattered leg.
It was late at night when Middleton drove from a friend’s house and parked in his driveway. One of the neighbors mistook him for a car robber and dialed 911. Two Escambia County officers, sheriff’s deputy Jeremiah Meeks and Sgt. Matthew White responded to the call and drove to the scene. According to them, Middleton failed to obey their orders and lunged at them, which resulted in the shooting. They fired 15 shots altogether but hit Middleton only twice, shattering his leg. They handcuffed and arrested the injured man who was released after the identity mistake was cleared up.
As the result of the shooting, Middleton’s leg is held together by metal rods and he can’t walk without a walker. He claims that it took less that 30 seconds for the officers to shoot at him and that he wasn’t trying to disobey their orders.
“Why would I lunge at someone halfway down my driveway? How I’m going to lunge at them? With what? I was getting ready to do what they asked me – raise my hands, and I got shot during that.”
Middleton was unarmed, holding his car keys with a keychain flashlight on them when he was shot. He says that he was sober at the time and that he only had a couple of beers around 2 p.m. that day.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...hot-in-his-driveway.html#sthash.WIkMMvcn.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/category/police-violence#sthash.gaEmjvdJ.dpuf
Florida Man Mistaken For Car Thief Shot In His Driveway
Posted on: December 2nd, 2013 No Comments
Tagged with:florida police, law abuse, law enforcement misconduct, police misconduct, police shoots, usa police
Roy Middleton, a 60-year-old man from Pensacola, Florida, was shot at 15 times by the police after being mistaken for a car thief. Thirteen out of fifteen bullets missed the target and Middleton survived, left with a shattered leg.
It was late at night when Middleton drove from a friend’s house and parked in his driveway. One of the neighbors mistook him for a car robber and dialed 911. Two Escambia County officers, sheriff’s deputy Jeremiah Meeks and Sgt. Matthew White responded to the call and drove to the scene. According to them, Middleton failed to obey their orders and lunged at them, which resulted in the shooting. They fired 15 shots altogether but hit Middleton only twice, shattering his leg. They handcuffed and arrested the injured man who was released after the identity mistake was cleared up.
As the result of the shooting, Middleton’s leg is held together by metal rods and he can’t walk without a walker. He claims that it took less that 30 seconds for the officers to shoot at him and that he wasn’t trying to disobey their orders.
“Why would I lunge at someone halfway down my driveway? How I’m going to lunge at them? With what? I was getting ready to do what they asked me – raise my hands, and I got shot during that.”
Middleton was unarmed, holding his car keys with a keychain flashlight on them when he was shot. He says that he was sober at the time and that he only had a couple of beers around 2 p.m. that day.
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...hot-in-his-driveway.html#sthash.WIkMMvcn.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/category/police-violence#sthash.gaEmjvdJ.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
4-Year-Old Beaten By Cop Still in Critical Condition -
See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...-critical-condition.html#sthash.wv2FQpgT.dpuf
See more at: http://www.policebrutality.info/201...-critical-condition.html#sthash.wv2FQpgT.dpuf
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Indeed. Peace out....Right on Jumpincatus. I ive seen all those. Remember this one.
True colors !
Man Claims Cops Sodomized Him With a Gun
By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN
Tweet
CHICAGO (CN) - Chicago police officers sodomized a man with a gun, "laugh(ing) hysterically," until he agreed to buy drugs for the cops in a sting, the man claims in court.
Angel Perez sued Chicago and its police Officer Jorge L. Lopez in Federal Court.
Perez was working as a delivery driver on Oct. 20, 2012, when cops in an unmarked car pulled him over, handcuffed him and took him to the Harrison Street Police Station, he says in the complaint.
There, "Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street area," the complaint states. "Plaintiff responded that he did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer was never contacted and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an individual by the name of 'Dwayne' in his telephone."
Perez claims the police released him after two hours of questioning, but Officer Lopez called him the next day, "told the plaintiff that what took place the night before was a mistake and that he needed the plaintiff to sign some papers so that his car would not be towed. Defendant Lopez instructed the plaintiff to meet him at Al's Beef on Taylor Street at 3:00 p.m. that day," the complaint states.
