Holy crap! 3 f'n HOURS? I gave it 30 seconds and nothing but random irrelevant disclaimers; I knew I was in for a prime example of why YouTube should re-institute a 10-minute limit on videos
Yea, it is actually a movie not really designed for You Tube and definitely takes a commitment! Funny thing is also the part that addresses what you are talking about is buried somewhere in the middle, gawd knows where!
Watch this when you get a chance, addresses this question in great detail:
Holy crap! 3 f'n HOURS? I gave it 30 seconds and nothing but random irrelevant disclaimers; I knew I was in for a prime example of why YouTube should re-institute a 10-minute limit on videos
Interesting that the cop continued to search the car even after saying out loud that the guy was in the clear.
I do think the police can demand ID though. There was a case in Oakland Calif. where a barefoot Rasta guy was walking thru a normal neighborhood and someone called the cops on him. He had no ID and refused to present any or to go along with the premise in any way, that one guy could call the cops on him and he'd have to satisfy some arbitrary call for ID. He was not transient, not homeless, just a dude out walking up Claremont Ave. He was a frequent sight in the area, no one had any bad history with him... just a guy. When he didn't have ID he got hauled in, the public defender went berserk but lost the case. It eventually went to the Supremes and they upheld the original conviction, saying something like the police have an obligation to know who they're dealing with, even if ultimately they let the guy go. {disclaimer that I only remember this from 25 years ago or so, can't find any newspaper clippings from the time, so I could be all wrong} but I think they can make you produce some ID even if you're just out walkin around...
Edit: I guess "reasonable suspicion" is the crux. Was it reasonable to suspect the driver? No. There was no attempt to determine whether the driver was DUI (have you been drinking? Who's the governor? etc), just "roll down the window or else." Not doing that might have become reasonable suspicion. It's possible that that road on that night, they have statistics that say 30% of ALL drivers are DUI, so that it's reasonable to suspect every driver. Or something. I think the driver was not on as solid constitutional ground as he thought.
The Oakland walker case, now that I think about it, reasonable suspicion was granted just because some uppity white guy didn't like the looks of the walker, and that was the point of the case. Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion just because someone called it in? Or are they required to perform their own investigation before demanding ID?
Watch this when you get a chance, addresses this question in great detail:
I am very thankful that I've so far not encountered a "checkpoint." The day I do is probably the day I'm going to jail because I will find it very difficult not to vent my indignation loudly and probably with epic profanity.
Interesting that the cop continued to search the car even after saying out loud that the guy was in the clear.
I do think the police can demand ID though. There was a case in Oakland Calif. where a barefoot Rasta guy was walking thru a normal neighborhood and someone called the cops on him. He had no ID and refused to present any or to go along with the premise in any way, that one guy could call the cops on him and he'd have to satisfy some arbitrary call for ID. He was not transient, not homeless, just a dude out walking up Claremont Ave. He was a frequent sight in the area, no one had any bad history with him. . . just a guy. When he didn't have ID he got hauled in, the public defender went berserk but lost the case. It eventually went to the Supremes and they upheld the original conviction, saying something like the police have an obligation to know who they're dealing with, even if ultimately they let the guy go. {disclaimer that I only remember this from 25 years ago or so, can't find any newspaper clippings from the time, so I could be all wrong} but I think they can make you produce some ID even if you're just out walkin around. . .
I do think you have to identify yourself.
When the cops broke into my house a couple months ago, they tossed the whole place and when they couldn't find anything illegal, they came up with that bogus"telephone abuse" charge after I had called them because a guy was firing a gun off a few houses down. When I got out of jail the next day, I did me some googling. It turns out the guy firing off the gun is a convicted sex offender and armed robber( and that's just in this country , God knows what he's done in South America).
He also has a large boat that leaves with no fishing gear and never is cleaned. If you've ever spent a day out on an estuary, you know the boat is covered with fish slime, blood worms and other bait and has to be hosed down at the minimum, but this particular boat never gets that treatment.
He also has a van and an enclosed pull behind trailer that go away for a couple days when the boat comes back.
And the cops arrested me for reporting him.
I don't claim to be a genius or a mathematician, but 2+2=?
I wear a size 9 shoe(when I wear shoes, and Pops can't even wear shoes because his feet are so swollen. Yet the next day, there were size 10 and 11 boot prints all through the house.
I give my Dad 4 different sets of meds a day and know where they are at all times, yet they weren't were I keep them when I got out of jail.
Plus my wallet had been tossed, and my drivers license was put in a bag to go with me to DOC.
I'd go all the way with this, but the Inspector General told me last week I'd have to report it to Internal Affairs, which would give me a life expectancy of about a month.
I hate those smart ass punks who know their legal rights!
Interesting that the cop continued to search the car even after saying out loud that the guy was in the clear.
I do think the police can demand ID though. There was a case in Oakland Calif. where a barefoot Rasta guy was walking thru a normal neighborhood and someone called the cops on him. He had no ID and refused to present any or to go along with the premise in any way, that one guy could call the cops on him and he'd have to satisfy some arbitrary call for ID. He was not transient, not homeless, just a dude out walking up Claremont Ave. He was a frequent sight in the area, no one had any bad history with him... just a guy. When he didn't have ID he got hauled in, the public defender went berserk but lost the case. It eventually went to the Supremes and they upheld the original conviction, saying something like the police have an obligation to know who they're dealing with, even if ultimately they let the guy go. {disclaimer that I only remember this from 25 years ago or so, can't find any newspaper clippings from the time, so I could be all wrong} but I think they can make you produce some ID even if you're just out walkin around...
Edit: I guess "reasonable suspicion" is the crux. Was it reasonable to suspect the driver? No. There was no attempt to determine whether the driver was DUI (have you been drinking? Who's the governor? etc), just "roll down the window or else." Not doing that might have become reasonable suspicion. It's possible that that road on that night, they have statistics that say 30% of ALL drivers are DUI, so that it's reasonable to suspect every driver. Or something. I think the driver was not on as solid constitutional ground as he thought.
The Oakland walker case, now that I think about it, reasonable suspicion was granted just because some uppity white guy didn't like the looks of the walker, and that was the point of the case. Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion just because someone called it in? Or are they required to perform their own investigation before demanding ID?
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the younger cops are Iraq/Afghanistan veterans and are trained to treat everyone as an enemy. I remember when cops were friendly and members of the community. Now most of them are insane. There needs to be extensive psychological testing for these guys before they are hired and turned loose on innocent citizens like rabid dogs. Thanks Bush/Cheney.
Thank FSM it has not got that bad yet here. My wife freaked out because some guy down the road fired his 9mm in celebration of 4th of July. The cops never showed, I prayed to whatever deity may be up there with thankfullness that night. I warned my wife, NEVER call the cops unless you're life is in danger, odds are you will end up in jail for something and they will not even remember or care why they were called for in the first place.
As with many things, Dylan said it best; "The cops don't need you and man, they expect the same."
