Arrest For ID Refusal Unwarranted

[hammAR]

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008/04/07...rday/news10.txt

Court: Arrest For ID Refusal Unwarranted
By Rob Moritz

LITTLE ROCK — A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.

“It is amazing how many times I have had people convicted for doing the same thing,” said Rogers attorney Doug Norwood. “You have to have a reasonable suspicion that the individual person is either committing a crime or about to.”

Norwood filed the original lawsuit on behalf of Richard M. Stufflebeam of Lowell.

Stufflebeam was a passenger in his grandson’s car in May 2003 when the vehicle was stopped by a state trooper. The driver was not issued a citation during the traffic stop. When Trooper Jeff W. Harris asked the grandfather for identification, he told the officer he did not have to show any ID.

“It was an afterthought,” Norwood said. “The officer asked Mr. Stufflebeam for his ID and he said ‘no.’”

The trooper “returned to his vehicle and requested backup,” the court said.

“When two additional officers arrived, Harris asked Stufflebeam to exit the vehicle,” the ruling said, adding that Stufflebeam was handcuffed and placed in the back of the trooper’s cruiser. He was taken to jail and charged with obstructing governmental operations.

The prosecutor’s office later dismissed the charge in district court and Stufflebeam filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Harris, alleging the trooper had no probable cause to arrest him.

U.S. District Court Judge Jimm Hendren dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the trooper had qualified immunity as a police officer and that Stufflebeam failed to state a claim. Stufflebeam appealed to the 8th Circuit.

In its ruling Friday, the federal court panel referenced a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”

There was no evidence Stufflebeam was trying to obstruct justice when he refused to identify himself, the appeals court said.

“Thus, the primary question ... is whether Arkansas law permits a police officer to arrest a person for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of other criminal activity and his identification is not needed to protect officer safety or to resolve whatever reasonable suspicions prompted the officer to initiate an ongoing traffic stop. We conclude it does not,” the court said.

The court also said the state trooper did not have qualified immunity from the lawsuit under state statute

[Pat Cannon]

He was taken to jail and charged with obstructing governmental operations.

Wow, there's a catch-all charge.

[David]

Two other types of heinous crimes I recently found out about:

Five states have banned the "irresponsible use of Silly String" along parade routes.

In Turkey, the crime of "insulting the military" can carry a lengthy prison sentence.

[Tutmos]

It's about time a ruling like this came along. I was waiting for my next police enounter to include the phrase, "let me see your papers!" Even more important than the ruling that they can't ask for ID, if not a cause for the action, is that the officer is personally liable for his actions and doesn't get blanket immunity for whatever ego stroking bender he/she goes on. You might find they'll be fewer AH police out there if their personal income is at stake.

[GregM]

Under what circumstances would it be in my best interests NOT to show my I.D. to an officer?

I can't think of any ...

[princewally]

Under what circumstances would it be in my best interests NOT to show my I.D. to an officer?

I can't think of any ...

It's the principle. Government should always be held to what it is allowed to do, or supposed to do, not what it wants to do. What benefit is there, to you, to show your ID to any curious officer?

[GregM]

I agree. Officers should be held to the law.

But the court didn't say that the officer shouldn't have asked Shufflebeam for I.D. in the first place. The court said that the officer shouldn't have arrested Mr. Shufflebeam for refusing to show I.D.

We don't know why the officer asked Shufflebeam for identification. Maybe he just didn't like Shufflebeam's face.

We also don't know why Shufflebeam refused. The attorney says it was just an "afterthought." So Shufflebeam had no particular reason not to show his I.D. The answer "No" just popped into his head.

So back to my original question: What would be a valid reason for refusing to show I.D.?

[mitchx3]

So back to my original question: What would be a valid reason for refusing to show I.D.?

I think the point is that you dont need a valid reason to refuse to show ID.

If the question was: What scenarios would it be beneficial to an individual to refuse to show ID? It has worked out well for some protesters (Philadelphia?) that have been arrested in that they have been released without ever being positively identified and escaped having violations put on their records.

[GregM]

Well, I don't do many protest rallies these, but I'll keep it in mind.

[Tutmos]

As Mitch pointed out it's a slippery slope Greg. Under your logic we should allow the police to have rotating checkpoints throughout the city that allow full searches of your car. It would cut down on uninsured motorists, drunk drivers and car thieves. Under what circumstance would it be advantageous to not let a cop randomly search your car? Why not let them spot check houses while they're at it. You have nothing to worry about unless you're a criminal right?

Police should be allowed to do absolutely nothing that they aren't expressly authorizaed to by law.

[GregM]

The point of the article was that the police are not supposed to ARREST me because I don't show I.D.

But they are allowed to ASK me for I.D.

As for that slippery slope: We are already dealing with increased security levels in airports, courthouses, schools, etc. Given the nature of the terrorist threat (as I see it, anyway) I won't be surprised if the police are given broader authority to look for troublemakers --- at the inconvenience and expense of the rest of us.

[princewally]

The point of the article was that the police are not supposed to ARREST me because I don't show I.D.

But they are allowed to ASK me for I.D.

They are allowed to ask anything they like. There is currently no law requiring any of us to carry papers proving who we are, and no law requiring our cooperation with a request like this.

[Fast351]

...the police are given broader authority to look for troublemakers --- at the inconvenience and expense of the rest of us.

One man's inconvenience is another mans freedom.

It's a less than popular opinion with conservatives, but I'm of the opinion that the generic "terrorism" phrase has been used to justify an invasion on our liberties in far too many cases in the last 7 years.

The framers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the fact that they wanted the government as small of a role as possible in order to protect the freedom and individual liberties of "we the people". The last 20-30 years we have seen a significant erosion of our rights in the name of security from terrorism and other evils.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

fcuk me people.................the fur'ner knows this

[Pat]

Under what circumstances would it be in my best interests NOT to show my I.D. to an officer?

I can't think of any ...

Uh, well let's just say that it is the year 1939, and we are standing in front of St. Michaels church, downtown Munich...

"Your papers!" demands the police officer.
"Yes sir, of course. Here you are, sir," says Greg.
"Hold on a minute," says the cop. "It shows here that you are a Jew, but why aren't you wearing that f^cking star?" Cop blows his whistle, while beating Greg to the ground. Children giggle, and an old man spits.
Greg doesn't come home for dinner.