But when Perez arrived at Al's Beef, an officer with Lopez, known to Perez only as the Sergeant, "grabbed the plaintiff and slammed his head on to the trunk of his car, searched plaintiff, handcuffed plaintiff with his hands behind his back and placed him in the squad car."
The complaint continues: "Plaintiff was then taken back to the Harrison Street Police station to a second floor room with chairs and a table. Again, plaintiff was handcuffed to a bar, and this time he was also placed in ankle shackles.
"Plaintiff was held against his will in the room for several hours handcuffed and shackled, and not free to leave the custody of the defendants. While the in the room several other officers (approximately six officers) entered the room during the next several hours joining defendant Lopez and the Sergeant threatening the plaintiff with sending him to the Cook County jail to be raped by gang members. Further, that the[y] (the officers) could do whatever they wanted and that they would plant evidence on him and his family members if he continued to refuse to cooperate with them. Still, further that if he did not cooperate they would charge him a conspiracy to obstruct justice. One of the officers in the room identified himself as the 'Commander.'
"Plaintiff repeatedly requested his lawyer; that request was not acknowledged by the officers.
"The officers wanted the plaintiff to call or text 'Dwayne' and set up a drug purchase, but he refused to call or text Dwayne.
"After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff's body while he was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the plaintiff's chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff's eye sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff's back and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at the time and did not intervene.
"In an attempt to contact the outside world, plaintiff agreed to make the call and he attempted to call a friend of his to inform him what was transpiring, at which time an officer took plaintiff's telephone and hung up the call.
"After several hours of verbal and physical torture, defendant Lopez and the Sergeant were alone in the room with the plaintiff. The officers told plaintiff that if he refused to cooperate with them that they were going to give him a 'little taste' of what he would be getting at the Cook County jail. They put plaintiff over a chair and pulled down his pants, and defendant Lopez said, 'I hear that a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass.'
"Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one of officer's service revolvers, into the plaintiff's rectum, causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the plaintiff's rectum.
"The Sergeant then said 'I almost blew your brains out.' The officers told the plaintiff that they would continue to insert the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with them.
"Plaintiff began to cry and agreed to cooperate with the officers."
Perez called Dwayne and arranged to buy one gram of heroin, according to the complaint.
"The police then brought plaintiff to his car, provided the plaintiff with money to purchase the heroin, a box believed to be a GPS device and an audio recording device to record the transaction.
"Plaintiff completed the purchase from Dwayne for the Chicago Police and returned the drugs and equipment to the police. The officers then wanted plaintiff to sell drugs to Dwayne. Plaintiff told the officers that he would not be involved again with them," according to the complaint.
Perez claims that Lopez continued to call his cell phone, asking to meet with him again, until Perez contacted the Independent Police Review Authority.
"At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012, prior to plaintiff's seizure and torture, did the plaintiff commit a crime," Perez says in the complaint.
Perez seeks punitive damages for excessive force, failure to intervene and emotional distress.
He is represented by Dennis DeCaro with Kupets & DeCaro.
diamond2.0
- 1,148
- 163
Blast from the past.
Are these coward cops or goldiggers worrying about breaking a nail ? Take your pick .Ya dont have to be Bruce Lee to take a cain away from an 80 year old. Seriouse lack of judgment !!! Keep eatin those wheaties stupid pigs. Maybe one day when your driving when old and in a diabetic attack youll be tazed for not following orders as you do to others at this time. Pathetic.
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...-old-woman-attempting-hit-officers-with-cane/
DORCHESTER COUNTY, S.C. (CBS Charlotte) –Don’t tase the nude 80-year-old woman, bro.
Police in Dorchester County, S.C., used a Taser on a nude 80-year-old woman after she allegedly attempted to attack police with her walking stick. WCSC reports that when police answered a complaint of someone making loud noises in the area, they were met by an elderly woman wearing no clothes on her porch, reportedly hitting the steps of her porch with her cane.
