The NYPD is skulking through the L train demanding IDs from Black and Latino men, again with zero justified cause or explanation as to why.
Reminder that there legally cannot be a crime such as “failure to provide identification” outside of specific contexts like actively operating a vehicle, etc. Lots of states allow cops to require you to provide your legal name (and sometimes address) when detained, and courts usually have the ability to compell the same.
In England, it’s necessary to provide name and address when arrested, but, it’s illegal for the police to arrest just to find out your name. But of course, how difficult is it for them to make up some asinine BS excuse?
“I smell weed” has been a classic for decades.
A long while back, I was harassed by the cops for “acting suspicious” while waiting for some friends at the mall. This quickly escalated to “suspected terrorist activity” for absolutely no reason I could discern or anyone afterwards could explain.
Cops just say shit. The best you can do is say you need to speak to a lawyer and clam up after that.
I got questioned by the police when waiting for the train in New York (state) once. I’m a white guy, though I had really long hair at the time. They came up and said someone had reported someone suspicious. I was like, well, I’m waiting for the train and my friends. They were like someone saw you looking in that car suspiciously. I said, that’s my car. They asked if I had proof so I opened the door with the key.
Then my friend and her shitty little brother showed up. The brother yells “YO YOU GOT MY WEED??”
Luckily the cops realized that was an idiot 13 year old white kid, and they left.
Sounds about white.
Luckily the cops realized that was an idiot 13 year old white kidLuckily you were white. If you’d been anything else they would’ve been all over the car, maybe even planted something, and been like “well, we had to take the kid seriously just in case”.
True. I mentioned my whiteness in my comment intentionally, but maybe I should have made it more explicit as you have.
A guy I knew was on probation and would be visited by cops on a regular basis. During one of the visits, one of his roommates was on his computer doing some programming. The cop looked angry and asked him “are you hacking?”
Bruh…
To be honest, that’s probably a question he has to ask.
When I was on probation I had a ton of random things I wasn’t allowed to do including any crime on a computer. But since I work in IT a lot of my job “looks” like hacking so I had to get a letter from my boss basically saying “he is not hacking at work”
‘Doing things i don’t understand’ is hacking.
I had the cops try to pin a bunch of crimes on me and a few coworkers once. Thought my life was over for a few days because they were very serious allegations. Fortunately their police report was so ridiculous as soon as someone competent got involved the whole thing was immediately dropped. The claims they made had literally no evidence and multiple witnesses could prove they were lying. Cops 100% will say anything, it makes their job easier and there’s no consequences.
If a cop says the sky is blue, maybe check.
It was probably overcast as fuck, if not heavily raining.
Or during sunset/rise, yes.
Yeah actual laws as written don’t matter.
This is fascism; the cop regime. They dont know or care about the laws, everything is vibes, and courts up to and especially the supreme will back them on this.
If lots of states allow cops to require you to provide your name and you don’t, isn’t that refusal to comply with a lawful order, and thus a crime?
Failure to id is a secondary crime, you first need to be lawfully detained/lawfully suspected of a crime, before id can be demanded in 24 states. In the remaining states you need to be arrested before id can be demanded. Driving a motor vehicle is different though. As long as an officer had a reasonable reason for pulling you over, they can id you even if you dispell their suspicions prior to providing ID. If you’re pulled over, it’s best to always provide ID.
So it’s only a lawful order if the police follow the law, if they just walk down the street randomly asking people for id, then failure to comply with their unlawful demands can be thrown out by the courts. Of course the police can just lie and make up a reason they suspected you of a crime, which is why some states have made things like “smelling marijuana” not enough on it’s own.
The driver can be IDed while driving, but no one else is obligated to provide proof of ID as they are not lawfully nor unlawfully operating a motor vehicle.
Good point to clarify.
Thanks for the extra info, I’m not from the US so I was going just from the information provided by the comment above.
Sure, but if they demand your name, you tell them your name, they can’t then demand your ID to prove it
Bastards in blue doing what they do
“Vhere are your papers??”
ACAB. They’ll never change if our only resistance is peaceful. No significant swing in power between a people and its government has occurred absent of violence.
Where are all the posters who are trying to assuage their guilt for their own inaction by telling you why you’re wrong and defensively calling you a keyboard warrior? Is this even Lemmy?
I’m no expert on American law but I’m pretty sure you don’t have to show ID unless you’re given a good explanation for it.
ACAB
“Reasonable articulable suspicion”, is the official way of saying that.
“A good explanation” is very undefined. The police has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, and they have to be able to articulate, ie explain that said reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime.
They just make it up all the time though, but most of the cops don’t even seem to know the law. They just do what other cops do. And never have to take responsibility for breaking the law.
I think it depends on the state? But from what I know in at least some states you don’t have to do so unless there’s reasonable suspicion of some crime having been committed. IANAL.
Laws aren’t a thing anymore. It’s a man with a gun, and knowledge nobody will punish him for using it.
As another said, reasonable and articulable suspicion is required to id in every state and city in the country regardless of any lower laws or department policies. However(!), they do not have to share that reasonable suspicion with you at all, and can still demand ID without giving it to you. They can have reasonable suspicion against you that you are not aware of, such as matching a description for a crime you’re not involved in. And They could very well have no reasonable suspicion and can lie in the report later if they need to justify it. So long as there isn’t evidence contradicting them, the cop’s word is assumed as fact. So a demand for ID that is lawful is indistinguishable from an unlawful one if they don’t give you the details of their suspicion because you have no way to know if such reason exists or if it’s reasonable or not.
