You don't need my name (Rocky Face man takes Fourth Amendment claims to federal court)

The Daily Citizen (Dalton, Georgia) ^ | Aug. 25, 2013 | Rachel Brown

[GrootheWanderer]

During the traffic stop, after Keith tells Robinson to just let his driver take him home, Robinson asks for Keith’s identification. Keith refuses. “You don’t need my name,” Keith says, arguing that because he is only a passenger during the traffic stop and isn’t suspected of committing a crime, he doesn’t have to submit to demands for identification.

Keith asks if they’re 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 wouldn’t provide his ID. Robinson didn’t 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 there’s 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.

“He’s saying he’s not going to give me his name, he’s not going to give me any information. I mean, have I got anything to ... public intoxication? Well, it’s in an indecent manner, don’t 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 doesn’t have to present his ID and he doesn’t 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.

[GrootheWanderer]

Interesting case involving the passenger of a truck who refused to provide his ID to a police officer after the truck was pulled over. The driver wasn't charged with anything, but the man was charged with public intoxication.

He's filed suit against the police. I guess we'll see how he does in court.

[tet68]

It depends, did he step out of the car. If so, yes
he can be charged. Happened to a friend of mine.

[1rudeboy]

Interesting case: does vomiting on a public thoroughfare initiate a request for ID? Can’t wait for Scalia to weigh-in.

[ArmstedFragg]

In California, vomiting on a public highway is a violation of the state’s litering law.

[MinuteGal]

I'd really like to know the outcome of this case. It IS very interesting....and quite timely given all the "privacy" issues of the day.

If you have a September ping list, please put me on it if you find out what happened.

Leni

[bgill]

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.

[Standing Wolf]

If you don’t fear the police, how can you respect them?

[supercat]

I wish courts would recognize that:

1. For a right to mean anything, citizens must be allowed to exercise it without reprisal.
2. A requirement that cops have e.g. "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" before they can order citizens do to something won't mean much if cops can demand that citizens comply with their orders without having to demonstrate any basis for them. If cops aren't required to demonstrate suspicion or cause cause before a stop or a search, nothing will prevent them from conducting speculative stops or searches in the hope of finding things that may retroactively be declared as a bases for them.
3. The job of courts is, among other things, to ensure that agents of government actually respect the rights enumerated in the Constitution. If a rule is supposed to protect people's rights, and no cop who violates those rights does so without running afoul of the rule, then compliance with the rule may be considered prima facie evidence of respect for the protected rights. If, however, a statute allows cops to discriminate against people who seek to exercise of the protected rights, then it is right and proper for a court to impose remedies or requirements beyond those specified in statute, at least unless or until a new statute is passed to remedy the defects in the old one.

In short, for a right to mean something, someone who has a reasonable basis for believing that a cop's order might plausibly be an illegitimate infringe of that right must, as a consequence have a right, be allowed to demand that the cop dispel any reasonable basis for such belief. It has been shown time and time again that the other supposed remedies for people subjected to illegitimate orders are ineffective. The proper remedy is to state that people are allowed to regard orders which could plausibly be illegitimate as being illegitimate unless the person giving them can demonstrate otherwise.

[Utilizer]

I live in a very rural area, in a county that I believe is one of the poorest in the state. Not a lot of revenue sources so apparently the local LEOs (SD Deputies) tend to get rather creative in their attempts to get dollars into their coffers.

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[PowderMonkey]

Well...that reminds me of the night one of my buddies came upon a pickup truck sitting on I-95, dead still in the left lane. The driver passed out drunk at the wheel. My friend knocked on the window, "Sheriff's Department! Sir, please step from the vehicle." The bleary eyed drunk turned to him and said, "Nah...ain't gonna' do it." Grinning, he continued, "Ifn' ah steps from muh' truck, you will arrest me. Ifn' ah' stays put, ya' cain't touch me!" My buddy said, "Oh, Sir! I'm so sorry. Let me put your troubled mind at ease. You are under arrest. You are now free to get out of the vehicle." With that, the drunk staggered from the truck with a self-satisfied smile and exclaimed, "WELL AWRIGHTY' THEN. THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!"

[The Public Eye]

Any legal violations would be entirely dependent on the suspects race.

[Razz Barry]

I live in Dalton, but this is the first I've heard of this case.

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.

[PeterPrinciple]

But officer Wheeler, head of the DUI task force, said he couldn’t be sure of her reaction to the medication,

---

It is a sad fact but YOU and I would do the same thing in his shoes.

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......................

[Razz Barry]

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.

[BfloGuy]

It is a sad fact but YOU and I would do the same thing in his shoes.

That's a hypothetical, so any answer I give is suspect. Nonetheless, no. I would not do the same thing. It's ridiculous.

[PeterPrinciple]

It’s ridiculous.

---

Yes it is but are you going to risk your profession on what somewhat else might do? Will you risk losing your job? You will be held responsible if things go bad. not the person who does it. I won’t and police officers won’t either

Just trying to explain the rules to you, liking them is optional. I don’t like them.

[RandallFlagg]

Bookmarking

[GrootheWanderer]

I was checking out that paper’s Facebook page. It looks like most of the people posting there are defending the officer.

[Razz Barry]

Yea, a bunch of women, I'll bet. G-d made women too trusting and too willing to give up freedom for safety. The cop just wanted to be an ahole. He should have just dropped it when the young man told him he didn't have to show him ID. But no, the cop had to turn it into a pissing contest that, IMHO, the young man won when the charges were dropped.