yeah ok

If he was punched for failing to ID you OK with it?



 

I'm still trying to establish whether he had a legal obligation to identify himself at all. Whether the punch was excessive is a separate issue.

Years back you could not use head strikes to induce some one to comply and cuff up.

Now they can practically kill someone to get them to cuff up.

It's a real bitch to cuff someone who has any upper body strength, I have seen it take 5 officers to cuff one drunk



 

As per the article, they were trying to figure out who was on the lease for the purpose of the investigation on who to charge.

You need reasonable suspicion for the individual to detain, which is required under every "stop and identify" statute in existence. If there even is a "stop and ID" statute in this jurisdiction, which we haven't established yet.

If you're taking the "investigation" route, then he has no duty to cooperate, and mere failure to cooperate is not obstruction.

In other words, it's nice that they're "trying to figure out who is on the lease," but that doesn't give them unfettered power to seize and demand that people identify themselves.

I've heard all you have to do is point out that the flag in the court room has gold fringe around it, and you can tell the judge he really doesn't have jurisdiction over you.

Maybe they smelled booze on his breath and he looked under age.

It would go more like this:

Judge: OK. What's this "John Doe" case about?

Prosecutor: He refused to provide his name when it was demanded from Officer RespectMahAuthoritah

Judge: Alright. What is he charged with?

Prosecutor: He refused to give his name, so he was arrested for obstruction.

Judge: OK, but what was he doing that caused the officer to demand that he identify himself? Is that the only charge?

Prosecutor: That's the charge.

Judge: Why was he required to identify himself? Was he under arrest for something?

Prosecutor: No, but he was near a loud party, and refused to identify himself.

Judge: I'm trying to understand, here. He was near a loud party, police came to it. Was he suspected of doing something illegal?

Prosecutor: The file doesn't appear to reflect anything in particular...

Judge: Then how was he obstructing anything?

And yet ... we see all of the "respect mah authoritah" charges, but nothing else. Why is that?

A good freedman on the land would have given the name of his strawman and then invoked his right to remain silent.

We had a Sovereign Citizen that was arrested and refused to be fingerprinted and photographed at booking a few months ago.  It was several days before he was first appeared.  The judge finally did his first appearance in absentia and set his bond.  One of the conditions for his release set by the judge was that he would submit to finger printing and photographing.       He is still sitting in jail.  Of course he now has a US Marshal's hold.  His felon in possession of a firearm was picked up by the feds and he wont be going to court on those local charges until he is done with the federal charges.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

My state, don't know about his, has an open house party statute.  If you control property where under age persons are allowed to consume alcohol, with your knowledge, you can be charged.

That's great, but how do you know that this guy who you're yelling at to provide his name is the one in control? He could have just showed up 5 minutes ago.

Why was he arrested (but for the obstruction/resist type charges)? Why don't you tell us, oh all-knowing one. He wasn't charged with any sort of alcohol-related offenses.

He wasn't under arrest and was under no obligation to self-identify under the arrest rubric, at that time, regardless. So no, I didn't move any fucking goal posts.

So you say than no RS exists to make contact counselor?

Kind of interaction with Law Enforcement 101...

Why do you reasonably suspect THAT guy? And not the other 50?

What articulable, objective facts create in your mind the impression that THAT guy is the one in control of the property?

He wasn't under arrest at the time they demanded his name. NJ has no statewide "stop and ID" law, so unless that locality has one, then he didn't have to identify himself even if he was detained on reasonable suspicion.

The kid had a learning experience. Mine was mouthing off to a SDPD officer. I received a lesson on the deployment of a slap Jack. I also learned that when an officer asks you your name you tell him right away and you refer to him as sir.

Sounds like he tried to leave, which is where the obstruction charge might have came from.

So walking away from the police is now "obstructing" or "hindering" them?

How does that work

Seems like you'd be staying out of their way by doing that.

If you read the article, he states he doesn't want to be apart of this AND went towards the door.

So?

He had no right to leave the scene while an investigation is ongoing.

Cite? What duty does he have to cooperate? He has a duty to not hinder or obstruct, but that's not the same thing.

Assuming that's true, what legal duty did he have to identify himself as "somebody who had to stay put while an investigation is ongoing?" Cite for that, too, please.

So say your name is "Joe" and you walked into the wrong party?

Risky play if it's a lie - that CAN be obstruction.

The cops in the video don't understand the law, it is shown right in the video, also shown is a person who has in no way been connected to or declared to be related to any particular criminal activity by the police, yet he is physically assaulted for refusing his name in when the law supports his right to do so.


Those are the facts, no cause to get mad or move the goal posts by offering suppositions, speculation and other extraneous non-related nonsense just because the reality of this situation doesn't support your need to excuse poor the illegal behavior of bad policing.

.

So you learned to be all house broken like or the cops will beat you?

Much Jeffersonian.  Very Democracy. Wow.

