It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Pete and Adam from Liberty on Tour were arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers. Here’s video:


freekeene.com...


is it against the law to not show i.d. in this country or something? im beginning to see more and more of this. i myself do not have i.d. my drivers license expired back in april...could i go to jail for not having it??



here is pete and adams site....
www.libertyontour.com...


this is free talk lives site.....an excellent freedom oriented radio/podcast the best out there that shows the tyranny and police stupidity that is looming over us and what we can do about it...
www.freetalklive.com...




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


I really dont think its the id so much as the fact that someone was refusing to do what they were told. It would appear TPTB dont really like that.

MOTF!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I have seen this happening here in Finland too, if you dont have ID or refuse to tell your birth date and name, you are taken in and then they do it the hard way to figure out who you are.

Long live DemoCrazy..

Maybe hidden tyranny? When have the people actually had the chance to get what they want? Empty promises on lies within personal greed.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


I could be wrong but I always though it was an offense to refuse to identify yourself to an officer when they ask.

I don't really see the problem with it in the first place...I am going to go back and read the article...it's having trouble loading right now for me.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I live close to Denver, and have heard stories about some of my friends getting in trouble for not having an ID. The cops around here are getting more aggressive, as if you've seen in the news lately about those beatings.

Here's a link.

Alleged Denver Police beatings.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Alright, I had to quickly go through that video as I am at work, and did not see anything on their website about this, but could anyone answer these questions:

Why were they asked to identify themselves?

Why did they refuse?

Why were the officers present?

Thanks. This seems like an odd situation from what information has been provided.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Funkydung

is it against the law to not show i.d. in this country or something? im beginning to see more and more of this. i myself do not have i.d. my drivers license expired back in april...could i go to jail for not having it??



In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI. (1)


Additionally, if they were flying they would have been required to have id, so we know they had it on them, not carrying it is a moot point in this case. So, the question is why were they stopped in the first place? Is there any information on that?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Thanks for the leg work Ma' Lady

You also enlightened me that my state does not have this law...although as I said, I don't see a reason why not to identify yourself.

Still waiting on the specifics though. I couldn't find anything in my google search.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The video posted leaves many questions unanswered. Why were the police demanding identification to begin with should be the first question, and that is only based upon the presumption that it is true that they were arrested solely for not supplying any identification. A brief look regarding providing identification upon demand did not result in any easily found information that could be verified by statute, code, or regulation. However, this site here, regarding bicyclists in Colorado had some interesting information on the matter:


In Colorado, if a cyclist is stopped by a law enforcement officer for “probable cause”—that is, if the officer observed the cyclist committing a traffic violation, or otherwise has “probable cause” to believe that a violation has occurred—the cyclist must produce satisfactory evidence of identification or risk arrest, at the discretion of the officer.




...


However, if the officer has probable cause, and decides to issue a citation instead of a verbal warning, the officer is entitled to demand that you produce “satisfactory evidence of identification.”


...


As readers of Bicycling & the Law know, “satisfactory evidence of identification” means either a driver’s license, or it’s “functional equivalent”—for example, a state-issued I.D. card, a military I.D. card, or a passport. The features that make an identification card the functional equivalent of a driver’s license are that it is 1) government-issued; 2) serially-numbered; and 3) includes your photograph. Now, for some cyclists, the requirement to produce I.D. is a bit of a cognitive hurdle to clear—after all, we don’t need a license to ride a bike, so why should we be required to carry one? The answer: You’re not required to carry a driver’s license when you ride, but if you do violate a law, you can be required to produce “satisfactory evidence of identification,” under threat of arrest.


This blog does not provide any sources as to where they got this information, so it is difficult to know what actual law makes such demands of people. There is, however, the Constitution for Colorado, and their Bill of Rights:


Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.



Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.



Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.



Section 7. Security of person and property searches seizures warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.


It seems based upon these declaration of rights that police must tread very carefully when demanding identification, and what it really comes down to is probable cause, not to mention that this probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing. If these two gentlemen were arrested simply because they failed to supply identification, with no other charges brought against them, it would appear that the police officers have violated their rights. However, we cannot know this with the limited information we were given by the O.P. and the sites linked.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Jean, probable cause is another way to say "Hey cop dude, if you're bored and ain't got # to do, well, harass people for things they didn't do" legally speaking.

Probable cause is the biggest joke in this country when it comes to our legal system. It's openly allowing cops to harass people and gives them a chance to cover their asses with some made up BS like "oh his tail light was out" or "he didn't come to a complete stop".



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I just did a write up on this for my blog.

And police wonder why people hate them.

Police have no right to conduct a terry stop, demand ID, or otherwise order a citizen to do anything unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The officers in question should be fired and compensation should be granted to the activists.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
My dear friend,


From this >


Originally posted by Funkydung
Pete and Adam from Liberty on Tour were arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers.