According to police, the woman, who spoke “confusingly,” began to swing her cane at the officers when police tried to take it away from the nude woman. As police continued to talk the woman out of swinging her cane at them, another officer used his Taser on the woman’s back. The woman was immediately transported to a nearby medical facility for treatment.
When police investigated the area, they discovered that the woman, a former tenant, had broken three windows at the property after the owner attempted to give the deposit back to the woman.
WCSC reports that no charges were filed against the woman despite the $250 worth of property damage.
Are these coward cops or goldiggers worrying about breaking a nail ? Take your pick .Ya dont have to be Bruce Lee to take a cain away from an 80 year old. Seriouse lack of judgment !!! Keep eatin those wheaties stupid pigs. Maybe one day when your driving when old and in a diabetic attack youll be tazed for not following orders as you do to others at this time. Pathetic.
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...-old-woman-attempting-hit-officers-with-cane/
DORCHESTER COUNTY, S.C. (CBS Charlotte) –Don’t tase the nude 80-year-old woman, bro.
Police in Dorchester County, S.C., used a Taser on a nude 80-year-old woman after she allegedly attempted to attack police with her walking stick. WCSC reports that when police answered a complaint of someone making loud noises in the area, they were met by an elderly woman wearing no clothes on her porch, reportedly hitting the steps of her porch with her cane.
According to police, the woman, who spoke “confusingly,” began to swing her cane at the officers when police tried to take it away from the nude woman. As police continued to talk the woman out of swinging her cane at them, another officer used his Taser on the woman’s back. The woman was immediately transported to a nearby medical facility for treatment.
When police investigated the area, they discovered that the woman, a former tenant, had broken three windows at the property after the owner attempted to give the deposit back to the woman.
WCSC reports that no charges were filed against the woman despite the $250 worth of property damage.
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
So since @Prime C started this thread, we have haven't talked a lot about our rights as civilians.
It never ceases to amaze me when I ask family and friends questions, just how naive most folks are to their rights. A lot of arrests and search n seizures could be avoided by simply knowing and exercising your civil rights. This is not to say that if you do everything will work out as we all know there are plenty of rogue cops. But if you follow these instructioons and things go south, at least your attorney will have some defence of your case.
When can police search your car?
While police generally need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means police must have some facts or evidence to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.
In other words, an officer’s hunch without evidence of illegal activity is not enough to legally search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.
Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) arenot considered probable cause.
Okay. So how can I keep police from searching my car?
Simply understanding the legal definition of probable cause probably won’t be enough to prepare you for the pressure and confusion of a real police encounter.
Most police are able to exploit a major loophole to the probable cause search requirement. But by following these basic rules, you’ll be better able to prevent police from tricking you into giving up your your constitutional rights. You’ll also improve your odds of driving away safely.
Always Be Calm & Cool
If police flag you down, pull over immediately, turn off your car, and place your hands on the wheel. Police like to see your hands for their own safety — so wait until they request your paperwork before reaching for it. At night, it’s also a good idea to turn on the dome light, so the officer can see you’re not armed.
Always greet policemen and policewomen as “Officer”. For example, you may start off with “Good afternoon, Officer. How’s it going today?” Under no circumstances should you ever talk back, raise your voice, or use profanity with a police officer. Being hostile with police is stupid and dangerous. You can’t win that game.
If the officer writes you a ticket, accept it quietly and never complain. Listen to any instruction on paying the fine or contesting the ticket, and drive away slowly.
Remain Silent: What You Don’t Say Can’t Hurt You
Police may try to get you to admit to having broken a law. For example, an officer may ask, “Do you know how fast you were going?”
You may assert your 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination by refusing to admit you might have broken a law. As such, the best answer to that and similar questions is “No, Officer.”
Because anything you say can and will be used against you in court, the less you say the better. You also don’t want to announce to police that you know your rights. They’ll take that as a challenge. Just keep quiet and calm.
