One-man stand: Albemarle man resists police ID checkpoint

[Serpo]

A Thursday afternoon police “license checkpoint” in a residential Albemarle County neighborhood netted at least one violator, as resident Joe Draego refused to comply with demands to produce his identification.
The scene on Old Brook Road was intimidating. Rattled neighbors and passers-through were confused and alarmed by the presence of large orange road signs and multiple unmarked Albemarle County police vehicles with lights flashing—some residents feared neighborhood criminal activity. At least six officers were on-site concurrently.
Police solicited most drivers for their “ID” or “drivers license;” however, some motorists were asked to also produce vehicle registration (http://bearingdrift.com/2013/07/12/one-man-stand-albemarle-man-resists-police-id-checkpoint/#) documentation.
Compliance with police requests was nearly 100%, but Joe Draego said, “no.” Claiming he’d done nothing wrong and verifying with police that he’d not committed a crime, Draego would not display his ID to the requesting officer. As a result of his resistance, Mr. Draego was threatened with a “warrant,” to be delivered to his home the following day.
The legality of drivers license checkpoints is dubious, at best, having been called into question by legal interpretations of United States Supreme Court decisions on the practice (http://bearingdrift.com/2013/07/12/one-man-stand-albemarle-man-resists-police-id-checkpoint/#).
Florida attorney, Frank Russo, summarized his concerns (http://defensehelp.typepad.com/russo_russo_pinellas_crim/2013/02/fhp-to-conduct-day-time-drivers-license-checkpoints.html):
In our view, the “Daytime drivers license and vehicle inspection checkpoints” contemplated by the FHP are more akin to those vehicle stops previously determined to be unconstitutional in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html) . The court in Edmond was adamant that checkpoint programs whose primary purpose were indistinguishable in combating general crime control are an unlawful violation of the fourth amendment. The Supreme court stated:
“We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.”

Following the violent ABC takedown (http://www.schillingshow.com/2013/07/04/exclusive-911-calls-virginia-abc-agent-says-assault-victim-tried-to-run-over-people-witness-says-gun-was-pulled/) of three young women (http://bearingdrift.com/2013/07/12/one-man-stand-albemarle-man-resists-police-id-checkpoint/#) who had just purchased bottled water at a local supermarket and other hyper-militarized police activities (http://www.readthehook.com/109570/rugby-road-lockdown-militarized-police-bust-fake-id-ring) in the Charlottesville area, citizens are understandably on edge.
The Rutherford Institute (https://www.rutherford.org/), a local civil liberties organization, has expressed interest in defending Mr. Draego against any charges brought by police.

http://bearingdrift.com/2013/07/12/one-man-stand-albemarle-man-resists-police-id-checkpoint/




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRcUW3Hdhwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRcUW3Hdhw



http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/license-checkpoint-not-for-1-driver/

[willie pete]

not sure about VA, but in most states you do have to identify yourself if asked by the police and especially while operating a motor vehicle, now if he'd been walking by the checkpoint and they asked for ID, he'd have a better chance of winning the argument, as long as he ddin't look suspicious, not sure about VA laws though

[midnight rambler]

In Texas, UNLESS one is actually "under arrest" one does not have to provide ANY info to the cops - as in NONE (such as in the case of being 'detained'). Now OTOH hand if one is actually "under arrest" then it is in fact an 'offense' not to identify yourself. A 'traffic stop' constitutes an 'arrest'. It's always a good idea to begin any encounter with "Am I under arrest?" so you know where you stand at that moment.*

*when cops ask me for ID I immediately ask if I'm under arrest - when they say no then I advise them I'm not(!) providing them with ANY info(!), it really gets their panties in a wad but there isn't shit they can do about it

[Hypertiger]

Saint Michael, heaven's glorious commissioner of police,
who once so neatly and successfully cleared God's premises
of all its undesirables, look with kindly and professional
eyes on your earthly force.

Give us cool heads, stout hearts, and uncanny flair for
investigation and wise judgement.

