Tag Archives: refusal to identify

LVMPD Police Illegally Detain Then Falsely Arrest Las Vegas Man For Not Telling Them His Birthdate

LVMPD Illegal Detention False Arrest Las Vegas Federal Courthouse

Note: This post was shared with Nevada Cop Block via reader submission. If you have videos, stories, or personal interactions with the police (and/or “justice” system) that you would like to share, send them to us and we will do everything we can to bring it to the attention of the world.

Update: I’ve been told that the name of the officer who is wearing the body camera is Officer J. Deel. Also, the officer who orders that Mr. Martinez be (falsely) arrested is named Officer Jenkins. A third officer, who appears on camera at the end while he is being placed in the car, is named Officer Hernandez. (Other officers, who currently have not been identified, were also present.)

In the body camera footage (which was recorded by Officer J. Deel) embedded below, police officers from the LVMPD​ illegally detain then falsely arrest Joshua Martinez outside of the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas​. Initially they approach and ask him for his birthdate, claiming that he is required to identify himself because they “are assisting the federal marshals within the courthouse.” Their only explanation for why he is supposedly required to identify himself to them is because when he tried to enter the courthouse the marshals asked him for ID, which he did not give them.

However, in order for someone to have to identify themselves to the police, they need to be legally detained first. In order to be legally detained, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime, is currently committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. Even if there is a requirement to show ID in order to enter a building (I’ve personally been to the courthouse many times and can’t recall having ever been required to do so), not having that ID or opting against showing it to them is not a crime. It simply means they won’t allow you inside. So that does not satisfy the requirement for reasonable suspicion of a crime.

In the meantime, during the video, they readily admit several times that they are not accusing him of having committed a crime. In addition, they admit that he is on public property and confirm that he has not been trespassed from the property by the federal marshals. Contrary to what they claim while demanding the information that Martinez is under no legal obligation to provide, they are by their own admission not investigating him for having committed a crime.

Since they in fact never legally detained him, he is not under any obligation to identify himself to them. They also never ordered him to leave the courthouse property. So, he’s not disobeying any lawful orders. Therefore their charge of obstruction and the resulting arrest is false and illegal. Cops lie a lot and try to trick you into giving up your rights, but they also often don’t know the laws they are enforcing. This actually looks like the latter case.

See the original (raw) body cam video here at Joshua Martinez’ YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/riA0TcO7QnE

Norfolk Constabulary Kidnap UK CopBlocker Marcus Potter for Publicly Filming Cops Outside a McDonald’s

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network by Marcus Potter, a UK CopBlocker who has submitted numerous other videos (see “related posts” section below) to the CopBlock Network, as well. It was shared via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

In this post, marcus was legally filming several cops inside a McDonald’s. Soon after, a manager takes offense to him filming the inside of the store, even though it is clearly within public view from the outside. Also, in spite of his claim that they “can’t be filmed,”  that manager even states that they have cameras of their own inside.

Whether the fact he was filming the police is related to his complaint isn’t clear, but regardless of that, this complaint is used as an excuse by officers from the Norfolk Constabulary to first harass and demand ID from Marcus and then to illegally arrest him, when he refuses those demands.

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Date Of Incident: February 2, 2017
Officers Involved: PCs Christopher Giddens #31 and Katie Swann #1161, Sgt. Daniel Smith #3427, Sgt. Youngs #174, and Sgt Willows #702
Department Involved: Norfolk Constabulary
Department Telephone No.: +441953424242
Department Facebook Page: Norfolk Constabulary on FB
Department Twitter Account: @NorfolkPolice

 

I was doing some CopBlocking in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK and had pointed my camera into the local McDonald’s, at which point a disgruntled member of staff (Steve) approached me and proceeded to whine about my filming. Sgt, Dan Smith 3427 approached Steve and asked if I was upsetting him or his customers. He explained that he wasn’t allowed to be filmed and that I was upsetting him.

