Simply tell the cops your name...what is so wrong with this folks?

My understanding is that you are required to identify yourself to law enforcement if asked.

"What's your name, sir?" "John Smith"

Unless you are driving, you don't have to carry any ID.

"Do you have any identification?" "Yes sir." "May I see it?" "I'd rather not, I hate that picture."

It is also my understanding that law enforcement is required to give their name and badge number, if asked. Try that next time you are at a protest. Go up to the line of guys wearing gas masks and carrying shields for their names and badge numbers. You know all the "good cops" will comply.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
My understanding is that you are required to identify yourself to law enforcement if asked.

"What's your name, sir?" "John Smith"

Unless you are driving, you don't have to carry any ID.

"Do you have any identification?" "Yes sir." "May I see it?" "I'd rather not, I hate that picture."

It is also my understanding that law enforcement is required to give their name and badge number, if asked. Try that next time you are at a protest. Go up to the line of guys wearing gas masks and carrying shields for their names and badge numbers. You know all the "good cops" will comply.

Again, it depends on the state and the wording of their law. I'm trying to find the statute for MN but I can't remember what number it was and they changed things around the last two years. In most consensual interactions, you do not have to give your name as there currently is no direct suspicion of a crime, the cops are fishing for information; it is where you enter detainment or arrest that you are required to do so. In any and every case, giving false information is a crime, everywhere.

Also, the video started to late in the interaction, it would be helpful to know exactly how the interaction began, that would tell you roughly if their approach was consensual or detainment. But as I noted, it sounds like they approached him for loitering, which he should at the most got a ticket for, at the least asked move along.

He did not handle the situation correctly or in any sensible manner though, that cannot be denied...his actions combined with the police led to intensity.

originally posted by: matafuchs
My point is..why not? Look, I know that there are Rambo wanna be LEO's..I know some. However, he is not being detained. He is being asked a question. What is your name? Maybe he fit the description of someone who just stole some cigars nearby?

Point is, in this case, it shows perfectly why cops should be vigilant. This bonehead was picking up his kids with weed in his pocket. Save that for home when they are in bed. Maybe the cop walked by and smelt some "Dre" coming off of him. THAT is probable cause. We do not know.

He could have simply said my name is Bob Johnson. Comes back with no outstanding warrants and he could have picked up his kids and been on his way. It has happened to me.

Most people have outstanding warrants and that is why they refuse to give their name.

EDIT - I have a warrant for failure to pay so if an officer runs my name I'll go to jail. (which sucks but I would still obey the officer).

a reply to: matafuchs

Simply put, the fifth amendment of the united states constitution is why.

Let me tell you a story:

Florida Police VS HauntWok

Now there I cite the fourth amendment, protecting you from illegal searches and seizures.

Here its the fifth amendment, protecting you from self incriminating.

You aren't doing anything at all illegal, there is no reason for them to even talk to you.

Our rights when interacting with the LEO need to be part of our curriculum. Right in there with Reading, writing and arithmetic.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He didn't ask if he was being detained, he just told her what he was doing and why he didn't have to comply. The question of if you're being detained is the only thing that needs to be asked, nothing more nothing less. And if they ARE going to arrest you, then you oblige with no resistance and ask for legal counsel.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: matafuchs

Simply put, the fifth amendment of the united states constitution is why.

Let me tell you a story:

Florida Police VS HauntWok

Now there I cite the fourth amendment, protecting you from illegal searches and seizures.

Here its the fifth amendment, protecting you from self incriminating.

You aren't doing anything at all illegal, there is no reason for them to even talk to you.

Actually, you have to specifically invoke your 5th for it to stand ground in court now, as the Supreme Court has recently ruled, silence in itself can be implied guilt unless the 5th is strictly, and verbally, exercised. They have also ruled the 4th gives grounds under reasonable suspicion of a crime (in the act, past, or about to be committed) is enough for a search and seizure. However, one should still verbally state, "I do not give consent to a search of my person/vehicle/property" as again, not saying such implies consent and can bite one in the butt if that suspicion is later found unwarranted and thereby illegal search and seizure where evidence obtained during would be dismissed. A google (rather, Startpage) search can get you the sources.

Lastly, they will, can, and do stop you if you are not doing anything wrong simply to fish for information, this is the consensual stop. You might be in an area where crime is frequent, and you might have entered a location at the same time, or near a known criminal who they suspect committed, or is about to commit a crime. They may stop and ask you questions, you did nothing wrong, they are looking for information.

a reply to: matafuchs

Bottom line--in this case--this citizen should have complied. Had this guy simply given the officers his name I think he'd have been good to go and on his way within a few minutes. Universally, in my experience, police always ask for ID --be it a legal requirement of the state in question or otherwise--to carry it at all times. The frequency of police violence and their growing SOP of packing hi-caliber heat troubles me as much as the next American. That said, timely, respectful compliance with every law enforcement officer one interacts with is almost always the wisest course of action, and the path of least resistance.

