- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: It's getting tough to defend police. Threatning to take kid at traffic stop
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:32 am to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:32 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:you know what man. I was just thinking to myself.
Had this dipshit not been recording this, i would bet they never ask him a single question.
HE drew attention to himself.
Had he not been recording that altercation,that window probably would have been busted out with a billy club,ole boy tazed and drug out from the car.
0
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:34 am to LT
quote:
I don't think this is correct... If so I feel like it would have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and wouldn't happen anymore. Kinda like the Mirada rights thing, how supreme Cour rruling changes policy and procedures. Tell me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong. If you were to be correct, it would be law that one possess an ID and carry that identification at all times, which it is not.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 11:35 am
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:35 am to LT
More recent:
When police lawfully stop a vehicle, so long as the request does not measurably extend the duration of the stop, police do not need an independent justification to ask a passenger for identification. - U.S. v. Fernandez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6748 (April 01, 2010)
When police lawfully stop a vehicle, so long as the request does not measurably extend the duration of the stop, police do not need an independent justification to ask a passenger for identification. - U.S. v. Fernandez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6748 (April 01, 2010)
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:36 am to Five0
quote:
Because passengers present a risk to officer safety equal to the risk presented by the driver, an officer may ask for identification from passengers and run background checks on them as well. - United States v. Rice, 483 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007)
Nice cherry pick of the facts of that case, pig.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:37 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Had this dipshit not been recording this, i would bet they never ask him a single question.
HE drew attention to himself.
If the cop wasn't trying to hide anything why does he care if the stop is recorded or not?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:37 am to Five0
quote:
More recent: When police lawfully stop a vehicle, so long as the request does not measurably extend the duration of the stop, police do not need an independent justification to ask a passenger for identification. - U.S. v. Fernandez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6748 (April 01, 2010)
A cop can ask anything, that doesn't mean you have to oblige.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to The Third Leg
Depends.
ETA:
I'll let you find the case law on your assertion.
ETA:
I'll let you find the case law on your assertion.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 11:39 am
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to Five0
quote:
When police lawfully stop a vehicle, so long as the request does not measurably extend the duration of the stop, police do not need an independent justification to ask a passenger for identification. - U.S. v. Fernandez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6748 (April 01, 2010)
Ask or demand by lawful order?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to The Third Leg
This happened in Ohio right?
Ohio revised statute:
According to that I don't see where he would be required to identify.
Ohio revised statute:
quote:
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
According to that I don't see where he would be required to identify.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 11:39 am
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to The Third Leg
Did you see the post before mine and under yours? I think you're wrong.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to Five0
Look. It's the gestapo asking for our papers.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to Five0
quote:
More recent: When police lawfully stop a vehicle, so long as the request does not measurably extend the duration of the stop, police do not need an independent justification to ask a passenger for identification. - U.S. v. Fernandez, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6748 (April 01, 2010)
He wasn't wearing a seat belt in this case. So there was reason for the request of identification.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:39 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
I don't understand what it would hurt to show your id and avoid any confusion and conflicts.
It doesn't hurt in that particular instance. In fact, it's the easiest thing to do. But just because it's the easiest thing to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
This guy did the right thing, at great expense to himself and his family.
It's not OK for cops to break the law. It's disturbing that so many people in this thread think otherwise.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:39 am to LT
No, I am not wrong.
How the frick can you be required to show identification when you're not required to carry it?
How the frick can you be required to show identification when you're not required to carry it?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:41 am to The Third Leg
quote:
No, I am not wrong.
How the frick can you be required to show identification when you're not required to carry it?
Agreed. As a passenger in the vehicle he is not even required to have an ID.
According to Ohio law, he would be required to give his basic info (name, address, DOB) IF he was committing a crime... which he was not.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:41 am to The Third Leg
Identifying yourself and caring your ID are not the same.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:42 am to Five0
quote:
Identifying yourself and caring your ID are not the same.
Come on now do you really think the cop lets them go if the passenger verbally tells the cop his name?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:43 am to Five0
quote:
Identifying yourself and caring your ID are not the same.
Why would he even be legally required to identify himself?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:44 am to Five0
Whatever
there's no point in arguing with some of you.
I'll continue to go about my life being respectful to law officers, and i will teach my kids to do the same. Nothing positive will ever come from arguing or being disrespectful to someone who thinks they have power and a gun.
You guys can continue to act as if every cop is out to get you and infringing on your rights with everything they do and say and you'll end of in stupid situations like this or worse.
I'll continue to drive away from my traffic stops with little to no problem.
there's no point in arguing with some of you.
I'll continue to go about my life being respectful to law officers, and i will teach my kids to do the same. Nothing positive will ever come from arguing or being disrespectful to someone who thinks they have power and a gun.
You guys can continue to act as if every cop is out to get you and infringing on your rights with everything they do and say and you'll end of in stupid situations like this or worse.
I'll continue to drive away from my traffic stops with little to no problem.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:45 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:because you know we're right and have backed up our assertions with proof.
Whatever
there's no point in arguing with some of you.
Where is yours?
Page 10 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News