At this point, another officer present, PC Christopher Giddens 31, got out a section 35 pad and Smith used Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 to demand my name and address so that his colleague could issue me with a section 35 notice. I stood my ground and refused to give either officer these details, at which point Giddens arrested and then read the caution to me. Smith then handcuffed me and Smith then conducted a Section 32 PACE search. After this was concluded, I was then placed in the rear of Smith’s van by Giddens and he sat with me in the back whilst Smith drove us to Great Yarmouth Police Investigation Centre.

I was walked up to the holding area by both officers and took a seat whilst the custody sergeant became available. After about five minutes, the buzzer sounded alerting Smith and Giddens that the custody sgt. was available and I was taken to a charge desk where I was booked in by Sgt. Youngs 174 of the Suffolk Constabulary. I cooperated with most questions and provided her with my name (which I hadn’t been asked for prior to this point) but refused to provide my date of birth which she demanded from me using a number of threats.

Eventually, I was subject to a second search, which was conducted by PC Giddens. After this search was concluded, my bag was searched and all possessions were handed to Youngs, including my driving license that stated my date of birth and address. This information was entered onto the computer by Youngs. At this point, I expected to be released from my custody without charge and issued with a section 35 notice. However, I was taken to a cell for no apparent reason and my unlawful detention in custody continued for another six hours.

I was then taken to the charge desk by a police officer, at which point I was charged and released on bail to attend Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court with conditions “Not to enter Great Yarmouth except to attend court or for a prearranged solicitor’s appointment for reason to prevent further offenses on bail” by Sgt Willows 702 of the Suffolk Constabulary. I was then shown out of Great Yarmouth Police Investigation Centre and made my way home. I returned to court and pleaded “no case to answer” and was released on unconditional bail to attend my trial at Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court.

My custody records stated that the circumstances of arrest were: “DP has been at a location filming people outside and inside which has antagonized people & caused issues and was going to be given a sec 35 but refused details.” That my detention was authorized by Sgt Youngs 174 of the Suffolk Constabulary as being necessary for the following purpose: “To ascertain details as DP refuses to provide those details” and that the reasons the arrest was necessary were: “To enable the address of the person in question to be ascertained, per PACE CodeG 2.9 (b). To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained, per PACE CodeG 2.9 (a).” It also stated that the arresting officer was PC Giddens 31, the same officer giving the account of arrest to Youngs, that the escorting officer was Sgt. Smith 3427 and that “The search was conducted by PC31 Giddens.” In relation to my unlawful handcuffing it stated: “Force/Restraint was used because front stack in roder.”

It later transpired from the video footage that PC Giddens spoke to his colleague, PC Katie Swann 1161 whilst Smith searched me and asked her to get a few lines from Steve stating that “distress” was caused by my actions. He explained that I had been arrested under “section 59” which in fact relates to the seizure of vehicles and is a section of the Police Reform Act 2002.

– Marcus D Potter

Related Posts

London Metropolitan Police Attempt to Demand ID From Cameraman at Hackney One Carnival

The following post and accompanying videos were shared with the CopBlock Network by Marcus Potter, who has submitted numerous other videos to the CopBlock Network, as well. It was shared via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page. (See “Related Posts” section below for previous videos submitted by Marcus Potter.)

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Date of Incident: September 11, 2016
Officers Involved: Metropolitan Special Constables Mohammed Rob 5122GD and Egwuatu 5747GD
Department Involved: Metropolitan Police Service
Department Twitter Account: @MPSHackney
Department Facebook Page: Metropolitan Police Service UK
Department Telephone No.: +44300 123 1212

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

This video was filmed on the 11th September 2016 and shows you that the Metropolitan Police Service cannot issue you with a section 35 notice without knowing your name and address. You do not have to give your name and address unless the police have lawful grounds to require them, e.g. under Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

I was recording Metropolitan police officers at the Hackney One Carnival in London, at which point a police officer, namely Metropolitan Special Constable Egwuatu 5747GD, took umbrage to my filming. He told me to “move on” and said “You’ve been warned about being here.”

