PI UNION MEMBER: Author of "Police arrest people for refusing to ID themselves?" [Archive]

David Copeland

02-18-2006, 03:57 PM

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KxZmsHDCL._SL160_.jpg

QUOTE:

What activists don’t know can hurt them:
May police now arrest people for refusing to identify themselves?
By Jennifer Van Bergen
21 July 2004

The following article was contributed to the WSWS by Jennifer Van Bergen, the author of the upcoming book, The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. She has been an adjunct faculty member of the New School for Social Research in NYC since 1993 and lectures on the antiterrorism laws and the Constitution.

Several days ago, three persons stood on a street corner in a suburban area of the United States, exercising their rights to assemble and express themselves in their opposition to the American invasion, occupation, and corporatization of Iraq. The group has been holding protests since early last year and has often demonstrated in public areas, including the one they were in this time, in front of the County Courthouse.

But this time was not the same as the other times. This time was a little different. A police officer came over and asked them what they were doing. Three people standing there with signs and clearly marked t-shirts showing their anti-war views. One of the three pointed to her t-shirt, which said the name of the peace group to which she belonged.

The officer asked for identification. Only one of the three had I.D., and the police officer asked that person to come with him. The remaining two immediately objected that they did not want to be separated from each other. The officer insisted, and one of the protesters said, “Officer, there is a First Amendment: we have a First Amendment right to stand here and protest!” to which the officer replied, “There is also such a thing as police business!” and he took the third person with I.D. away to question her.

The story has a relatively happy ending. The officer questioned the person with I.D. and left the protesters alone thereafter, perhaps because that person was an attorney who showed the officer her bar card. But the protesters felt harassed. This had never happened before. The group regularly protested, and the police knew them by now. This event seemed to signal trouble for peaceful protesters. They wondered whether surveillance and harassment of activist groups were on the rise.

Particularly since the November 2003 Miami FTAA demonstrations, such concerns are hardly idle ones. Hundreds of peaceful protesters were arrested without having violated any law and were treated with brutality and indifference to their behavior, their rights and even their health. A few protesters received permanent physical injuries because of unprovoked police brutality. The police declared the “Miami Model” the new blueprint for homeland security.

Some local peace groups have reason to believe they have been infiltrated and monitored by the FBI or have had undercover agents in the audience at their forums or town meetings. With activists around the country being subpoenaed and/or indicted by grand juries, with a well-known environmental group, Greenpeace, which carries out peaceful protest activities, having been indicted (albeit subsequently the case was dismissed), with an activist defense attorney having been charged with supporting terrorism (the initial charges were thrown out, she was re-indicted, and her trial is occurring as I write), with the FBI admitting that it is monitoring even places of religious worship, peaceful activists and protesters have good reason to be concerned.

What the three anti-war demonstrators on that street corner didn’t know was that the Supreme Court just issued a decision that could have a monumental effect on the rights and freedoms of activists and dissenters. This decision appears to have been the basis for the officer asking the protesters to provide identification.

Under previous Supreme Court law, individuals did not need to identify themselves to police. The ACLU has a brochure called “Know Your Rights,” in which it informs readers that “you do not need to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested” on the street. The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) also has a “Know Your Rights” brochure. It states: “The Right to Remain Silent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every person the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent.”

(The above is a portion of the article. For the remainder of the artive, GO HERE: Jennifer Van Bergen Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/laws-j21.shtml))

Jennifer's books may soon be listed on sale at our PI Book Store site here:

www.privateinvestigators.cc

Patrice-Maria Love

03-05-2006, 08:30 AM

Thanks for sharing with us. I know in the state of Minnesota, you may be asked to show identification in your own home. If you don't you could be arrested. It is up to the officer. Now if you are asked on the streets, you better show your id or you will be arrested! I have heard of peaceful protestors being bruatlized just for being an activist! The question is are our constitutional rights remain intact? Or is this the new world!

Jerry Hargrove -

04-16-2006, 06:18 AM

Many years ago, I remember hearing that in certain Communist countries citizens were required to carry identification cards with them at all times and to produce them whenever requested. I am deeply sadden to see that the "New World Order" politics of this country has so quickly moved in that direction. At one point, a social security number was for employment purposes. Now, it has become an individual's national and international identification number. What other socialist and communist police actions will be accepted passively by the American citizenship? Can we ever return to constitutional and state guarantees of the past?

Sam Jones -

04-18-2006, 09:39 PM

Thanks For Sharing This, It Was Very Informative.

Sam Jones

Arnel Valenzuela

06-16-2006, 10:51 AM

This is a great article. Thanks for sharing.

Vincent Haynes

07-26-2006, 04:02 PM

Great information. Thanks.

Tiffany H. Causey -

08-26-2006, 07:13 PM

Definitely, food for thought.

Thanks

Pam Reed-Wallinger

08-27-2006, 11:52 AM

I'm of two minds on this. The last thing anyone wants is to have their rights suppressed or infringed upon. However, in today's world, that may be the lesser of two evils. It is almost impossible to protect this nation from the threat of terrorism, without infiltrating a lot of places they didn't in the past. With the type of threat we are now seeing--men and women willing to die, and take their children right along with them--you can really leave no stone unturned. Seemingly innocent, harmless scenarios and situations, now have the potential to be deadly.

I guess, at this point in time, I'd prefer LE make the effort to ask more questions, look twice, and err on the side of caution, BUT---that is JMHO.

Dominic Iannucci -

09-07-2006, 03:19 PM

Damon Wade

12-28-2006, 10:16 PM

I had a similar situation, however was able to be let go shortly afterewards after the proper checks with my identification and no warrants with the local authorities. I beat the rap, didn't have to take any rides, howevver threw a wrench in my surveillance with my previous companies assignment.

