login
Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-18 11:49 AM |
 Subject: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checkshttp://www.paragoulddailypress.com/articles/2012/12/15/top_story/do... "[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID." |
| 2012-12-18 11:55 AM in reply to: #4539813 |
Veteran  376   Medford Lakes, NJ | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks I dont even know what to say to that. (face/palm) |
| 2012-12-18 11:58 AM in reply to: #4539813 |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything. |
| 2012-12-18 12:06 PM in reply to: #4539813 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks |
| 2012-12-18 12:20 PM in reply to: #4539849 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. |
| 2012-12-18 12:26 PM in reply to: #4539883 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 11:20 AM Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. If I ever get in trouble will you be my lawyer? |
| 2012-12-18 12:28 PM in reply to: #4539813 |
| Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks What's wrong with that if we get the illusion of being safer? |
| 2012-12-18 12:33 PM in reply to: #4539813 |
| Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. |
| 2012-12-18 12:34 PM in reply to: #4539902 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks JoshR - 2012-12-18 1:26 PM Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 11:20 AM Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. If I ever get in trouble will you be my lawyer? Not licensed in Id. But if you get pinched dont' say anything to anybody!!!! |
| 2012-12-18 12:37 PM in reply to: #4539908 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks crusevegas - 2012-12-18 12:28 PM What's wrong with that if we get the illusion of being safer? Exactly. This happens thousands of times a day at airports across the country. |
| 2012-12-18 12:48 PM in reply to: #4539883 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 12:20 PM Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. A court would decide that.....being armed with an assault rifle may or may not be enough to invalidate a simple "encounter". There could be other factors that make it perfectly fine. We all carry those types of weapons now, depending on the circumstance. Now...the Sherrif making the statement that people wouldn't be free to leave.....he just screwed his program. He should be replaced with someone who actually has a brain.
|
| 2012-12-18 12:52 PM in reply to: #4539918 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 12:34 PM JoshR - 2012-12-18 1:26 PM Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 11:20 AM Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. If I ever get in trouble will you be my lawyer? Not licensed in Id. But if you get pinched dont' say anything to anybody!!!! I'll echo, DON'T EVER TALK TO THE POLICE!!! (sorry Left Brain) |
| 2012-12-18 1:02 PM in reply to: #4539961 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks tuwood - 2012-12-18 12:52 PM Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 12:34 PM JoshR - 2012-12-18 1:26 PM Brock Samson - 2012-12-18 11:20 AM Clempson - 2012-12-18 12:58 PM technically nothing against the law with that. any police officer can ask you to identify yourself and present valid identification when you are in public... and you have the right to require them to do the same first. if they refuse, you don't have to present anything.
Umm not correct. There are several levels of police/citizen interactions, and each interaction requires different levels of police "suspicion" in order for the interaction to be Constitutionally valid. The lowest or least intrusive form of police citizen interaction is the "citizen encounter", a valid citizen encounter is simply when the police go up to an an individual and ask a question. No type of police suspicion is needed for a citizen encounter. There is no requirement of of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, a citizen encounter can, through police conduct or police appearance be converted into a seizure. Remember a "citizen encounter" is purely voluntary, the citizen has the legal ability to ignore the request from law enforcement. If law enforcement engages in conduct in which a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave, or if the police engage in conduct with an apparent show of authority which would leave a reasonable person to believe that they had no ability but to comply with the law enfporcement officers request, then the interaction is no longer a "citizen encounter" and has been changed to either an "investigatory stop" or a "seizure". Both an "investigatory stop" and a "siezure" require hightened police belief. An "investigatory stop" requires "articulable reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal conduct" a "seizure" requires actual probable cause. In this case, a police office armed with an assualt rifle who stops a person and requires them to produce valid ID isn't a "citizen encounter." No reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave. In fact the Sheriff indicated that peopel wouldn't be free to leave. This is a an actual seizure, and thus unless the police had probable cause this action clearly violates the US Constitution. If I ever get in trouble will you be my lawyer? Not licensed in Id. But if you get pinched dont' say anything to anybody!!!! I'll echo, DON'T EVER TALK TO THE POLICE!!! (sorry Left Brain) Don't be sorry to me, I teach my kids the same thing. |
| 2012-12-18 1:08 PM in reply to: #4539915 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks DanielG - 2012-12-18 12:33 PM That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. I don’t see much of a difference between this law and the law allowing cops to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants in Arizona and asking them for proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans were just fine with that one too. It’s essentially the same, minus the assault rifles, as the controversial “Stop-and-Frisk” practice being used by the NYPD. In 2011, almost 700,000 stops were made and 88% were not charged with any crime. More than 80% were black or latino. There’s no indication in this article where these “high-crime” areas are that the Sherriff is targeting, but, if they turn out to be largely populated by black or Latino people, let’s just say I won’t be surprised. |
