lairdside

Juveniles in Washington, D.C., must be taken into custody and cannot be given a citation. Ansche Hedgepeth never resisted or failed to cooperate with the officer but was handcuffed and informed that it was against the law to eat in a subway station. After removing her shoestrings and searching her jacket and backpack, the officer asked a female officer to frisk Ansche. Ansche was then led to a police car and taken to the police station where she was interrogated, booked, fingerprinted and finally, after being detained for over two hours, was released into her mother’s custody.

Rutherford Institute attorneys charged the WMATA and the D.C. police with constitutional violations including illegal search and seizure and having a discriminatory policy that allows different treatment for minors and juveniles. Although WMATA claims to have revised their policy so that permit letters would be sent to a juvenile offender’s parents and/or school in lieu of arrest, the original procedure mandating arrest remains on the books. Concerned that the zero tolerance crackdowns could be revived at any time, Institute attorneys are asking the court to declare the policy unconstitutional and order the district to refrain from imposing it.

In October, 2003 U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed claims by Tracy Hedgepeth that Metro Transit Police Officer Jason Fazenbaker illegally searched her daughter's backpack and treated her unfairly when he arrested her Oct. 23, 2000, after watching her enter the Tenleytown-AU Station and pop a single french fry into her mouth.

In California, if the "Suspect" is under 12 years of age you must be able to prove that they understood the wrongfullness of their act. Perhaps they don't have an equivalent in D.C.

superpat

Embarrassed by my ignorance here... PA - you seem to be implying that it is mandatory to carry ID in the US (or, at least, in DC). Is this the case???

Cheers,

Pat

lairdside

Ack. There's a better case to illustrate this -- now if I could only remember the name of it (I can remember the details but not the pesky name!)

I am tired and will remember in the morning no doubt

In the meantime, try KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=461&invol=352

Patent Attorney

Lairside, the present case is completely distinguishable from KOLENDER
v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). In the present case the person is
strictly liable to a citation upon eating in the subway and at that
point the transit cop is authorized to request credible and reliable
identification. Kolender v. Lawson concerned persons who loiter or
wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable"
identification and to account for their presence when requested by a
peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the
standards of Terry v. Ohio�. So the facts in Kolender and the present
case are distinguishable on their face; also, the transit cop did not
perform a Terry stop. See if you can find a case that is on point, I
could look up the cases on Westlaw but hey you are the law student and I
am the professional lawyer, so you find them!

Superpat> Sorry, by
"ID� I just mean identification (to wit, “credible and reliable
identification� … see Koender v. Lawson above), i.e. credible
information concerning the person's name and address. I daresay if the
person eating (same would apply if the person was smoking) on the DC
metro area subway had simply complied with the transit cops request that
they stop eating that would be the end of it. But if there is a
complication and the transit cop decides to issue a citation and the
person is unable to satisfy the transit cop as to their identity the
transit cop might well decide to detain the person to establish
identity. Obviously if the person is carrying a state ID or driving
license then that should satisfy the transit cop.

The transit
authority in charge of the DC area metro has decided as a matter of
public policy to enforce no-eating and no-smoking rules. Enforcing such
regulations is proper if certain steps are followed. The transit cop is
not free to go into arrest mode on a whim or out of personal malice.
For a valid arrest there has to be clearly delineated steps that justify
or provide a legal basis for arrest otherwise there is a definite risk
of violating the person’s civil rights.

It's case-by-case and fact
intensive ...

If the person who was arrested in DC was not eating in
the subway then the transit cop was not authorized to issue the person
with a citation. If the transit cop arrested the person this would
amount to an illegal violation of the person's civil rights.

If the
person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway then the transit
cop had authority to issue her with a citation. If the transit cop
asked the person for her ID and failed to give the person adequate time
to satisfy the cop as to their identity and the cop went into fast
arrest mode, the arrest would be a violation of the person's civil
rights.

If the person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway
the transit cop had authority to issue her with a citation. If he asked
her for her ID and she responded by walking away then the transit cop
could legally detain her. However, the cop would be in a better
position if he gave the person a further chance to identify herself and
thereby allow the cop to issue her with a citation.

If the person
who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway the transit cop had
authority to issue her with a citation. If he asked her for her ID and
she responded by walking away then the transit cop could legally detain
her. If the cop asked again for the person's ID and the person again
refused to provide the officer with the information to enable him to
issue a citation the cop could legally detain that person to ascertain
their ID and issue a citation. The matter is not a felony so the person
should be processed in a reasonable time and released.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Patent Attorney

Lairside, the present case is completely distinguishable from KOLENDER
v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). In the present case the person is
strictly liable to a citation upon eating in the subway and at that
point the transit cop is authorized to request credible and reliable
identification. In contrast, Kolender v. Lawson concerned persons who
loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable"
identification and to account for their presence when requested by a
peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the
standards of Terry v. Ohio�. The transit cop did not perform a Terry
stop. So the facts in Kolender and the present case are distinguishable
on their face. See if you can find another case that is on point, I
could look up the cases on Westlaw but hey you are the law student and I
am the professional lawyer, so you find them!