Molly Bowe

12-29-2006, 12:34 AM

With most police agencies having computers in their squad cars, they can look anyone up by name alone - which then shows a picture. You don't necessarily have to show an ID, but people who are hiding something will say they don't have their ID, then give a false name. Once looked up on the computer, the officer can go from there as to what he/she wants to do with the person. It's a stretch to say you can get arrested for not having an ID on you.:cool:

LaRue Boyd -

01-13-2007, 06:29 AM

That was a very interesting article thank you for sharing.

Vickie Rutledge -

02-15-2007, 02:24 PM

Wow...it is a very interesting article....

Mark Buda -

02-15-2007, 04:50 PM

With most police agencies having computers in their squad cars, they can look anyone up by name alone - which then shows a picture.

Pictures are not available in all states, nor are computers in all police carsa across the US, yet.

mark

George Powell

05-07-2007, 02:25 AM

I know in Virginia it is illegal to walk the streets without an ID and you can go to jail if you were to be stopped by a police officer and asked for some ID and you did not have it on you.

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:26 PM

I am confused. The article is about identifying oneself to a police office. I assume that this means giving the officer one’s name – not providing legal ID. I know that the US does not have a compulsory ID system. Even the Real ID Act (goes into effect in 2008) does not require US citizens to have ID.

If an officer were to ask me to identify myself in a public place, I would tell the officer that I was Mr. Harris, Dr. Harris, or Rev. Harris – depending on my mood and the circumstances. I would not provide my first name (I only have one) unless the officer provided a compelling reason. And I have no legal ID on me since I am not required to have legal ID to walk the streets in the United States of America.

If I were protesting as part of an organized protest group, I would respond the same way and indicate that I (or we) were exercising our Constitutional rights for peaceful assembly. While I do not believe that the police (or National Guard) have the right to shoot anyone without the threat of imminent death on the part of the person with the gun, I do believe that the people with the guns are as scared as we are and that shooting might be unintentional.

If, during a protest or other rally, the police walk through the crowds questioning people, I would be polite and simply offer my last name (plus the appropriate title).

Back to the article. The US Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law. This applies only to Nevada, it should not be considered binding on states that do not have a similar law. The article makes is sound as if the US Supreme Court made a serious blunder in this decision. However, the Nevada law may be perfectly valid in the case cited – the person under suspicion of having committed a crime was asked to produce ID – this could have been a reasonable request to produce a driver’s license (the person was in the red and silver GMC truck). The case cited, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., No. 03-5554 (June 21, 2004), is a Nevada case.
The Florida loitering law has no bearing on the issue. It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person...refused to identify himself...a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself...and explain his...presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. Fla. Stat. §856.021 (2003).
I do agree that Justice Stevens (the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) was correct in his dissent with the Court on this issue. As a citizen of the United States of America and supporter of the US Constitution, I object strongly to compulsory ID. As a criminal justice student and PI trainee, I support compulsory ID – this makes CSI and CSI: Miami actually make sense.

While this article is interesting and eye opening, it is seriously biased. It is also incomplete in its evaluation of the issue.

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:28 PM

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:28 PM

I know in Virginia it is illegal to walk the streets without an ID and you can go to jail if you were to be stopped by a police officer and asked for some ID and you did not have it on you.
George,

I do not want to sound too skeptical, but could you provide the citation for the law?

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:30 PM

Pictures are not available in all states, nor are computers in all police carsa across the US, yet....
Mark,

Thank you. The thread almost got out of control. Some of the IPIU members have seen too many TV shows where the police have instant access to everything. You have provided a bit of sanity. Again, Thank You.

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:34 PM

To All:

We all need to be vigilant that our Constitutional rights are not eroded. My mother and father were both in the service during WWII - a war to defend our rights.

Sometimes we read an interesting article and we fail to take the next step - review the facts. I pulled up the entire article and read it. I checked out the Nevada case and read it. I looked at the bias of the author of the article. I researched legal ID requirements (compulsory ID, etc.). I did my due diligence. That is what we are all training for - find the truth.

Michael Harris

05-08-2007, 01:36 PM

Re: CSI

Why was the original show set in Las Vegas? The city is big and has Money. It is easy to pretend that anything you want is available.

Another reason is that all casino employees have state required ID cards and fingerprints on file (I did not check this, but that is a big assumption for the show to work.)

George Powell

05-08-2007, 11:45 PM

George,

I do not want to sound too skeptical, but could you provide the citation for the law?

Michael,

I don't know the citation for the law about having an ID on you at all times. But give me sometime and I will try to find it so you can see it. I was going on the word of a Virginia police officer who taught a class I was in. As I said I will find out and post it in here.

George

Michael Harris

05-09-2007, 08:18 AM

George,

Thanks.

A wise man once wrote that you never, ever ask a police office about the law. Police have zero training in law, they only issue tickets according to department procedures and arrest people so that the DA can try to find a charge.

George Powell

05-09-2007, 06:49 PM

Michael,

Thats is funny even though I am trying to become a police officer. From what I understand the training they receive in Virginia is pretty good.

I am still looking for that information

George

Michael Harris

05-09-2007, 06:56 PM

George,

This is how we learn. I actually learn most of what I know by researching and posting the information. Another bit of learning comes from having to answer good questions posed by my readers.

Critical thinking is important to us. Always question the validity of the information. Example: Many news articles get a correlation correct, but get the cause and effect interchanged.

Andrew J White

08-02-2007, 09:54 PM

I'd like to thank everyone for the info. because I never knew about the ID's so thanks again.

