4 ms·

Based on the details of the encounter, I would disagree. The police repeatedly (apparently) asked for his ID and escalated the encounter. Based on those facts,

by runako 10y ago

Based on the details of the encounter, I would disagree. The police repeatedly (apparently) asked for his ID and escalated the encounter. Based on those facts, I would not assume that I was not being detained and was free to go. The Supreme Court has held that even if the police have a flawed understanding of the laws and rules they are enforcing, their flawed interpretation governs the interaction on the street. So what the office believed matters, and that in turn guides his/her behavior. If you're in the right, you can usually be vindicated after a brief trip through the criminal justice system (arrest, jail, court). But it's guaranteed to ruin your day. Safest bet would have been to ask "Am I free to go?" to find out.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The police repeatedly (apparently) asked for his ID and escalated the encounter. Based on those facts, I would not assume that I was not being detained and was free to go. Even if one is detained, one is not legally obligated to produce ID (even if one has it in one's possession, which also is not required.)
- maxerickson 10y ago
  What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ? I would think there is some overlap between reasons to invoke those statutes and reasons to detain. Is it simply the case that none of those laws require production of a document?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Stop and identify statutes apply to detentions (they are not merely overlapping), but AFAIK the only one requiring identity documents considered by the federal courts was struck down as unconstitutional.
- runako 10y ago
  Reiterating a point from my comment (and others here): you can be right legally, but you may have to risk jail to prove yourself right. In practice, this means that you may assert your right to the police officer, who stridently disagrees based on his misunderstanding of the law. You will then be put into handcuffs and taken into custody (at best) and be jailed. Your arrest mugshots will be posted to the public Internet, handily available for any employer doing a background check on you. You will get someone to come to the jail and post bail on your behalf. You will spend money on a lawyer to defend you. Your charges may be summarily dismissed, but you may not find that out until the day of your court appearance (so you had to hire a lawyer anyway). You will have proven your point. It's far easier to ask "Am I free to go?" in an encounter like the one described. Even better: ask a civilian for directions.
  - gvurrdon 10y ago
    Generally good advice, of course. However, I note as a counter example that the last time I asked a member of the public for directions it was in the US, in Baltimore, the morning before a riot. He directed us to a station far from where we needed to be and in an area of town which looked a bit dodgy.
20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
> "The Supreme Court has held that even if the police have a flawed understanding of the laws and rules they are enforcing, their flawed interpretation governs the interaction on the street." Gee, how convenient. And not consistent with the constitution, particularly according to this case, the fourth amendment doesn't have an exception for "cases where the agent of the state is confused".

by runako 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The police repeatedly (apparently) asked for his ID and escalated the encounter. Based on those facts, I would not assume that I was not being detained and was free to go. Even if one is detained, one is not legally obligated to produce ID (even if one has it in one's possession, which also is not required.)

maxerickson 10y ago
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes ? I would think there is some overlap between reasons to invoke those statutes and reasons to detain. Is it simply the case that none of those laws require production of a document?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Stop and identify statutes apply to detentions (they are not merely overlapping), but AFAIK the only one requiring identity documents considered by the federal courts was struck down as unconstitutional.
runako 10y ago
Reiterating a point from my comment (and others here): you can be right legally, but you may have to risk jail to prove yourself right. In practice, this means that you may assert your right to the police officer, who stridently disagrees based on his misunderstanding of the law. You will then be put into handcuffs and taken into custody (at best) and be jailed. Your arrest mugshots will be posted to the public Internet, handily available for any employer doing a background check on you. You will get someone to come to the jail and post bail on your behalf. You will spend money on a lawyer to defend you. Your charges may be summarily dismissed, but you may not find that out until the day of your court appearance (so you had to hire a lawyer anyway). You will have proven your point. It's far easier to ask "Am I free to go?" in an encounter like the one described. Even better: ask a civilian for directions.
- gvurrdon 10y ago
  Generally good advice, of course. However, I note as a counter example that the last time I asked a member of the public for directions it was in the US, in Baltimore, the morning before a riot. He directed us to a station far from where we needed to be and in an area of town which looked a bit dodgy.

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago

> "The Supreme Court has held that even if the police have a flawed understanding of the laws and rules they are enforcing, their flawed interpretation governs the interaction on the street." Gee, how convenient. And not consistent with the constitution, particularly according to this case, the fourth amendment doesn't have an exception for "cases where the agent of the state is confused".