Papers, please!

[Car Knocker]

Woman files suit over police demand for her identification
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Until last year, Tanya Ortega de Chamberlin had a clean record, with no criminal convictions or even an arrest. But her refusal to provide her date of birth or Social Security number to a South Salt Lake police officer changed that.
Although she was not suspected of committing a crime, and eventually provided the requested information, Ortega de Chamberlin was still cited based on her initial resistance.
The obstruction charges against her were later dropped. But Ortega de Chamberlin says that's not good enough - she has filed a lawsuit asking for a declaration that her constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. She also wants reimbursement of the money she spent fighting the criminal case.
Capt. Chris Snyder said Thursday that the department cannot comment on pending litigation.
The legal action, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, gives this account of the incident:
On Nov. 4 about 12:30 p.m., Ortega de Chamberlin, a photographer who lives in Salt Lake City, was standing on a public sidewalk near 3021 S. Main St. when Officer B. Heddlesten approached her. The officer said she was not suspected of a crime, but demanded the photographer give him her name, date of birth and Social Security number and tell him whether she had a driver license.
Ortega de Chamberlin gave her name but told the officer she was not required by law to provide the other information he requested.
In response to her repeated questions, Heddlesten said he did not think she had committed a crime or was attempting to commit one, according to the suit. However, the officer still insisted that she had to tell him the information; his supervisor, Sgt. Brian Stahle, who arrived at their location, backed him up.
Under threat of arrest, Ortega de Chamberlin finally complied, but was cited for allegedly interfering with or obstructing an officer by giving false information and by refusing to give information. Her suit says she then was put in handcuffs and placed in a police car until the officers changed their minds about taking her to jail and released her.
The charges were dismissed before trial, but Ortega de Chamberlin still has a criminal accusation on her record.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2974807
##########################
We've discussed the requirement to provide ID to LEO's before but it was usually in connection with some sort of investigation. The demands in this case are on a whole new level.

 

[kbr80]

In response to her repeated questions, Heddlesten said he did not think she had committed a crime or was attempting to commit one, according to the suit. However, the officer still insisted that she had to tell him the information; his supervisor, Sgt. Brian Stahle, who arrived at their location, backed him up.

Go a head, widen that US vs Them Gap. IF this happened, It is not right, and the officers involved should be terminated.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Ortega de Chamberlin gave her name but told the officer she was not required by law to provide the other information he requested.

I'd bet she's right.

Did he take her camera and run the serial number to see if it was stolen?

I just don't get all these shutter-bug nuts who think they have to openly carry those things! It just ruins it for the rest of us.

 

[Control Group]

This isn't worth getting worked up over - at least, not yet. Whether this is a big deal will all come down to how the civil suit turns out. If the court rules that this was a 4th Amendment violation, and does award damages to cover court costs, then there's no problem; the system has worked.

If it sides with the police, however, it's just one more step down the road towards becoming a police state.

But for the moment, we've got two police officers who were in the wrong. Sure, it's troubling that they felt they had the authority to demand ID for no reason, but it's not an indictment of the system as a whole. The system can't prevent people from exceeding the bounds of their authority, it just legitimizes or condemns such actions. So far, the system is working as intended: a person has been wronged, and she's pleading her case in court.

Hopefully we'll hear a followup on this one.

 

[spartacus2002]

Behavior like these two LEOs displayed, and yet they wonder why the people feel like it's us v. them.

"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is right under the law, they begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-Henry Louis Mencken

 

[Flyboy]

Asking for her SSAN is particularly troublesome; I don't recall if the law also applies to the states, but there is a Federal law that says that requesting SSANs isn't lawful unless the requesting agency has permission to use the number; all forms requesting SSAN have an OMB authorization number at the bottom.

With any luck, this one will get smacked down by the court.

 

[LoneStranger]

Seems like she lost this case already. If I dismember incorrectly did not the USSC say that some good ol' boy cowboy could be charged with not handing over his papers to LEO.