Michael Harris

08-03-2007, 08:22 AM

To All:

Yesterday, I was at an unnamed New Jersey shore boardwalk talking pictures to learn how to use my new digital camera. Some harridan objected to my taking pictures of children on the amusement pier rides and called the police.

While no crime was committed, I was interrogated by the police and required to identify myself - BUT not produce any ID card. As we all know, we are not required to have and produce ID cards for the police. I gave them all my information EXCEPT for my Social Security Number.

Yes, they asked for my SSN. No crime, no tort, but they wanted my SSN. They had no right to ask for my drivers license since I was not in a vehicle, but they felt that they could demand my SSN.

I wrote a gentle letter to the Chief of Police and the Borough Council members. I also contacted the Ocean County Prosecutor about the SSN issue; I want to know if the senior law enforcement officer in the county was aware of this practice.

The biggest problem is that the police try to placate complainers without regard to the law. I also made the mistake of thinking that these officers were as intelligent and well-trained as the officers in my town.

As far as I am concerned, I was illegally arrested. It may have been "police business", but it was more "economic business".

Eric Catron

08-15-2007, 12:21 PM

Hi, just a second to put my two cents in here and probably get some change back...
why would anybody free from guilt worry about a law enforcement agent learning your identity. If there is nothing to hide than have a nice day. If they ask for sensitive information than good luck...hippa all the way., what possible reason could they have for needing your SSN they going to apply a tax credit to the speeding ticket they just gave you??

I think todays government needs to be ziplocked in a double ply zipper and stored away for future-in-laws to poke and prod at and a new society more relavent to todays needs be established. Heck how many government officials can actually translate the constitution or for that matter resite the preamble (sp?)

..back to work.
have a great day..
rock

Michael Harris

08-15-2007, 12:44 PM

Hi, just a second to put my two cents in here and probably get some change back...
why would anybody free from guilt worry about a law enforcement agent learning your identity. If there is nothing to hide than have a nice day. ...
Eric,

You scare me. The police need probably suspicion before they can ask for identity. They need probable cause before demanding identity. There has to be some evidence of a crime before the police can stop you and ask for identity.

To do anything else is to abandon the US Constitution. We have rights under the Constitution and we are giving them up all the time.

Most laws protecting the Public from the police are from the mid-1960s to late-1970s. Are you suggesting that we backtrack to the pre-Miranda abuses?

Guilt is not an issue.

The SSN is a financial tracking number - personal income tax and, maybe, bank records. For the police to ask for my SSN without a crime or a tort is a violation. I contacted the county's prosecutor about the legality of asking for SSNs - they did not have a clue. The ACLU is doing an analysis right now - they are not happy with the police.

Get rid of your personal biases and stick to the written law. Investigators have to abide by All the laws of the land.

Charles Milonas

09-27-2007, 12:28 PM

I think the police should only be asking for ID for reasonable suspicion only. not being allowed to make up any story they see fit. Does anyone know how the law reads in California? I see alot of misuse of police powers in LA and Hollywood .but the funny thing is the people that actually break the law police don't even bother with .

Christopher Shane Stoneham

09-28-2007, 02:32 AM

Get rid of your personal biases and stick to the written law. Investigators have to abide by All the laws of the land.

You are suggesting that you know every law on every book or in the very least that we as investigators should know every law on every book because that is constitutional.

I say that to know every law on the book is impractical and actually foolhardy.

There are ten laws abide within those ten laws and you will be safe from many intrusions of justice.

I think it would be better if you said "know how to find the law that you need to clarify your position on what you are confronted with."

Surely, you should know by now that its not about what you know....its more about finding out what you dont know and how to aquire that valuable tool.

Oh and to clarify my position. The library of Congress is filled with row after row of books for every state in the union and some of those laws are antiquated and obsolete.

Did you know in some obscure little town in california that it is illegal to eat an orange while taking a bath.

How useful is that law.Did you know it? I didnt think so.

I also think Constitutional when it comes to the United States of America. We are a minority though the lawmakers dont even recognize it for the most part except as an antiquated parchment of historical signifigance. How sad is this time we live in.

C Shane Stoneham

Michael Harris

09-28-2007, 09:52 AM

Christopher,

I am sorry that you missed the point. I said that an investigator has to know the laws that pertain to investigation. I am sorry if your analytical skills were not sufficient.

Police do not know the law. They only know the things that their bosses tell them to look for.

Lawyers do not know the law. They only know the things that they practice.

Why should it be different for investigators? Investigators should know the laws that affect the way they do their jobs.

As for the Library of Congress, that is a research arm of Congress and is filled with the things that Congress thought might be important to their job.

The only think you said that makes sense is the comment about lawmakers not realizing the real value of the US Constitution.

Please work on your critical reading skills. I do not mind criticism, but vituperative utterances are not necessary.

Christopher Shane Stoneham

09-28-2007, 02:56 PM

thank you, my critical thinking skills are actually doing quite well, please instead of tossing casual insults why not actually casually read what I said and understand that the inpractical nature of your argument that investigators know ALL the laws that pertain to investigations is the same as knowing every law that is within the library of congress.

Again, I will state
Its better to know how to find the law that pertains to your investigation then to study the multitude of literally hundreds of thousands of laws that have no relevance.

And please refrain from utilyzing words like "vituperative" because it just makes you look snobbish or arogant, it does not make you look more intelligent by talking down to me.
Who says "vituperative" anyways? I think that must be the first time I ever heard that silly word.Honestly I had to look it up even with my giant vocabulary.

On to your misinterpretations:There wasnt anything in my last post that censored you or even verbally abused you and if you took offense by my last post it was not intended as offense and perhaps you should critically reread my counter argument. I simply showed you with evidence that is it foolhardy and impractical to try and learn every law on the books. I also stated that it is better to be able to locate the law in which pertains to investigators.