Superpat> Sorry, by
"ID� I just mean identification (to wit, “credible and reliable
identification� … see Kolender v. Lawson above), i.e. credible
information concerning the person's name and address. I daresay if the
person eating (same would apply if the person was smoking) on the DC
metro area subway had simply complied with the transit cops request that
they stop eating that would be the end of it. But if there is a
complication and the transit cop decides to issue a citation and the
person is unable to satisfy the transit cop as to their identity the
transit cop might well decide to detain the person to establish
identity. Obviously if the person is carrying a state ID or driving
license then that should satisfy the transit cop. The transit authority
in charge of the DC area metro has decided as a matter of public policy
to enforce no-eating and no-smoking rules. Enforcing such regulations
is proper if certain steps are followed. The transit cop is not free to
go into arrest mode on a whim or out of personal malice. For a valid
arrest there has to be clearly delineated steps that justify or provide
a legal basis for arrest otherwise there is a definite risk of violating
the person’s civil rights.

It's case-by-case and fact intensive ...


If the person who was arrested in DC was not eating in the subway then
the transit cop was not authorized to issue the person with a citation.
If the transit cop arrested the person this would amount to an illegal
violation of the person's civil rights.

If the person who was
arrested in DC was eating in the subway then the transit cop had
authority to issue her with a citation. If the transit cop asked the
person for her ID and failed to give the person adequate time to satisfy
the cop as to their identity and the cop went into fast arrest mode, the
arrest would be a violation of the person's civil rights.

If the
person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway the transit cop
had authority to issue her with a citation. If he asked her for her ID
and she responded by walking away then the transit cop could legally
detain her. However, the cop would be in a better position if he gave
the person a further chance to identify herself and thereby allow the
cop to issue her with a citation.

If the person who was arrested in
DC was eating in the subway the transit cop had authority to issue her
with a citation. If he asked her for her ID and she responded by
walking away then the transit cop could legally detain her. If the cop
asked again for the person's ID and the person again refused to provide
the officer with the information to enable him to issue a citation the
cop could legally detain that person to ascertain their ID and issue a
citation. The matter is not a felony; the person should be processed in
a reasonable time and released.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Franklin

Lairside, the present case is completely distinguishable from KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). In the present case the person is strictly liable to a citation upon eating in the subway and at that point the transit cop is authorized to request credible and reliable identification. In contrast, Kolender v. Lawson concerned persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio�. The transit cop in the present case did not perform a Terry stop; also, Kolender centered on a California statute. So the facts in Kolender and the present case are clearly distinguishable. See if you can find another case that is on point, I could look up the cases on Westlaw but hey you are the law student and I am the professional lawyer, so you find them!

Superpat> Sorry, by "ID� I just mean identification (to wit, “credible and reliable identification� … see Kolender v. Lawson above), i.e. credible information concerning the person's name and address. I daresay if the person eating (same would apply if the person was smoking) on the DC metro area subway had simply complied with the transit cop’s request that they stop eating that would be the end of it. But if there is a complication and the transit cop decides to issue a citation and the person is unable to satisfy the transit cop as to their identity the transit cop might well decide to detain the person to establish identity. Obviously if the person is carrying a state ID or driving license then that should satisfy the transit cop. The transit authority in charge of the DC area metro has decided as a matter of public policy to enforce no-eating and no-smoking rules. Enforcing such regulations is proper if certain steps are followed. The transit cop is not free to go into arrest mode on a whim or out of personal malice. For a valid arrest there has to be clearly delineated steps that justify or provide a legal basis for arrest otherwise there is a definite risk of violating the person’s civil rights.

It's case-by-case and fact intensive ...

If the person who was arrested in DC was not eating in the subway then the transit cop was not authorized to issue the person with a citation. If the transit cop arrested the person this would amount to an illegal violation of the person's civil rights.

If the person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway then the transit cop had authority to issue her with a citation. If the transit cop asked the person for her ID and failed to give the person adequate time to satisfy the cop as to their identity and the cop went into fast arrest mode, the arrest would be a violation of the person's civil rights.

If the person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway the transit cop had authority to issue her with a citation. If he asked her for her ID and she responded by walking away then the transit cop could legally detain her. However, the cop would be in a better position if he gave the person a further chance to identify herself and thereby allow the cop to issue her with a citation.

If the person who was arrested in DC was eating in the subway the transit cop had authority to issue her with a citation. If he asked her for her ID and she responded by walking away then the transit cop could legally detain her. If the cop asked again for the person's ID and the person again refused to provide the officer with the information to enable him to issue a citation the cop could legally detain that person to ascertain their ID and issue a citation. The matter is not a felony; the person should be processed in a reasonable time and released.

Yorkieabroad

Well, someone could at least help the poor old buggers back on to the platform .....

So what was the short answer to the requirement to carry id? Yes or no? And if yes, at what age does it start? Cheers (I know the answer is probably in those links, but I'm on a28kbps dialup connection at the moment and I just can't open them without it craashing/timing out.)

