PRIVACY REGULATIONS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

When I wrote:

    >>If you are stopped by the police, you are required to
    >>identify yourself if asked.

Chris Hibbert responded:

    This is not true.  If you're driving a car you are
    required to have a license.  If you're just walking
    around, you're not required to have a name, or to tell
    it.

Nope, *this* is wrong.  In most jurisdictions, you do not have to
provide *physical ID* if you are not in a car, but you do have to
identify yourself AND give some account as to what you are up to.

    A cop has to have a probable cause to arrest you, and
    not giving your name doesn't provide it.

/Au contraire/, you are "interfering with an investigation" or
"obstructing justice" or whatever it's called in the particular
jurisdiction.

    If you're surly, a cop can take you in, ...

Nonsense.  Where do you non-lawyers get this stuff?  Surly, rude,
impolite, etc. are all protected speech.  (Threatening *ACTS* or
physical resistance, however, is another thing.)

    ... Just say "Officer, someone is waiting for me.  May I
    go now?"

Just say "no"?  I *guarantee* this won't work.  If you are asking
permission ("May I go?"), aren't you ceding to the officer the
legal right to say "no"? If you believe you don't have to
interact with the nice man, why not just turn your back and walk
away without a word?  (I wouldn't advise it.)

    This has been tested in court.  There was a black lawyer
    several years ago who liked to walk a lot.  He lived in
    one of the fashionable neighborhoods in LA, and
    occasionally got picked up because he "looked like he
    didn't belong there".  He sued them and won in court
    every time, and got the police to leave him alone.  [No,
    I don't have references.]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  The gentleman in
question was not a lawyer.  He was a black man who was dressed
and coiffured in dreadlocks and Rasta man clothes.  He did not
live in Beverly Hills nor Belaire, but he did like to take long
walks in those neighborhoods in the middle of the night.

He was arrested for not identifying himself with an "official"
ID.  When he sued, the court issued a temporary injunction
against the police for requiring *documentary* identification.
The right of the police to require a person to identify himself
was never in question.  I'm not sure what the disposition of this
particular case was, but that's irrelevant, as it only went to
the issue of documentary ID.  (If memory serves, there was an
interesting result of this case.  The California legislature
attempted to pass, or passed, a law that required to showing of
official identification if demanded by a police officer.  I don't
know how this law ended up, unfortunately.)


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was too succinct in my message about dealing with cops.  I didn't
want to write a long message, but by responding briefly, I said things
that could easily be misconstrued, and now I'll have to spend the
time.  Sandy is right about a number of things.  As he points out, you
are not required to have documents on your person saying who you are,
but you do have to give a name (and probably an address) when the
police ask.

However, there are many times when a cop asks a question that you
don't have to answer.  Cops are allowed to just "nose around," and
it's in this situation that you aren't required to be very
forthcoming.  Cops are allowed to ask idle questions (as anyone is).
They don't have as many special rights at these times.  When they do
have probable cause, they can insist that you cooperate or allow a
search.  And if you don't cooperate, they can arrest you.

If they don't have probable cause, and are just poking around, they
have to let you go if they haven't found anything suspicious.  If you
assume they always have the right to insist, you will spend more time
talking to cops than you have to, and will let them dig deeper than
they have a right to.  The longer they poke around the better the
chances they'll find something you thought of as innocent that they
think is suspicious.  Many people let police search when they don't
have to, thinking they don't have a choice.

When a cop asks if he can look in the trunk of your car, or take a
look around your apartment, you can say "I'd rather not," and ask if
you're free to go.  **Remember that they have a gun** and the right to
use it in some situations.  Be polite.  They'll let you know if
they're insisting on your cooperation.  Physical resistance is a very
bad idea.  But there's no need to let them look if they don't insist,
and they are prohibiting from insisting if they don't have a legally
justifiable reason.


In my previous message, I said
    ... Just say "Officer, someone is waiting for me.  May I
    go now?"

and Sandy responded:
  Just say "no"?  I *guarantee* this won't work.  If you are asking
  permission ("May I go?"), aren't you ceding to the officer the
  legal right to say "no"? If you believe you don't have to
  interact with the nice man, why not just turn your back and walk
  away without a word?  (I wouldn't advise it.)

Again, I spoke too quickly, and so left out the caveats and details.
Cops have to have probably cause before they can detain you.  When
they have probably cause, they'll let you know.  "Just turn[ing] your
back and walk[ing] away without a word" is a bad idea, but if you give
them everything they ask for without objecting, you're giving in too
quickly.  Cops are not always your friends.  If a cop asks to search
you, your car or your apartment, the proper response is "I'm real busy
right now, I'd rather not."  "May I go" is a question that forces a
cop to either claim he has a reason to hold or search you or admit
that you can go.  If they have a legally justifiable reason for
insisting, they'll let you know.

Many people try to claim in court that a search was "without probable
cause," and lose because they didn't object, and so the search is
deemed to have been voluntary.  Anything they find in a voluntary
search is admissible in court.

The question isn't "Do you have something to hide?" but "Does
everything you own look completely innocent from all viewpoints?"

Chris

Sorry for the length.