Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelbuddy | Hacker News Reader

Body cams would tell this entire story pretty well especially since 2 officers were involved. Are we supposed to believe that San Fransicso doesn't collect enough taxes to have working body cams on all officers running for the whole shift?

Everyone wants more body cams. let's get them to stop the speculation all the time.

on the police side though, more people need to understand that the cops ask people all the time for ID and they say they don't have it. In WAY TOO MANY cases they don't want to produce it because they have warrants for other things. Cops get people night after night on small offenses and they have warrants for bigger ones. Constantly. That's why he called in, because his experience is the guy is likely hiding something.

I can't imagine not carrying my ID around if I'm an adult. I have to produce it to make transactions.

View on HN

Do you live in the United States? In the U.S., despite what officers tell you, you do not have to identify yourself when asked. The only exceptions are if you're in a vehicle or in an airplane. And in some states they can demand if you they believe you are connected to a crime (California is not such a state)

I am assuming SF considers a bike a vehicle so fair game I guess. But you cannot just beat up or arrest someone just because they refuse to show their ID. You cannot assume suspicion because they won't tell you who they are. You're essentially saying if you got nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about telling police who you are.

One time I found a wallet on a sidewalk, I picked it up, saw there was ID. The police station was nearby so I drove to turn it in. When a cop showed up (the station was closed for the night), I explained to him that I found a wallet and was turning it in. He asked me a couple questions and asked me if I wanted to leave contact information, I hesitated, and eventually after the officer assured me he didn't care, I said, "no." But during that moment I seriously considered whether or not I had to assert my right to remain anonymous/not show ID, especially since I was just trying to be a good Samaritan, and didn't want to deal with any possible accusation of stealing money from the wallet (it was empty).

I think it's questionable to have an analysis or perspective of the law that principally considers the letter of the law. What people can or can't do follows another kind of law, a subtle law, a subtle calculus.

That's the real law everywhere in the world. It's the law in China and it's the law in the US.

Can you refuse to show your ID to the cops? Can you say to the officer, "Am I being detained?" Don't just regard what the letter of some document says. Regard the subtle law with the subtle calculus.

Can you refuse to show your ID to the cops?

Probably no (in practice), if you're black or Latino or lower class white. Or anybody, in a drug-dealing neighborhood.

  Can you refuse to show your ID to the cops?

Outside of cause supported by reasonable suspicion OR driving a vehicle, yes (under case law). But your average beat cop may not know that (or care).

  "Am I being detained?"

To avoid certain ambiguities, instead ask, "am I free to go?"

> In the U.S., despite what officers tell you, you do not have to identify yourself when asked.

This varies state to state. In many states you must identify yourself at the level of providing your name and address, but you are not required to produce any documentation.

If you mean state-and-identify, that is only valid if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in illegal activities.

Reasonable suspicion is such a low standard that it can always be manufactured.

You do not have to identify yourself in California.

https://www.aclusocal.org/barstow-stop-and-id/

  The only exceptions are if you're in a vehicle

That's why he was stopped in the first place, for (allegedly) talking on his phone while riding. Doing so is a Vehicle Code violation. In CA, a bicycle on a public road is a vehicle subject to most provisions of the Vehicle Code.

Without probably cause, demanding ID is not just a right the police have (in the sense of fundamental human rights, I'm not talking about case law here.) Demanding ID without probable cause (or more strictly, a warrant) is a violation of fourth amendments rights, and would make the cop who did it, if armed, a felon under USC 18-242.

There's a saying about how bad the german cops got in the nazi era that you may have heard "papers please"-- this is literally asking for someone's id, usually without cause.

It's a sign of a police state-- a classic one.

Or as the article states and links to if you're cycling and pulled for a traffic violation, which using a cellphone while driving is in California iirc, you have to provide identification. Not justifying the force used afterwards but requesting ID was perfectly valid here.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-rights/a.cfm/road-rights-iden...

What transactions are you making where you have to produce ID? Unless you're constantly buying alcohol or tobacco, it really shouldn't come up. I always carry mine, but not because I typically need it.

In any case, this is all beside the point. No matter how much you think people should carry ID, it's not a legal requirement and certainly not a justification to beat someone so badly you put them in the hospital.

The area doesn't even have enough collection to have cameras installed on BART trains.

Hardly.

In fact, BART sought, and was allocated, funds specifically for security cameras... not unlike how PG&E charged ratepayers in San Mateo County for gas pipeline testing and replacement that never happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com