He was clearly quite annoyed by my filming and wanted me to go away solely because of it. I stood my ground and refused to go. He then tasked another officer, namely Metropolitan Special Constable Mohammed Rob 5122GD, to disperse me from the area using section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour Policing and Crime Act 2014.

Rob again asked me to leave the area, which I refused to do. He then explained that he would be issuing me with a section 35 notice on the grounds of my filming, at which point he asked for my name and address and asked me to stop filming.

I refused to comply with Rob’s request or provide him with my name and address. Rob then said he would be back to continue talking to me and left. I remained at the location filming for about two hours, during which I again bumped into Rob and Egwuatu. They both ignored me.

– Marcus D Potter

Related Posts

DHS Officer Tries to Intimidate Man Open Carrying/Filming and Threatens his Nine Year Old Son

The video and content within this post were shared with the CopBlock Network by Joshua Elliott, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

Within the post, Joshua can be seen walking around near the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters in Indianapolis, IN. Initially, he is filming their vehicles that are parked in a no parking zone and one that is also on a sidewalk. Soon after, he starts walking past the front of the building. At that point, one of the DHS officers standing nearby stops him and begins demanding his ID.

Joshua asks if he is being detained and what crime he has committed to justify that detention. In addition, Joshua asks for the officer’s name and badge number, which the officer refuses to give him. The unidentified officer states that the sidewalk Joshua is on is actually federal property and that he is not allowed to have a firearm (Joshua is open carrying at the time) on federal property. After some back and forth about whether the sidewalk is federal property and where it is stated that firearms are prohibited, Joshua leaves the area.

Not long after, Joshua returns, having put his firearm away in his car. At that time, Joshua asks for the name and badge numbers of the three DHS officers present and also asks to speak to their supervisor. All three refuse to identify themselves (one eventually does) and Joshua is told that a supervisor is on the way. However, later he is told the supervisor is busy and cannot come outside right now.

In the meantime, Joshua points out that the sign (which can’t actually be read without stepping onto federal property) actually says you cannot enter the building with a firearm, not that you can’t walk on the sidewalk with one. The DHS officer who originally stopped Joshua continues acting hostile and demanding ID from him while stating that he doesn’t have to identify himself unless Joshua does first. In spite of being told that citizens are not required to ID themselves unless they are lawfully detained and that DHS policy requires the officers to do so when asked, they continue to refuse to identify themselves.

Once again, the original officer who approached Joshua continues acting hostile, insisting he stop filming and provide his ID. Eventually, that officer threatens Joshua’s nine year old son, who is also filming with a cell phone. After confronting the officer about threatening a young child, Joshua asks the other officers what they think of the behavior of that officer. Both of those Good Cops pretend that they didn’t see it happen even though they were standing within a few feet at the time.

Joshua then decides to leave, which is not the worst idea when you and your children are being threatened by angry thugs who have been known to resort to violence.

Date Of Incident: July 5, 2016
Department Involved: Department of Homeland Security (Indianapolis, IN)
Officers Involved: Refused to Identify Themselves
Phone Number: (317) 233-4280
Address: Indiana Department of Homeland Security
Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington St., Room E208
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Sorry this video is broken up into parts. It’s my first video shot on a knock off GoPro.In the first half of this, I was walking on a public sidewalk open carrying my .40 handgun when I was stopped and harassed by a DHS police officer. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment as, after securing the firearm in my vehicle, I went back to attempt to get the officers’ names and badge numbers. That’s when the bald idiot threatened my nine year old son.

I filed a complaint against this officer, for which I had limited info to do so. However, nothing has arisen out of it. So enjoy the video and I’m sure there will be many more to come.

