- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:00 pm to yellowfin
quote:
Would have been pretty good info for her to give to the officer don’t you think? Probably would have improved the situation.
I’ve been told that you are NOT obligated to identify yourself to LEO. Have not researched it.
ETA: Looks like Arizona has a requirement that you identify. Might be some Fifth Amendment issues if your name is incriminating. But here, she was likely obligated to give her name.
This post was edited on 8/25/19 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:04 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
I’ve been told that you are NOT obligated to identify yourself to LEO. Have not researched it.
I dont think this is true. Sounds dangerous actually.
You can be charged for giving a false identity.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:04 pm to JudgeHolden
No idea
I’m saying if she owned the truck with her ex it would have been pretty easy to clear up. Just a matter of looking at the registration
I’m saying if she owned the truck with her ex it would have been pretty easy to clear up. Just a matter of looking at the registration
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:05 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
You can be charged for giving a false identity.
Right. The question is whether you can say nothing.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:06 pm to davyjones
In all sincerity, once the officer explained why he was called, talked with her, then ask her name and for ID, she became non-compliant and argumentative, then she she is fricked from a legal standpoint? I watched a video earlier today of a traffic stop for a seat belt violation, same thing, refuse to give name, provide license and insurance. Perp refused, cop spent about 10 minutes trying to reason with the guy, then the yahoo went into 5th amendment defense, dude sat in locked car, window rolled up, eventually, they busted window out and arrested him for “impeding an investigation”. Pretty much the same, you refuse to give name an ID, you can be detained in cuffs. Refusal could lead to resisting and impending, no matter the original reason for officer being called to scene??
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:06 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
You can be charged for giving a false identity.
yep, obstruction, and it can change a misdemeanor to a felony with the quickness
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:07 pm to JudgeHolden
Cop: What’s your name.
Suspect: [Silence].
Can the cop detain?
Suspect: [Silence].
Can the cop detain?
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:10 pm to 4Ghost
I wouldn’t recommend it. But you could be within your rights to refuse to identify in some circumstances.
That doesn’t make it smart.
She should have identified herself, explained that she was waiting for someone, and remained still.
That doesn’t make it smart.
She should have identified herself, explained that she was waiting for someone, and remained still.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:13 pm to 4Ghost
quote:
Pretty much the same, you refuse to give name an ID, you can be detained in cuffs. Refusal could lead to resisting and impending, no matter the original reason for officer being called to scene??
I wouldn’t be opposed to her reaching the point of being arrested.
I think the cop likely assumed she was guilty of attempting to break in and was pretty short with the situation instead of showing up to figure out what was going on and trying to seek a non confrontational outcome.
If he slow played it with better questions, called an extra set of hands up there etc... he probably could’ve built some bridges with her instead of simply repeating the same, relatively aggressive, question a half dozen times and going straight for the cuffs.
She’s drunk. She’s sloppy. Try the question a few different ways and you probably stand a better chance of her giving you some info.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:16 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
wouldn’t recommend it. But you could be within your rights to refuse to identify in some circumstances.
That doesn’t make it smart.
She should have identified herself, explained that she was waiting for someone, and remained still.
Agreed. I think I just come at it with expecting the cop to mostly nail it as a job he’s trained to do and the citizen likely to be coloring a bit outside the lines in a rare and intimidating moment (especially if drunk, high or mentally unwell).
A lot of times we hold the citizen to a very high standard and let mistakes of the officer slide quickly which always feels backwards. That’s not to say you have to crush a guy immediately on every minor slip, but I’d have liked to see a bit more humanity towards someone that clearly wasn’t in a good spot and was unlikely to follow the script in an ideal way.
This post was edited on 8/25/19 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:18 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
She committed no crime, so why was she arrested?
False, she was drunk in public and she was interfering with a car burglary investigation.
This post was edited on 8/25/19 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:20 pm to Breauxsif
quote:
she was drunk in public
that's probably what it will come down to
quote:
a car burglary investigation.
probably going to be dropped after ada sees report
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:22 pm to 4Ghost
LINK
Indeed she's not giving him her name, indeed she's being uncooperative, indeed cop is growing impatient. However, go to 3:30 and listen for just a short while....take note of what he threatens to arrest her for, clearly meaning as a consequence if she persists in uncooperation.
ETA...And it doesnt appear she was even charged with failure to identify.
Indeed she's not giving him her name, indeed she's being uncooperative, indeed cop is growing impatient. However, go to 3:30 and listen for just a short while....take note of what he threatens to arrest her for, clearly meaning as a consequence if she persists in uncooperation.
ETA...And it doesnt appear she was even charged with failure to identify.
This post was edited on 8/25/19 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:24 pm to Breauxsif
quote:
interfering with a car burglary investigation.
That’s horseshite. You can’t be arrested for refusing to speak. You may have to give your identity. You don’t have to say a word after that.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:25 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Wrong. It's his job to keep those who follow the law safe and to go home to his own family.
It’s his job to keep everyone safe unless they are truly risk to others
she largely posed little harm and he could’ve managed her in a way that kept her impaired self safer without risking his ability to go home. I think it’s near impossible to dispute that without saying cops have a total free pass so you don’t care no matter what once a crimes committed.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:25 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
she was drunk in public
that's probably what it will come down to
Just a bullshite, catchall charge to throw on someone when they have nothing else but refuse to just let it go.
Otherwise they would arrest everyone standing outside the saloon smoking.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:27 pm to NoSaint
quote:
If he slow played it with better questions, called an extra set of hands up there etc... he probably could’ve built some bridges with her instead of simply repeating the same, relatively aggressive, question a half dozen times and going straight for the cuffs.
Exactly.
Ma’am, we have witnesses. [Call other officers.]. We’re going to need you to come downstairs please.
If she bolts, the other officers head her off.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:27 pm to davyjones
quote:
Indeed she's not giving him her name, indeed she's being uncooperative, indeed cop is growing impatient. However, go to 3:30 and listen for just a short while....take note of what he threatens to arrest her for, clearly meaning as a consequence if she persists in uncooperation.
Which at that crossroads he could easily hop on the radio for an extra hand and ask her some questions about her kid or whatever to de-escalate for a moment and see if he can come back at it with a new angle once someone else is there.
He was annoyed and wanted to end it as fast as possible. Which happened to suck for her face.
Posted on 8/25/19 at 1:28 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
I’ve been told that you are NOT obligated to identify yourself to LEO.
The US Supreme court has said you are not obligated to identify yourself to a LEO unless he suspects you of a specific crime. I would assume that he must also inform you of what that specific crime is.
He can ask you for your ID and try to coerce you into giving it up, but cannot arrest you for walking down the street and not giving ID if he chooses to go fishing.
Popular
Back to top


1