Socrates quote of the day
"If thou continuest to take delight in idle argumentation, thou mayest be qualified to combat with the sophists, but never know how to live with men."

Jim Harrington

09-28-2007, 03:13 PM

Thank you both for keeping this discussion on topic and civil so far. You've both expressed your opinions, this discussion now needs to return to it's original subject matter or stop, prior to going off topic. :))

Thank you for your support,

Jim Harrington

Charles Blount

10-03-2007, 11:24 AM

Michael Harris

10-03-2007, 11:52 AM

Now guys this is just my opinion in light of what was stated regarding identification. Whereas, having the right to remain silent and knowing/understanding the U.S. Constitution and it's fifth in lieu of not having to answer any questions by a police officer or governmental entity, has nothing to do with replying to a statement or answering a question. Note: My name is officer blythe and I would like to know the reason you and your friends are standing on this corner. Okay, don't answer and what would the consequences be? However, if the officer only asked to see some form of identification does not constitute a verbal reply, only a physical one. He asked to see all the person had to do was to show. Now if you want to make this a twighlight opinion then fine. I don't see it. Question. what is the different between criminal justice system and criminal justice network
Charles,

You bring up some interesting issues. The first is about the title of the book - The Twilight of Democracy (http://books.google.com/books?id=c3_VAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Twilight+of+Democracy). My dictionary defines Democracy - "1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

As such, the actions of the police do not constitute a lack of democracy. The people's government wants this kind of behavior. I may get back and discuss the ethics and morality issues in this behavior. But it does not affect democracy in this country.

I may try to answer the criminal justice system and criminal justice network question shortly.

Christopher Shane Stoneham

10-03-2007, 03:45 PM

I would like to bring up the another point on this topic.
next year in may we will start seeing REAL ID's which are basically a national ID card with an RF chip implanted. How is this going to not be in breach of privacy? To be able to locate a any person with a card at any time in order to control their movements?

I mean seriously we are worried about flashing ID's....but this point is moot dont ya think when the government can literally scan you and know every little thing they want about you.

Isnt that Invasion of Privacy. Bush Signed this bill in 2005 and it will be implemented in may of 2008.

I find this whole thing very creepy and absurdly invasive.

Michael Harris

10-03-2007, 04:41 PM

Christopher,

First, privacy under the law and privacy as "the people" perceive it are not the same. Example - outside of your own home (the yard does not count), you have no expectation of privacy anywhere except in restrooms and changing rooms (actually, you have them in hotels, but not your friends' homes). For your data, if the law says that governments can have access to the data, you have no expectation of privacy of that data - by the governments.

Second, there are several parts to the REAL ID Act. One part requires that all the states have driver's licenses that are are to counterfeit. New Jersey has these and it is much easier to get a US passport than a NJ DL (unless you pay off the clerk). Only idiots and incompetent politicians have a problem with this. Another part of the REAL ID Act allows for the states (licensing and police at all levels) to share that information with the Federal government and with other states. If you cannot trust your own state, then you will never trust the other 50+ governments (actually, many, many agencies per state, territory, and federal government).

The first part is expensive, but should be done anyway. The other part(s) are even more expensive. Many states have passed laws forbidding implementation of the REAL ID Act (they might think they are laws, but are most likely non-binding resolutions). Or the states may refuse to fund the mandate. The use of the term Mandate implies that the Act is imposed on the states and someone has to pay for it. With Mandates, we expect the issuer to pay. Not so with the REAL ID Act - the states are expected to pay.

Given the expense of implementing the REAL ID Act, I doubt that it will go into effect in 2008 as planned.

This still leaves us with your question of privacy. The issue of privacy does not exist. The federal government has the right to mandate the sharing of the data. The real issue is the security of your information. Remember, the government has the data on you right now; but only your state. The state police may have access, but the county and local police or sheriffs do not have access. And no other state has access. Your privacy is not the issue. Again, the security of the information is the issue.

Your identification, your driving transcript, your criminal records, etc. will be shared by all states at all levels of government and be the federal government. Half the population of the country will have access to your data. With 200 million individuals in the system, no one has the time to look for your data without cause.

I like the aspect of the REAL ID Act that improves the security of the drivers' licenses. In an ideal, secure world, I would love to see the police have access to criminal and driving records across the country. The only place where the police are always able to get your criminal records and driving transcripts is CSI and CSI: Miami.

The rest of the REAL ID Act is too expensive - today. Too many states have passed legislation preventing the funding of implementation.

Do we need to be concerned about our privacy - in general, yes; in the case, no. The data is out there and can be shared by court order now.

Keep the questions coming.

Christopher Shane Stoneham

10-03-2007, 09:31 PM

see in this I disagree with you wholely. Privacy is just that. Private. I do not need someone to follow me around and harass me at their leisure. We have laws in America that protect us from people monitoring us like common criminals. Your interpretation of privacy is not what our country was based on.

I am sure that with your idea of privacy that you also are one that believe that the people should be disarmed and depend solely on the military and police to protect us.

I, however believe in the right to bear arms and not worry about the secret service breaking in my door and confiscating whatever the want due to some concieved terrorist threat. Its like the KFC commercial I had seen the other day. The lady is preparing to eat her lunch and using a knife and fork. While she is eating lunch. Someone
"sees" the knife and causes some panic like a terrorist just blew up a bomb in the room. When its just a knife.

The fact is that by monitoring everyone they are intruding on our basic rights. We are not criminals and should be treated with respect.

You dont need to put a tracer chip on me to follow me around and know what I eat, when i use the bathroom or when I am having sex. That is why we have privacy. To be quite honest it is none of anyones business if I eat 500 hamburgers on the tip of the mountain at 7 48 pm oct 3rd 2007.