| 2012-12-18 1:13 PM in reply to: #4539990 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-18 12:08 PM DanielG - 2012-12-18 12:33 PM That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. I don’t see much of a difference between this law and the law allowing cops to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants in Arizona and asking them for proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans were just fine with that one too. It’s essentially the same, minus the assault rifles, as the controversial “Stop-and-Frisk” practice being used by the NYPD. In 2011, almost 700,000 stops were made and 88% were not charged with any crime. More than 80% were black or latino. There’s no indication in this article where these “high-crime” areas are that the Sherriff is targeting, but, if they turn out to be largely populated by black or Latino people, let’s just say I won’t be surprised. Incorrect, you have to be stopped for some other offense first. The law does not allow the police to stop someone just because they brown. |
| 2012-12-18 1:16 PM in reply to: #4539999 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks Aarondb4 - 2012-12-18 1:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-18 12:08 PM DanielG - 2012-12-18 12:33 PM That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. I don’t see much of a difference between this law and the law allowing cops to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants in Arizona and asking them for proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans were just fine with that one too. It’s essentially the same, minus the assault rifles, as the controversial “Stop-and-Frisk” practice being used by the NYPD. In 2011, almost 700,000 stops were made and 88% were not charged with any crime. More than 80% were black or latino. There’s no indication in this article where these “high-crime” areas are that the Sherriff is targeting, but, if they turn out to be largely populated by black or Latino people, let’s just say I won’t be surprised. Incorrect, you have to be stopped for some other offense first. The law does not allow the police to stop someone just because they brown. Reasonable suspicion of anything is enough. So they can say `I suspected he was drunk.' or `He fit the description.' or `He was loitering.' or whatever they want. Why can't people just admit the cops stop people for being Hispanic and black rather than trying to dance around the issue? |
| 2012-12-18 1:18 PM in reply to: #4539915 |
| Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks DanielG - 2012-12-18 10:33 AM That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. Please don't tell me I needed to use the cute lil pink font did I? |
| 2012-12-18 1:20 PM in reply to: #4539990 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-18 1:08 PM I don’t see much of a difference between this law and the law allowing cops to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants in Arizona and asking them for proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans were just fine with that one too. It’s essentially the same, minus the assault rifles, as the controversial “Stop-and-Frisk” practice being used by the NYPD. In 2011, almost 700,000 stops were made and 88% were not charged with any crime. More than 80% were black or latino. There’s no indication in this article where these “high-crime” areas are that the Sherriff is targeting, but, if they turn out to be largely populated by black or Latino people, let’s just say I won’t be surprised. As we learned on "The Other Guys"...the best way of staying out of jail is trying your best to not be black or hispanic. |
| 2012-12-18 1:38 PM in reply to: #4540007 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks mr2tony - 2012-12-18 1:16 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-12-18 1:13 PM Reasonable suspicion of anything is enough. So they can say `I suspected he was drunk.' or `He fit the description.' or `He was loitering.' or whatever they want. Why can't people just admit the cops stop people for being Hispanic and black rather than trying to dance around the issue? jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-18 12:08 PM DanielG - 2012-12-18 12:33 PM That people are okay with this scares me more than the fact that this even crossed the Police Chief's mind as an acceptable course of action. I don’t see much of a difference between this law and the law allowing cops to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants in Arizona and asking them for proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans were just fine with that one too. It’s essentially the same, minus the assault rifles, as the controversial “Stop-and-Frisk” practice being used by the NYPD. In 2011, almost 700,000 stops were made and 88% were not charged with any crime. More than 80% were black or latino. There’s no indication in this article where these “high-crime” areas are that the Sherriff is targeting, but, if they turn out to be largely populated by black or Latino people, let’s just say I won’t be surprised. Incorrect, you have to be stopped for some other offense first. The law does not allow the police to stop someone just because they brown.
BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!! |
| 2012-12-18 1:39 PM in reply to: #4539813 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us" |
| 2012-12-18 1:41 PM in reply to: #4540046 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks tuwood - 2012-12-18 1:39 PM My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us" Whatever you do, don't say `I KNOW THE MAYORRR!' even if you do know the mayor. It doesn't end well. |
| 2012-12-18 1:43 PM in reply to: #4540051 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks mr2tony - 2012-12-18 1:41 PM tuwood - 2012-12-18 1:39 PM My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us" Whatever you do, don't say `I KNOW THE MAYORRR!' even if you do know the mayor. It doesn't end well. What if you ARE the Mayor? Edited by bradleyd3 2012-12-18 1:44 PM |
| 2012-12-18 1:44 PM in reply to: #4540046 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks tuwood - 2012-12-18 1:39 PM My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us" bwaaaaahahahahahaaa!!!! |
| 2012-12-18 1:51 PM in reply to: #4540056 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks bradleyd3 - 2012-12-18 1:43 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-18 1:41 PM tuwood - 2012-12-18 1:39 PM My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us" Whatever you do, don't say `I KNOW THE MAYORRR!' even if you do know the mayor. It doesn't end well. What if you ARE the Mayor? Foursquare doesn't count. |
| 2012-12-18 2:03 PM in reply to: #4540046 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks tuwood - 2012-12-18 12:39 PM My interaction would be: Police officer - "Can I see your ID please" me - "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Cop - "Get on the ground you POS maggett" me - "Do you know who Brock Samson is?" Cop - "Brock who" me - "He's gonna kick your legal #%# if you don't get your boot off my neck" Cop - "My apologies sir, here's a badge sticker. Please don't sue us"
I think Brock and ChrisM should duke it out in some sort of lawyerly run off ala this.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK