/r/AmIFreeToGo
You have the right to be secure in your person, your home and your effects. You have the right to expect no unreasonable searches and seizures. You have the right to move about freely without harassment or suspicionless detention. This subreddit is dedicated to the upholding and exercising of these rights.
You have the right to be secure in your person, your home and your effects. You have the right to expect no unreasonable searches and seizures. You have the right to move about freely without harassment or suspicion-less detention. This subreddit is dedicated to the upholding and exercising of these rights.
Keep posts inside the following rules:
All posts (except text posts) will need to use the original title from the posted material verbatim. Also, the source (with no abbreviations) should be included at the end of the title in brackets.
Duplicate posts can be made after two weeks of the original post and it would be ideal to link to the original thread in the duplicate post.
Please keep posts inside the following guidelines:
Examples of police officers or other government agents overstepping or attempting to overstep their lawful authority to detain or arrest.
Examples of citizens asserting their rights.
Self posts of personal experiences with rights abuses or exercising rights.
Only 10% of submission posts should link to your own content.
Related Subreddits:
Resources
Don't Talk to Police - Watch a former cop explain why there is no benefit to speaking to a police officer.
Terry Stops - The Supreme Court precedent which clarifies the ability of police to detain a person for investigation.
Stop and Identify Statutes - Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada was a case which followed Terry v. Ohio. It recognized the legitimacy of "Stop and Identify" statutes, but with the prerequisite that the stop was a legitimate "Terry Stop" based upon "reasonable articulable suspicion". Hiibel does not authorize police to demand ID without cause.
Reasonable suspicion/RAS - An explanation of the standard required for a "Terry Stop".
Probable Cause - This is the standard which is required for an arrest, warrant, criminal charge or a search which goes above and beyond an officer safety pat-down.
Above all else, remember this when dealing with police:
Police are not required to explain themselves or their actions to you or any other person they detain or arrest. A failure to explain their actions to a citizen, either out of malice or ignorance, does not mean a lawful order can be ignored. They are only required to justify their actions in criminal and/or civil court. Do not mistake a lack of explanation for a lack of grounds. Only refuse to identify yourself if you are absolutely certain you stand on solid legal ground.
Do not attempt to stand up to police officers if you aren't equipped with enough knowledge to make a safe determination of what you're legally required to do and are prepared to endure a false arrest and charges. Any and all resistance must be passive. Never physically resist an officer (exceptions for extraordinarily extra-legal actions notwithstanding). If your rights are violated, seeking compensation will be hampered by any "bad" behavior on your part. Don't make your lawyer's job harder than it has to be.
/r/AmIFreeToGo
Citizen journalist films outside Artesia, N.M. refinery from a public sidewalk and is arrested when he declines to provide ID to officers. Tenth Circuit: No qualified immunity. To arrest someone for that, you have to reasonably suspect them of some underlying crime and no reasonable officer would have thought he was disorderly, trespassing, loitering, or doing terrorism. Dissent: Could have been a trespass; an officer might have reasonably, if mistakenly, thought the sidewalk was private.
Link to opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111033725.pdf
"We understand Corporal Bailey to make two reasonable-suspicion arguments supporting reversal. Corporal Bailey first suggests the district court erroneously required him to prove reasonable suspicion of some specific crime committed by Mr. Bustillos. According to Corporal Bailey, that he harbored generalized suspicions something was amiss when he encountered Mr. Bustillos at the Refinery satisfied the Fourth Amendment ... Corporal Bailey’s first contention fails quickly. Our cases are clear: law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion of a 'predicate, underlying crime,' not a generalized suspicion a person is simply up to no good, to support an arrest for concealing identity."