The STATE has ultimate power and youse better learn your proper place in it, peon.

 

[spartacus2002]

Seems like she lost this case already. If I dismember incorrectly did not the USSC say that some good ol' boy cowboy could be charged with not handing over his papers to LEO.

Not exactly; in that case (the Hiibel case), there was a state law saying he had to identify himself. SCOTUS upheld that state law.

 

[Joejojoba111]

"If the court rules that this was a 4th Amendment violation, and does award damages to cover court costs, then there's no problem; the system has worked."

The system works for itself, though. The system will be such that the mayor will gipe about the costs, and yell at the chief, and the chief of police will yell at another guy, who will yel at another guy, until someone yells at the officers who abused her. And the mayor will add another 3 million dollars to the budget allocation, and the taxpayers will pay for it.

The officers will not be prosecuted, they will not be convicted, they will not be incarcerated, they will not be stripped of rights and privileges such as firearms ownership or voting. Their bosses and their buddies who are OK with what they did will not even consider worrying about a wide-spread investigation tracking them down and proving they were accomplices to the crime.

Tell me how the system works? The police rough this lady up, if she fights early she goes to jail. If she doesn't fight she goes to jail. If she fights at the properly designated time in the properly designated manner, she fights against her own tax dollars funding lawyers for those who abused her. If she wins the fight, somehow, then she receives some of her tax dollars back. And her taxes are raised to compensate. And if she refuses to pay these increased taxes those same police will rough her up and take her to jail.

 

[dpesec]

I was under the impression that you had to ID yourself to LEOs, the SCOTUS ruled that in Hiibel vs. Nevada.

 

[Old Dog]

The system works for itself, though. The system will be such that the mayor will gipe about the costs, and yell at the chief, and the chief of police will yell at another guy, who will yel at another guy, until someone yells at the officers who abused her. And the mayor will add another 3 million dollars to the budget allocation, and the taxpayers will pay for it.

Wow, where can I learn to see the future like this? Is this precognition a natural gift, or can it be learned?

The police rough this lady up,

Where in the article did it state that she was physically abused?
Control Group provides a quite reasonable synopsis of this situation and yet you can still find ways to argue it?

 

[Henry Bowman]

OK, folks. The SCOTUS case said that if the is a state law to this effect, you have to identify (give your name) yourself to LEO. It did NOT say that you had to produce any identification document (unless driving, of course).

In this case, she gave them her name. Whether that state had a law that required it or not, it doesn't matter. She refused to give a DL or SSN, initially. Eventially, she caved. I genuinely doubt that there is any state that has a law saying that you must carry ID or present (when not driving).

 

[Shield529]

In the Hibel case the police had a call of a Battery in progress,(a crime). The officer was investigating this crime and requested ID of a suspect in this crime. It seems everyone ignores that part of the whole case and acts like the officer picked some random guy to harass. Just becuse he was a down home country boy in a hat does not mean he is the good guy.

In this case, from the one side we hear from, the officer approched a random citizen for no apparent reason and demanded personal information. This is unlawful and should be dealt with as such.

I see alot of people on this and other boards complain the librals only use the parts of the story that support their side. I am now seeing it here to.

 

[dpesec]

well I just wonder about that. What if the LEO want's a state issued ID? This was not addressed it the majority finding. The minority did address this.
IMNAL, but we now have the groundwork being created. How far of a jump is it from this case, providing things like:your name, address, place of business, to being required to have some form of National ID. After all, we need to fight terrorism right?

 

[dpesec]

Shield,
Right, there was probable cause, that's clearly pointed out in the decision. But, let's say you see a car pulling out of a tavern at 1AM. This car makes a bit of a wide right turn and crosses the centerline. Then proceeds with no further incident. Would that be probable cause? Well it was to a LEO. I was pulled over for "being left of center". I think the purpose was to get a DUI arrest.

I hate to say this but that's exactly what happened to me, I used the tavern as a turnaround to get milk on the way home from my girlfriends house.