........dindu.......

I was in a room with a cop and he told me to pull my pants down. I said "What?" He said you heard me" Pull your pants down!" So I unbuckled and dropped my pants and drawers. Now he starts unbuckling and I am scared shitless. He drops his pants and drawers, turns around and bends over and says " Now son, go slow and take it easy with me, will you?"

I see what you did there.

Synopsis made from quotes from the article in the op:
West Deptford police arrived at an apartment on Apple Lane at about 2 a.m. on Saturday after receiving complaints of a loud party and possible under aged drinking.

"What's your first name?" asks one officer in the video.

"I'm not telling you," Cuneo replies.

"You're going to be arrested for obstruction," says the officer.

"For obstruction of what?" asks Cuneo.

"For obstructing my investigation," the officer responds.

"Give him your name," says another officer.

"I don't want to be a part of this," Cuneo says before the camera in his hand is apparently dropped on the ground.

A scuffle ensues.Cuneo said Monday that after he refused to give the officers his name, he took two steps toward the apartment door.

DeSimone said he could not comment further, but confirmed that Cuneo was charged with obstruction and resisting arrest. Additional charges are pending."

The cops responded to a citizens complaint of a loud party and possible under age drinking at 2 am.  They didn't initiate this activity on their own, it was a complaint that brought them to the apartment complex.  It's their job to then evaluate the situation and determine if a violation of the law exists.  Can a loud party be a breach of the peace?  If it is, do the police have the authority to investigate and take lawful action if they observe a violation of the law?

Don't know all the particulars, but I will use what is mentioned in the article and describe what I have done in similar situations where I work and you can reply with your experience prosecuting or defending people charged in similar situations:

Loud party complaint with possible under age drinking.  Arrive and see people drinking outside of an apartment.  Determine if the conditions meet a breach of the peace, if so:  Also look at people drinking and also observe if they appear under age, if so ask for ID to verify age (possession of alcohol under 21 is a misdemeanor here).  While doing this ask who lives there.  Keep ID's and have subjects stand by while I look for the resident(s).  If I'm told it's "Mike's place" go look to make contact with Mike (often will be pointed out to me or what direction I will find him).

Make contact with Mike and explain that we have had a complaint about the loud party and we also know that under age people are drinking.  At this point one of two things usually happen:

A) Tell Mike, if cooperative and appears responsible, the party is over.  The underage drinkers could be cited or arrested and he could be charged with Violation of the Open House Party statute (A person having control of any residence may not allow an open house party to take place at the residence if any alcoholic beverage or drug is possessed or consumed at the residence by any minor where the person knows that an alcoholic beverage or drug is in the possession of or being consumed by a minor at the residence and where the person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the possession or consumption of the alcoholic beverage or drug.).  If cooperative do a pour out of all alcohol, Make arrangements to get the underage parties out of there.  Advise Mike that we do not need anymore calls out there and go back in service.

B) Mike refuses to cooperate and is arrested.  Under age drinkers found in possession are cited or arrested.  

We routinely do A whenever possible here, as it really will tie up resources to start making arrests, and if the subjects are cooperative, why not cut them a break.  We do B when forced to.  Sounds like the kid in the story was in favor of B over A.    

Mike has no duty to "cooperate" in the first place. His failure to do so is certainly not cause to arrest him. That also assumes that you have actually acquired information indicating that "Mike" lives there at all, an important detail that you just kind of skipped over, here, by assuming that somebody just told you that. If you have a law about the person in control and you know or reasonably suspect who that is, then presumably you can at least detain him. But that's not what we have in this story, is it.

The guy in this story has also not been charged with any alcohol-related offenses, which is a pretty strong indicator that he wasn't detained on suspicion of underage possession/consumption or similar charges.

Actually, it can be both. Refusal to identify himself hinders the investigation of the alcohol issues. The John Doe charging documents are simply a hold until he can be identified. You can't actually PROSECUTE "John Doe".

He was not free to leave obviously.

Not obvious at all. At least, not before he was knocked unconscious.

Still doesn't answer the "stop and identify" issue of whether he had any obligation to answer the question, even if he was detained.

Speak unambiguous words if want things to be understood "obviously".

This is not hard.  If a cop is questioning you at a scene they are called to, you're probably not free to leave.

Why would you keep IDs, and therefore detain the people, once you have them in your hand when you can quickly determine if they are are or not violating the law with a cursory glance at the card?

So it's obviously probably true.  Way to avoid confusion on the situation at hand.  

It's amazing.  Based on the video the only thing they are perfectly clear on is something they apparently don't have the authority to order.  

OK, you're absolutely not free to leave.  Better?  Only an idiot would think they could leave such a situation in the middle of being questioned.

I'm still waiting for a cite, or even a cogent argument, for why he was required to give his name in the first place. Even if he WAS lawfully detained.

That seems to be quite elusive here.