In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If you're going to troll a public official in person, you should at least be prepared for the ensuing police confrontation. That was a pretty solid troll, though. Especially the part where he offered him a sip of his soda.
I'm not so certain, he might have a lawsuit at his disposal with all the stop and identify statutes that are out there...do you know for certain DC isn't a jurisdiction that doesn't have laws requiring a person to identify themselves if stopped/detained? In Brown vs. Texas the SC ruled the application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment. And the legal definition of detention - "A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave" Seems to me some copper who followed you down the road and starts asking you for your ID just might qualify
Cops have a lot of leeway. For instance, if two cops randomly come up to you at an airport and ask you to come with them, and they bring you to a back room without formally placing you under arrest... there's no violation because you've complied voluntarily. Same with them randomly boarding a Greyhound bus and searching people, even though the cops would be blocking the only means of exit. (These were SC decisions, I can't recall the names though).
What business was it of Stockton to ask for ID?
Question authority. Power to the people
He wasn't stopped and wasn't being detained. He was free to go at any point. He just didn't know that.
Only with reasonable suspicion – one that must at some point be articulated as such in a court under oath -- that the subject has committed a crime, is in the process of committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime can police detain a person for questioning.
There is no right protecting citizens from cops asking questions, however.
In a casual contact situation, cops will usually phrase it in the form of a question, not a demand, just as Nanny Bloomberg’s muscle did in this case. That’s because cops know they can’t demand I.D. in causal contact situations. They can only do that when the subject is being detained for questioning or under arrest.
"Can I see some I.D.?"
"Do you have any I.D. on you?"
"How about you show me your I.D.?"
See how that works?
They play games sometimes with their tone and voice inflection, coming across as hardasses, but they still state their request in the form of a question. Cops can even lie and it’s not unlawful for them to do so.
Watch the video I posted earlier. In that one, the citizen knows his shit. The cop tries to bluff and even lies, telling the guy that he must produce I.D. The citizen knows it to be bullshit and goes on his way.
If you comply with the request, you’ve freely given up your constitutional protection against unreasonable search/seizure…of your papers in such cases. .
The guy in the Bloomberg video cannot bitch about a civil rights violation because he freely gave up his right NOT to produce I.D. upon request . He was free at any point to tell Nanny Bloomberg’s cop to piss up a rope and be on his way.
Again, if you’re too stupid or too uniformed not to know your rights in any given situation involving law enforcement, you deserve whatever you get.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Murky Waters 18 months ago
It wasn't his business, but it doesn't have to be. No law against police asking questions.
He could've completely ignored Bloomberg's cop and continued on his way.
Or asked a question himself: "Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?"
That's what people need to learn to ask in such situations.
Stop and identify laws do not apply to casual (consensual) citizen-police interactions, which is what occurred between Nanny Bloomberg’s cop and guy.
“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’ 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. Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business; however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”
Mayors of large cities often have security. Shouldn't you applaud the fact that Mayor Bloomberg is being kept safe?
How many billionaires do you hear about getting hurt/killed by strangers? Doesn't matter that he's a mayor, that guy could be kept safe in Benghazi
I'm not arguing against you here, but I'm just wondering if there is some wiggle room based on that definition. It obviously wasn't a friendly conversation, and the cop had no reason to suspect him in involvement in a crime. So if he doesn't meet either of those conditions I would think there has to be something in place that would prevent cops from abusing their authority by using intimidation tactics for something not relating to crime prevention.
I really don't know how many different ways I can phrase it. Cops can legallay bluff, they can legally bluster, they can even legally lie to you in an attempt to get you to freely give up your rights.
I’ll say it one last time:
Unless you are lawfully being detained for questioning or placed under arrest; you DO NOT have to answer any questions; you DO NOT have to give them your name verbally, you DO NOT have to produce I.D.; and you DO NOT have to stick around while they continue to pester you.
