Court: The trooper had a hunch, and he was right, but that wasn't good enough
By adamg - 10/21/09 - 11:24 am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court today overturned the conviction of a man arrested in Brockton for illegal gun possession because the trooper who'd pulled over the cab he was riding in and found his gun didn't have enough justification to search him in the first place.
The ruling comes in a case involving a cab pulled over by a state trooper for veering too much to the other side of the road. When he approached the cab, the trooper noticed the two passengers in the back weren't wearing seat belts and he took time to "admonish" them. When the men "became agitated," he demanded IDs so he could write them tickets for not wearing their seat belts. They didn't have any, so he ordered them out of the cab and frisked them "for safety" - and found a gun in one of the men's pockets.
"The dangers that police officers face in automobile stops like the one that occurred here should not be taken lightly," the judges write. But, the court ruled that in the absence of any furtive movements or any visual evidence of a gun, mere "agitation" was not enough to warrant patting the men down. The fact they could not produce ID was "unremarkable," since they were passengers in a cab, not driving the vehicle themselves. Also, the fact the cab was stopped in a "high-crime" area - one legal justification for a search - was not valid by itself because the cab could have just been passing through. And while the trooper was initiallly "outnumbered" when he pulled over the cab, by the time he ordered the passengers out, there was a Brockton officer on the scene.
"None of these observations in isolation is sufficient to justify an exit order and they do not, in the circumstances here, combine to create that justification," the court ruled.
Comments
Cab Fishing Expeditions
By Brett - 10/21/09 - 11:55 am
I see these all the time by BPD. Consists of a unit or two that watch a main street, looking for:
1)A cab
2)Late at night
3)With a non-white passenger
4)Headed south
Why do I know this? Their favorite spot to pull 'em over is right next to my apartment, and I get woken up by the flashing blue lights. Let's just say there is a common demographic for the passenger, and they're always headed out of the city.
Of course, this is for "safety"...
gimme a break....
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:04 pm
I could name you 100 easier ways to racially profile than pulling over cabs leaving Boston with black passangers. I could also name 100 easier ways to illegally stop anyone that would have something illegal like a gun or drugs. Stopping cabs is not one of them.
Since When ...
By SwirlyGrrl - 10/21/09 - 12:05 pm
do you need an ID to ride in a cab?
Ridiculous. The Cambridge Police have already been nailed for demanding ID from cyclists and detaining those who did not have one.
Glad to see this thrown out ... but it would be better to demand that our police forces know and understand the laws they are charged with enforcing AND obeying.
swirrly
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:07 pm
If you are not wearing a seatbelt you can be cited for it, even if you are in a cab. You dont have to have an ID, but you need to identify yourself.
If you jaywalk or spit on the sidewalk, and a police officer stops you to identify you, you legally have to identify your self. Now the law is not clear on what kind of name you can or cannnot give, or if the police have an exact amount of time they can hold you for, but you still need to identify yourself.
Why do you think police officers dont enforce jaywalking in this state? All the swirrlygirls around would put up a hassle, not identify themselves, and then file a complaint at how rude the officer was and that they did have a right to stop them.
i don't think the police enforce jaywalking....
By bandit - 10/21/09 - 2:10 pm
... because that $1.00 fine isn't going to do much good ;)
and swirrly
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:16 pm
It wasn't thrown out because the police officers asked two men for identification. It was thrown out because police officers did not have enough to issue an exit order of the cab. The trooper did not see any "sudden movements" or "furtive gestures" from the two men in a cab.
If this cop was by himself, this may have not have gotten thrown out. As you can see, there are dozens of other cases where even less has been used by police to use an exit order for a passanger of a vehicle.
Read the decision
By SwirlyGrrl - 10/21/09 - 2:23 pm
The judge specifically mentions that the cop was unreasonable for demanding that the two men produce identification ... not identify themselves, PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION.
That's the problem with cops who think they are the law and don't bother understanding it. No semantics dear ... just read and learn, okay?
where does it say that?
