Providing LE With Identification

[P5Ret]

Okay there seems to be a bit of confusion in what constitutes reasonable suspicion to people who come to this forum. What is reasonable suspicion? I'm going to paraphrase a little, just to get the points I'm trying to get across, out.

Reasonable Suspicion is base on "specific and articulable facts' taken together with rational inferences from those facts." Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard. It depends on the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, EVEN if each is individually innocouous.

NOW. What does that mean? If ONE officer, or person, feel's that the officer had reasonable suspicion, then he had reasonable suspicion. It's up the the officer to articulate that though. No where does it say that an officer has to explain himself to a subject he detains.

I ask, has there been a higher than usual amount of burglaries on that street, has that officer caught burglars in the past on the street. Does that officer have experience with burglaries. Do people sit in their cars and case houses, watching when residents come and go. Do people find a house and call for people to come assist them commit a burglary? Has that officer experienced all of that and come to a reasonable conclusion that your friend could have been casing a house or preparing to burglarize a house? Does any of that sound reasonable to you?

I could go into the same tangent with drug use. Does a neighborhood have have to have not nice homes and crack houses to have drug houses? It goes on. It's what that officer can articulate and if people feel that he came to a reasonable conclusion, then he has reasonable suspicion.

You missed a couple, do identity thieves sit in their cars in nice neighborhoods looking for open wifi connections? Do people call the police every time they see a strange car in the neighborhood, especially one with an occupant? My bet is that someone called in a suspicious vehicle. Those neighborhood watch people take that stuff pretty seriously.

[Press Check]

AGAIN, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFO!!!

It would not surprise me if one of the residents had called the police about a suspicious person in a vehicle in front of their or a neighbor's home. It would not surprise me if the residents in that neighborhood had some legitimate reason to watch out for strange vehicles or persons.

In 1 minute, I could come up with probably half a dozen possible scenarios where in it would have been perfectly normal for LE to have contacted your friend.

Why don't you try looking at it from a resident/neighbor's point of view...

And again - MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! sheesh

Fine, take my friend out of the equation. Let us assume that I am sitting on that same street, and we can assume that there have been burglaries on that street, and a resident called about my car sitting in front of their neighbors home. If approached by LE, am I obligated to provide ID for making the mistake of pulling over on that street because a resident made a phone call? I know and understand that there are variables, but let us assume that I was simply sitting there, talking on the phone or texting.

What are my rights?

[Eikbyrnir]

Thanks for the great response, but people pull over all the time to make a call, respond to a text message, or as noted above, grab a quick bite to eat on a break, so if someone happens to pull over on a street where a home has been burglarized, does that mean that non-residents of that street are subject to being temporarily detained until LE concludes that the person is not casing a home, watching residents come and go, etc?

I know that my Mother routinely leaves work, grabs lunch, and finds a shady spot to park and eat lunch. On occasion, I have done that myself in the past.

I can completely understand what you're saying, because I've done it as well. But could you find it reasonable that the officer could have been led to my conclusion? There are so many different scenerios to play out on why the officer asked for his ID.

Imagine for a moment if it was your neighborhood, your street and this same situation played out. This time, it's a stranger and he really is casing the area. Maybe your or your neighbor's house. He has a history and he has burglary tools under his seat, maybe on probation or parole. Would you appreciate the officer checking him, seeing he had a history and then searching the vehicle and finding the burglary tools? Or do you feel that his rights were violated as well?

Obviously this wasn't the case with your friend and I see you feel strongly because it was your friend in the first place. What if it was that stranger though. Can you see where reasonable suspicion works? Your friend was given back his ID, and the officer was courteous about it.

I may not be able to make you see where im coming from, BUT, if I could make another person or Leo on this forum side with me and if I was that officer and this was a court case then I could win a reason for contact arguement. Thats what I'm saying reasonable suspicion is and how I COULD see that an officer would request your friends ID.

[Press Check]

You missed a couple, do identity thieves sit in their cars in nice neighborhoods looking for open wifi connections? Do people call the police every time they see a strange car in the neighborhood, especially one with an occupant? My bet is that someone called in a suspicious vehicle. Those neighborhood watch people take that stuff pretty seriously.