Make us the terror of burglars, the friend of children and
law-abiding citizens, kind to strangers, polite to bores,
strict with law-breakers and impervious to temptations.

You know, Saint Michael, from your own experiences
with the devil that the police officer's lot on earth is not
always a happy one; but your sense of duty that so
pleased God, your hard knocks that so surprised the
devil, and your angelic self-control give us inspiration.

And when we lay down our night sticks, enroll us in your
heavenly force, where we will be as proud to guard the
throne of God as we have been to guard the city of all
the people. Amen.

[palani]

quid pro quo .... tit for tat ... If they can ask you for identification then you must also be able to ask them for ID. Demand a business card so that you have an address to send the bill to. In the spirit of the thing then make sure you provide them with a business card as well.

[Hypertiger]

Or you just give them what they want so they can go seek out another potential criminal if you are not one.

I have no idea why you all are looking for a complicated way to defeat police officers.

You avoid attempting to break LAW.

Human beings and people have no ability to make or break LAW.

All that they have the power to do is make and break rules and call rules LAW.

But if a rule attempts to break LAW.

LAW will break the rule.

I try to avoid attempting to break LAW.

Criminals think this is accomplished by not getting caught breaking LAW

But it is impossible to break LAW so they are always caught.

They think that breaking a rule and not being caught is breaking LAW and getting away with it.

It is not.

In the rule system that is currently in place.

You can do something illegal as long as you do not get caught = good or positive/right and you can do something wrong as long as it is legal = good or positive/right.

You all can walk around innocent until proven guilty.

You have to be caught.

So I can see why most of you are searching ways to escape capture.

I'm not trying to do that generally.

Like if it was against LAW to drive faster than the posted speed limit.

As soon as you tried you would be annihilated by GOD of Truth.

Without a police officer to enforce a lie...It can not appear as Truth.

Satan has to provide an environment to Satans followers to fall in love with.

I do not fall in love with lies but I try to respect them since they believe they are Truth or righteous.

Because when persuasion fails they employ force and then finally annihilation if you do not supply them with what they want.

The purpose of the police and military is to protect the top from the bottom.

The powerful from the powerless.

The winners from the losers.

Of the absolute capitalist exchange of power for mutual benefit.

Or you can employ self defence when a poor person you made poor or powerless to become or sustain your power or powerfulness tries to steal back what you have stolen from them legally...Illegally.

They can use legal methods to turn you from rich or powerful to poor and powerless though.

According to the rules of Satans game you all are playing for fun and profit.

[messianicdruid]

Or you just give them what they want so they can go seek out another potential criminal if you are not one. According to the rules of Satans game you all are playing for fun and profit.

We were born in the game and enrolled as babies. Contracts based on fraud are unenforceable, at least this is what I have heard. They change the rules [ terms ] without notice. This is also fraud.

[madfranks]

In Texas, UNLESS one is actually "under arrest" one does not have to provide ANY info to the cops - as in NONE (such as in the case of being 'detained'). Now OTOH hand if one is actually "under arrest" then it is in fact an 'offense' not to identify yourself. A 'traffic stop' constitutes an 'arrest'. It's always a good idea to begin any encounter with "Am I under arrest?" so you know where you stand at that moment.*

*when cops ask me for ID I immediately ask if I'm under arrest - when they say no then I advise them I'm not(!) providing them with ANY info(!), it really gets their panties in a wad but there isn't shit they can do about it

So if you get pulled over for a traffic stop, which you say above constitutes an arrest, do you assume that you are under arrest and show ID, or do you still ask just to make sure?

So I take it you are a Texan? I used to live there too, near the gulf, until the BP oil disaster and we moved out of there. I need to look up these requirements for Colorado.

[Cebu_4_2]

His swastika is reversed.

[palani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[1]

Anything that you are required to do then they are required to do it as well. Impersonating a peace officer is a criminal offense so you have RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) that a crime is being committed by the costumed con-man. Seems not too reasonable to ask him to identify himself. In fact it is necessary that he do so but when you venture into the realm of necessity then the subject becomes survival.