Woman arrested for videotaping police...

[Seth]

Well as for identifying yourself , its not required in the UK unless arrested. I assume giving a false name however would be a crime. Thats different from the rest of Europe where you are required to carry ID at all times.

Interesting according to wikipedia you arent required to carry ID in the US but are required to carry a driving license when driving ( you arent in the UK). As you can't go anywhere without a car in the US ( no evil socialist public transport) thats a defacto ID card. I believe individual states allow police to demand your name and address as well

Most states have some version of a law which authorizes police to ask for your name, your address, and an explanation of your actions, but this authority only applies if they have detained you based on reasonable suspicion that you are, have been, or are about to be involved in a crime. They can't just stop you randomly and ask you for ID or to identify yourself.

The seminal case is a Supreme Court case where a black man with dredlocks who like to walk around the community in the early morning hours was arrested for refusing to provide "adequate identification" to the police who detained him. The California law required people to carry "adequate identification" but it left the determination of what was "adequate" to the police officer. The Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to give police unfettered and standardless authority to arrest someone because their identification is "inadequate" according to whatever the individual officer says it is. The Court said that US citizens have a right to go about their lawful occasions and not be detained by the police unless there is proper and reasonable suspicion to do so, and that the police must have clear and detailed rules about what "adequate" identification consists of. Sorry I can't recall the name of the case...I used to have it at the tip of my tongue but I'm having a senior moment right now...

[amok]

Well as for identifying yourself , its not required in the UK unless arrested. I assume giving a false name however would be a crime. Thats different from the rest of Europe where you are required to carry ID at all times.

Interesting according to wikipedia you arent required to carry ID in the US but are required to carry a driving license when driving ( you arent in the UK). As you can't go anywhere without a car in the US ( no evil socialist public transport) thats a defacto ID card. I believe individual states allow police to demand your name and address as well

Most states have some version of a law which authorizes police to ask for your name, your address, and an explanation of your actions, but this authority only applies if they have detained you based on reasonable suspicion that you are, have been, or are about to be involved in a crime. They can't just stop you randomly and ask you for ID or to identify yourself.

The seminal case is a Supreme Court case where a black man with dredlocks who like to walk around the community in the early morning hours was arrested for refusing to provide "adequate identification" to the police who detained him. The California law required people to carry "adequate identification" but it left the determination of what was "adequate" to the police officer. The Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to give police unfettered and standardless authority to arrest someone because their identification is "inadequate" according to whatever the individual officer says it is. The Court said that US citizens have a right to go about their lawful occasions and not be detained by the police unless there is proper and reasonable suspicion to do so, and that the police must have clear and detailed rules about what "adequate" identification consists of. Sorry I can't recall the name of the case...I used to have it at the tip of my tongue but I'm having a senior moment right now...

Edward C. Lawson, I believe. Besides the identification issue, I gather that case also opened up the concept of "racial profiling" to scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Lawson

I just noticed in reading the wiki article that Mr. Lawson died a few months ago.

I had also never heard of the Tulsa Race Riot cited in that article (mentioned because Edward's grandmother, Lundy Bohanan, was a survivor of the incident).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Race_Riot

[MrJonno]

Are police allowed randomly demand to see a driver license , google indicates that they can (in the UK its must show your license within 14 days to your local police station, but if they don't like you they might arrest you on suspicion of stealing the car)

[Seth]

Are police allowed randomly demand to see a driver license , google indicates that they can (in the UK its must show your license within 14 days to your local police station, but if they don't like you they might arrest you on suspicion of stealing the car)

No, they cannot "randomly" ask you for identification. If you're driving, they have to have a legitimate reason to stop you, but that's not hard to find. Even something as simple as a license plate light out or failing to signal for the proper distance before making a turn, or allowing your tire to touch the side or center line is a traffic violation that can justify a stop. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can get through a day of driving without violating SOME traffic regulation that will justify a stop. And once you're lawfully stopped, the police can ask for your license, registration and insurance documents (although I have a quibble about the insurance documents) because you're driving.