Let's face it, 99.9% of the people don't know the law, and will blindly comply.

I know there are far more dedicated LEOs there, heck I wouldn't want the job, but things change.

 

[Control Group]

Tell me how the system works? The police rough this lady up, if she fights early she goes to jail. If she doesn't fight she goes to jail. If she fights at the properly designated time in the properly designated manner, she fights against her own tax dollars funding lawyers for those who abused her. If she wins the fight, somehow, then she receives some of her tax dollars back. And her taxes are raised to compensate. And if she refuses to pay these increased taxes those same police will rough her up and take her to jail.

So what, then, is your proposal? How would you like this to be handled?

Sure, I'd prefer the police didn't do this, too. But then, I'd also prefer that murderers didn't murder, burglars didn't burgle, rapists didn't rape, embezzlers didn't embezzle, so on and so forth. These things, however, happen, no matter how much we wish they didn't.

You don't like the idea of her appealing to the courts, since it will cost taxpayer money, which is her money, so she won't actually recover anything. So what alternative system do you propose?

 

[Joejojoba111]

" Where in the article did it state that she was physically abused?"

I would seem unwise to be in your bad books. Thus I take it back, furthermore I have special needs. Normal treatment is not to my liking, please don't treat me in a normally accepted manner, such as a friendly groping and patting my body, gently twisting my arms behind my back, lovingly chaining my hands together and then warmly confining me in a locked compartment.

And the joyous realization that severe bodily harm would come upon me if I in any way resisted...

Seriously, in any other situation with any other people that's like a dozen life sentences for all those crimes.

 

[Control Group]

Right, there was probable cause, that's clearly pointed out in the decision. But, let's say you see a car pulling out of a tavern at 1AM. This car makes a bit of a wide right turn and crosses the centerline. Then proceeds with no further incident. Would that be probable cause? Well it was to a LEO. I was pulled over for "being left of center". I think the purpose was to get a DUI arrest.

Frankly, yes, that's PC for being pulled over. While the infraction itself was a minor one, crossing the centerline is an infraction. More importantly, that sort of imprecise driving is one possible indicator of an intoxicated driver. As it turns out, you weren't an intoxicated driver. Upon finding this out, the cop should have let you go without further hassle. You don't say whether or not he did, so he may or may not have gone overboard after the stop, but the stop itself was reasonable. Now, had you not crossed the center line, and been pulled over for no reason other than a fishing expedition, that would be unreasonable.

To analogize for a moment, if a cop sees a guy come out of a house carrying a bloody butcher's knife, I think it's reasonable and acceptable for the officer to stop the guy and make inquiries as to what's going on. If it turns out the guy is cleaning a deer in the basement, and was just coming outside for some fresh air, then everything's cool. Again, as long as the officer doesn't unduly hassle the guy, nothing wrong has happened.

Probable cause can be annoyingly ambiguous, certainly, but without it the police are going to be fairly well hamstrung. And that's the role of the jury-based court system: do twelve of your peers agree that the officer had legitimate probable cause for a stop/search/etc.

At least, that's the way it's supposed to work. I won't say there aren't abuses, or that the system isn't slowly growing more and more repressive - I've certainly complained about abuse of police power loudly enough elsewhere on THR - but the foundation is, IMHO, solid.

 

[Control Group]

I would seem unwise to be in your bad books. Thus I take it back, furthermore I have special needs. Normal treatment is not to my liking, please don't treat me in a normally accepted manner, such as a friendly groping and patting my body, gently twisting my arms behind my back, lovingly chaining my hands together and then warmly confining me in a locked compartment.

And the joyous realization that severe bodily harm would come upon me if I in any way resisted...

Seriously, in any other situation with any other people that's like a dozen life sentences for all those crimes.

Are you actually suggesting that the police shouldn't have the authority to make arrests, search the arrested for weapons, restrain the arrested, and prevent the arrested from escaping?