People will not be allowed to track me. I will not submit to tyranny. Yes, I understand the implications, I also know how to take care of a bug. Technology will work in my favor.

Michael Harris

10-04-2007, 08:05 AM

Christopher,

You have to view this in the context of the law. What "privacy" is under the law and what you think it is are not the same.

When the police operate under the law, we might not like it, but we have to accept it at the time. When we think the laws are wrong, we have the obligation to get them changed. If you are unhappy with the law, write to your senators and representative, nag the governor, write a letter to the editor, or enlist the ACLU on your behalf.

Remember that I said in my post that there is a major disconnect between privacy in law and privacy in the hearts and minds of the populace. You need to look at what the law says about privacy and then get the laws changed.

Charles Blount

10-05-2007, 03:54 PM

Thank you very much Mike in response to my comment. Hopefully you will have the time to elborate on the two. The networking and the system itself. I'm in a situation where I can't comment on some of the above statements as of yet but thee above readings sounds a little profound and I would like to read them so I can comment. ;)

Legal Affairs

10-05-2007, 05:28 PM

When we think the laws are wrong, we have the obligation to get them changed.
And "change" is what happened in the State of Colorado over the privacy of corporation officers, owners, stock holders, and directors.

Some states allow anyone to access the private names and addresses of corporate officers of a PI Agency. But recently, the lawmakers in Colorado changed their regulations to prevent the public from snooping around the private lives of corporate officers. The State of Colorado no longer asks for the names of the officers! It is now 100% private, listing only the designated Registered Agent to receive mail.

Using Colorado as a headquarter corporation, owners can now file to do business in other states while keeping the ownership is private.

Another move from no privacy to privacy. Perhaps we could use more.

Gilbert Williams

11-28-2007, 10:30 AM

Thanks for that info. But, here in Chicago they don't do that . what they do is as long as they doesn't cause a disturbance or its a mob then they'll do something . As far as 3 people to them it's just a waste of time , effort and energy.

Gilbert Williams

Joshua Watson

12-04-2007, 08:39 PM

That is a very interesting article to have read. Now if that doesn't leave you with a blank look on your face i dont know what will. :o

Marcus Fletcher

01-11-2008, 02:47 AM

Thanks for sharing good info.

Gilbert Williams

01-11-2008, 06:16 AM

:cool:Hello everyone ,
Every law enforcement personnel should ID themselves especially in the public sector. the police here in Chicago wheather its in the store, paying a bill, etc. As, for PI we dont have to do that it is our decision if we want to do that or not. Me personaly I would just not to cause unneccesary problems

Gilbert C Williams Sr
GCADD1 Investigations
gilbert.williams@pi-agency.us
Badge#4350
PERC# 129-043500 IL
:cool::D

Thad James

01-26-2008, 10:00 AM

Sharky:
New World Order, The only thing that comes to mind as to why arrest someone without proper ID. Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America is a treaty of sorts that our president has called into play while we were asleep.

Check out www.spp.com for yourself its coming and coming fast. If Americans, Mexicans and Canadians all stood in one room and did not speak you could not tell what nationality they were. And get this, there is talk of changing the American dollar to fit this event and also new forms of ID. What use to be American want be American anymore.

Michael, I am so angry this happened to you.

Michael Harris

01-26-2008, 02:17 PM

Thad,

The URL you wanted is http://www.spp.gov/. It appears to be no later than 2006. It was posted by Department of Commerce - I have no respect for them. I am not sure that I want to read the propaganda on the SPP, but I guess I will.

Second, thanks for your concern.

Kevin A Curtis

02-01-2008, 03:14 AM

While I can't really debate with clarity the whole scope of the issue, I can say from my own experiences that it helps to have your Driver's License on you at all times. And while I could care less if a policeman wants to see my ID (Driver's License ONLY), making it grounds for arrest for failing to produce one (when not driving of course) is at the very least a violation of the 4th Amendment.

In my former profession one was expected to carry his/her CDL at all times as a cop could ask you to produce it at any time. Failure to do so when operating a Commercial Vehicle is grounds for arrest for operating a commercial motor vehicle without a CDL. No second chances, no "I left it at home." Go to Jail. Go Directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.00.

So in short, asking for my CDL, meh. Arresting me for refusing to produce it when peaceably going about my business (and not driving), then we will have problems.

Michael Harris

02-01-2008, 07:34 AM

Kevin,

You are correct about a driver's license - it proves your right to drive. If you are not driving or even in the vehicle, it has no legal value.

Gary Krisulevicz

02-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Yes, you do indeed have the right to remain silent. What most people forget t remember is that, while you are remaining silent, te police have the authority to detain you until they are able to ascertain your identity to ensure that you are not a criminal with warrants or on some terrorist watch list. You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!

Dom is completely, 100% correct here folks. As bad as it seems to everyone, this particular little bit of law has been in effort for 20+ years and has been consitantly held up by all courts liberal and conservative. The word used is not "arrested" as the left wingers call it but Detained is the correct terminology. I personally have taken people 20 miles away to have them fingerprinted, identies confirmed and a warrants run completed. If they came back clear I said "adios, have a nice day". My problem child was now 20 miles away from my beat - on foot. Stinks I know, but completely legal.

Michael Harris

02-01-2008, 02:25 PM

Gary,

Detained means that you are not free to come and go as you please. This matches the definition of 'Arrest'.

