Readin

Evidences ?

But not removing the guns from the hands of the neo nazi who celebrated the murder of a jew student.

What I'm saying is

Police officers have wide leeway to conduct traffic stops (I believe they just have to articulate the reason for suspicion after the fact)
Police officers aren't obligated to tell the person stopped why they're being stopped
You are required in all 50 states to show a driver's license when stopped in a traffic stop.

Taking these into consideration, refusing to show an ID until the police officer tells you why he is conducting the traffic stop is disobeying a lawful order, and the police asking you to show a driver's license when stopped is not a violation of rights or unreasonable.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 18 2019 08:16am

In the video the officer states ( at 1:53) that "this is an investigatory stop", and in that case the ID must be presented.




Source: https://www.fighterlaw.com/criminal-law-101/crime-defenses/police-encounters/




Now, the issue of whether the officer HAD reasonable suspicion can be argued in court. But during an investigatory stop the ID MUST be presented if asked for.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 08:23am

what SCOTUS decision says police aren't obligated to note the reason for a stop when asked by the person stopped?

and in any case whether the order is lawful or unlawful depends on the reason for the stop, and if it was legal under at least reasonable suspicion.

seems to me that asking for id is subject to Schrodinger and the only way to break the box is for the officer to say why the stop was done.

There's no reason for the person stopped to NOT present ID unless he or she is doing something wrong or believes that presenting ID will get him/her arrested.

I quoted the law and the source just above.




/e I even picked a source that's for people that DON'T want to cooperate.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 08:35am

I'll try to find the case. It might be that they aren't obligated to tell you why you are being arrested, but then I can't see that not also applying to the reason for a stop. I'll see if I can find it.

If the order is lawful depends on the state law. I was googling and at least in Washington the law makes no mention of the reason for the stop, just that if you are stopped you are obligated to provide ID and insurance. Then, would an illegal stop get you out of that charge since you didn't know it was illegal when he made the request? Not sure. In any case you aren't in a position to know if the order was lawful or not when the request was made, so it could be argued that you would still be on the hook for refusing to provide ID.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 18 2019 08:30am

true, but
I was just listing the ones violated in this story about someone having their right to bear arms violated because of their political affiliation, after a search and seizure with no probable cause and in a court that affords them no due process or rights at trial much less a jury of their peers. Wasn't because he was black

generally statutory offenses being applied or dropped is tied to the actual crime. one exception being resisting arrest. if you injure an officer trying to arrest you even if the charges for the arrest get dropped you still injured an officer. in the case of ID with there being no harm done i'd bet in almost all cases charges would be dropped.

>officer makes illegal stop without reasonable suspicion
>citizen asks why they were pulled over
>cop declines to say why
>citizen declines to show ID
>cop arrests for lack of ID shown
>court finds stop didnt meant reasonable suspicion requirement for Terry stop
>charges for ID declining dropped

in all cases the charge or no charge hinges on the reasonable or unreasonable nature of the stop. and can be instantly cleared up without an arrest by the officer telling why the person was stopped. and a dick officer could decline (maybe) knowing they're within reasonable suspicion (that's not actually that hard) and arrest the person on no ID charges then investigate their reasonable suspicion.



cops involved = skin color matters. duh goomshill. get woke cuz

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 18 2019 08:36am

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-710.ZS.html

Here's the supreme court case, it holds that when being arrested an officer is not required to articulate to the person the reason for the arrest. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that this would extend to a traffic stop.

So while the stop might be illegal, since there's such broad leeway in establishing a reasonable suspicion for the stop you aren't in a position to reasonably decline showing an officer your driver's license. On the off chance that you are in the right and they really can't come up with any reason to have stopped you it could be correct, but in 99% of circumstances you're going to be arrested for refusing to show ID and be SOL when you try to fight it in court.