If that's actually your stance, I don't think there's any further point in this conversation. You, then, don't like the fact that we have police at all, while I think a police force is a legitimate use of government authority. If we differ on that fundamental a level, we'll never agree on anything.

 

[CARRY'IN]

The police rough this lady up, if she fights early she goes to jail. If she doesn't fight she goes to jail. If she fights at the properly designated time in the properly designated manner, she fights against her own tax dollars funding lawyers for those who abused her. If she wins the fight, somehow, then she receives some of her tax dollars back. And her taxes are raised to compensate. And if she refuses to pay these increased taxes those same police will rough her up and take her to jail.

That is pretty awesome, thanks spartacus. As for Mr. Control group, I cant comment on your posts because I just skip over them now (they are soooo long). They all say about the same thing anyway. This is a very interesting thread to me. I always wonder why I just roll over and prostrate myself when a policeman starts bullying me. Do they really have the right to do this to people? Several times I have wanted to say, "I dont have time for this, I am leaving", and walk away. But we all know what would happen.

 

[Control Group]

As for Mr. Control group, I cant comment on your posts because I just skip over them now (they are soooo long).

Yes, my last post - 81 whole words - was practically War and Peace.

They all say about the same thing anyway.

I certainly hope so. I strive for intellectual consistency.

 

[dpesec]

Controll Group,
Yes there was no hastle, no foul. I guess what I'm concerned with is that 20 years ago, this wouldn't have justified a stop. Like you, I see a slow creeping problem.

I don't have an answer to the problem, but I'm concerned that like that infamous frog, we might wake up one day and find out we're too late.

 

[chaim]

Asking for her SSAN is particularly troublesome; I don't recall if the law also applies to the states, but there is a Federal law that says that requesting SSANs isn't lawful unless the requesting agency has permission to use the number; all forms requesting SSAN have an OMB authorization number at the bottom.

This is the info I get from my dad who spent nearly 40 years working for the Social Security Administration. There are only two entities with the authority to require you to give your SSN, the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

Anyone can request it, but you don't have to give it. Sure, you refuse to give your SSN to a bank and you won't get a loan, you don't give it to the military and they won't let you join, you don't put it on your yellow form when buying a gun and you may be confused with someone else in the data base. However, in all these cases, you simply aren't getting something you want if you don't give the number. For a job, you don't have to put it on your application (though you may not get the job if you don't), but since they file the tax forms you do need to give it on the IRS forms they give you (since the IRS can demand the SSN).

Only the SSA and IRS have the ability to demand it. Police charging someone for refusing to comply with police for refusing to give their SSN are committing a federal offense.

 

[Coronach]

I always wonder why I just roll over and prostrate myself when a policeman starts bullying me. Do they really have the right to do this to people? Several times I have wanted to say, "I dont have time for this, I am leaving", and walk away. But we all know what would happen.

Define "bullying", and what you were doing when this happened. If it is a consentual encounter, you can absolutely turn on your heel and walk away. However, that forces the officer's hand. If you're the suspect in a crime, it will result in you being grabbed and detained, legally, at the very least. If it is the case of a MV stop, you just committed a new offense, and will be arrested.

Mike

 

[joab]

Yes there was no hastle, no foul. I guess what I'm concerned with is that 20 years ago, this wouldn't have justified a stop. Like you, I see a slow creeping problem.

Yes 20 years ago it would have been PC for a traffic stop DUI was illegal back then too, and the MADD Mothers were coming into their own.
I know this because I was pulled for the same thing in 1981, cept I was a little tipsy so they took me home to my father, all the time I was trying to tell them I could do the time, PLEASE

I don't even have to supply my SSN on a federal application to buy a gun, why should anyone have to give it to a cop that admitted that he has no reason to even ask for it.

What's the term I'm looking for is it "Abuse under cover of color" or something like that. I've heard that term before somewhere in LA

She should not sue the dept she should sue the officers invloved and demand punishment at least equal to the ounishment she recieved for exercising her rights