Gary Krisulevicz

02-01-2008, 06:32 PM

Nope. Not in any court in this country. True under a lawful detention you are not free to leave until the officer decides you are it is quite different from an arrest. For example in a DWI stop, you are stopped, asked to exit the vehicle, perform sobriety tests. If the officer believes you to be drunk you are handcuffed, placed in a patrol car, your vehicle is most likely impounded. You are then taken to provide a sample of breath. If and I say "if" you do not blow over the legal limit you are released, taken to your vehicle and cut loose. I've actually done this once. Now if you blow over the legal limit, you are then officially arrested. Everything up until that point has been a detention to detect the elements of a crime that may have taken place. Granted that I'd say 85% of the time a person is detained it eventually turns into an arrest but there are differences. So, saying all this and I will admit the general perception is they are one in the same - they are not. For the person being detained it doesn't seem any different and a good officer will make the distiction to the detainee so they know every step of the way what is taking place, in a court of law these very minor differences can make or break a case. I have advised on cases of DWI for example again to defense lawyers who want to find a mistake the officer made to get their client off. When reviewing officer's tapes the number 1 thing that gets every client off is when they fail the sobriety tests the officer says "I am placing you under arrest for DWI". That gets them off every time and is a mistake on the officer's part. I hope this explains it a little.

Michael Harris

02-01-2008, 07:30 PM

It is still the inability to come and go as you please. You can be hauled down to the police station and held for hours without any rights. Detain and arrest have the same end - loss of freedom, but arrest gives you rights.

It is legal weasel-wording.

Gary Krisulevicz

02-01-2008, 07:39 PM

Yup. When in the biz I would use any tool at my disposal to remove a problem child from my area of responsibility. These are legal tools awarded many years ago by the politicians voted into power by the citizens of the USA. People of the 60's movement to be exact. This is not something as a result of the new world order coming into play. It is what it is. What we don't like we have the power to change if we choose to.

Richard Moschetti Jr

02-10-2008, 10:19 PM

As far as I'm concerned as a Law Enforcement Officer, I think everyone should carry a picture I.D. What happens if you are in an accident and are unconscious or dead? The police would have to make you a John Doe/ Jane Doe. If you have a cellphone have emergency phone numbers identified with name and ICE for in case of emergency or name and 911 for emergency notifications in case you can't tell the police or paramedic who you are.

Michael Harris

02-11-2008, 07:08 AM

Richard,

There is a difference between carrying something that identifies you and lets emergency personnel notify someone on your behalf and having to carry--and produce--legal ID.

When I was 18 (during the Vietnam War), the only things that were considered legal ID were passports and draft cards. We were required to have our draft cards on us at all times and produce them for the police if requested. We have moved on from those days of repression.

Should people have ID for emergency purposes? Yes. Should the police be allowed to demand ID without probable cause? No.

Gary Krisulevicz

02-28-2008, 12:45 PM

Not to beat a dead horse but I have been thinking about this and I just gave a speech to a local PBA about cases I have worked where my job was to review officer's reports and determine if PC existed or were any search & seizure rules violated - Let me say Cops don't like this. So anyway all this had me thinking again and I simply do not have the answers I'd like.

In the previous posts I believe Mike you said you were arrested for taking pictures on one of my lovely local boardwalks right? Now by "arrested" do you mean you were hauled in, photographed, placed in a cell, made bail and are awaiting a trial?

OR were you simply spoken to by the police, not free to leave until your ID was verified and they found you were clear of any warrants then cut you loose without charges?

If you were arrested using the legal definition meaning jail, I'd love more info on this. Not to share publicly here but when I do training talks (my words not theirs) I address these things so the police know what is going on and what they are doing wrong. I'd be very interested as a matter of fact. Certainly their legal departments would love to hear it.

Michael Harris

02-28-2008, 12:53 PM

Gary,

I do not believe that I ever used the term 'arrested'. If I did, I did not mean a formal arrest. However, for everyone who speaks and understands English, 'detained' and 'arrested' are the same idea - not free to go.

I received apologies from the Mayor's office, the Chief of Police, and the Patrol Commander. The County Prosecutor did not believe that the patrol officers acted legally, but refused to be explicit about it.

Gary Krisulevicz

04-01-2008, 03:15 PM

To All:

As far as I am concerned, I was illegally arrested. It may have been "police business", but it was more "economic business".

Detained, fully clarified now, Thank You. I would venture a suggestion though, if this exact instance happened to someone else who was a pedophile snapping pictures of kids and making the adults nearby nervous enough to make the call to police.......We'd all be clapping the police on the back right? I mean because then they'd just be doing their job.....right?

Michael Harris

04-01-2008, 03:51 PM

Gary,

Since when is taking photographs in public a crime?

Gary Krisulevicz

04-02-2008, 10:04 AM

This discussion can go on all day but no, no crime took place by the obvious fact you were not arrested. You got the political answer of "We are so sorry this happened..." the officers got an "unfounded" complaint in their file and everyone goes their separate ways. The reality of it is they acted correctly and most likely still do the exact same thing today - and I would advise they keep it up - and you are in the police files as a suspect contact. Life goes on.

Lynn E Payne

09-15-2008, 10:10 AM

That was a very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

Richard Moschetti Jr

09-15-2008, 11:34 AM

If you are taking pictures of children and adults see you taking pictures they should call the police on you. If you're a Licensed Private Investigator on a case then you should have notified the police before you even started your surveillance. You tell them your name,cellphone #, make/model of your vehicle, tag #, where you are and approximately how long you will be there. This eliminates you being detained by the police. If confronted by the police by showing your PI license you will be fine. If you're not breaking any laws, by law they can't ask you who you're watching/photographing or who hired you. This comes with experience.

Edward Opperman -

09-15-2008, 11:44 AM

This may be considered a bit off topic. But did you know that every day people are arrested in this country because an officer ran a warrants check and it returned incorrect information.
Personally I try to avoid all contact with police Even if I'm the victim of a crime I hardly ever report it anymore.

