K-9 Alert Search Question

[countryclubjoe]

Ya right, ya know. I saw the '-er' and thought I had corrected it to '-ar'.. guess it didn't take.

No spell checker is ever going to differentiate between 'than' and 'then' in a sentence, it's a matter of education, not software.

" It is difficult to free FOOLS from the chains they revere".. Voltaire

" one great use of words is to hide our thoughts". Voltaire.

And especially for Mr. Quasi-intellectual.. " There is that indescribable freshness and unconsciousness about an illiterate person that humbles and mocks the power of the noblest genius". Walt Whitman

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

I hate to contradict such a freedom-minded fellow, but I just gotta.

No offense, CCJ, but the suppressive govern-ers have speciously split hairs, and indeed a fellow can be arrested for not producing ID.

I have read a couple state statutes that require a person to hand over an identity document, if he has one on him, and the cop has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) against the poor fellow from who the identity document is being demanded. I've also read a number of municipal codes where the detainee was required to identify himself to a cop. The penalties were pretty stiff. Here in VA, three jurisdictions have such codes (maybe more, by now). The penalty in all three was maximum misdemeanor penalties--just shy of felony. If I recall, in VA that is up to 364 days in jail, up to a $2500 fine, or a combination of jail and fine.

The crucial point is RAS. You see, way back in Terry v Ohio, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), decreed that the facts of each case will need a court to decide. Which means, it is the courts who decide after the detention whether the cops had RAS during the detention, pointedly not the detainee during the detention.

So, a fella who wants to refuse an identity document, has a pretty tall order he absolutely must be correct about at the exact instant he refuses to provide an identity document. He has to:

• correctly predict what his judge will rule at the suppression hearing about whether the cop had genuine RAS based on the facts available to the cop at the beginning of the detention.
• know with certainty whether the 911 call or cop's observations were previously ruled genuine RAS in his locale
• know whether the cop is lying about his RAS (google permissible deception)
• know whether the cop gave him only part of his RAS
• Etc.

The courts and police have rigged this game. Personally, I am not going to check my county government after every monthly Board of Supervisors meeting to see whether they passed a must-identify-yourself ordinance. I am gonna give the cop my ID while acting oh-so compliant and slightly scared. He's gonna learn my name when the formal written complaint or lawsuit hits, anyway. I'll give him rope. Patrick Henry and other founders said we should keep a very close eye on government. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to test that government agent by giving him some rope and seeing whether he'll take it and how far.

And, that is my policy. Every single time a cop approaches me about my OC'd gun, there will be, at a minimum, a formal written complaint. The fact the cop approaches me proves he considers mere possession of the means to defend myself and others suspicious. Nope. Not gonna stand for that.

Whoa! Citizen!!?! Really!?! Isn't that a bit harsh?

No. First, these rights were paid for in blood across centuries. Second, rights are just human decency and fair play; nobody shoulda had to ask for them, much less fight for them. Third, I've read so many reports about police detentions, I've learned that police often screw up even consensual encounters; so, there is a great chance the cop will screw up the encounter anyway, giving me a justification for a formal written complaint at a minimum.

Interesting observation Citizen, however I and probably you, know that the 5th amendment, trumps RAS..
Always invoke your rights, and give the nice LEO's, the chance to violate said invoked rights..

We would be hard pressed to find, a Federal statute, that requires all folks to carry and present said ID to law enforcement upon request.. Unless a citizen agreed to present ID via some quasi contract, IE, drivers license, or any other government issued licensed, or permit... We still have a right to remain silent and we have a right to "privacy".. whether the government has RAS or just a fishing expedition.. Our rights remain the same..

Always a pleasure Citizen.
Regards
CCJ

 

[lukaszu]

You may want to reconsider your "facts" in light of Rodriguez v. United States where the US Supreme Court ruled that without reasonable suspicion the police could not extend a traffic stop in order for a search dog to arrive. And refusing a search does not rise to the level of a 'reasonable suspicion'.

That may be very expensive & time consuming adventure

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Good on you for sticking to your guns; a lesser man might have said something like "Hey, I didn't know that. Thanks for setting me straight on what the actual Supreme Court says. Now I've learned something."

But... well, you do you.

 

[hammer6]

Very recently I was pulled over by an officer. When he walked up to the car I handed the officer my ID, my Insurance, and my carry permit. The officer asked me if I had my gun on me and I told him that I did. The officer requested I get out of the car (not sure why). The officer took my gun and put it in his car then requested to search my car. I informed the officer that there was not anything in my car and that I would rather he not search my car. At that point he called in a K-9 unit. When the K-9 officer got there I asked the officer what an alert would look like when the dog is taken around my car. The officer refused to tell me what an "alert" would look like. The officer walked the dog around the car and there was no "alert" so I was let go with my speeding ticket.