Understood, and while LE may be obligated to respond to that call and investigate, is John Doe obligated to cooperate with LE and assist them in their investigation?

[Eikbyrnir]

Understood, and while LE may be obligated to respond to that call and investigate, is John Doe obligated to cooperate with LE and assist them in their investigation?

If a LEO has reasonable suspicion then he has a lawful detention, and that means John Doe citizen does have to cooperate or else he could be charged with an actual crime. Even if he was doing nothing wrong before.

[M1NM]

Fine, take my friend out of the equation. Let us assume that I am sitting on that same street, ........ but let us assume that I was simply sitting there, talking on the phone or texting.
What are my rights?

Suspicion is enough and many things can create it.

If you're in the drivers seat - you are the operator of the vehicle and have to cough up your drivers license. If your on the phone I think you can still be cited even if stopped.

If you are sitting on the curb you must identify yourself. If you don't have ID they can detain you until they are able to nail down your identity.

[Press Check]

If a LEO has reasonable suspicion then he has a lawful detention, and that means John Doe citizen does have to cooperate or else he could be charged with an actual crime. Even if he was doing nothing wrong before.

Ok, makes perfect sense. So that I completely understand this, reasonable suspicion can be drawn based on outside circumstances such a neighborhood that has been burglarized on multiple occasions, and has nothing to do with the activities of the person in question?

[Eikbyrnir]

Pretty much yes, It's the culmination of all information. It's not so much the person, its everything together. Neighborhood, person, crime in area and so on.

[ElDub1950]

A resident probably called in a suspicious person report. There are lots of good reasons to do that.

[Press Check]

Pretty much yes, It's the culmination of all information. It's not so much the person, its everything together. Neighborhood, person, crime in area and so on.

On the opposite end, there's some degree of crime in every neighborhood in America, so when does using local crime to develop reasonable suspicion become an excuse to contact people?

[Eikbyrnir]

On the opposite end, there's some degree of crime in every neighborhood in America, so when does using local crime to develop reasonable suspicion become an excuse to contact people?

Well, thats where a supervisor comes in, and if the supperviser goes with it, then court. I've seen cases tossed out of court due to a bad reason for contact, so it does happen. Sadly, thats where it really has to happen at though.

[55chevypost]

Well, thats where a supervisor comes in, and if the supperviser goes with it, then court. I've seen cases tossed out of court due to a bad reason for contact, so it does happen. Sadly, thats where it really has to happen at though.

Can you explain what your statement means?

[Eikbyrnir]

Can you explain what your statement means?

Mind you I have no legal advice to give, and this happened in another state entirely. I just said I've seen a case thrown out because they determined the officer's reason for contact was bad. I can't remember the specifics of it, but had to do with methamphetamine and a traffic stop. Court determined that the officer made a bad traffic stop, mainly because articulated poorly why he made the stop, and threw out the case.

[55chevypost]

I'm not for a second saying cases dont get tossed, because they do. Your statement was concerning as it appeared you were speaking as if someone did something wrong. I can only assume you are not a Leo. It's not illegal nor unethical for an officer to find reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate an investigation and or a stop. Thats called police work. All crooks don't stand out in a crowd or do the obvious to attract police attention. The "I know my rights" statements and such are at times bothersome. Been a copper north of 20, and I still thank patrol coppers for stopping me or investigating things in my neighborhood. A true law abiding citizen, like the op said his pal is, should thank the copper for what took place. They were doing their job as expected.

[Eikbyrnir]

I'm not for a second saying cases dont get tossed, because they do. Your statement was concerning as it appeared you were speaking as if someone did something wrong. I can only assume you are not a Leo. It's not illegal nor unethical for an officer to find reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate an investigation and or a stop. Thats called police work. All crooks don't stand out in a crowd or do the obvious to attract police attention. The "I know my rights" statements and such are at times bothersome. Been a copper north of 20, and I still thank patrol coppers for stopping me or investigating things in my neighborhood. A true law abiding citizen, like the op said his pal is, should thank the copper for what took place. They were doing their job as expected.

Oh no, I misread what you asked, read my previous posts. I support what the officer did. He then asked what if it wasn't enough to stop and ID him. I told him that would be up for the court to decide. I work in the Bay Area.