– Joshua Elliott

Man Protesting Police Kidnapping and Mental Torture Schools Cop on Rights and Filming in Public

The video included with this post was shared with the CopBlock Network by Kevin Bradley, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page. If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

In this video post, Kevin starts out conducting a protest against having been kidnapped and mentally tortured by the Pennsylvania State Police previously. Of course, the Pennsylvania State Police refer to it as “arresting” someone. However, within the video Kevin explains that essentially he was arrested for filming the police, otherwise known as “Contempt of Cop.”

When someone is forcibly restrained and then held against their will because someone didn’t like being legally filmed and they concocted an excuse to do so, that’s a kidnapping. It shouldn’t matter that this “someone” is employed by the State and issued a fancy costume and shiny badge to wear. Nor should the fact that they use a different, fancier term to describe their illegal actions change the reality of what they did.

At any rate, shortly after the video begins an unidentified Montoursville police officer drives up and asks Kevin to speak to him. He then states that he’s gotten several complaints about Kevin’s little protest, but that what he is doing is legal. He further explains that he has to investigate because the dispatcher sent him out and as a result he “needs to file a report.”

While this officer is generally polite and non-threatening, in the process of his “investigation” he makes several blatantly false claims about the law in relation to Kevin’s obligation to provide ID and ability to film people in public.

submit-banner

Click Image For Submission Form

To Kevin’s credit, he demonstrates he is very knowledgeable about the laws in relation to filming the police and the requirement for a legal detention, which would actually necessitate him providing his identity. Kevin quickly and accurately corrects the officer when he claims that he has to notify him before filming in public and has to provide his ID anytime a policeman is “conducting an investigation,” whether he has sufficient cause to detain him on suspicion of having committed (or being about to commit) a crime.

One interesting aspect of this video is the way the cop keeps pointing out how “fair” he is being to Kevin in an fairly obvious attempt to use that to convince him to comply with his erroneous requests. It’s basically that “I’m a Good Cop because I’m only harassing you and telling you that you can’t do stuff you are legally allowed to do and not beating or murdering you” logic. Once again, to Kevin’s credit he stands pretty firm and doesn’t take that bait.

In the end, the unnamed officer goes on about his way and Kevin resumes his protest against the Pennsylvania State Police.

Date of Incident: September 19, 2016
Department Involved: Montoursville (PA) Police Dept.
Department Website: MontourPD.org
Citizen Complaints: Complaint Form
FaceBook Page: Montoursville PD on FaceBook
Department Phone No.: (570) 368-2488
Department Fax No.: (570) 368-8473

I made a protest sign that said, I was kidnapped and mentally tortured by the Pennsylvania State Police after previously having been arrested. I then walked around for about 40 minutes with the sign. At that point, I was contacted by this officer in the video. I totally forgot to ask him for his name and badge number, sorry.

You have totally inspired me to fight for my rights. I am ashamed so many Americans don’t even know what rights they have. We live in a Police State.

– Kevin Bradley

“Lieutenant Cop” Arrests Buffalo NY Man for Contempt of Cop

The video and description within this post were shared with the CopBlock Network by Miles Miller Thompson, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

Thompson describes in the post what happened prior to the video showing a man identified in the description as “Jimmy P” being arrested by officers from the Buffalo Police Department. In addition, describes the demeanor and behavior of the Buffalo police officers who arrested Jimmy after telling a bunch of adults they had to go home, presumably because the cops had decided it was past their bed time. That demeanor is also pretty evident in the video itself.

During the time they are arresting Jimmy, the sergeant states, “you’re acting very disorderly tonight.” That is, of course, cop speak for “you said something to us that we didn’t like, so we’re going to use one of our throw away charges to teach you a lesson by arresting you even though you didn’t commit any actual crime.”

All of the officers involved also refused to identify themselves, although you can see the name tag of the female officer, L. McGrath, during the video. One of the other officers, none of whom are wearing name tags states that his name is “Lieutenant Cop.”

