Arrested lawyer argues people don't have to show police ID

[PisnNapalm]

I'm curious as to the outcome of this case.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...rarrest08.html

Arrested lawyer argues people don't have to show police ID

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TACOMA – Olympia lawyer Lagrand Jones says it's not a crime to refuse to provide identification to police.

That's why he pleaded not guilty Wednesday in Tacoma Municipal Court to charges of trespassing and obstructing a police officer.

Jones was arrested last week during an anti-war demonstration at the Port of Tacoma where a ship was unloading Fort Lewis equipment returning from the Iraq war.

He's accused of approaching a fence on port property July 30 and refusing to give an officer his ID.

Jones told the Tacoma News Tribune, "I don't have to show my papers on demand. I don't live in that kind of world."

The judge refused a motion to dismiss the charge, and the case will continue to trial.

[PisnNapalm]

Another story with more details.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/l...ry/436614.html

Olympia attorney argues against anti-war protest arrest
IAN DEMSKY; ian.demsky@thenewstribune.com
Published: August 7th, 2008 01:00 AM | Updated: August 7th, 2008 05:10 AM
It’s not a crime merely to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer.

That’s what Olympia attorney Legrand Jones is arguing after his arrest during anti-war demonstrations at the Port of Tacoma last week.

Jones, 38, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of trespassing and obstructing a police officer in Tacoma Municipal Court.

His attorney, William Ferrell, asked Court Commissioner Dennis Ball to toss out the case against Jones, who’s accused of coming onto port property, approaching a fence and then refusing to give officers his ID.

Ferrell said in court that the fence had “No trespassing” signs posted on it, but that the area in front of the fence wasn’t marked.

“Typically, when you see a ‘No trespassing’ sign on a fence, it applies to the area beyond the fence, not some indeterminate area (before) the fence,” Ferrell argued. “With regard to the obstruction, I would call the court’s attention to the fact we don’t have a ‘stop and identify’ statute in the state of Washington. … If police feel they have probable cause to arrest an individual, they can take him into custody and identify him through the normal procedures.”

City prosecutor Keith Echterling countered that there was probable cause to continue the case and that the merits of Ferrell’s arguments would be best dealt with at trial. Ball agreed there was enough evidence for the case to continue.

Echterling declined to comment on the case through a supervisor. Tacoma police officials also declined to comment.

In an interview, Jones said he and two others approached the fence the evening of July 30 to see if they could see the Stryker vehicles that were being unloaded after returning from Iraq.

During the protests, Tacoma police had been issuing trespass warning notices to first-time violators, keeping a list and then making an arrest if the person trespassed again. The two people with Jones were released with warnings.

“I don’t have to show my papers on demand; I don’t live in that kind of world,” Jones said. His law firm produces a pamphlet called “What are my rights?” which includes a section that says you can’t be arrested merely for not giving your name to police.

Ferrell, Jones’ attorney, said he too was asked for identification while conducting an investigation on behalf of his client.

On Sunday, he went to see the site of the arrest, which was near the intersection of East 11th Street and Port of Tacoma Road, and was stopped by port security officers and asked for identification. Legally, he didn’t have to comply, but did so in the interest of expediency, he said.

“My sense was that they would have arrested me if I had not,” Ferrell said.

He said the officers told him there had been had been “complaints of people taking photographs.” Taking photographs in a public place is not illegal, Ferrell noted.

Jones attended his arraignment wearing a gray jumpsuit with the word “Lawyer” emblazoned on the back. He and about half a dozen supporters bound their wrists with black plastic zip ties during the hearing.

[Pa. Patriot]

Appears to be yet more over-zealous LEOs.

He's right, hope he takes those thugs to the cleaners...

[LittleRedToyota]

i bet the argument will be that he was only obstructing justice by not providing ID after he was arrested for trespassing...and, so, the case might come down to whether or not he was trespassing (sounds like not, but who knows what the whole story is...and i also have no idea what oregon's trespassing statutes say).

though...i thought there was even a supreme court case that says you do not even have to provide ID after you are arrested if doing so might implicate you (because of the 5th amendment). but maybe the argument here will be that providing his ID would not have implicated him in anything, so the 5th doesn't apply.

[sluggie24]

i bet the argument will be that he was only obstructing justice by not providing ID after he was arrested for trespassing...and, so, the case might come down to whether or not he was trespassing (sounds like not, but who knows what the whole story is...and i also have no idea what oregon's trespassing statutes say).

though...i thought there was even a supreme court case that says you do not even have to provide ID after you are arrested if doing so might implicate you (because of the 5th amendment). but maybe the argument here will be that providing his ID would not have implicated him in anything, so the 5th doesn't apply.

I agree. From what I read it seems that everything hinges on the tresspassing charge. His arguement is sound though. A sign usually protects what is behind it unless otherwise noted. I wonder then if he was told if he was on the property and asked to leave? I would think a refusal then could result in the charge.

Personally I hate people that don't support the troops. It isn't their fault where they are fighting. They just follow orders. If you want to protest you should be in DC where the real problems are.

[josh]

Land of the Free and home of the brave taking a page out of Adolph Hitlers play book.

I sure hope this guy wins. I personally will not identify myself on demand either. Last time the cop didn't press the issue to much but next time who knows.

[VeryPrivate]

SCOTUS "decided" this issue years ago. LEO's can demand ID, even if a person is not driving a vehicle. A person who is unable to provide ID may be detained until their identity is verified. Beyond that it is a matter of state statue.

[Steve in PA]

SCOTUS "decided" this issue years ago. LEO's can demand ID, even if a person is not driving a vehicle. A person who is unable to provide ID may be detained until their identity is verified. Beyond that it is a matter of state statue.

They did? Care to quote the ruling? I can't just walk up to someone and demand ID, then detain them if they don't have ID.

[LittleRedToyota]

SCOTUS "decided" this issue years ago. LEO's can demand ID, even if a person is not driving a vehicle. A person who is unable to provide ID may be detained until their identity is verified. Beyond that it is a matter of state statue.

no.

actually, there are cases saying just the opposite...at least in states that do not have "stop and ID" laws.

here is a case from PA that addresses the issue:

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Suprem...138-2004mo.pdf

Outside of a legitimate stop, police retain the right to ask people to identify themselves; if a mere encounter, however, people retain the right not to do so.

...

Refusing to provide the requested information is not criminal conduct.

in other words, the police need RAS of a crime to *demand* to see ID in PA because PA does not have a "stop and identify" statute. (they can ask you for ID, but you don't have to povide it.)