My question is, can the K-9 Officer refuse to tell me what the "K-9 alert" looks like legally?

I know this is not a typical Gun question but since the gun provoked a search, it kind of is.

Thank you for any answers you can give. Remember I live in Georgia, if that matters.

why would the gun provoke the search? sounds illegal to me.

 

[hammer6]

You are simply and dangerously wrong. In order to effect a Terry Stop, an officer must have RAS that the person being stopped has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. If the officer's RAS proves accurate, you damn well betcha that it will result in an arrest. I don't know where you got your law degree, but you ought to get your tuition refunded...

that's not what he meant.

 

[hammer6]

+1

I've been reading case summaries about cops and the 4A for years.

The government has been taking us on a downhill slide for years.

I was pretty despondent about the subject at one point.

Then I read something (or remembered something I had earlier read, can't recall).

The upshot was that rights exist. They just are. In the context of this conversation, it means, literally, that government cannot take them away. Government can only refuse to recognize them. As a teen, my mom refusing to recognize I am old enough to make my own decisions doesn't mean I don't make my own decisions. Government refusing to recognize rights does not erase them. It merely highlights government's intention to look out for itself at the expense of the those it governs. Rights still exist even if government won't recognize them. Government doesn't recognize certain rights because they don't want to. And, since they gots all the swords, they can get away with that. Mostly. Until....

Lots of angles to this. For example, I mentioned government doesn't recognize certain rights. OK. Ask which rights government does recognize. Then look into why government recognizes those rights. You will too often find it was not out of human decency and a sense of fair play. It was because government was faced with violence from the people. A classic example is the right against self-incrimination. Government today (courts) will intone with deep solemnity that the right to silence is a fighting right. Government claims you have to invoke it. Oh, really? Government doesn't just automatically recognize it? It turns out government's argument that the right to silence is fighting right--must be invoked--is a self-serving argument. The only reason it is a fighting right is because government did not concede one millimeter more than it thought it had to in order to prevent pitchforks and torches. Now, I am not saying you can verify this example in one or two minutes of googling. No, sorry. It is gonna take hours or days. You're going to have to dig into the history of the Court of High Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes, the people burned to death under Queen Mary, Bishop Whitgift, Bishop Laud, James I, and a massively liberty-minded fellow named John Lilburne. But, if you do follow that thread, the point is there: government only recognized--finally--the right to silence because the people were fed the eff up. And, government only recognized the one tiny millimeter it thought it had to. It doesn't recognize fully and completely the right to silence. Oh, no. Government swears up and down, and has lots of oh-so reasonable sounding rationalizations, that the right against self-incrimination only goes so far. Just realize that their arguments, no matter how rational and reasonable they sound, have as their foundation, a key concession which was all government thought it needed to concede in order to avoid pitchforks and torches.

Rights exist. Government can only refuse to recognize them. That doesn't mean a given right does not exist. It means government is out of line, not you.

Don't believe me? Here. I will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am on your side. I will tell you something that nobody but nobody who doesn't believe in you and your rights would ever say. You and you alone decide what your rights are. Not government. Not the other voters. You. Take advice from the luminaries like Richard Overton, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson. But, the only rights you've got are the one's you personally decide you have (and by extension belong to everybody else, too.)

Now, really? Would somebody who didn't want you to realize and understand the extent of your rights have told you that? Would somebody who wanted to keep you under his thumb, to keep you under his control, have said that?

for what it's worth, i followed you.

 

[hammer6]

Why is the bar set lower for police on traffic stops? RAS is a lower bar than "probable cause".

On traffic stops, police can have a vehicle towed/impounded without probable cause or a warrant..
Hence certain rights are lost/surrendered/stolen on the highway. Officer safety seems to trump rights on the highway. Many rights are violated on the highways of America each and everyday. Citizens need be more cognizant on the highway and exercise their rights diligently..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

you mean by "traveling" and not "driving"?

 

[hammer6]

Back to Rodriguez, please recall that the LEOS asked/demanded ID from the passenger..

In Brown V Texas, the Justices ruled that without reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct, a person is protected under the 4th Amendment and is NOT required to ID himself/herself..

Handing over ID gives the nice leos, the chance to initiate a fishing expedition, while they run your info..

Never, never, hand over ID... One cannot be arrested for not producing ID,, you may be taken in however your civil suit will more than make up for your lost time..

My .02
CCJ

even in states with laws that say you must produce upon demand?

 

[hammer6]

no, but belittling any individual because they might have a tremor causing them the inability to type or other disability, coupled with a spell checker which sees no difference in the tha/en or two, too, to words is ludicrous & totally out of place!

or ludacris

 

[hammer6]

And especially for Mr. Quasi-intellectual.. " There is that indescribable freshness and unconsciousness about an illiterate person that humbles and mocks the power of the noblest genius". Walt Whitman

CCJ

that's the guy who started wal-mart, right?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

even in states with laws that say you must produce upon demand?

