[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Vapers seek relief ... by turning to cigarettes

Same Gov’t Who’s Now Banning Flavored E-Cigs, Approved Candy-Flavored Amphetamines for Kids

Remember the Vallejo Cop Who Tackled a Veteran for Filming Him?

Blood, Delusions, and Corruption in the American West

Will Justin Amash Run for President as a Libertarian in 2020?

Ken Burns Delves into the Hardscrabble History of Country Music

"Remain in Mexico" immigration hearings begin in tents at border

Black Race Huslter Deray Accuses White Race Grifter Shaun King of Fleecing Donors, Demand He Stop His "Fundraising" Scams

Are Comedians Finally Fighting Back Against the Far Left’s Cultural Clampdown?

Pete Buttigieg’s Association With the Abortionist Who Stockpiled Baby Corpses in His Home Is Hardly Surprising

Elizabeth Warren’s Social Security Proposal Doesn’t Go Far Enough: It’s Time For A Basic (Retirement) Income

The CIA’s Influence Over the Media: Use of the Conspiracy Theorist Slur

Pete Buttigieg Chides Gun Owners Who Have ‘Sense of Manhood’ Wrapped Up in Guns

Is Vaping Marijuana Safe? Deaths and Lung Disease Linked to E-Cigs Call That Into Question

DOJ Inspector General Has Completed FISA Abuse Probe

Ohio gamer sentenced to 15 months prison in 'swatting' case

Court: FBI Must Destroy Memos Calling Antiwar.com a Threat

Trump administration enters new phase for border wall, sets ambitious timetable after securing land

Eddie Money, ‘Two Tickets to Paradise’ singer, dead at 70

Eighth Illegal Alien Charged with Rape in Same Maryland Sanctuary County

Free (with ads) Movie "The Wrecking Crew"

Judicial Watch Sued To Get Footage of The ‘Plane’ Hitting The Pentagon On 9/11 (Video)

Webb Wilder & The Beatnecks - Baby Please Don't Go

95 Percent of Americans Believe the Media is Full of Shit

Orange County deputy accidentally shoots himself while training

9/11 Solidified the Destruction of Our Freedom

The Orange Car Guy

AGW is “Paid to Find Out Who’s in Town”

Witness: Girls as young as 11 visited Jeffrey EpsteinÂ’s island in 2018

Christine Blasey Ford's Father Privately Supported Brett Kavanaught's Confirmation

'Way Too Far To The Left': Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Skewers Democrats On Immigration

Biden Tried to Buy Putin’s Support for Iraq War With Promise of Oil Money

Clown World: Canadian Cancer Society Claims Men Without Cervixes Can Get Cervical Cancer

Revealed: You Know How Rush Limbaugh Talks About "Seminar Callers"? Turns Out They're Real -- Employed by a Joint Clinton-DNC Effort

Don’t look now, but there’s more border wall news

Psychedelic Science Just Got a Big Boost

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good

Trump Replaces Bolton with Fringe Neocon

When Booze Was Banned but Pot Was Not

The 911 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation – Updated 2019 Edition

10 Reasons Why You Should Be Questioning the ‘Official’ Story on 9/11

Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Ninth Circuit Judge and Gives President Trump a Huge Win On Asylum

Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell

Trump-shaped 9th Circuit hands White House major win on asylum policy

Something Strange Is Going On With All Those Retiring Texans

BRACE YOURSELVES: EATING WITH FORKS IS EUROCENTRIC RACISM

SHOW OF FAITH Ashura festival sees children left covered in blood as devout Muslims use knives to slice their heads open

Least Masculine Society In Human History Decides Masculinity Is A Growing Threat


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Cops Arrest Man for not Showing ID while Sitting outside Library using its Wifi
Source: News Maven
URL Source: https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/eye- ... s-wifi-96Af-jUiUEmjUDpGmhmOjw/
Published: Jun 2, 2019
Author: Nathan Dimoff
Post Date: 2019-06-04 18:57:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 200
Comments: 6

News Maven – by Nathan Dimoff

A Denver man uploaded a video to YouTube on May 28 of an interaction he had with Denver police where he was arrested for sitting outside a library using the library’s wifi.

