Skip to comments.You don't need my name (Rocky Face man takes Fourth Amendment claims to federal court)
Posted on 08/25/2013 11:43:11 AM PDT by GrootheWanderer
During the traffic stop, after Keith tells Robinson to just let his driver take him home, Robinson asks for Keiths identification. Keith refuses. You dont need my name, Keith says, arguing that because he is only a passenger during the traffic stop and isnt suspected of committing a crime, he doesnt have to submit to demands for identification.
Keith asks if theyre being detained and on what charge. Robinson says possibly underage consumption.
Keith said he believes Robinson was just fishing for something to charge him with when he wouldnt provide his ID. Robinson didnt settle on the charge until late into the traffic stop after first suggesting possible charges of underage consumption and littering. Before he made the arrest, he radioed someone to ask for advice.
What is the ... I know theres something that says they must present their ID or their name when asked to, Robinson is heard saying on the video.
There is a pause.
Hes saying hes not going to give me his name, hes not going to give me any information. I mean, have I got anything to ... public intoxication? Well, its in an indecent manner, dont you think? ... Whenever he stuck his head out the window and was puking all over the place. And basically I was stopping him to see if he was OK, but he wants to cause a stink and tell me he doesnt have to present his ID and he doesnt have to tell me his name.
At the end of the video, Robinson is heard talking to the driver and saying he likely would have let Keith go if he had just cooperated.
Had he been compliant, I would have said, Thank you for being a responsible person, Robinson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at daltondailycitizen.com ...
He's filed suit against the police. I guess we'll see how he does in court.
It depends, did he step out of the car. If so, yes
he can be charged. Happened to a friend of mine.
Interesting case: does vomiting on a public thoroughfare initiate a request for ID? Can’t wait for Scalia to weigh-in.
In California, vomiting on a public highway is a violation of the state’s litering law.
If you have a September ping list, please put me on it if you find out what happened.
Here, about 4 years ago, a teen ran a stop sign and was pulled over. No, there wasn’t alcohol or drugs involved, just a traffic violation. The only one who got snippy was the cop. He demanded the teen passenger provide a drivers’ license. The kid didn’t have one and asked why since he wasn’t driving. The cop got angry so the kid showed him his military ID from his dad which showed all his info. The cop threatened to write him up until, thankfully, the dad was nearby and was able to get there in time. That was at the beginning of today’s ninja cops. If it’s happened today, both kids would be behind bars for questioning the cop and calling the dad.
If you don’t fear the police, how can you respect them?
In a nearby city, a friendly local bartender was kind enough to offer some good advice when I was last there. He warned that if I drove there I should park close by but not anywhere near a half block of the pub. Seems the local LEOs have this habit of cruising by regularly and writing down the license plates of any vehicles parked in the lot or nearby, then would run the plates to find out where the registered owner lived.
If the RO was still at the pub after some time, they would selectively cruise by the home at various times to see if they could spot you arriving and then investigate. If you drove home they would run a sobriety test which was usually high if you did as most of us do which is to guzzle the last drink before heading out, and arrest you for DWI as well as impounding the vehicle. If they saw you walking home because you knew that you were too full up to drive they would stop you and then arrest you for public intoxication.
I think this is equal parts fourth amendment and police control issues. Unfortunately, in recent years, the courts have been willing to cede fourth amendment rights to the idea that “police need to control situations.”
This is a flawed judicial philosophy.
Ideally, police detention and arrest are based on probable cause. However, in this case, probable cause was based on a fishing expedition *after* detention. And this matters.
Police need the ability to approach those in obvious distress, say vomiting out a car window. However, like paramedics, if someone declines assistance, as long as they are conscious, this should be the end of it.
But the primary purpose of police is not the same as paramedics. Importantly, the courts have ruled that in the course of their actions, the police happen to see something illegal, they should be able to do something about it.
But what they see must be unlawful, in and of itself. They should not be able to use query based interrogation to determine if there is probable cause, *after* they have detained someone. It is putting the cart before the horse.
Any legal violations would be entirely dependent on the suspects race.
I do know law enforcement, both city and county, like to arrest people for things that never go to trial. The charges will be quietly dropped without telling the person who was arrested. Of course, they don't automatically send a bail refund. If you don't keep checking, and some people fear doing so, you won't get your bail money back.
I worked with a woman who was pulled over, on her way to work around 2:30 pm, because her tag had expired. The Whitfield county officer arrested her, not for an expired tag, he arrested her because she took an anti anxiety medication in front of him. The prescription medication was in the proper bottle with her name on it. But officer Wheeler, head of the DUI task force, said he couldn't be sure of her reaction to the medication, and because he thought he smelled alcohol on her breath and she was too upset to take a field sobriety test, he couldn't let her drive. He also couldn't; let her leave her car parked on the hotel parking lot where he pulled her over, drop her off down the street where she worked, let her walk to her place if employment (a walking distance of five minutes). He took her to jail and locked her up for eight hours.
Even though her blood tests showed only her prescribed medications, the charges were not dropped immediately. She had to call once a week to check on her court date. This cost her about a thousand dollars in lost wages, car impound and towing, and attorney's fee.
This happened a few years ago. Joann died (I think from the stress) before she ever found out if her case was going to trial. I kept telling her, "They know they have no case, they're hoping to just let this die. They don't want to admit there was no reason to arrest you, because they're afraid of how it looks. Handcuffing a fifty+ year old woman and throwing her in jail for taking medication for an anxiety attack."
There once was a time "Defend and Serve" was something you could believe in. Today, it's just a joke.
But officer Wheeler, head of the DUI task force, said he couldn’t be sure of her reaction to the medication,
When I was a kid I was caught drunk driving on my way home. The High Patrol knew my family gave me some stern advice and told be to get home, that he never wanted to see me again officially and he followed me home. Now, if my chance I had had an accident on the way home, whose fault would it have been? Obvious answer, MINE.
But if it happened today, whose fault would it be? Answer is the Police Officer......................
She had taken the medication for twenty years, the original prescription date was on the bottle. She told him that having taken it for twenty years, she should know what the effects would be. As I told her, “If you shouldn’t drive while on this medication, they need to revoke driving privileges of everyone for whom it is prescribed.” The cautions online for the drug, which could have been accessed with his laptop, said care should be taken operating machinery until you knew how you would react to it. Also, at 2:30 pm he could have called her pharmacy to find out if the drug was a problem. I hope to G-d I would not have done what he did.
That's a hypothetical, so any answer I give is suspect. Nonetheless, no. I would not do the same thing. It's ridiculous.
Just trying to explain the rules to you, liking them is optional. I don’t like them.
I was checking out that paper’s Facebook page. It looks like most of the people posting there are defending the officer.