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:25 pm
It doesnt say it was an ISSUE. The guy didnt have an ID, so he gave him his name and address and there was no problem with that
b. Identification. As noted, we will assume, without deciding, that Trooper Cohen could reasonably request the passengers to provide their driver's licenses in order to verify their identities so that he could issue citations. See notes 3 and 5, supra.
The officer asked for ID, one of the men gave it, the other one did not, but did give his name and address, and that name and address was confirmed that he was who he said he was. ID wasn't even a factor here.
The officers wanted to separate the two because it is easier to identify someone that might be dangerous (one of them did have a gun) outside the car.
Im sure you have a lot of success in getting peoples IDs late at night swirrly though. You should teach a class on it.
Stop the Little Cop Games
By SwirlyGrrl - 10/21/09 - 2:28 pm
You have to identify yourself. You CANNOT be held for not producing identification. Period.
You know that ... and yet you are intentionally confusing the issue for the sake of your little "I decide what the law is and it doesn't apply to me" cop games.
The same trick got the Cambridge PD nailed when they started jailing cyclists who didn't show them a driver's license.
There is a difference ... and you would prefer we all stay nice little confused sheep.
its not a game, its called police work swirrly
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:34 pm
You can be held if an officer has reason to believe that you are not telling the truth about your name. In that case, everyone can just jaywalk and say their name is Ronald Regan when they get stopped. After all, the cops have to let you go right away in Swirrlyworld!
It would be nice if everything was written down nice and easy for everyone including cops. But its not. The only time you ever have to produce identification is if you are driving a motor vehicle.
If you rob a bank, get stopped by the cops and you don't produce an ID, they can only arrest you if they have probable cause that you robbed that bank. They sure as hell can hold you up a little bit untill you get that ID out or they confirm you you are, but you cant be arrested for having an ID, not having an ID, or even lying about having or not having an ID. Jaywalking or using a loud leafblower in Cambridge would mean the same thing. You dont have to show an ID, because you dont have to carry one! Thats the law.
You get pulled over for an expired inspection sticker and you refuse to show ID, you get arrested.
What's suspicious with being Ronald Regan?
By Kaz - 10/21/09 - 2:54 pm
Or Ronald Reagan, for that matter?
It's not like they said their name is Marvin Martian. There's nothing inherently suspicious about sharing a name with a president. In fact, Mike Bolton from Office Space would like to know if he'd *always* be detained until his identity could be confirmed just because his name shares that of a celebrity.
If only everything was written down
By Jay Levitt - 10/21/09 - 8:30 pm
This could totally catch on. We could call them "laws".
ahhh..I hope you know what I mean though....
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 9:05 pm
Like there is no law saying that if you pull a car over with two people in the back without seatbelts, you can only order one of them out of the car if you only have one backup officer (two passangers to one cop is outnumbered, two passangers to two cops plus a cab driver is not outnumbered), including the driver, if the other passanger grabs himself like he may have a weapon. And if the driver refused to give his ID at the same time and you don't feel safe if you are in a high crime hood, plus its nightime, etc etc.
These things arent laws. There have been hundreds of case laws on both sides which dictate this. Hell, even this case might be appealed and overturned. It happens both ways all the time.
this does not mean that.......
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:28 pm
he was, after all, traveling by taxi and therefore was not required to carry one
does not mean:
The cops had no right to ask him for one
It just means he doesn't have to carry one and the police can't arrest him for not having one. The decision even cites cases where officers can take measures to ensure someone is using a real name.
Like I said before, not wearing a seatbelt is a civil infraction where someones license number needs to go on the citation. Its easier to ask for a license, and it sure as hell isn't illegal to ask for one.
How do you cite someone without an ID?
By merlinmurph - 10/21/09 - 2:01 pm
I always wondered this. In this case, he wanted to cite the two in the cab for not wearing seatbelts. Or in the case of cyclists gone awry blowing red lights, what does a cop do if he wants to issue a citation?
murph...
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 2:10 pm
you would usualy ask them for ID because it is quicker and easier to write it down. IF they dont have an ID, and you have a suspucion that they are lying, you can check with dispatch for registry information if they have a license. After that is a Q@A game.