You Have the Right to Refuse Search Requests
Police may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. If this happens, step out of the car. If they have reasonable suspicion to detain you, police may frisk the outside of your clothing to check for weapons, but only if they have a basis for suspecting you’re armed.
If police detain and frisk you, you have the right to clearly state your refusal to consent to the search. For example, you may say “Officer, I’m not resisting. I do not consent to this search.” But you should only verbally refuse. Never physically resist. Just touching an officer could get you tasered or beaten. You could also get a felony charge for assaulting a police officer.
Whether they frisk you or not, police may ask you a series of questions. They will probably include something like “You don’t mind if I have a look in your car?” Beware of that question: It’s the legal loophole that the officer wants to snare you in. (It might even sound like a command, but it’s technically a request.)
In response to such request, you may politely decline by saying “Officer, I know you’re just doing your job, but I don’t consent to searches.” Some officers may use their authority to make you feel obligated to prove your innocence by asking “What do you have to hide?” Don’t fall for such tricks. If necessary, repeat your refusal.
Remember: The 4th Amendment protects your right to refuse search requests, but it doesn’t require police to tell you about your right to refuse. In fact, consenting to searches automatically makes them legal in the eyes of the law. So if you’re pulled over, don’t try to figure out whether or not the officer has probable cause to legally search you. You always have the right to refuse searches.
Refusing a search request is not an admission of guilt and does not give the officer the legal right to search or detain you. In fact, most avoidable police searches don’t occur because police have probable cause. They occur because people get tricked or intimidated into consenting to search requests.
If police search your car and find illegal items despite your refusal, your lawyer can file a motion to suppress — or throw out — the evidence in court. If the judge agrees that the officer’s search violated the 4th Amendment’s probable cause requirements, she’ll grant the motion. Unless the prosecution has other evidence, your charges would be dismissed.
Determine if You’re Free to Go
Unless you’re detained or arrested, you may terminate the encounter anytime. But don’t wait for the officer to dismiss you. Ask if you’re free to go.
For example, if an officer threatens to call in a K-9 unit if you refuse a search, you should ask“Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
Not only can this line can help withdraw you from an encounter, it also deflects any of the officer’s probing questions or threats. So if an officer says “If you cooperate with me, everything will go easy for you.” You may respond by saying either “Officer, I don’t consent to any searches” or “Officer, am I free to go?”
If the officer lets you leave, do so immediately. If the officer’s answer is unclear, or if he asks additional questions, persist by repeating “Officer, am I free to go?”
Ask for a Lawyer
If you are not free to go, you are being detained. The officer might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested.
In such a situation, your magic words are “I’m going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer.” These magic words are like a legal condom. They’re your best protection if you’re under arrest.
Never rely on police to inform you of your right to remain silent and see a lawyer. Repeat the magic words as necessary, but say no more. Remember that anything you say can and will be used against you in court.
It never ceases to amaze me when I ask family and friends questions, just how naive most folks are to their rights. A lot of arrests and search n seizures could be avoided by simply knowing and exercising your civil rights. This is not to say that if you do everything will work out as we all know there are plenty of rogue cops. But if you follow these instructioons and things go south, at least your attorney will have some defence of your case.
When can police search your car?
While police generally need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means police must have some facts or evidence to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.
In other words, an officer’s hunch without evidence of illegal activity is not enough to legally search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.
Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) arenot considered probable cause.
Okay. So how can I keep police from searching my car?
Simply understanding the legal definition of probable cause probably won’t be enough to prepare you for the pressure and confusion of a real police encounter.
Most police are able to exploit a major loophole to the probable cause search requirement. But by following these basic rules, you’ll be better able to prevent police from tricking you into giving up your your constitutional rights. You’ll also improve your odds of driving away safely.
Always Be Calm & Cool
If police flag you down, pull over immediately, turn off your car, and place your hands on the wheel. Police like to see your hands for their own safety — so wait until they request your paperwork before reaching for it. At night, it’s also a good idea to turn on the dome light, so the officer can see you’re not armed.