Richard Moschetti Jr

09-15-2008, 04:01 PM

I 'm currently a LEO in Florida and have 23 years experience in NYC Corrections, NYC Police and a Sergeant for the Florida Dept. of Corrections. If you're the victim of a crime and don't report it how are we as Law Enforcement suppossed to respond and arrest the criminal that just raped you? It sounds to me like you have some issues with Law Enforcement(the people who are there to help you). Private Investigators and Law Enforcement are on the same side. Maybe you need to think about a career change and not consider Private Investigation. I know the C.J. system is broke and sometimes innocent people get convicted but if you don't trust the local,state, or federal government how can you be a PI?

Richard Moschetti Jr

09-15-2008, 04:04 PM

There is corruption everywhere and if you don't report it or turn a blind eye to it and let it happen YOU ARE JUST AS GUILTY!!!

Richard Moschetti Jr

09-15-2008, 04:05 PM

If you don't ID yourself to the police and show them your Private Investigator license maybe you have something to hide from the POPO!!!

Edward Opperman -

09-15-2008, 04:34 PM

Hi Richard
It's hard to tell which posts your replying to when you make multiple posts in a row without quoting.

Richard Moschetti Jr

09-21-2008, 04:34 PM

I don't like to qoute people. I calls it like I sees it!!! POLICE EYES never go away they just get keener with more experience.

Lynn E Payne

09-28-2008, 10:55 AM

Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

Edward Opperman -

10-04-2008, 10:21 PM

This is an interesting lecture by a law professor and a police officer on the dangers of talking to police without a lawyer.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/342.html

Richard Moschetti Jr

10-05-2008, 10:21 AM

If you are only identifying yourself to the Police and have nothing to hide, What's the problem??? If you're a criminal or a Terrorist you will give them a false name or run like a Coward!!!

Michael Harris

10-05-2008, 11:55 AM

Richard,

If you listened to the entire program--both the law professor and the police detective, you will understand that talking to the police without an attorney is a dumb idea, especially if you are innocent.

Technical Support - USA

10-05-2008, 02:05 PM

To everyone,

It is okay for everyone to have a personal opinion, but let's make sure we maintain the utmost respect for our other members here.

I suggest members should preface their compassion on certain statements with "In my personal opinion" so as to keep the tone within the desired dialog.

If someone appears to make an idiotic comment, usually by stating your own belief is suffice without calling the opinion's author an idiot.

Thank you for your support.

Technical Support - USA

10-05-2008, 02:12 PM

In my personal opinion:

There are many good officers out there and if an officer asks me for identifcation and it is a simple request, then I will keep it simple by complying. If I am arrested falsely because of a mis-identification, then it will be by far an exception and not the rule of the day.

In this day and age I suggest professionals and PI's should obtain the latest version of the US Passport and approved national security version of a state drivers license. Both items are now what LEO's prefer because of the new safeguards.

Additionally, carry with you a copy of a letter from the fingerprint division of the FBI on your own prints that states "No record found". The cost for the print check and letter is about $20. The FBI will classify your prints to separate them from anyone else who might have the same DOB and POB. I usually carry the folder letter within my passport.

And last, at anytime I may feel an officer is asking intrusive questions, I am free to ask him "Am I suspect or person of Interest? Should I refer you to my attorney?" (And then see what the officer's response is)

Edward Opperman -

10-05-2008, 02:47 PM

Hi Tech

The video I posted goes a bit further than that. Citing the case of Martha Stewart.Certainly no one thinks Martha Stewart is a terrorist.
She was not even charged with the original crime she was being questioned about. She lied to investigators and that's why she was convicted.
She felt she could speak to the police without an attorney and wound up in jail over it.
The law professor and police officer both mention hat it's common for people under interrogation to say things that are false and could only lead to trouble.

Question: "The police are here. They want to talk to me. What should I do?"

Answer: "Make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

Chris Holtzinger -

10-05-2008, 07:33 PM

I found this link to be very good info. and common sense.

Carl Scheck -

10-31-2008, 05:25 AM

Richard Moschetti Jr

10-31-2008, 04:28 PM

That depends on the situation. I'm currently a Law Enforcement Officer and if I stop and question you because of probable cause that a crime was commited and you fit the description of the perp, you are not going to just walk away from me.

Edward Opperman -

10-31-2008, 06:57 PM

I am currently getting my associates degree in criminal justice. What I had learned is that if an officer of the law comes up and questions you, you have the right to just walk on by him. But it could have a different effect in different states I believe.

That's known as something called "the right of conversation" or something like that. You have the right to approach anyone and strike up a conversation and they have the right to ignore you and keep walking.

Gary Krisulevicz

11-07-2008, 12:06 PM

I have been remiss in this posting as I have been extremely busy working, having a rare day off I am going through all the boards I belong to to see what is going on. I am relatively happy to see the spirit of this thread continuing. The laws concerning this are mostly case law from long ago. To the best of my knowledge no new case law has arisen concerning warrantless detentions - I say detentions because arrest and detention are 2 very different things regardless of what opinions are being stated here. The rule of law has stood the test of time on this issue for many years and so far remain unchanged. As far as "the right of conversation" in theory Carl is correct. This is a very basic with no "what if's" concept. Meaning if I walk by an officer and he says Good Morning I am in no way legally obligated to either acknowledge or engage in his conversation. However, most police investigations do start out with friendly conversation. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion to talk to you they may very well say "Hey, can I talk to you?" You can say no and keep walking. Just don't be too amazed when you are approached again in a more forceful manner. In either case being respectful and cooperative will get you further from a seat in an interrogation room than not. There are always 2 ways to do things I always let the suspect dictate which way it went.