Date of Incident: September 9, 2016
Officers Involved: Officer L. McGrath, “Lieutenant Cop”
Department Involved: Buffalo Police Department
Department Phone No.: (716) 851-4444
Internal Affairs Phone No.: (716) 851-4557

The young man in the video with the glasses and long blonde hair was at Jim Steak-Out after returning from a club. As he got finished conducting business, he was standing in the gated storefront area. There was also a crowed in front of the restaurant that had food.

A Buffalo police sergeant yelled to the crowd that they had to get out of here and that it was time to go. This was at 3:16am.

The crowd standing on the street initially paid the officer no attention. So, he repeated himself and started to yell louder. At that point, everyone started to walk away. In the process of walking away, the young man with the blonde hair and glasses yelled back saying, “we are eating our, food leave us alone.” After that, he continued to say other things.

As the young man was walking down the street, the cop made a u-turn without turning on his emergency signals. He then grabbed the young man and put him in handcuffs without telling him what he was being arrested for. The young man also stated that he did not consent to any searches or seizures.

I need help to spread de-escalation training to officers around the United States. Because in this particular incident it did not have to go as far as they took it.

– Miles Miller Thompson

Blatant Disregard for Constitutional Rights and Abuse of Authority by Peoria PD

The following post was shared with the CopBlock Network anonymously, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page. It details an interaction a man in Peoria, IL. had with the police there while he was out videotaping and taking photos.

From the dialogue in the video, the person being harassed by members of the Peoria Police Department for something that is completely legal appears to be only visiting the city and apparently lives elsewhere.

Along with the video and the description included below the person submitting it stated:

This needs to be posted and reshared as much as possible to expose the conduct and actions of these Peoria Officers as they are absolutely sickening. This video is a testament to everything that is wrong with the American Police force today, evidence of the blatant disregard to their oath as police officers, and a clear abuse of their color of authority!

Officer Grow (Badge #877) admits the citizen filming and photographing from a public sidewalk has committed no crime, violates the rules of Terry Stop by demanding ID while saying no crime was committed, then threatens to make a false charge of “Disorderly Conduct” against the citizen for simply exercising his right to refuse to ID that’s derived from an illegal order, then 3-4 other officers show up (including a Sgt.) threatening the citizen with additional false charges, supporting and continuing the illegal actions of Officer Grow like a state sanctioned street gang, all refusing to identify themselves.

Officer Grow committing assault and battery on the citizen by grabbing his camera, violating the citizens 1st Amendment right by Prior Restraint, and then the other officers yelling, “we are not afraid of YouTube” when the citizen stated his intentions to post the video online to show their completely inappropriate and illegal behavior that is a huge example of the current atmosphere and attitude within law enforcement agencies around the United States today.

This video needs to be shared as many times and possible and people should be writing in to complain about these officers actions and conduct to every form of civil government in Peoria, IL.

I’ll add one small clarification to what was said in the video itself. In order to detain someone they don’t actually have to have committed a crime. A police officer has to have reasonable suspicion that they have or were about to do so, which allows them to detain them and investigate if that is in fact the case. Even if a cop decides they want to find out why someone might be walking around a police station, that act alone is not a reasonable suspicion to detain someone. It does not give the police the ability to demand, nor does it create a requirement for someone to give that ID to an officer.

It also does not give police the right to order someone off of public property. Nor does simply standing or walking on a sidewalk constitute “disorderly conduct.” Additionally, there is no requirement for people to stay in motion at all times when they are on a sidewalk. The simple fact that someone is standing on a sidewalk does not, in and of itself, obstruct the movement of others. In spite of what cops often (the keep moving thing is a pretty common thing at protests) try to say in order to be guilty of something you have to actually do that thing or at the very least display some intent to do so. The possibility that something might happen isn’t sufficient justification to restrict someone’s rights.

Also, obviously, filming a cop (or anyone else) in public is not a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. In fact, by assaulting the man that was filming in order to cover his camera, Officer Grow is violating a pretty well documented First Amendment right.