To this >


this is free talk lives site.....an excellent freedom oriented radio/podcast the best out there that shows the tyranny and police stupidity that is looming over us and what we can do about it...
www.freetalklive.com...


Emphasis added.

Could this be the reason they were stopped. It could very well be the case that they are known " free talkers against the police " and this could quite possably have led to them being stopped, questioned and asked to show their papers. Harassment?

It appears so.

Be safe be well,

Spiro



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do you mean a write up on this case? or this issue in general?

If it is this case, could you provide us with information?

Something else I noticed...it seemed like they were what I would call "light" arrested. They were detained at the Denver Broncos jail thing that stadiums have it seems. I'll look through my history and post a link to that. It also shows their charges.

Here's the link to the site I found their charges on. Among others, disturbing the peace.
Also, one of the two says "released from custody" one says they were arrested.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by iamsupermanv2]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
LadySkadi.

Yes, you are required to identify one's self.

Does that mean you have to show an id? Highly doubtful.

I have been asked for my identity before by an officer of the peace. They verified a person of my name and address existed and had no wants or warrants.

I have been also asked by a statute enforcement officer for id before. I was forced to supply an id because my name and address was not enough. Therefore, I see that there are still some officers of the peace out there.

I feel that because of the situation we find ourselves in at this time in history, I shall refuse to supply id from now on. I will give my name and address. That is all I will give. If any further questions are asked of me, I will ask for assistance of council. If the officer turns out to be an officer of the peace, everything will be fine, if the officer is a statute enforcer, I may have to spend a little of my time screwing with the system. They will be forced to waste time on a perfectly innocent sovereign and I will waste as much of their money and manpower dealing with me.

All in the name of freedom.

We are the government, we are the sovereign holders of the power of our government. They do not have the power, we DO.

The latest meeting with an officer, the officer was a peace officer, I think our government is beginning to see reason. Unless of course this is just in my area.

Remember folks, if you do not enforce your power, they will take it.

Be peaceful and forceful with your power, it is strong, so sayeth the giant.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nupster
 


Yeah but at least here they have to suspect you of a crime. They can't just walk up to some random dude and demand ID.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 





Jean, probable cause is another way to say "Hey cop dude, if you're bored and ain't got # to do, well, harass people for things they didn't do" legally speaking.


Unfortunately my friend, this is becoming the reality all too often. However, their own Bill of Rights defines "probable cause" in a much more stringent fashion, and it is my hope that by posting that section of the Bill of Rights for the Constitution of Colorado that this will inspire people reading this to pay close attention the the language of that section, as well as seek out and read their own states Constitution and its Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Rights.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and that works both ways, and law enforcement officers not acting lawfully are no longer protected by the immunity of their badge and are acting under color of law, which makes them as liable to criminal sanctions as any other person.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


If they ask for ID, ask them that if you give them a name would that imply corporate title?

Then ask them for the authority to demand ID FROM you. Then ask to see the county sheriff as HE is the only legal law enforcement agent elected BY the people. Police officers are just corprate security guards. That's it.

The police must prove up their claim and show where they derive their jurisdiction. Article one section one of every states constitution clearly states that ALL political power is inherent in the people. WE have the authority over THEM. Governments are instituted by the people for the BENEFIT, PROTECTION, and SECURITY of the PEOPLE.

How does this action protect and benefit we the people?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't get it guys...

What's the harm in identifying yourself?

Especially in a situation like this. These guys know they could be harassed by unsavory cops, so why not have an ID ready, show it, and give them no reason to mess with you for the rest of the day?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 





What's the harm in identifying yourself?


How about the nefarious Real ID Act as just one example of the harm caused by acquiescence.


The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress that modified U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.


...


In the United States, driver's licenses are issued by the states, not by the federal government. Additionally, because the United States has no national identification card and because of the widespread use of cars, driver's licenses have been used as a de facto standard form of identification within the country. For non-drivers, states also issue voluntary identification cards which do not grant driving privileges. Prior to the REAL ID Act, each state set its own rules and criteria regarding the issuance of a driver's license or identification card, including the look of the card, what data is on the card, what documents must be provided to obtain one, and what information is stored in each state's database of licensed drivers and identification card holders.


...


The national license/ID standards cover:

* How the states must share their databases.

* What data must be included on the card;

* What documentation must be presented before a card can be issued; and


...


Many advocacy groups and individual opponents of the Real ID Act believe that having a Real ID-compliant license may become a requirement for various basic tasks. Thus a January 2008 statement by ACLU of Maryland says: "The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun.


When and where are you willing to draw the line?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
I don't get it guys...

What's the harm in identifying yourself?

Especially in a situation like this. These guys know they could be harassed by unsavory cops, so why not have an ID ready, show it, and give them no reason to mess with you for the rest of the day?


I don't see any real harm in identifying yourself.

Of course, just because there is no harm does not mean I should face arrest if I chose not to.

The police have no right to demand ID without probable cause.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join