Always greet policemen and policewomen as “Officer”. For example, you may start off with “Good afternoon, Officer. How’s it going today?” Under no circumstances should you ever talk back, raise your voice, or use profanity with a police officer. Being hostile with police is stupid and dangerous. You can’t win that game.
If the officer writes you a ticket, accept it quietly and never complain. Listen to any instruction on paying the fine or contesting the ticket, and drive away slowly.
Remain Silent: What You Don’t Say Can’t Hurt You
Police may try to get you to admit to having broken a law. For example, an officer may ask, “Do you know how fast you were going?”
You may assert your 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination by refusing to admit you might have broken a law. As such, the best answer to that and similar questions is “No, Officer.”
Because anything you say can and will be used against you in court, the less you say the better. You also don’t want to announce to police that you know your rights. They’ll take that as a challenge. Just keep quiet and calm.
You Have the Right to Refuse Search Requests
Police may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. If this happens, step out of the car. If they have reasonable suspicion to detain you, police may frisk the outside of your clothing to check for weapons, but only if they have a basis for suspecting you’re armed.
If police detain and frisk you, you have the right to clearly state your refusal to consent to the search. For example, you may say “Officer, I’m not resisting. I do not consent to this search.” But you should only verbally refuse. Never physically resist. Just touching an officer could get you tasered or beaten. You could also get a felony charge for assaulting a police officer.
Whether they frisk you or not, police may ask you a series of questions. They will probably include something like “You don’t mind if I have a look in your car?” Beware of that question: It’s the legal loophole that the officer wants to snare you in. (It might even sound like a command, but it’s technically a request.)
In response to such request, you may politely decline by saying “Officer, I know you’re just doing your job, but I don’t consent to searches.” Some officers may use their authority to make you feel obligated to prove your innocence by asking “What do you have to hide?” Don’t fall for such tricks. If necessary, repeat your refusal.
Remember: The 4th Amendment protects your right to refuse search requests, but it doesn’t require police to tell you about your right to refuse. In fact, consenting to searches automatically makes them legal in the eyes of the law. So if you’re pulled over, don’t try to figure out whether or not the officer has probable cause to legally search you. You always have the right to refuse searches.
Refusing a search request is not an admission of guilt and does not give the officer the legal right to search or detain you. In fact, most avoidable police searches don’t occur because police have probable cause. They occur because people get tricked or intimidated into consenting to search requests.
If police search your car and find illegal items despite your refusal, your lawyer can file a motion to suppress — or throw out — the evidence in court. If the judge agrees that the officer’s search violated the 4th Amendment’s probable cause requirements, she’ll grant the motion. Unless the prosecution has other evidence, your charges would be dismissed.
Determine if You’re Free to Go
Unless you’re detained or arrested, you may terminate the encounter anytime. But don’t wait for the officer to dismiss you. Ask if you’re free to go.
For example, if an officer threatens to call in a K-9 unit if you refuse a search, you should ask“Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
Not only can this line can help withdraw you from an encounter, it also deflects any of the officer’s probing questions or threats. So if an officer says “If you cooperate with me, everything will go easy for you.” You may respond by saying either “Officer, I don’t consent to any searches” or “Officer, am I free to go?”
If the officer lets you leave, do so immediately. If the officer’s answer is unclear, or if he asks additional questions, persist by repeating “Officer, am I free to go?”
Ask for a Lawyer
If you are not free to go, you are being detained. The officer might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested.
In such a situation, your magic words are “I’m going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer.” These magic words are like a legal condom. They’re your best protection if you’re under arrest.
Never rely on police to inform you of your right to remain silent and see a lawyer. Repeat the magic words as necessary, but say no more. Remember that anything you say can and will be used against you in court.
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
What are the rights of passengers during a traffic stop?
Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver’s conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop.
Unfortunately, this happens frequently and the amount of evidence required to detain passengers is minimal. For this reason, passengers must remember to refuse search requests and refrain from answering questions without an attorney present. Police who suspect criminal activity will often separate the occupants of an automobile and question them separately. If their stories differ, this could lead officers to claim that they have probable cause to prolong the detention or conduct a search.