Date of Incident: May 5, 2016
Officers Involved:
Officer Grow (Badge #877), Officer Stratten, and two additional officers that refused to ID themselves.
Department Involved:
Peoria (IL) Police Department
Contact Numbers:
Daytime (309) 494-8318; After Hours (309) 673-4521
Facebook Page:
Peoria Police Department
Twitter Account:
Peoria PD
Email Contacts
Chief Jerry Mitchell: [email protected]
Asst. Chief Lisa Snow: [email protected]
Mayor Jim Ardis: [email protected]
Address: 600 SW Adams Street, Peoria, IL 61602

This citizen is standing on the street using a video camera in public on a public sidewalk, which is not illegal! Then Officer Grow ( badge #877) begins an illegal detention. When asked if the citizen had committed a crime, Grow admits that he hasn’t, which at that point violates the rules of a Terry Stop. Unless a officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime, THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ID TO OFFICERS!

Then when the citizen simply exercises his right not to ID himself, the officer gets visibly upset and says that the citizen is going to be charged with “Disorderly Conduct” for simply exercising his rights AFTER Officer Grow ADMITTED HE WAS COMMITTING NO CRIME!

Then what happens next is another prime example of what’s wrong with the Police system today. You know how people are always saying that not all cops are bad? The other 95% are good cops? Apparently the full 5% were all in this video. None of the other officers called out Officer Grow for his inappropriate conduct, and in fact, went along with his inappropriate behavior by trying to intimidate and threaten the citizen with false charges, simply because the citizen challenged their authority.

Officer Grow then began assaulting the citizen by grabbing the lens of his camera and continuing to threaten the citizen. And all the officers go along with this while being recorded and stating, “We’re not afraid of YouTube.”

Peoria IL Police HarassmentThis is the problem with our police forces today and why people need to stop just constantly excusing the actions of cops like this! If you allow cops like this to constantly intimidate citizens; threaten them with arrest, possible assault, and death, for doing nothing more than simply walking down the street (and remember that the officer started the whole thing by ADMITTING THAT HE COMMITTED NO CRIME), then you’re giving your rights away at every moment and the police know that there will be no accountability held to them.

They even admit they don’t care if they are viewed on YouTube with this behavior! This is the reason that innocent people are getting killed for no reason, we end up with movements like Black Lives Matter, and people that don’t have the resources to defend themselves against bogus charges end up spending years in jail while cops like these go around threatening, imprisonment, and/or killing innocent people with no consequences because they know they can get away with it. No other cops will hold another cop accountable and they eventually are nothing more than a state sanctioned street gang.

All the officers in this video should be IMMEDIATELY FIRED, especially Officer Grow, because it’s only a matter of time before someone ends up being assaulted or killed by these men, if has not already happened. People need to wake up and make sure that cops like this are exposed for the thugs that they are and chased out of any public service that allows them to make life and death decisions.

If you watch this video and are not immediately outraged by these officers conduct and actions, you are complicit in the creation of a system that at any time can choose to ignore your civil rights and potentially deprive you of your life and liberty at any moment. This is exactly the same kind of bullshit that British soldiers did to American colonists and that ended up starting the revolution. This is why the Founding Fathers created a Bill of Rights.

It’s time for people to start realizing that by allowing thugs like this to exist in our police forces, holding them to ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY, and supporting actions like these, will eventually lead to them victimizing you or someone close to you.

Maricopa County Officials Refuse to ID Themselves Claim Citizens Must ID

The videos and commentary below were submitted anonymously by Youtube user  “Tattooed Sundevil,” via the CopBlock.org Submissions page. They show and describe a series of encounters he had with members of the Maricopa County Protective Services (who appear to be the equivalent of court marshals and are employed by the county).

There are some interesting statements made by the county employees during conversations on the videos. In the third video (as is mentioned in the description below), the officers tell the man recording that they don’t know if public officials are required to ID themselves, but that he is obligated to tell police his identity anytime he talks to them “because they need to know who they’re talking to.” Then in the fourth video, the sergeant who follows him outside states that he’s never thought of himself as a public official, in spite of the fact that he works for the county and obviously has some sort of policing powers, even if they aren’t quite on the same level as regular police officers.