And that goes for most crimes, robbery or seatbelt violation.
I assume if worst came to worst....
By Michael Kerpan - 10/21/09 - 2:12 pm
...and people were totally uncooperative, you would have to either take them to the station (and book them) or just walk off empty-handed.
moron
By Brett - 10/21/09 - 4:04 pm
you would usualy ask them for ID because it is quicker and easier to write it down. IF they dont have an ID, and you have a suspucion that they are lying, you can check with dispatch for registry information if they have a license. After that is a Q@A game.
Right, because in the city, if you don't own a car but do have a license, you naturally carry your driver's license all the time, right? Idiot.
He answered a question
By merlinmurph - 10/21/09 - 5:54 pm
Geez brett, ease up, he was answering a question. It wasn't even opinion, but facts about how situations are legally handled.
And yes, lots of (most) people carry wallets or something like them to hold money, ID's, credit cards, etc., so that's what a cop would ask for. Key situation: How do you buy a beer without an ID? ;-)
Yea, Im the moron you punk.....
By Pete Nice - 10/21/09 - 6:25 pm
First off, I did not mean to capitalize the 'if' in my post there, but yea, Ive asked thousands of people for IDs. Id say 95% of people in the city carry some sort of identification with them driving or not.
And I wasn't even implying that people carry identification anyway. I was just saying that if they don't have an ID, you ask them for their name and date of birth, and dispatch can give you the info. Its just easier to copy information down if they give you an ID.
I forgot you know everything about everything. You probably have asked millions of people for IDs in the city and have found that no one carries them.
God you must have a miserable loser of a life Brett. You love to come on the internet and start throwing accusations and names around. Those horrible cops wake me up all night pulling over black people whah whah whah.... Real tough you punk.
Yeah I win!
right
By Brett - 10/21/09 - 9:53 pm
You know how I read your first comment?
"I ask them if they have an ID, then if they say no and I find they do when I punch it into my computer, it's an excuse for me to search them, and we have a Little Chat if I find a license."
well thats not what I meant..
By Pete Nice - 10/22/09 - 7:07 am
and thats not what happened here anyway.
And you can have a licence or MA ID without actually having it in your pocket. Lying about actually having an ID doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything to cops, and it doesn't mean anything to courts (unless you are driving). But criminals that have warrants will use fake names and not show you their real ID because that means they will get arrested.
And for every cop that thinks like the example you just used, there are 100 gangbangers that have a fake name, fake date of birth, fake place of birth, and fake parents names to give the cops when they get stopped. Ever talk to one of those guys when they are armed Brett? Some of them might get a litte nervous, and some of them might stutter a little when they tell you what their info is.
You want to take up the issue of pulling over cabs and fining passangers for not wearing seatbelts, then fine. That might be the only 'bad cop' issue you could find here. Of course, the cops aren't looking for black men in cabs like you think they would. What the profiling cop would do would be to watch or follow black people they think might be up to no good, see if they get in a car and drive away, then pull over that car for something minor and ID those without seatbelts to see if they have warrants or not. Then again, this cop could have made up something like one of the passangers grabbed their waistband. That lie would have probably made this an easy case for the DA.
No ID != reasonable suspicion, right?
By Jay Levitt - 10/22/09 - 1:27 pm
I seem to recall reading that, in the absence of any other red flags, declining to show ID isn't considered suspicious by the courts... right?
Thats true...
By Pete Nice - 10/22/09 - 2:08 pm
even with other red flags it shouldnt mean anything. I never said it is reasonable suspicion for anything though. But if someone doesn't have an ID but legally has to identify themselves (like in this case), there are other situations that often arise(appearing nervous, figiting, forgeting where you live, forgeting that you moved, forgetting what month you were born in, forgetting that you had another legal name that you go by, forgetting that you dont usually go by your middle name, even though you told the police officer that your real last name was your middle name etc.)
Im not even saying that happend here (we didnt read the report), Im just saying there are other things that can arise when you ask someone to identify themself and they dont have an ID.