Posted on 08/26/2005 4:37:24 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Until last year, Tanya Ortega de Chamberlin had a clean record, with no criminal convictions or even an arrest. But her refusal to provide her date of birth or Social Security number to a South Salt Lake police officer changed that.
Although she was not suspected of committing a crime, and eventually provided the requested information, Ortega de Chamberlin was still cited based on her initial resistance.
The obstruction charges against her were later dropped. But Ortega de Chamberlin says that's not good enough - she has filed a lawsuit asking for a declaration that her constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. She also wants reimbursement of the money she spent fighting the criminal case.
Capt. Chris Snyder said Thursday that the department cannot comment on pending litigation.
The legal action, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, gives this account of the incident:
On Nov. 4 about 12:30 p.m., Ortega de Chamberlin, a photographer who lives in Salt Lake City, was standing on a public sidewalk near 3021 S. Main St. when Officer B. Heddlesten approached her. The officer said she was not suspected of a crime, but demanded the photographer give him her name, date of birth and Social Security number and tell him whether she had a driver license.
Ortega de Chamberlin gave her name but told the officer she was not required by law to provide the other information he requested.
In response to her repeated questions, Heddlesten said he did not think she had committed a crime or was attempting to commit one, according to the suit. However, the officer still insisted that she had to tell him the information; his supervisor, Sgt. Brian Stahle, who arrived at their location, backed him up.
Under threat of arrest, Ortega de Chamberlin finally complied, but was cited for allegedly interfering with or obstructing an officer by giving false information and by refusing to give information. Her suit says she then was put in handcuffs and placed in a police car until the officers changed their minds about taking her to jail and released her.
The charges were dismissed before trial, but Ortega de Chamberlin still has a criminal accusation on her record.
Why did they want her info?
Somewhere someone once told me that a cop does not need probable cause to ask for identification.
What I don't remember is if they need probable cause to "insist" on identification.
I hope she breaks these thugs' backs. Talk about abuse of power ...
Can I hire this guy to come over and kick my dog, too?
If he did, there probably wouldn't be much you could do
about it.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
It sounds like unreasonable hassling to me at first reading, but obviously there is a lot of information not included in this story, such as what was going on that caused the officer to seek to identify the photographer.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Whats gonna do whats gonna do when they come for you. Bad Cop bad Cop.
Papers Please!
Where I live the PD runs CIBRs on everybody they come in contact with. Pitiful
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
A cop (any citizen) has a right to ask another for ID. You also have the right to refuse, but depending on the circumstances, you have to deal with the consequences.
It is not considered an invasion of privacy.
Left unanswered: Is this an illegal immigrant we're talking about?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
We're done.
I need more info before I can blame the cops here. One, what is the area like? If its a high crime area, or one with prostitution present, then maybe the officer had some reason to do this.
I do not trust the media to give all the details. There are some serious questions that need to be answered before can say which side is in the wrong.
It very well may be the officer overstepped his bounds. The fact that the officers supervisor backed him up leads me to think there was some reason for the request.
I guess the courts will work it all out, like it should.
This sort of reminds me of those old black and white movies where the German Gestapo agent walks up to the hero and says "papers please".
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.