Statesman
Regular Member
Can someone cite the court case that says open carry is not Disorderly Conduct, or inciting alarm, and is a legitimate purpose?
"I'm sorry.... You're the Sheriff of Boyd County?
Did you mean you're a Sheriff like Andy Taylor,"
"...or did you mean a Deputy like Barney Fife?"
Can someone cite the court case that says open carry is not Disorderly Conduct, or inciting alarm, and is a legitimate purpose?
Can someone cite the court case that says open carry is not Disorderly Conduct, or inciting alarm, and is a legitimate purpose?
It seems like you advise us to talk to the police. I only see "remain silent" in there 4 times.
I am just joking with you, but seriously I do think you need to uncross your lines if any way possible. For me, it made it hard to start the process because I couldn't figure out where to start. I thought it branched off into three different directions from the start. Maybe change it so you only have one remain silent part. I know that this is good advice, I will not argue against that, but it is unnecessarily repeated.
Respectfully you cannot use the 5th amendment as a basis for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer unless disclosing your identity would give the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict you of a separate offense:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html
There's a good reason why I repeat it. I watched a lawyers video on "remaining silent" last night, and there is a human behavior trait that cognitively almost forces us to answer seemingly harmless questions. The repetition is necessary because of this. I'll see if I can find the youtube video tonight and i'll post here for clarification.
Thanks. I'll make the necessary corrections.
Statesman: Would you mind if I add this to our thread about KY gun laws. I will, of course, give you full credit for your work.
Corrections made. See attached. Original posted updated as well.
I like your flow chart. It puts everything in a logical order and makes it easy to follow. My question is, why did you switch from not giving ID to giving ID? I would never give a physical ID in Ky. If he wants it, he can dig for it, if there is one to dig for. That's just one more violation he's piling up. I wont resist a search, but I'll never consent to one or assist him in searching me.
Respectfully you cannot use the 5th amendment as a basis for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer unless disclosing your identity would give the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict you of a separate offense:
Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
Terry, supra at 34:The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
Based on the Hiibel decision the state does not need a law, all that is needed is a special circumstance or proper circumstance (what those are I don't know) to oblige/require a person to give their name, and only their name.Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.
But, the court can deem it so under hiibel. That is what case law is. Legislating from the bench. The court can declare that providing your name in the course of a Terry stop is reasonable.You are correct. That decision permits a state to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The way a state "requires" a person to ID themselves is by passing a law saying they must do so. If they don't pass such a law, then they haven't "required a person to ID himself" and if the LEO has no RAS, it is not a legitimate Terry stop. To become a "suspect" you must be "suspected" of a specific crime, RAS is required. The decision does not say that a LEO may require a person to ID himself absent a law requiring such.