Just FYI to anyone who is reading this thread: In ALL states, even the ones with stop and ID laws, the cops have to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed, are commiting, or are about to commit a crime. 4th amendment right, also lots of case law.
True, but they do not need to articulate their suspicion to you. The only person that they need to convince that they did have reasonable articulable suspicion prior to detaining you is the judge.
The system is set up much more in favor of the cops than for you.
Agreed. If a cop wants to cop badly, there’s not much you and I or anyone else can do about it besides speak up and hope they listen. And if they don’t, don’t resist and just sue later.
deleted by creator
Or a man with a gun kidnaps you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
“Reasonable Suspicion” is very vague btw.
So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.
At minimum, they need “reasonable and articulable suspicion” of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you’re allowed to drive the vehicle). “Reasonable and articulable suspicion” means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.
BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren’t the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn’t matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn’t even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don’t have a clue why they are asking at all.
In other words, if they demand ID and don’t explain why, there’s functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it’s assumed to be true. So… enjoy your “freedoms”, I guess.
If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it’s assumed to be true. So… enjoy your “freedoms”, I guess.
Yeah. This is why I actually enjoy quite a lot of those first amendment auditors. Not all of them, some of then are just attention seeking arseholes. But for instance one guy who streams his shit and I see sometimes shorts, he wears a bodycam and is simply blessing veterans or something.
Since he just stands in a corner and doesn’t interact with anything or anyone, and is quite the striking fella (big man), there’s little if no bullshit excuses the cops can come up with, and these guys are ready to go to court.
At least in the US you can try to get your rights, especially if you can afford a lawyer. And you can actually get compensation when the police are noted to have broken your rights.
Not here in Finland.
The police are polite and well behaved on the streets, but…
Well I got abused pretty bad and definitely my rights were broken. But I can’t even get anyone to discuss that. In the US I’d have lawyers doing this pro bono just for the payout at the end.
So all cops are bastards, some just in a different way.
If Zohran becomes mayor, can he potentially change anything about how the NYPD does things?
The department is administered and governed by the police commissioner, who is appointed by the mayor to what is, nominally, a five year term.
Can Zohran fire the existing commissioner and replace him? Idk what the bureaucracy around that looks like. Entrenched power structures have a way of slow rolling executives thru don’t like and ignoring rules they don’t want to follow.
A lot of levers of power that worked for a Guliani or an Adams might suddenly stop working assuming Zohran can make it all the way through the general and into office.
The potential is there, but usually winning one election is not enough to actually achieve structural change such as stopping racist police actions.
Considering a lot of the NYPD straight up said they’d resign if he became mayor, I think he’s got a pretty good chance of bringing change if he really wants to
Oh no how unfortunate.
Wow, they are just giving him free advertising at this point.
They are lying to influence the election
They are
lyingthreatening to influence the electionHey whats the word for that?
No… Would people do that? Lie to further their agenda?
Police? LYING?!
Hey. If pigs are gonna throw their weight in behind a good cause, I say we take it! You can’t expect them to reform on their first day as socialists (/j I get what you’re saying)
They said the same thing in my city.
Then they stopped patrolling/enforcing anything.
And surprise surprise, violent crime actually went down.
Now they go around harassing homeless people because they don’t have anything else to do.
Give it to NYPD for threatening us all with a good time.
Ny is just full on police state. They need every single cop swapped
That’s one way to dispose of all those bad apples
as far as i am aware, the mayor is the commander in chief of local police and also determines their budget
If I was mayor of NYC, I would eliminate the budget to all existing departments, then create new departments with a fresh budget. The initial budget is for importing officers and administrators from Europe, sourced from nations that put them through a rigorous training academy that emphasizes deescalation and following laws. No existing personnel from the ranks of America’s police would ever be hired.
Far as I am concerned, the police in America are a mafia, not keepers of peace. They have to be rooted out completely, if that is to change.
They own the law though, so no lawful process can oppose them meaningfully.
Im afraid they have takrn all the peaceful options, unless you consider ‘be crushed and die by the millions’ peaceful, off the fucking table.
“Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”
Jackboot gestapo fucks
Gaspacho* 😌
Are they still alive? Serious question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Not exactly a new thing.
“Resonable Suspicion” is a lower threshold than “Probable Cause”.
Reasonable suspicion of a crime. You need to say the whole thing.
The number of cops that thinks “I’ve got reasonable suspicion of you being suspicious.” Has always been too goddamn high. You need reasonable suspicion OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Being suspicious isn’t a crime. Being black or Latino in a subway station isn’t a crime. Even stop and identify laws need to be based in reasonable suspicion of a crime because the 4th amendment demands it.
That is why cops have Terry Stops that allow them to fill in the reason as whatever and the judge always sides with the cops
The times become dangerous when the state loses it’s monopoly on violence
They’re doing it to get them extraordinarily renditioned.
extraordinarily renditionedWay too sanitized of a term, when what it really means is ‘kidnapped’.
Kidnapping doesn’t necessarily involve torture.
All the more reason not to use the state’s sanitized language around torture and kidnapping.
Is there an ordinary rendition?
Winning lottery ticket?
Not anymore.
It looks like they were expecting them.
Blah blah “unconstitutional” … blah blah “exactly why our forefathers rebelled” … blah blah