As with any other brief detention, the best way to handle this situation is to determine if you can leave by asking “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver’s conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop.
Unfortunately, this happens frequently and the amount of evidence required to detain passengers is minimal. For this reason, passengers must remember to refuse search requests and refrain from answering questions without an attorney present. Police who suspect criminal activity will often separate the occupants of an automobile and question them separately. If their stories differ, this could lead officers to claim that they have probable cause to prolong the detention or conduct a search.
As with any other brief detention, the best way to handle this situation is to determine if you can leave by asking “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Don’t be intimidated by police at your door. These rules will help protect your rights and improve your odds of avoiding a home search.
No Warrant, No Search!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the home is entitled to maximum search protection. Even if they have probable cause to believe something illegal is going on inside your home, the 4th Amendment requires police to get a signed search warrant from a judge to legally enter and search.
Clip from the DVD, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police
The major exception to the search warrant requirement is where consent is given to an officer’s request to enter. If, for example, an officer is legally invited into your home, any illegal items that are out in the open – or in “plain view” — can be seized as evidence, which can lead to an arrest. That being the case, it’s always wise to keep any private items that you don’t want others to see out of view of your entrance area.
Don’t Let Them Inside
It’s a good safety habit to determine who is at your door before opening it. If after looking out the window, through your peephole, or asking “Who is it?” you find police at your door, you have several options that may help keep them from unexpectedly entering.
1). If you’re concerned they might try to force an entry, you may greet them outside after exiting through another door.
2). You may speak with officers through the opening protected by your chain lock.
3). If police come to your door and you don’t require their help, you may simply decline to answer the door at all. Unless they have a warrant, they will eventually leave.
Determine the Reason for the Visit
While you might not be pleased to have police at your door, it’s wise to treat them as you would any other unexpected visitor. Calmly and respectfully ask, “How can I help you?”
In many cases, an officer’s visit will have little to do with you or be something you can easy fix. For example, an officer may be seeking information about a crime committed in your neighborhood. Or she might be responding to a noise complaint. If so, it’s wise to apologize for the inconvenience, then turn down the music or bring in your barking dog from the backyard.
In other instances, an officer might want to investigate activities taking place in your home and ask to enter. You might even be a suspect in a criminal investigation. In such a case you should remain silent — except to say “Officer, I can’t let you inside without a search warrant.” Following such an encounter, you should immediately contact a lawyer before speaking to police again.
Educate Friends & Family
As is often the case, a naïve friend, family member, or roommate may invite police into your home. They too should be aware of their right to refuse police entry.
No Warrant, No Search!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the home is entitled to maximum search protection. Even if they have probable cause to believe something illegal is going on inside your home, the 4th Amendment requires police to get a signed search warrant from a judge to legally enter and search.
Clip from the DVD, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police
The major exception to the search warrant requirement is where consent is given to an officer’s request to enter. If, for example, an officer is legally invited into your home, any illegal items that are out in the open – or in “plain view” — can be seized as evidence, which can lead to an arrest. That being the case, it’s always wise to keep any private items that you don’t want others to see out of view of your entrance area.
Don’t Let Them Inside
It’s a good safety habit to determine who is at your door before opening it. If after looking out the window, through your peephole, or asking “Who is it?” you find police at your door, you have several options that may help keep them from unexpectedly entering.
1). If you’re concerned they might try to force an entry, you may greet them outside after exiting through another door.
2). You may speak with officers through the opening protected by your chain lock.
3). If police come to your door and you don’t require their help, you may simply decline to answer the door at all. Unless they have a warrant, they will eventually leave.
Determine the Reason for the Visit
While you might not be pleased to have police at your door, it’s wise to treat them as you would any other unexpected visitor. Calmly and respectfully ask, “How can I help you?”
In many cases, an officer’s visit will have little to do with you or be something you can easy fix. For example, an officer may be seeking information about a crime committed in your neighborhood. Or she might be responding to a noise complaint. If so, it’s wise to apologize for the inconvenience, then turn down the music or bring in your barking dog from the backyard.