Produce what upon demand? Certainly no such law exists in Georgia.

Driving license?

GA Code § 40-5-29 - License to be carried and exhibited on demand

(a) Every licensee shall have his driver's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle.

(b) Every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20.

(c) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be fined no more than $10.00 if he produces in court a license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of his arrest.​

Only applies to someone operating a motor vehicle, not a passenger and not someone on foot, bicycle, or roller skates.


Weapons License?

GA Code § 16-11-137 - Required possession of weapons carry license or proof of exemption when carrying a weapon; detention for investigation of carrying permit

(a) Every license holder shall have his or her valid weapons carry license in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, or if such person is exempt from having a weapons carry license pursuant to Code Section 16-11-130 or subsection (c) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, he or she shall have proof of his or her exemption in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, and his or her failure to do so shall be prima-facie evidence of a violation of the applicable provision of Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2.

(b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.

(c) A person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be fined not more than $10.00 if he or she produces in court his or her weapons carry license, provided that it was valid at the time of his or her arrest, or produces proof of his or her exemption.​

Cannot be stopped solely to investigate whether or not a person has a license.

Both have a $10 'don't do that again, y'hear?' fine.


I'd address other states, but it's not my responsibility to find.

 

[hammer6]

Produce what upon demand? Certainly no such law exists in Georgia.

Driving license?

Only applies to someone operating a motor vehicle, not a passenger and not someone on foot, bicycle, or roller skates.


Weapons License?

Cannot be stopped solely to investigate whether or not a person has a license.

Both have a $10 'don't do that again, y'hear?' fine.


I'd address other states, but it's not my responsibility to find.

it's a simple question. didn't require the sarcasm or the response you gave. the topic is showing ID. i asked, what about states with laws that require you to produce it? a lot of you people are so worried about proper grammar and being perfect that you waste people's time on these threads. grow up.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

it's a simple question. didn't require the sarcasm or the response you gave. the topic is showing ID. i asked, what about states with laws that require you to produce it? a lot of you people are so worried about proper grammar and being perfect that you waste people's time on these threads. grow up.

Funny, but in all that you didn't provide an answer to the question.

What about which states?
Which states requires its citizens to carry identification?
Name them.

 

[countryclubjoe]

you mean by "traveling" and not "driving"?

Indeed " traveling"..

Driving requires a state issued license that grants the licensee a state privilege.

Traveling requires no license, no privilege, for traveling is a enumerated right.
My .02

Regards
CCJ

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The Wikipedia article 'Stop and Identify Statutes' might be a good place to begin..

I'm quite familiar with that section of Wikipedia; only last week was I updating a document listing each and every state noted, what the exact statute was, under what circumstances could a demand be made, and what exactly had to be provided.

I could forward you a copy, its only 14 pages and a little over 6,300 words long*.
Perhaps we could make it a 'sticky'?




*Please don't think I'm just being wordy, it was mostly a cut-and-paste work with a little formatting to make it consistently readable and easy to refer to notable sections.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The Wikipedia article 'Stop and Identify Statutes' might be a good place to begin, noting that

Variations in "stop and identify" laws

• Four states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
• Fifteen 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 Ohio, identifying information may be required "when requested"; an obligation exists only when the police suspect a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, is witness to a felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony offense;
• In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police "may demand" identifying information. Of note, though, in New Hampshire for example (RSA 594:2), statutory language authorizing a 'demand' for identity does not establish a legal requirement to provide documentation of identity (ID), or even a requirement to respond in the first place. Further, a law enforcement officer is authorized to make such 'demand' only of individuals for "whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime."

Again Brown V Texas, puts all this legalese to rest.

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

that's the guy who started wal-mart, right?

Maybe, I know he owns a bridge in NJ and PA,, he chargers me 5$ to cross it a couple times a week.. :banana:

Your humor is much appreciated, we need more of said humor on this board.

Regards
CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

The topic at hand is not about ID-ing, it is about the cop detaining a citizen beyond a reasonable time required to complete a traffic stop so as to have a dog conduct a search of a vehicle. To the OP, contact a lawyer. The SCOTUS has ruled that detaining you (traffic stop) beyond the purpose of the stop (speeding) is verboten.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Thanks but no thanks. Wisconsin is enough for me,...

Wisconsin

Wisconsin's one of the easier ones - it even gives annotations in the text of the same statute.

Wis. Stat. §968.24
968.24  Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

As with every other state listed in the Wikipedia article, there must be a reasonable suspicion of particularized criminal conduct.