About CDon

CDon


Follow
Befriend (1)
501 comments
Followed by 1
Following 1
Ignored by 1
Ignoring 0
Ignore CDon
Aliases
In United States
Registered Mar 08, 2012

CDon's most recent comments:

  • On 17 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., CDon said:

    Dan8267 says

    That term is also used in state law. I was quite clear. See

    Dan8267 says

    LA Times

    Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one?

    No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID.

    I don't disagree with any of that. What you are missing is, once an investigative detention is taking place, the police have the right to determine the individuals identity. This does not have to be via an ID card (many people don't have drivers licenses, hence no ID of any kind), but the presence of one can speed up the process. For example, see the ACLU attorneys statement in the LA Times:

    "If you really haven't done anything wrong, knowing your identity could help police resolve their investigation in your favor, and refusing to provide identification could prolong it.

    For example, suppose a neighbor reports a burglary at your house and police arrive at the moment you happen to be carrying a computer out of the house. They would have a reason to detain you to investigate the burglary call, but you might be able to clear up the situation by showing your ID to prove you live there. In that case, refusing to show ID could make their investigation take longer even though it's not illegal to refuse."

    Dan8267 says

    Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

    Absolutely and emphatically no Dan. You are drawing a bright line here, when one does not exist:

    "From these standards, we have concluded that drawing weapons, handcuffing a suspect, placing a suspect in a patrol car for questioning, or using or threatening to use force does not necessarily elevate a lawful stop into a custodial arrest" - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1321607.html#sthash.qmHB3nET.dpuf

    US V. Leeshuk 65 F.3d 1105

    It took me two seconds to find this on the gimpy findlaw site. If you had access to lexus or westlaw, I could find you ones where the SCT reversed and remanded on this exact point. So, is this the universal answer? No, of course not - and herein lies my point - sometimes handcuffs may equate to an arrest, sometimes not. It is thus erroneous to make a blanket statement when the nuances between an investigative detention and custodial interrogation are very much fact specific.

    Dan8267 says

    However, placing a person under arrest crosses a line. To place a person under arrest for simply not giving ID, which is indisputably the case in this story, is illegal. Arrest and interrogation is not the same thing.

    You have completely turned yourself around here. She was indisputably arrested? Here is what you said earlier in this same thread:

    Dan8267 says

    If she had committed a crime by not giving her ID, the officer would have arrested her and the DA would be pressing charges. The fact that neither of this happens demonstrates that even the state is acknowledging that she committed no crime.

    Again, get a better handle on the subject matter - learn the distinction between an investigative detention and custodial interrogation. This is a clear case of the former, and not the latter, but until you have read an extensive amount of the actual caselaw (which you would normally encounter in crim pro btw) its understandable why you would make these types of mistakes.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., CDon said:

    Dan8267 says

    When did I mention the 4th Amendment?

    You didn't, which is part of the problem. You use the words "reasonable suspicion" that's a very specific term of art under the 4th amendment.

    Dan8267 says

    The fact remains that the cop in this article broke the law by using arrest to force a citizen to give up her ID in a state where that is not allowed.

    You think this because you do not understand the nuanced, but very important distinction first annunciated in Terry. There was no arrest here. This was not an investigative detention, it was a custodial interrogation. The difference between the two makes this action by the police legal, as it would be in my hypo of my call about dan the drug dealer in the red convertible.

    Again, if you are just here to "talk & shit" the way most patnetters do, that is fine. But if you truly want to understand this (which given your zeal, perhaps you do), see if you can audit a law school class in crim pro.

    Dan8267 says

    I stated that CA state law does not require citizens to identify themselves at the mere demand of an office. There are some states that require citizens to do so and other states that do not. CA is one that does not. This is a cold, hard fact. Whether or not you like that law, doesn't change what the law is.

    This is 100% correct BTW. Interestingly, this standard is not inconsistent with the officer in LA conducting a snarky, passive aggressive, power tripping, yet perfectly legal custodial interrogation.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., CDon said:

    Dan8267 says

    dodgerfanjohn says

    I'm not sure why you, someone who seems to pride themselves on posting rational thoughts based on factual foundation, continues to object to a cops behavior that is not built on a factually true foundation.

    Just because you say there is no factually true foundation doesn't make it so. According to the article, the cop was called in on a civilian report of alleged prostitution. As you just admitted, the cop had no such suspicion at the scene. You are agreeing with me on the facts.

    Dan - while I admire your zeal for this subject, it would be more helpful if you had a better grasp of what the 4th amendment allows and does not allow.

    The fact of the matter is, if I called in to the police and indicated that I knew you to be a drug dealer named "Dan" who drives a red volvo convertible, the 4th amendment allows the police to detain you, ask you to identify yourself, pat you down and possibly even handcuff you based on nothing more than my statement. Your redress of course is a case against me for malicious prosecution, but that matters not when we are dealing with a Terry Stop as is the case here in LA.

    You are on the right path with the whole "reasonable suspicion" language, but the fact is you are confusing whats going on because you have never heard of a Terry Stop or read any of the extensive case law that came about as a result of Terry V Ohio and the nuanced interplay between the 4th & 5th amendments.

    If you really do care about this stuff, I encourage you to see if your local law school has a criminal law or a crim pro class that you can audit. It would help a lot should choose to continue to educate fellow patnetters on these sorts of things.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 200 milliseconds to create.