In other instances, an officer might want to investigate activities taking place in your home and ask to enter. You might even be a suspect in a criminal investigation. In such a case you should remain silent — except to say “Officer, I can’t let you inside without a search warrant.” Following such an encounter, you should immediately contact a lawyer before speaking to police again.
Educate Friends & Family
As is often the case, a naïve friend, family member, or roommate may invite police into your home. They too should be aware of their right to refuse police entry.
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
In closing here is a great site for overall basic civil rights concerning LEO. Have friends and family read up. Keep in mind varoius states have different takes on shit. Some states you don't have to show ID just cause the cops ask you.
http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/faq/police-encounters
But in AZ we are bound legally to show ID or be arrested.
P.S. always keep your cam phone with you. You are perfectly in your rights to photocam cops. You do not legally have to surrender your camera. The film you shoot may well save someones life someday.
Peace
http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/faq/police-encounters
But in AZ we are bound legally to show ID or be arrested.
P.S. always keep your cam phone with you. You are perfectly in your rights to photocam cops. You do not legally have to surrender your camera. The film you shoot may well save someones life someday.
Peace
jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Stop and identify statutes
Be sure to see if you live in 1 of the 24 states that have this statute.
"Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police[1]to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires anywarrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2]The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
Contents
[hide]
Police–citizen encounters[edit]
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to police upon request.
Consensual[edit]
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"[7][8]
Detention[edit]
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada "stop and identify" law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some "stop and identify" laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]
As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name, however some states such as Arizona have specifically codified that a detained person is not required to provide any information aside from their full name.
Arrest[edit]
A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest.[14] But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.
Whether an arrested person must identify himself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him, they are required to inform the person of his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a "stop and identify" law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give his name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
Obligation to identify[edit]
States with "stop and identify" laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) & Tit. 28, §1595
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. [1]§ 5-71-213 - Loitering
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri (Kansas City Only Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state.
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Supreme Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states....... that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers. The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself or herself.
By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop “shall identify himself.” The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional.
The Illinois statute does not specifically require a suspect to identify himself or herself. Because defendant could not be convicted of obstruction for merely refusing to identify himself and refusing to provide identification,
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibelheld that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
Interaction with other laws[edit]
In states whose "stop and identify laws" do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer". For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[27] constituted a violation of Nevada’s "obstructing" law.[28] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).
Interpretation by courts[edit]
"Stop and identify" 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) had wording[29][30]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).[31]
Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.[32] Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.[33][34]
Wording and interpretation by state courts of "obstructing" laws also varies; for example, New York’s "obstructing" law[35]apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;[36][37] likewise, a violation of the Colorado "obstructing" law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the "totality of the circumstances" that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[38]Utah’s "obstructing" law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a "lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention";[39] a divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.[34]
It is not universally agreed that, absent a "stop and identify law", there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California’s "stop and identify" statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long,[40] decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer’s demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant’s wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.[41] Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.[42]
Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979)[43] and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987)[44] have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia(2006) strongly disagreed.[45]
Recommendations of legal-aid organizations[edit]
Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.[46]
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.[47]
In other countries ...
... , in Portugal ,Europa , it is compulsory to have the state ID card on you , at all times and a person has to show it to police , every time it is requested . The only case where this form of ID is not required , is for a member of the armed forces , while on uniform , in which situation , the armed forces ID card can be presented in place of the state's ID card .
Other countries[edit]
Main article: List of national identity card policies by country
Many countries allow police to demand identification and arrest people who do not carry any. Normally these countries provide all residents with national identity cards, which have the identity information the police would want to know, including citizenship. Foreign visitors need to have their passport available to show at all times. In some cases national identity cards from certain other countries are accepted.
See also[edit]
Be sure to see if you live in 1 of the 24 states that have this statute.
"Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police[1]to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires anywarrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2]The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
Contents
[hide]
- 1 Police–citizen encounters
- 2 Obligation to identify
- 3 Other countries
- 4 See also
- 5 Notes
- 6 External links
Police–citizen encounters[edit]
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to police upon request.
