Originally Posted by
mynetdude
So what you're telling me is a cop is called in, and assumes suspicious because of the call? Well then that means every time a cop is called then he will automatically assume suspicious... now there's a problem because the law prohibits such that's why you need probable cause to even search a person or vehicle.
If I'm an LEO called to settle a dispute (which this seemed to be) two parties (Phill vs TSA) if I asked Phill to cooperate with TSA and his response was kindly no then I'd advise him that he would not be able to enter the secure area without showing ID and there is nothing else further I could do; now if he had tried to gain entry to a secure area prior to "my arrival" or "in my presence" now I have probable cause and suspicion.
But as far as I'm concerned, beyond asking him to cooperate there is not a thing I could do nor would do as an LEO; but then again I'm not an LEO cuz they'd never let me for this reason.
You could also argue that someone refusing to show ID is suspicious enough, whereas someone showing ID would dismiss any suspicion. I disagree, I would need more than refusal to cooperate/show ID to assume suspicion.
No. The cop must use his judgment. They are called by citizens for all manner of reasons, including not so valid ones. Your argument strengthens Phil's defense, in that if the TSA issued an unlawful directive, Phil is within his right not to obey that unlawful order. This could be explained to a cop, provided the cops are willing to listen. Not all are.
Once the cop demanded Phil identify himself to the police, as part of their investigation, if indeed he did make such an order, then Phil is required to identify himself. That's the law. He did not/does not have to identify himself to the TSA, according to what I have read and understand. If the police only ordered Phil to identify himself to the TSA, and not to the police, then they are indeed out of line. This will be the questions before the courts.
I would never argue that someone refusing to show or disclose identification is reasonable suspicion, ever, absent the rather strict limits the Supreme Court has placed on this. The grounds for reasonable suspicion in this matter arise from the TSA complaint. That Phil's subsequent actions and those of the police and/or TSA may or may not have exacerbated the situation is another matter.
The police may not walk up to me in a public place, and without justification order me to identify myself. I would be perfectly justified in ignoring such a request. However, if I just left a liquor store in the inner city and the alarm was ringing, they would be justified as they had clear indications that a crime had been committed, and as they had observed me leaving the store.