And it goes back to the defintion of detained. It's very subjective. Would a reasonable person suspect that they are being "detained" if a cop aggressively follows you down the road and asks to see your id? And what about all the episodes of Cops where the police are asking people to disperse a public area and some smart ass doesn't comply and gets the bracelets slapped on him? Why would that be ignoring a demand but not producing your ID when asked?
This post was edited by fallenangle 18 months ago
How many times have I stated the correct response to give in that situation?
So in your example are you saying those on the Greyhound bus wouldn't have to comply with the search and the police would have to accept this? Because that's my point, they would have no reasonable cause to search everyone, so therefore according to Murky you could just refuse and tell them to go pound sand. For some reason I think that wouldn't go over to well with the guys dressed in blue. Now Amtrak has their own police and their policy is that they can search anyone they want on the train. I understand that, but in your Grehound example it's a different scenario as it would involve local cops
So what is your definition of "reasonable person"? If a cop came up to a group of 10 people and said there is a criminal in the area and they need to see everyone's ID's and 2 out of 10 people refuse (correctly as you would say). Does reasonable consist of the 20% or the 80%? I would think it's the latter
If you're sitting on a Greyhound bus and a cop comes aboard and demands that [s]he search you, want are going to be the first words out of your mouth?
If you're one of ten people standing in a group and a cop comes up asking to see your I.D., what are going to be the first words out of your mouth?
Ok, a cop pulls you over and asks you to get out of the car. Do you?
or better yet, you're a passenger in the car and they ask you to get out
What are the first words out of my mouth?
"Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (after validly stopping car, officer required defendant to get out of car, observed bulge under his jacket, and frisked him and seized weapon; while officer did not suspect driver of crime or have an articulable basis for safety fears, safety considerations justified his requiring driver to leave car). Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 413 (1997) (after validly stopping car, officer may order passengers as well as driver out of car; "the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger")"
What point do you feel you are making with that? Both occurred after a lawful stop...as in being detained. Terry v Ohio is the benchmark by which lawful stops and the concept of reasonable articulated suspicion is judged, including the concept of "officer safety."
Neither are even close to the scenarios of sitting on a Greyhound bus or standing amongst a group of ten people.
Alright good to know. So if I ever get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint all I have to do is ask them if I am being detained and they will have to say no and I am free to leave. Thanks MW
You will, in fact, be detained for questioning if you provide the checkpoint officer reasonable articulated suspicion that you have been drinking. Failing a road sobriety test will provide the checkpoint officer with probable cause and you will be arrested.
By the way, what does this have to do with the dumbass in the Bloomberg video who didn't know his rights?
But they don't have probable cause to stop you in the first place if it's a random checkpoint, so you're not techically being detained and therefore the first words out of my mouth would be "Am I being detained?". So as long as one is able to say those 4 words without slurring them they have to say yes, right? It has to do with him because it's related to the definition of a reasonable person knowing if they are being detained. That is the legal definition, so he doesn't need to know his rights if he thought he was being detained.
The first part of your statement is problematic for you in that the Supreme Court ruled that minimally-invasive traffic sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. Can you point me to a Supreme Court ruling that says the Bloomberg dumbass was lawfully compelled to provide his ID when asked to do so by the presumed cop? He was not informed that he was being detained, right?
I say presumed cop because he was not wearing any sort of uniform. He was wearing a suit. For all I’d know, the guy could’ve been one of Nanny Bloomberg’s staffers, not part of his protection detail.
Which means the first words out of the dumbass’s mouth should’ve been, “Are you a cop?”
Assuming a reply in the affirmative, his next words should’ve been, “Can I see some I.D.?”
And assuming he was shown ID, his next words should’ve been, “That says NYPD, this is Washington D.C.. Do you have jurisdiction here?”
And his final words should’ve been, “Have a good day” and been on his way.
I've already posted a video that shows how to properly go about calling a cop's bluff when said cop is requesting I.D. It's only 47 seconds long, but apparently you won't watch it.
The dumbass in the Bloomberg video didn't watch it either.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports