stop and identify statutes...

[nosoup4crr]

stop and identify statutes...

For those of you who have some legal knowledge, I was discussing what rights police have in regard to asking individuals for identification (this is in the states, by the way). I know that many states have stop and identify statutes which allow an officer to ask for a name/identification if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal endeavors are afoot (i think that's the quote, haha). But, I could've sworn that I read a case about some guy walking in a field in the middle of nowhere (on a railroad track, if I remember right), an officer attempting to get him to stop and identify himself without ANY cause, and a judicial holding that the cop was in the right in doing so.

Does that ring a bell with anyone? Or am I mixing up facts?

 

[BobCox2]

Re: stop and identify statutes...

I can hardly tell who they are meant to be under all that pigeon poop?
(well it is the OT forum)

 

[nosoup4crr]

Re: stop and identify statutes...

I'm likely missing the point you were trying to make, but I only used "they" once--and it had a pretty clear antecedent, I thought.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: stop and identify statutes...

OK....
If They vs Them or It is a problem I'm Doomed to death by grammar Nazis.
I was making a joke on the word play of Statues and Statues.
And if I have to explain it then NoBumps4You

 

[Dondrei]

Re: stop and identify statutes...

Well, saying that they only have a right to stop and identify if they have a reasonable suspicion just means that when they're challenged about a particular stop and identify that becomes the point of contention in court. Are you saying the fact that he did not have a reasonable suspicion was part of the judge's finding?

It'd be strangely inconsistent if cops didn't have this right, I mean they have the right to enter and search private property if they reasonably believe a crime to be in progress. This is much milder than that.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: stop and identify statutes...

But, I could've sworn that I read a case about some guy walking in a field in the middle of nowhere (on a railroad track, if I remember right), an officer attempting to get him to stop and identify himself without ANY cause, and a judicial holding that the cop was in the right in doing so.

Does that ring a bell with anyone? Or am I mixing up facts?

I think you are thinking of Larry Hiibel from Hiibel v. Nevada. I think he had a site up at some point, but I don't remember the URL for it.