Carl Scheck -

11-07-2008, 05:35 PM

Thanks for that post it was greatly appreciated and funny, and true also.

William J Withers

03-19-2009, 02:17 PM

I am currently getting my associates degree in criminal justice. What I had learned is that if an officer of the law comes up and questions you, you have the right to just walk on by him. But it could have a different effect in different states I believe.

If an officer stops on reasonable suspicion (note to anyone that wants to argue, I said REASONABLE, let's not split hairs), say someone called and said you had a gun, YOU WILL be stopped and detained. If you attempt to walk away, you will be arrested, if you fail to identify yourself you will be arrested. We'll go back to the "arrested and detained" as being the same thing here. You will be taken into a police station, you will be fingerprinted and photographed. At that time, if you are not wanted, and you did not have a gun, you will be released.

Your rights are not being violated, because of the reasonable suspicion.

What is the major problem with these sort of encounters? It's armchair lawyers, people who want to say they know the law better than you, when you start giving an officer a hard time, you heighten the suspicion against you. If you start yelling and screaming, that give an officer the officer probable cause to arrest you for Disprderly Conduct, while in most states it is only a summary offense, THEY still got what they wanted, your identification, and you ended up spending a few hours in a cell and a decent fine.

I didn't read the whole article that was originally posted, I can only go with what I read on the first page, but again something you need to look at in depth, whether or not the protest was entirely peaceful. Your definition of peaceful and the police definition might be 2 different things. Again, shouting is a very grey area, to what extent is shouting ok and when does it become disorderly?

In PA:

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture;
or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of
the actor.

If any of the participants were involved in any of the above, then whether you want to be technical or not, a crime is being committed and the police have the right to detain you and ask you to identify yourself.

As I said, I can't speak for the overall peacefulness of the protesters, I am trying to give as little insight as to my point of view.

Anyone wants to argue this point, be my guest. I really don't feel like retorting anyone's opinion. This was just mine.

I also want to go on record as saying, people who don't know, really have no business saying that "cops don't know the law" I might not be able to tell you how far from the curb you can keep your trashcan, or how low the tread can be on your tires before it becomes illegal, I can 0000 sure tell you the laws concerning, mere encounters, investigative detentions, unlawful assemblies and stop and frisk rules. Why? Because working in a city which has a lot of gang violence, drug problems and homicides related to both, it's my job to know. Is a peaceful protest the same? No... Is it governed by the same laws? You bet.

Marcus Fletcher

03-19-2009, 10:28 PM

mj fletcher///very interesting and political

Jackie Stewart

06-08-2009, 11:05 AM

As far as I am concerned, the government has out done itself this time. They can and will violate your rights without you ever even knowing about it. Since 9/11 our leaders have tried to find every way possible to restrict our freedoms and take away our rights and we are letting them get away with it. It's always wrapped up in some form of "we are protecting you against terrorists". I think it's a bunch of 0000! With my recent history of dealing with the FBI and the State Department and how they "handle things" I don't believe anything they say to me anymore.

Michael Harris

06-08-2009, 04:40 PM

Jackie,

Lately, I have noticed that my local police patrol officers are giving bad advice. I live in New Jersey, which is unfriendly for knife owners. The police have been telling people that knives in NJ cannot have a blade that is longer than the width of your four fingers. Having read the law on knives, I know that this state does not have any length limit. The police are committing the Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL), which is a crime, when they give out information like this.

Much of what the police do is not in accordance with law. The police are about the most ill-informed group when it comes to the law.

I will not mention the group with whom I work, but I have a legal plan that lets me talk to my lawyers on a daily basis. I recently had them spend three days researching knives--I am a collector and can own and display any edged weapon I want (maybe not a ballistic knife) without regard to what is legal to carry. The law is silent on ownership.

The bottom line is that the police mean well, but they are not lawyers and cannot legally interpret the law.

Forgive me if I went a little off topic, but the issue is The Police Do Not Have The Answers.

Jackie Stewart

06-09-2009, 12:00 AM

Michael,
I don't know about the police, I have been arrested once about 12 years ago and they had to drop the charges against me. The city was afraid that I would sue them for false arrest and I probably would have won. But that is another story.
My recent experience has been with the FBI, State Department, and the military (specifically the hostage working group) during the investigation into my son's disappearance along with 4 other people from his company.
Although we know it was an inside job, no one has looked that hard at the managing partner or the director of security for their part in it.(if they had one)
I buried my only child last year and the only thing I have been told so far is that they are still investigating, and it's classified.
There is a book written about it called Big Boy Rules by Steve Fainaru from the Washington Post. Except for one minor detail, the book is spot on.
That is what has fueled me to learn about private investigation. I don't believe anything that anyone tells me anymore. My son deserves better than that. I'm going to find out what really happened to him if it kills me.
The point is, all law enforcement, to me, is suspect anymore. I don't care where you operate, in this country or another one.

Jackie,

Lately, I have noticed that my local police patrol officers are giving bad advice. I live in New Jersey, which is unfriendly for knife owners. The police have been telling people that knives in NJ cannot have a blade that is longer than the width of your four fingers. Having read the law on knives, I know that this state does not have any length limit. The police are committing the Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL), which is a crime, when they give out information like this.

Much of what the police do is not in accordance with law. The police are about the most ill-informed group when it comes to the law.

I will not mention the group with whom I work, but I have a legal plan that lets me talk to my lawyers on a daily basis. I recently had them spend three days researching knives--I am a collector and can own and display any edged weapon I want (maybe not a ballistic knife) without regard to what is legal to carry. The law is silent on ownership.

The bottom line is that the police mean well, but they are not lawyers and cannot legally interpret the law.

Forgive me if I went a little off topic, but the issue is The Police Do Not Have The Answers.