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

[David Copeland]

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)

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

www.privateinvestigators.cc

[Patrice-Maria Love]

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 -]

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 -]

Thanks For Sharing This, It Was Very Informative.

Sam Jones

[Arnel Valenzuela]

This is a great article. Thanks for sharing.

[Vincent Haynes]

Great information. Thanks.

[Tiffany H. Causey -]

Definitely, food for thought.

Thanks

[Pam Reed-Wallinger]

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 -]

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!

[Damon Wade]

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]

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.

[LaRue Boyd -]

That was a very interesting article thank you for sharing.

[Vickie Rutledge]

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

[Mark Buda -]

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]

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]

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]

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!

Patrice-Maria,

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

[Michael Harris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Michael Harris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 -]

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

[Michael Harris]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.