Anthony Clark said he frequently sits outside the library with his laptop during after-hours to communicate with friends and other hip hop musicians while creating his own music.

The video starts off with Corporal John Albergotti identifying himself and asking Clark for his identification. But Clark refuses, telling the officer he knows his rights.

But the officer then asks Clark if he knows the state’s “stop and ID” law, insinuating that he was wrong about knowing his rights.

However, he was not wrong because the law states that citizens are only required to identify themselves to police if the “officer reasonably suspects you are committing, have committed or are about to commit a crime,” according to the ACLU of Colorado.

After realizing the officer was set on violating his rights, Clark asks Albergotti to please call a commanding officer.

“I fear that you’re trying to get something of me when there are other crimes you should be getting to,” Clark tells the cop.

“People are being raped, being murdered, being drugged, overdosing out there, and you’re not tending to that more important stuff.”

But Albergotti advises him to go file a complaint at “2100 South Clay Street,” which is the District 4 Police Station for the Denver Police Department.

They go back and forth for several minutes with Albergotti never explaining exactly what crime did he suspected Clark of committing and Clark continuing to ask for a commanding officer.

The confrontation escalates once more cops arrive with the new officers telling Clark they legally have the right to ask.

“Reasonable suspicion,” one of the new cop says. “You’re behind a closed business. We can ask for your name, your birthdate and a reasonable explanation for your actions.”

But Clark is insistent that sitting outside a public library, even if it is behind the library in what appears to be a publicly accessible alleyway, is not a crime, so he refuses to identify himself.

“Let me ask you this, do you want to go to jail for resisting?” Albergotti asks.

Clark states that he is not resisting but the video ends with the sound of handcuffs.

Photography Is Not A Crime reached out to Clark to confirm if he was arrested and he confirmed he was arrested.

Last month, a California man who was jailed for refusing to identify himself while sitting in the back seat of a car that had been pulled over was awarded a $60,000 settlement.

News Maven

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Cops Arrest Man for not Showing ID while Sitting outside Library using its Wifi

BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, Deckard. You are a hoot.

Yes, technically, he was sitting outside a library. Behind the library in an alley after it was closed.

Reasonable suspicion if I ever saw it.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-06-04   20:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#1)

Yes, technically, he was sitting outside a library. Behind the library in an alley after it was closed.

Being in an alleyway infers there was at least one more building opposite the closed library.

As the library was closed, the police could reasonably suspect the crime of theft of service by unauthorized use of library internet services.

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-5-5-101.html

(1) A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly:

(a) Accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization; exceeds authorized access to a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof; or uses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization or in excess of authorized access;

As the library was closed, the article asserts that Anthony Clark was committing a computer crime.

https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-16/code-of-criminal-procedure/article-3/part-1/section-16-3-103/

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings
Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 3 - Arrest - Searches and Seizures
Part 1 - Authority of Peace Officer to Make an Arrest
§ 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect
Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 16-3-103 (2016)

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/177/

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

SYLLABUS

OCTOBER TERM, 2003

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.

certiorari to the supreme court of nevada

No. 03–5554. Argued March 22, 2004—Decided June 21, 2004

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Petitioner’s conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3–13.

(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 167–171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3–6.

(b) The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34. The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654. An identity request has an immediate relation to the Terry stop’s purpose, rationale, and practical demands, and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location. Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 817. The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 6–10.

(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U. S. 549, 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10–13.

118 Nev. 868, 59 P. 2d 1201, affirmed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-06-05   0:36:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 2.

#3. To: nolu chan (#2)

As the library was closed, the police could reasonably suspect the crime of theft of service by unauthorized use of library internet services.

True, though they had reasonable suspicion even without the laptop. Not enough for an arrest, but enough for a stop and identify under Colorado law.

When he refused, then they had probable cause for an arrest. He can explain it to a judge.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-06-05 10:09:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com