But just walking around on the street? No, the police cannot just walk up to you and demand ID without a good reason.

[MrJonno]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... stops.html

Says here that road blocks are allowed to question everyone without a specific cause relating to them

[Seth]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... stops.html

Says here that road blocks are allowed to question everyone without a specific cause relating to them

Sadly, this is true. DUI checkpoints are an egregious violation of people's civil rights that the Supreme Court has rationalized into lawfulness on the asinine theory that our civil rights must give way to the desire of the police to intimidate and harass us into not drinking and driving. Unfortunately the DUI checkpoint issue has not been revisited in decades, and a review would likely put a stop to them entirely because they have been proven to be extremely INeffective.

About a decade ago, the feds began requiring local police to keep statistics on DUI checkpoints and document how many people were stopped and how many of those were arrested for DUI. The nationwide average for stops versus arrests is just about one percent, and often less than one percent.

For ever 1000 people stopped, fewer than 10 people are arrested, and of those, a smaller percentage are actually convicted of DUI.

However, a DUI checkpoint does not generally authorize the police to do an inspection of documents. It's supposed to be a very brief detention (less than a minute) during which officers are supposed to observe the person for signs of intoxication through questioning and observation and their nose.

Some agencies take such checkpoints much further than they should, and there have been instances where agencies have set up "insurance document" checkpoints. That didn't last long, so far as I'm aware. It was an attempt to expand the "checkpoint" power of the police far beyond any rational limits.

One of the justifications for DUI checkpoints is the argument that driving is a "privilege" and that as such, you give "prior consent" to being stopped by the police in the interests of DUI prevention, just as many states have "express consent" laws that require you to take a breath or blood test if an officer has probable cause to believe you're driving while intoxicated.

I continue to hope that the ACLU or someone will take on DUI checkpoints again and get a case to the Supreme Court again, where it will be easy to prove that the supposed benefits upon which the Court previously based its approval of checkpoints are vacuous nonsense and that the intrusion on the civil rights of the 99 percent of the law-abiding public is not justified by the one percent they catch, and could have caught more efficiently by doing standard DUI patrol.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Kill the bitch, castrate the cops and let's move on.

[Seth]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Kill the bitch, castrate the cops and let's move on.

No one is preventing you from moving on...or fucking off.

Why not do so now?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Kill the bitch, castrate the cops and let's move on.

No one is preventing you from moving on...or fucking off.

Why not do so now?

Oh, but your hypnotic prose is so splendiferous how could I possibly leave?

[Coito ergo sum]

But just walking around on the street? No, the police cannot just walk up to you and demand ID without a good reason.

If a person is not driving a vehicle at the time, there is no obligation to carry any identification anyway. It's still legal in the US to not have any ID.

Regarding sobriety checkpoints:

See - Sitz v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 506 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1993). This case was remanded by the SCOTUS to the Michigan Supreme Court for a decision with regard to the Michigan constitution, Const. 1963, Art. 1, Sec. 11, after the U.S. Supreme Court held in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), that sobriety checkpoints do not offend the U.S. Constitution. They are prohibited by statue in Wisconsin and Wyoming. In Washington, City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 755 P.2d 775 (Wa. 1988), they're illegal under the state constitution. They're illegal under Rhode Island's constitution - Primental v. Rhode Island, 561 A.2d 1348 (R.I. 1989), and unconstitutional in Minnesota too - Ascher v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1994); Gray v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1994).

Lots of states have upheld them, and the SCOTUS in the Sitz case upheld them under the federal constitution. So, as it stands, the federal constitution does not prohibit them, but they can be fought under state constitutions.

[Strontium Dog]

This might be useful if you're in the UK, I got it off a journalist I know. The journalists carry a copy of this letter around with them in case any police get shirty:

This is a copy of a letter which was circulated by Andrew Trotter, Chief Constable, British Transport Police, Chair of ACPO, Communication Advisory Group.