Consensual[edit]
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"[7][8]
Detention[edit]
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada "stop and identify" law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some "stop and identify" laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]
As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name, however some states such as Arizona have specifically codified that a detained person is not required to provide any information aside from their full name.
Arrest[edit]
A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest.[14] But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.
Whether an arrested person must identify himself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him, they are required to inform the person of his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a "stop and identify" law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give his name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
Obligation to identify[edit]
States with "stop and identify" laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) & Tit. 28, §1595
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. [1]§ 5-71-213 - Loitering
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri (Kansas City Only Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state.
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Supreme Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states....... that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers. The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself or herself.
By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop “shall identify himself.” The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional.
The Illinois statute does not specifically require a suspect to identify himself or herself. Because defendant could not be convicted of obstruction for merely refusing to identify himself and refusing to provide identification,
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibelheld that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
- The wording of "stop and identify" laws varies considerably from state to state.
- Noncompliance with a "stop and identify" law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer".
- State courts have made varying interpretations of both "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws.
- Four states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
- Fifteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
- In Montana, police "may request" identifying information;
- In Ohio, identifying information may be required "when requested"; an obligation exists only when the police suspect a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, is witness to a felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony offense;
- In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police "may demand" identifying information;
- In Colorado, police "may require" identifying information of a person.
- Identifying information varies, but typically includes
- Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
- In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado). Ohio does not require the person's intended destination. Ohio requires only Name, Address, or Date Of Birth. Date of birth is NOT required if the age of the person is an element to the crime (such as underage drinking, curfew violation, etc...) that the person is reasonably suspected of.[25] Indiana requires either name, address, and date of birth, or driver's license, if on the person's possession, and only applies if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation.[26]
- Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s "true full name".
- Nevada’s law, which requires a person to "identify himself or herself", apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
- Texas’s law requires a person to provide their name, residence address and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information, however it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)
- In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
- Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
- Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.
Interaction with other laws[edit]
In states whose "stop and identify laws" do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer". For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[27] constituted a violation of Nevada’s "obstructing" law.[28] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).
Interpretation by courts[edit]
"Stop and identify" 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) had wording[29][30]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).[31]
Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.[32] Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.[33][34]
Wording and interpretation by state courts of "obstructing" laws also varies; for example, New York’s "obstructing" law[35]apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;[36][37] likewise, a violation of the Colorado "obstructing" law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the "totality of the circumstances" that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[38]Utah’s "obstructing" law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a "lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention";[39] a divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.[34]
It is not universally agreed that, absent a "stop and identify law", there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California’s "stop and identify" statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long,[40] decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer’s demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant’s wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.[41] Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.[42]
Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979)[43] and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987)[44] have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia(2006) strongly disagreed.[45]
Recommendations of legal-aid organizations[edit]
Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.[46]
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.[47]
In other countries ...
... , in Portugal ,Europa , it is compulsory to have the state ID card on you , at all times and a person has to show it to police , every time it is requested . The only case where this form of ID is not required , is for a member of the armed forces , while on uniform , in which situation , the armed forces ID card can be presented in place of the state's ID card .
Other countries[edit]
Main article: List of national identity card policies by country
Many countries allow police to demand identification and arrest people who do not carry any. Normally these countries provide all residents with national identity cards, which have the identity information the police would want to know, including citizenship. Foreign visitors need to have their passport available to show at all times. In some cases national identity cards from certain other countries are accepted.
See also[edit]
- Brown v. Texas
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
- Kolender v. Lawson
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Terry stop
- Terry v. Ohio
- United States Constitution
- Loitering
- Status
Latest posts
-
Autoflower revegged due to stress- wobbleysausage posted
-
Let's See Your Frostiest Flowers- Trustfall posted
-
For Sale Tenguseedco
- Trustfall posted
-
For Sale Blue Cookies Clones 🔵🍪- ImpulsiveGrower posted
