Having No ID

[scott715us]

Folks don't forget that anyone can be arrested for a driving offense (speeding, NO DL, etc). Guys in my department have taken people to jail for refusing to sign a ticket. Don't get me wrong, you'll probably get a mean look from the commissioner if you're just bringin someone in on a traffic offense, but although it is uncommon, it isn't unheard of. Whether ARREST or DETENTION, I think most agree with me, that it was legal. ;)

[txinvestigator1]

Folks don't forget that anyone can be arrested for a driving offense (speeding, NO DL, etc). Guys in my department have taken people to jail for refusing to sign a ticket. Don't get me wrong, you'll probably get a mean look from the commissioner if you're just bringin someone in on a traffic offense, but although it is uncommon, it isn't unheard of. Whether ARREST or DETENTION, I think most agree with me, that it was legal. ;)

True, except in Texas, a person may not be arrested for speeding if the person agrees to sign. If they refuse to sign, they can be booked.

Many departments don't let officers arrest for traffic even if the violator refuses to sign.

[acreature]

True, except in Texas, a person may not be arrested for speeding if the person agrees to sign. If they refuse to sign, they can be booked.

Many departments don't let officers arrest for traffic even if the violator refuses to sign.

Wasn't it TX where the arrest for a seatbelt violation occurred? Went to the Supreme Court, and the arrest was ruled not a violation.

[txinvestigator1]

I am not sure. I am not sure what you mean by "the arrest was ruled not a violation".

[acreature]

I am not sure. I am not sure what you mean by "the arrest was ruled not a violation".

Sorry. She and her Atty argued that the arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment for the seizure portion. The court ruled that nay violation of the law is arrestable, even an infraction.

I'll see if I can dig it up

[acreature]

Found it, it was TX, Tx ;)

http://www.ifisher.com/arrest.html

[acreature]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt.

Such arrests do not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search, the court declared Monday. In the 5-4 ruling, which could affect anyone who drives a car, the justices said such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.

Police generally can arrest anyone they see breaking the law, the court said as it barred a Texas woman from suing the officer who handcuffed her and took her to jail.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' A lower court had ruled that Gail Atwater could not sue over her arrest because the officer did not violate her constitutional rights.

Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer who had noticed the three were not wearing seat belts.

Texas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding. The officer arrested Atwater, handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her children and her pickup truck was towed away.

Atwater's mug shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the maximum $50 fine.

Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city and the police officer, saying the arrest violated her constitutional rights.

The high court majority rejected her argument that police should not have arrested her for a crime that would carry no jail time.

"The arrest and booking were inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment,'' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.

A lower federal judge had thrown out Atwater's lawsuit. A three-judge appellate court reinstated it, but the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she could not sue.

The appeals court said the arrest was reasonable because the officer had reason to believe Atwater violated the law and the arrest was not carried out in an ``extraordinary manner.''

The states have widely varying policies on whether police can arrest people for minor offenses. Some states allow officers to arrest people for offenses punishable only by a fine, while others prohibit it. Some states let officers arrest someone they witness committing a misdemeanor offense only if the offense is considered a breach of peace.

During arguments at the Supreme Court last December, Atwater's lawyer said the Fourth Amendment restricts the use of arrest for minor offenses. The case would be different if someone were stopped for drunken or reckless driving, which could cause danger for others on the road if they were released, her lawyer said.

O'Connor, writing for the minority, said Atwater's arrest was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It does not make sense for the majority to say both that Atwater's arrest served no state purpose and also to say that it passed constitutional muster, O'Connor wrote.

`"Because the court's position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent,'' she wrote.

The city's lawyer had argued that police are allowed to make an arrest if they witness someone violating the law. Police often don't have enough information to know if someone's actions are a misdemeanor or felony, the lawyer said.

The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

[txinvestigator1]

Sorry. She and her Atty argued that the arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment for the seizure portion. The court ruled that nay violation of the law is arrestable, even an infraction.

I'll see if I can dig it up

We don't have infractions. One can be arrested for a seat belt violation.

[acreature]

We don't have infractions. One can be arrested for a seat belt violation.

Pre-Payable non-active offense.

[Deputy757]

The correct term for what occurred was an investigative detention. Police do have the right to hold some one until it is verified she is who she said she is or they can arrest if she lied about who she is.

Can you clarify this? Are you speaking generally or just in a case where someone does not have their drivers license with them while operating a motor vehicle? As mentioned before...this is going to vary from state to state. In KY, if I "hold" someone in the manner that the original poster talks about...I've actually arrested that person no matter what I'm calling it.

[Ranger__101]

I'm speking in the most general of terms in a best case senario. This specifically relates to the driver of a vehicle who does not have their license with them.

In my state they need to have their DL with them but if they provide enough information and I am pretty sure they are who they say they are and can verify a vailid DL I can let them go.

If they don't have a DL and I can't verify who they are I can detain them long enough to verify who they are and if I'm satisifed I can release them and it would not be an arrest.

Now like the other officers are saying.. If I would have to take the time to transport some one to verify their ID there would more than likely be citations issued for some violation. Probibally failure to ID or something along those lines.

From reading the posts and the questions it is comming back to the "definition of arrest" and how it's looked at by Officers and the Public.

Arrest -- your movement is restricted and you are getting a citation and or booking.

Investigative Detainment -- Some thing is not right. I am not sure if a law has been violated. Your movements are temporarily restricted until I can be sure that a law has or has not been violated.

Here's a questions to the other officers on the board. How does your definition of Arrest and Investigative Detainment differ from mine??

[scott715us]

Sounds about right to me. For driving without a DL, whether you arrest them or detain them, it is not a violation of their rights, because even in a detention scenario, you are soldifying the identity of the person you stopped. If you are not sure of who they are, you have every right to detain them until you do. I'm not saying it's a law to have ID, but it is a law to have a DL while driving. There is your reason for the detention.

It's easier for us folks that have the particular No DL ON PERSON law where it is a bookable offense. Hell, it even says it on my traffic book "must arrest on this offense." I don't necessarily do it if they can prove who they are, but I will definitely follow through if I feel they're lying. ;)

[Johninaustin]

This is the edited Cliff notes version. Ask her for the full text.

I arrest for Failure to ID fairly often, however it's usually transients that turn out to have parole violations. I've never ticketed for no DL in possession.