¬¬26 August 2010

Dear Colleagues

Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
• We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
• We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
• Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
• Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter
Chief Constable
Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group

[charlou]

Useful.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Useful.

Indeed. - Thanks to Strontium Dog. I'll get a copy or two printed off and carry one with me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every other case involving people arrested for filming cops has been thrown out of court, but media promulgates hoax that recording police is illegal
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
41-year old Illinois mechanic Michael Allison faces life in jail for recording police officers after authorities hit him with eavesdropping charges based on the hoax that it is illegal to film cops, a misnomer that has been disproved by every other case against people filming police officers being thrown out of court.

The state of Illinois is trying to charge Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time but would reinforce the hoax that it is illegal to film police officers, as well as acting as a chilling effect to prevent other Americans from filming cases of police brutality.
Allison has chosen to reject the plea bargain and fight to clear his name via a jury trial, arguing, “If we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”
A judge is expected to rule on when the case will go to trial over the next two weeks.
As another report concerning the Allison case documents, in every other example where people have been arrested for recording police officers, the charges have been dropped and the case thrown out of court. Despite this fact, the state is so desperate to make an example out of Allison that an assistant from the Attorney General’s Office was recently sent to speak against him during a hearing.
The notion that it is illegal to film police officers is a mass hoax that is being promulgated by authorities, the media, and police officers themselves.
In the latest example, charges were dismissed against a woman who filmed cops in her own back yard in Rochester, New York.
In Illinois itself, eavesdropping charges against Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped, after a “Criminal Court jury quickly repudiated the prosecution’s case, taking less than an hour to acquit Moore on both eavesdropping counts.”
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Despite the fact that recording police officers (public servants) is perfectly legal, Americans are still being arrested for doing so, and the establishment media is enthusiastically perpetuating the hoax that such conduct is unlawful, even though in doing so they are completely eroding protections that guarantee press freedom.
There is no expectation of privacy in public, the police are fully aware of this, which is why they have dash cams on their cars to record incidents, wear microphones and utilize other recording equipment as part of their job.
Cases like Allison’s have been thrown out all over the country and yet police continue to arrest people for filming them as a form of intimidation.
The fact that the state is knowingly ignoring its own laws in order to engage in acts of official repression highlights the rampant criminality that has infested every level of American government. This behavior is reflective of a predatory system that seeks to criminalize all first amendment activities.
It also highlights how petrified the system is about the public being able to document and record acts of police brutality.
Prosecutors in Allison’s case are deliberately attempting jail an innocent man for life for an activity that they know full well is not illegal. If anything, they should be the ones being charged with illegal conduct and official oppression.

http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-life- ... ng-police/

Fuckin' cops... you have a fuckin' dashboard camera filming people without their consent, but you want to claim that it's illegal for a citizen to have the same thing? Fuck the hell off!

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Ah...She got off with it then. It's only right.

You people in the USA can count yourselves lucky (in this respect, at least). Here in the UK the average citizen going about average business in the average city centre can expect to be photographed/filmed several hundred times a day. - One figure I read (can't remember the source now - I'll post it if/when I find it) estimated that there is a cctv camera for every 14 people (that must be private and government agencies combined, I guess).
Some time ago, a cctv camera appeared on a housing estate here in Chester that had small, flat panels attached to either side of it. I've pondered what the purpose of these panels could possibly be and the only logical conclusion I can draw is that they are microphones intended to eavesdrop on conversations etc. - I could be wrong here, of course, (I could be the subject to a paranoid delusion) - but until somebody offers a better explanation then that's my theory.
I've considered taking a photo of the camera in question but I'm hesitant to do so because it's bound to attract the attention of the police and the station is only about 200 yards up the road and it would be impossible to slip out of the estate unobserved. Maybe the best option would be to challenge them about it directly, but then, that would mean identifying myself.