AP club just got busted

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. Why give them your ID? If playing cards isn't a crime, what do they need your ID for? There's no law that says you have to produce ID on demand for a police officer unless you were driving.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a saying: you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Since you know you arent getting in trouble, just show the ID.

Jeez, Ed, being from NO, I thought you'd know better than to make trouble with cops. Those NOPD cops will kick your ass for less than that.

From a player's POV, this is an easy fold here, and its not close.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Can't get a CCW permit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Since you sound like the type who would be into it, I highly recommend the training from either Max or Scotty. They are both seasoned operators based out of LA County. TFTT or ITTS

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you are right about the questioning. Give your ID, act respectfully,and there is no need to answer any question about another game or club. Then go home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Why give them your ID? If playing cards isn't a crime, what do they need your ID for? There's no law that says you have to produce ID on demand for a police officer unless you were driving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Ed you are wrong about this see this recent Supreme Court Decision -- Though you are not required to hand over an ID you are required to identify yourself and falsely identifying yourself would be a violation of law:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-5554.ZO.html

Although this is a case arising under Nevada law, you will see in the citations within the decision that NY has a similar statute.

(Yes I think the decision is wrong, but that doesn't seem to matter much when the Supremem Court rules)

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so wrong it's not even funny. This is NOT what that case you are citing is holding, and New York law varies GREATLY from Nevada law on this subject.

Regardless of that in NYS while you are not required to provide identification, they are not required to release you until you can be identified. So if you want to excerise your rights they will gladly hold you overnight until your identification has been verified.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of that in NYS while you are not required to provide identification, they are not required to release you until you can be identified. So if you want to excerise your rights they will gladly hold you overnight until your identification has been verified.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed 100%. well almost, they can't hold you indefinitely if they can't identify you, but close enough.

In some states, such as Nevada, you can be charged with obstruction for not providing ID, but this is not the case in NY.

[jon_1van]

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62438,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Supreme Court says you gotta show ID (although case was from Nevada)

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62438,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Supreme Court says you gotta show ID (although case was from Nevada)

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG PEOPLE. All that case said was that in Nevada you can be charged with obstruction for not providing ID. This does not mean that you have to show ID every where in the country. The fact that it is a Supreme Court case does not mean there is now some federal law or something saying you have to show ID to cops. All it means is that states are free (meaning its not unconstitutional) to create such laws. New York state (the subject of this thread) does not have such a law. Not showing ID does not constitute obstruction in New York State.

Maybe you should actually bnother to read what you are talking about. The statute which the State of Nevada relied on to justify the police officers demands was

NRS 171.123

[ QUOTE ]
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

[/ QUOTE ]

New York has an equivalent statute:

CPL Section 140.50

[ QUOTE ]
§ 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.

[/ QUOTE ]

These Statutes are pretty similar, and the NY statute is even cited in the Court's decision as being a similar statute.


Years ago one might count on the New York Court of Appeals to find that State's Constitution grants broader protection to individuals than does the US Constitution, but in recent years the Court of Appeals seems to construing the State COnstitution much more in line with The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitutional protections. (As reflected in People v. Robinson where the NY Court of Appeals adopted the Whren v. US standard on the subject of pretect stops)

Keep in mind under the De Bour standards the New York Court of Appeals put stop and identify at the lowest level of scrutiny for police citizen encounters.

I would not be so quick to say that the Hibel case is not without significnace for New Yorkers.

[cokehead]

whats your point?

Hiibel was charged under NRS 199.280, not NRS 171.123.

Also, for extra points, can you please tell me the difference between NRS 171.123 abd CPL 140.50 that might make constitutional difference? I'll give you a hint, look at the end of each 171.123(3) and 140.50(1).

EDIT: to clarify, my point was there is no equivalent to NRS 199.280 in New York.

[IgorSmiles]

You boys need to get your noses out of your legal books and back to reality. These are points you can argue with the judge. If you prefer going home to appearing before a judge, your best bet is to politely provide ID.