Date of Incident: November 5, 2015
Department Involved: Maricopa County Protective Services
Phone Number: (602) 506-3700

I witnessed a Maricopa County Protective Services vehicle parked illegally outside of one of the county buildings. I began taking pictures of the vehicle, at which point a Maricopa County Official (shown in the video as the driver), approached me and asked what I was doing. When I asked if it was his vehicle, he stated it was not. He then proceeded to tell me that they often park there so they can run in and out in a timely manner.

I accepted this answer and decided to wait for whoever was the driver of this vehicle to appear. After waiting for an addition 30 minutes or so with no driver in sight, I called the non-emergency number for the county and was told that someone would be down to move it soon.

After I waited around for another 10 minutes or so, the same individual I made contact with came down and asked me if I was satisfied now that I had called the county. I stated I was, at which point he began to raise his voice. At that time, I took out my phone to record. I asked him for his name and badge number and he stated he did not have a name and did not have to give me anything.

The videos embedded below are a set of four. The first is immediately after I called. The second is when I went to get a public records request form and was told that I am supposed to identify myself whenever a LEO asks me to, regardless of whether or not I have committed a crime. (The conversation in question occurs around the 9:30-10:20 mark). The final video shows the same sergeant I had been talking to earlier asking me why I am being so extreme with my complaint. I tell him it is not extreme to hold public officials to the same standards they hold private citizens.

– Tattooed Sundevil

Refusal to Show I.D. in Georgia (Video)

GeorgiaCBLogoThe video below was submitted by Jonathan Beavers, the founder of Georgia Cop Block, via the CopBlock.org submissions page. While this is a short video, it illustrates two things that anyone interacting with cops should make sure they are aware of.

The first is that the cops will tell you that you are required to do things you aren’t actually required to do. (whether it be because they themselves don’t know the appropriate law or because they are just liars and are hoping you don’t know your rights). The second is that you aren’t in fact required to identify yourself, unless you have been detained, which requires probable cause that you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime.

Jonathan states:

On April 7, 2015, City of Canton, GA.  Police Officers Worley and Gerdes were called to my home by a former roommate trying to kick down my door. I proceeded to call my lawyer (as seen in the video) My lawyer told me to keep recording and get back to him and that they were breaking the law. After hanging up with my lawyer, I informed my girlfriend that he had said the officers were breaking the law. At that point, the officer asked me what he (the lawyer) had said, but I told him that I was refusing to answer any questions. He got mad and started asking for I.Ds, after which I shut him down by citing the law (O.C.G.A Code 16-11-36) relating to identifying oneself.

Film the Police Stickers

“Let Me See Your I.D.” Stop and Identify Statutes – Know Your Rights

Stop and ID Statutes Map States Nevada Cop Block

Everyone should know their rights regardless, but it’s even more essential that you do if you intend to go out and film the police. Therefore, you should know if the state you live in has passed “stop and identify” statutes. If that is the case, then you should also know what is and isn’t required under such laws.

In 24 states police may require you to identify yourself. (If they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.)

“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.

Except when driving, the requirement to identify oneself does not require a person who has been detained to provide physical identification. Verbally giving identifying information is sufficient to satisfy that requirement.

In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop), or arrest. “Stop and identify” laws pertain to detentions.

Consensual

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. However, the person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.

Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business. A person can usually determine whether or not the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”

Detention

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Embedded below are videos from Flex Your Rights describing what reasonable suspicion is and when you are required to provide ID to the police. Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information. (As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.)

Arrest

A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest. But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings.

Variations in “stop and identify” laws

  • Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
  • Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
  • In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
  • In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
  • In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.
  • Identifying information varies, but typically includes
  • Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
  • In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
  • Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
  • Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
  • In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
  • Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
  • Virginia makes it a non-jailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.

What is Reasonable Suspicion?

When Are You Required to Provide ID to the Police?