• Re: [OT] Is this obstruction of an investigation?

    From Roger Blake@rogblake@iname.invalid to rec.arts.tv on Thu Sep 17 16:34:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-09-17, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    You are quoting Terry. If it's a traffic stoo, the driver must show his driver's license. Under other circumstances, stating one's name without showing a drivee's license is sufficient.

    Yes, Terry and subsequent decisions (Texas v. Brown, Rodriguez v.
    United States, etc.) Lay out the ground rules for police encounters.

    In the U.S., lacking articulable facts leading to reasonable
    suspicion of criminal activity police cannot demand that you
    identify yourself either verbally or via documents. Otherwise
    it is a request which can be refused. (Police can *ask* you
    anything. That does not mean you are obligated to answer.)

    Of course identification and "we want to know who we're talking
    to" is like crack cocaine to many police officers. It's up
    to the individual whether they want to respond to an identification
    *request* under circumstances where compliance is not actually
    required.
    --
    Roger Blake
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rhino@no_offline_contact@example.com to rec.arts.tv on Thu Sep 17 13:06:12 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-09-16 10:26 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
    On Sep 16, 2026 at 6:53:13 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2026-09-14 9:29 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    Based on the videos I've seen, there are a LOT of people who drive
    around without IDs (or licences or insurance) in your country. It's
    clear that in some cases this is strategic: the person has a warrant >>>> that will pop up when the officer runs them on the computer so claims to >>>> have "lost" their ID. But some simply don't seem to be inclined to carry >>>> ID. Is that perfectly okay in the US of A?

    I *always* have ID when I'm driving or even going somewhere on the bus. >>>> (Basically, whenever I'm out beyond the lot my house sits on, I'm
    carrying my wallet which includes photo ID.)

    As in your country, it is required to carry a driver's license when
    driving a motor vehicle in the public way.

    If the police officer believes the driver has refused to identify
    himself, he'll take him into custody and take pictures and prints. That >>> should positively identify him. If there's a want or warrent, he'll be >>> held or transferred to county jail.

    One of the videos I saw specifically said that officer found a warrant
    for the person he stopped but the officer told the guy that they had to
    reach the issuer of the warrant to see if they actually wanted him;
    apparently, sometimes the issuing county may say they don't want the guy
    even though there is a warrant. (I don't know why that would happen but
    two guesses: a. the issue has already been resolved but the system
    hasn't been updated to reflect that b. the jail is already full to
    bursting and the offence isn't that big a deal so they're not going to
    worry about it.)

    Yes, you always have to verify warrants before taking someone into custody based on them. When you enter a warrant into the system it's your responsibility to clear it out if it's canceled or you no longer want the guy or whatever, but many cops either forget or don't bother, so it's like coin flip whether a warrant is valid when it pops up on your screen. So you have to
    contact the issuing department and determine whether it's still good before slapping the cuffs on someone.

    That seems eminently reasonable to me ;-)
    --
    Rhino
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BTR1701@atropos@mac.com to rec.arts.tv on Thu Sep 17 18:00:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On Sep 16, 2026 at 9:48:19 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

    Operating a motor vehicle aside, what police need in order to lawfully
    demand ID from an individual are specific articulable facts that would
    lead them to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Hunches
    or gut feelings are not sufficient.

    You are quoting Terry. If it's a traffic stop, the driver must show his driver's license. Under other circumstances, stating one's name without showing a driver's license is sufficient.

    Yes, but the cops hate that. They're trained from their first day in the academy to get that ID. They want that little plastic card. Some of them don't even like non-driver license IDs. They want that driver license and if you
    give them anything else (like a passport), they get all frustrated and ornery. It's really a psychological condition with a lot of them. Verbally identifying yourself, while perfectly legal, is likely to put them in a bad mood.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Blake@rogblake@iname.invalid to rec.arts.tv on Thu Sep 17 18:30:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-09-17, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
    On Sep 16, 2026 at 9:48:19 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

    Operating a motor vehicle aside, what police need in order to lawfully
    demand ID from an individual are specific articulable facts that would
    lead them to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Hunches
    or gut feelings are not sufficient.

    You are quoting Terry. If it's a traffic stop, the driver must show his
    driver's license. Under other circumstances, stating one's name without
    showing a driver's license is sufficient.

    Yes, but the cops hate that. They're trained from their first day in the academy to get that ID. They want that little plastic card. Some of them don't
    even like non-driver license IDs. They want that driver license and if you give them anything else (like a passport), they get all frustrated and ornery.
    It's really a psychological condition with a lot of them. Verbally identifying
    yourself, while perfectly legal, is likely to put them in a bad mood.

    I for one really don't care what they hate or what they like. When
    not driving I fall into the category of "this is not Nazi Germany
    or North Korea - you don't get identification without specific
    facts leading you to believe crime is afoot". Fortunately these
    days with cameras everywhere it is much easier than it was in
    the past to prove malfeasance, and even overcome qualified
    immunity, if police proceed illegally.
    --
    Roger Blake
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2