Franklin

I don't think there is a universal answer. It's a case-by-case matter and driven at least in part by public policy; someone might get asked for ID and most often not by a cop ... traveling by plane ... need to show an ID at the airport, usually more than once, don’t have a valid ID and you are not likely to get on your plane. Driving a car – in at least some states you need to have your driving license while driving a car; getting a first driving license at a state DMV will probably require at least one form of valid ID, in VA it was two forms of valid ID; green card holder -> I seem to recall that GC holder's are encouraged to carry their green cards; banks sometimes ask for ID; collecting a federal loan check – might need to show a valid ID to get your check, the list is endless … buying alcohol at a local supermarket they may ask for ID and if you don't produce it they may refuse to serve you; buying stuff with a credit card, they may ask for ID if there is an issue – happened to a relative of mine, they don’t have to accept your credit card and over a certain purchase amount the cash till operator may be required to ask for proof of ID to prevent fraud (my local CVS have pulled this stunt).

On the metro in DC, I don’t think there is a per se requirement to carry an ID, but if one has a driving license it is probably best to keep it on you especially if you have a parked car waiting for you in a metro car park at your final stop! Most people carry a valid ID, probably because there are so many occasions when one gets asked for it, and the person asking for it is most often not a cop!

Rats on the tracks … saw them on the tracks at a NYC subway station on my first day in NYC. Their close proximity frightened me; I could not take my eyes off them! The filth along the tracks by the platform of the NYC subway station was a shock. It was pretty obvious that litter including take-away cartons and unwanted food taken into the subway often ends up along the track lines adjacent to the platform. The rats need to eat; take-away leftovers are a source of food for rats. It is advisable not to take any take-away food into a subway to avoid generating a rat infestation problem. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has a no-eating policy that is rigorously enforced. The rats are essentially starved of food so don’t populate the DC metro area subway system. Most folks here like the cleanliness on our subway system.

Duncs

There is some difference here as those particular things all involve the exercise of a privilege and it is thus distinguishable and reasonable for state authorities to confirm your right to exercise the privilege in question. To drive is a privilege, to buy alcohol is a restricted activity, getting on a plane is a contractual activity and so could require valid ID as part of the contract, as an immigrant you are required to carry your PR card to prove your immigration status if requested by a police officer, and so on. Its seems a much more concerning thing that if you happen to be engaged in nothing other than progressing along the public highway or in a public space you can be subject to an ID request by a police officer. For what purpose? I don’t think that is the case, surely you must have been engaged in an activity that allows the officer to ascertain your identity. I.e. committing a violation so confirmation of identify needed to be ascertained to issue a citation, or as in Hiibel v Nevada (June 21st 2004) believed to be involved in an offence and part of the investigation into that offence. In circumstances outside of that I would think it unlawful for a police officer to ask for your ID (unless you’re an immigrant of course).

lairdside

There is a more "on point" case.... which I cannot remember the details of in which the defendant was a black attorney...darn, why can't I remember?

The case I did cite raised many QUESTIONS which if were relevant to the question asked, the case itself was not intended to be a direct correlation. I have great faith in the fact that Superpat is not stupid and has the ability to use deductive thinking to differentiate the revelant and irrevant points raised by the case.

Also, it is highly disputable as to whether or not you must show ID by law to travel on an aircraft within the US. The statute actually states that the airlines are required to request ID from you. At a push I believe that people have tested this theory and would have been allowed to board without presenting ID after being subjected to a body search.

So, I'm a Forensic Psychology student and you are a Patent Attorney. This is neither of our "areas" and many areas of the law may not be covered at all by a law degree, or may only be available to study as an elective (immigration being an example).

So someone can hold a J.D. and have no knowledge whatsoever in a particular area of the law........

Oh and GC holders are not encouraged to carry their GC's. They are required, unless a minor, to carry them at all times.

lairdside

I really am still half asleep.

It doesn't matter that my reply was clearly distinguishable from the transit authority case. I wasn't referring to it.

I was replying to the requirement to carry ID........

WTF are you talking about PA?

(Going to get a coffee....)

lairdside

But Duncs, I didn't site Hiibel because in that case NRS 171.123(3) had been interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court to require only that a suspect disclose his name (when reasonable suspicion exists).

Hiibel was only required to state his name but refused to do so.

Duncs

I see the distinction but i would think that stating your name is part of the process of Identifying yourself. The key point surely is that it involved the investigation of an offence and without that (or a similiar)precondition no requirement to identify yourself exists.

lairdside

Yup, I'm suffering from the same problem, I can recall cases with similar issues but nothing which directly correlates. I thought Superpat asked if it was requirement to carry ID, am I mistaken?

Hmm. I wanted to ask you about those English vagrancy laws that are the cause of all this trouble

Franklin

A transit cop can request ID, but a person can often refuse to comply with the request without breaking any laws. There is a difference between a demand and a request. Its case-by-case and nearly always fact intensive.