This issue is also about personal self awareness regardless of skin color. Haven't we all been places or looked a certain way some at time in our lives where or when we just knew that if the police happened by they would likely question us? A good example could be the individual who after driving for many hours without finding a rest stop or unable to afford a hotel decides to sleep in their car in a department store parking lot. Little doubt in that case a passing police officer is going to check you out rather closely. I do not mean to imply that citizen who recorded the video was necessarily out place sitting on whatever bench wherever he was. However, practicing a bit of personal situational awareness when out in public can go a long way toward ensuring a more hassle free experience. Sometimes it is in our best interest to self-edit our rights in order to be free to practice them another day.

Can anyone deny that in America today the police are let us say particularly eager to get to the bottom of every situation they encounter? Refusing to give one's name only serves to create suspicion. Legal or not, suspicion is all they need to make our lives very unpleasant by escalating the interaction. Be as transparent as possible. Be another piece of the puzzle. Don't stand out, but if you do--for whatever the reason--just eat some humble pie and cooperate with law enforcement.

originally posted by: XTexan
Identification is not required unless you are being detained. The article does not state why the man was stopped. Without that information I am forced to assume the officer had no probable cause to stop this man and detain him. If there was no probable cause this man, and his identification, are protected by the 4th amendment.

Are there any articles that discuss the probable cause for the stop?

You are not FORCED to assume anything, you choose to assume that, you choose to because it makes your agenda easier to pursue.

The problem with videos online is that you never get the whole story and everybody is free to make up facts to highlight their side of the argument.

I don't see how we can have states that allow a cop just to come up to you and ask who you are.
But this happened it a state that does not allow that so why does he have to give it.
The cop didn't like that his authority got challenged, surprise surprise.
So yes unless you want to go to jail cause some guy or gal has a complex just forget your rights and comply.
And always remember, the cops are just following orders

originally posted by: XTexan

originally posted by: minusinfinity

originally posted by: XTexan
Identification is not required unless you are being detained. The article does not state why the man was stopped. Without that information I am forced to assume the officer had no probable cause to stop this man and detain him. If there was no probable cause this man, and his identification, are protected by the 4th amendment.

Are there any articles that discuss the probable cause for the stop?

Not sure where you live but in Arizona there is a law that you carry identification with you.

If you don't have ID the police can hold you until they figure out who you are.

I live in Texas where police cannot ID you without first detaining you, I am unsure of the law in Minnesota where this occurred. According to wiki, Minnesota is not a stop and ID state. linky

Doesn't the 4th Amendment cover all the States?

a reply to: HauntWok

The 4th amendment says nothing about not having to provide ID. They were not searching you. They were not searching your property. They did not take anything from you.

The 5th amendment does not apply as you do not incriminate you if you tell an officer your name.

This statement

"Officer, you already have gotten on my bad side, and I guarantee that my bad side is far worse than your's is, and if you don't leave me alone to my book immediately, I will have your partner place you in handcuffs and take you to the county jail under harassment charges. Do I make myself absolutely crystal clear?"

Officer whats his name could have used that as a verbal threat, which is considered assault, and could have arrested you if he wanted to 'get on your bad side".

I myself one time called 911 as my girlfriend took some pills right after her brother had passed. The police show up. They try to Baker Act her. She grabbed my wrist and the officer told me to let go. I said she is holding me and they punched me. Threw me into a coach yelling 'don't resist' and two officers pummeled my midsection. They turned me around and I stood up. I was then struck in the knee with a baton, fell face first into the hardwood floor and then got a knee to the nose which broke it and my glasses the blow was s o hard. He then stood up and said stop moving, and while handcuffed, pepper sprayed me. Then his partner did also. I was then thrown down the stairs in the front of my house, punched in the head a few more times (Still handcuffed) and thrown in a car. St Pete PD Sucks balls....LAter they told me they like to find big guys and take out some frustration. ( I am 6' 3" 230/35)

I hate bad cops. With a passion. however, since I was a kid, if an officer asked me what I was doing or for ID I gave it up because i was doing nothing wrong. I teach my children to respect them. They are the law. Plain and simple.

originally posted by: mwood

originally posted by: XTexan
Identification is not required unless you are being detained. The article does not state why the man was stopped. Without that information I am forced to assume the officer had no probable cause to stop this man and detain him. If there was no probable cause this man, and his identification, are protected by the 4th amendment.

Are there any articles that discuss the probable cause for the stop?

You are not FORCED to assume anything, you choose to assume that, you choose to because it makes your agenda easier to pursue.

The problem with videos online is that you never get the whole story and everybody is free to make up facts to highlight their side of the argument.

Innocent until proven guilty. I have yet to see any evidence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Do you have any evidence that states otherwise or are you assuming there is to fit your agenda?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: HauntWok

The 4th amendment says nothing about not having to provide ID. They were not searching you. They were not searching your property. They did not take anything from you.

The 5th amendment does not apply as you do not incriminate you if you tell an officer your name.

This statement

"Officer, you already have gotten on my bad side, and I guarantee that my bad side is far worse than your's is, and if you don't leave me alone to my book immediately, I will have your partner place you in handcuffs and take you to the county jail under harassment charges. Do I make myself absolutely crystal clear?"

Officer whats his name could have used that as a verbal threat, which is considered assault, and could have arrested you if he wanted to 'get on your bad side".

I myself one time called 911 as my girlfriend took some pills right after her brother had passed. The police show up. They try to Baker Act her. She grabbed my wrist and the officer told me to let go. I said she is holding me and they punched me. Threw me into a coach yelling 'don't resist' and two officers pummeled my midsection. They turned me around and I stood up. I was then struck in the knee with a baton, fell face first into the hardwood floor and then got a knee to the nose which broke it and my glasses the blow was s o hard. He then stood up and said stop moving, and while handcuffed, pepper sprayed me. Then his partner did also. I was then thrown down the stairs in the front of my house, punched in the head a few more times (Still handcuffed) and thrown in a car. St Pete PD Sucks balls....LAter they told me they like to find big guys and take out some frustration. ( I am 6' 3" 230/35)

I hate bad cops. With a passion. however, since I was a kid, if an officer asked me what I was doing or for ID I gave it up because i was doing nothing wrong. I teach my children to respect them. They are the law. Plain and simple.

So your ID is not your property? Yes it is, therefore it is pprotected.

a reply to: minusinfinity

I think you are making a common point - it's up to society to "be the bigger man" and just cooperate.

The problem is that the police force should also take steps to "be the bigger man". They are too childish though. They see their power being questioned and they react like children - instead of adults in a very sensitive role.

It's good advice for the civilians to comply (when appropriate) but it's also a huge problem that we do not have intelligent people who can control their emotions and anger enforcing laws.

Recently found out the police force will not hire you if you have a IQ too high - blatant attempt to keep 'stupids' behind the badges and fire arms.

Knowing that, I would be embarrassed to be hired by PD.

If you encounter police men, remember that they are doing the best they can with their tiny little brains. These people were not meant to be put in positions of such power and responsibility. Don't blame them, for the bad choices of the department. They don't know any better.

a reply to: matafuchs

Here's the thing, talking to a cop is a chess game.

It takes tact, balls, and being absolutely in the right to pull off.

When I have done nothing at all wrong, I am not going to comply with illegal commands or requests. I'm not going to be a nice guy, I'm going to be non confrontational, but at the same time an ass.

You as a cop are going to want to beat me. But in doing so, will screw yourself for some ambulance chasing lawyer to sue your department.

It's a game, it's all how you play it.

You know what, there is this pesky annoying and extremely valuable to freedom, concept of "due process" and "reasonable suspicion". This means, if a car is stolen and the person matches a description of the thief, they may stop you. Otherwise, THEY MAY BUZZ THE HELL OFF!

So actually, I disagree. They don't have the right to be a strong visible presence that throws its weight around and just asks innocent people personal questions. NADA. Thats a police state and thats illegal, violates constitution and common law and needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.

ID as property? No, they can take your ID at anytime as it is not yours. It is something to show who you are. If you license is suspended or expired the can legally take it. Just like you cannot carry a State Issued ID and a DL on yourself. One or the other to show who you are.

Also, how is asking your name an illegal request? If I as a private citizen walk up to strike a conversation you are going to tell them not to get on your bad side? It is a game and you are playing it to a point that will bite you in the ass someday. It does not take balls to say what you did to those cops. It takes blind ignorance.

If you go to pick up a prescription and they ask for ID do you say no? At the bank...do you say no? Getting on an airplane, do you say no?

Like I stated earlier, acting like you are in the right will put you in the wrong with someone who wants to push it.

A police state is having to show ID to go block to block...for EVERYONE. This is not happening so there is no police state.

originally posted by: matafuchs
ID as property? No, they can take your ID at anytime as it is not yours. It is something to show who you are. If you license is suspended or expired the can legally take it. Just like you cannot carry a State Issued ID and a DL on yourself. One or the other to show who you are.

Also, how is asking your name an illegal request? If I as a private citizen walk up to strike a conversation you are going to tell them not to get on your bad side? It is a game and you are playing it to a point that will bite you in the ass someday. It does not take balls to say what you did to those cops. It takes blind ignorance.

If you go to pick up a prescription and they ask for ID do you say no? At the bank...do you say no? Getting on an airplane, do you say no?

Like I stated earlier, acting like you are in the right will put you in the wrong with someone who wants to push it.

A police state is having to show ID to go block to block...for EVERYONE. This is not happening so there is no police state.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which part of that excludes ID? Your "papers" is your ID. None of your examples invole a government entity which is what the Bill of Rights protects you from.