FliesWay2Much

I thought I had read here a while back that there are some municipal police forces which somehow require hotels to submit guest lists every night. Apparently, they are running broad-reaching dragnets and getting away with it based on a local law or ordinance.

Firebug4

In your opinion, that may not have been the officer's opinion at the time. The standard is a reasonable officer with the information available at the time, not what is available months later. I am quite aware how narrow Hiiibel is. This is the Albuquerque's concealing identity ordinance. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

§ 12-2-16 CONCEALING IDENTITY.
It is unlawful for anyone to conceal one's true name or identity or disguise oneself with the intent to obstruct due execution of the law or with the intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer, police officer, or any other person in the legal performance of his or her duties.

('74 Code, § 12-1-2-17) (Ord. 96-1973) Penalty, see § 12-1-99

FB

N1120A

The standard in Hiibel (I can never remember how many "i"'s there are either) was based specifically on the Nevada statute, which was rather clear in defining the situations under which a police officer could demand someone identify them self. Agreement or disagreemebt with Hiibel aside, the more applicable case here is Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).

The Albuquerque ordinance sounds an awful lot like the old Texas law and was enacted before Brown was decided.

Boggie Dog

OK, reading that ordinance the police in this case had a boarding pass with the persons name of it. How could he be accused of trying to conceal is identity? They had it in their hands from the start.

Ari

All he had to do was confirm his name (or say his name) which he should have done. Period.

N1120A

This is a good point. Even if Hiibel were applied and the ordinance stood, he was identified.

Ari

I made that point a while back, but that doesn't change the fact that he should have verbally identified himself.

He sounds like an arrogant kid on the tape and that is unlikely to play well with a jury. The other charges are bogus, but this one might not be.

N1120A

He didn't need to identify himself. Note that the Albuquerque ordinance was enacted pre-Brown and the city council likely either didn't know of or ignored the Supreme Court's ruling. There is no reasonable suspicion standard stated in the ordinance and allows the officer to simply use the catch all of "discharging duties." That doesn't pass muster.

Firebug4

A boarding pass can be printed in anyone’s name. Did he provide it to the LEO or did TSA? All he had to do was say verbally say his name to the LEO when asked. My point is this. If you want to be a self proclaimed "flex your rights advocate", you should at the very least consult with if not retain a lawyer who specializes in the type of law (ie criminal law, immigration law, con law) and in the geographic area that you will be flexing your rights in before you do it. You should not be taking your information from internet forums, friends, tax lawyers, real estate lawyers, copyright lawyers, who may not have dealt with any of the relevant issues since law school. That is not to say that those sources are not knowledgeable about what they do but it is not what they specialize in. I wouldn't want to be betting my freedom and clean criminal record on what I heard on the internet.

FB

Boggie Dog

INAL, but if I was sitting on a jury I would wonder how he conceal his identity if TSA/Police had his boarding pass with his name imprinted on it.

Reading § 12-2-16 CONCEALING IDENTITY as a non-lawyer I would find that he did not.

Having listened to the recorded information Phil has posted I don't recall the police asking for ID. If they never asked then how could he have been uncooperative?

Lastly, I don't believe that TSA can make displaying ID a condition of entering the screening so that a person can board an airplane. That they try is a problem that needs to be resolved one way or the other.

Firebug4

You have to separate TSA from the Police. They are separate entities and asking for Identity for different reasons. If he provided information to TSA it is not the same as providing the information to the Police.

I will have to listen to the recordings again but I believe that the police did ask him for his identity and he refused to provide it but instead started answer questions with questions. This is why I say if you are going to do these types of things know what you have to do and don't have to do from a reputable source before you do them.

As for TSA making ID a condition of entering the screening area, I agree that it needs to be resolved one way or the other. However, it is still a separate issue from a LEO asking for identity in many states. Even if the LEO happens to be at the TSA checkpoint it is still separate from the TSA activity.

FB

Boggie Dog

I have separated TSA from police. TSA gave the police Phil's boarding pass. At that point the police had enough information to run an NCIC check. He was identified when TSA gave police the boarding pass.

In the recordings, as I remember, after Phil had been taken into custody and while being held in the airport police office I believe the did ask for his name. Seems a little late in the day for that.

TSA requiring ID is what started this whole mess. If TSA cannot legally require ID then TSA is at fault for this incident and the TSA employees involved should be held legally accountable for their actions.

Firebug4

In practice you have not separated the two. It matters little what he provided to TSA it matters a lot concerning what he provided to the Police Officers. The law requires the individual to identify themselves to Law Enforcement not a third party to identify you which in this case TSA is a third party.

It doesn't matter when you are asked the question if the law requires you to identify you have to provide the true information. Where this charge is most often used is actually in the police station during booking. The bad guy will often give a false name or no name at all thinking that he somehow will slip through the booking procedure and the system will never figure out who he really was after he bonds out.

Why I agree that TSA policy is what was the catalyst in this situation. The TSA employees can not be held responsible for the choices that Mr. Mocek made when dealing with the Albuquerque Police Officers. Again, if you want to play this game with law enforcement you have to be sure that you know the rules backwards and forwards before you start to play. Hence, consult with a criminal lawyer before you do something like this.

FB

boiflyer

In general, when a LEO asks for someones ID, can the person respond with "Is that a lawful order, or a request?". Wouldn't that be the best way to deal with any such request for ID by a LEO. Seems to me that would make it pretty clear-cut. Or, does the LEO then deem them uncooperative to identify oneself and then just arrest them for simply asking?

Boggie Dog

I don't understand why you keep referring to me playing a game. I have not played a game with anyone.

I still believe that Phil was properly identified to the police.

Besides, on the audio recording the police officer said he was arresting Phil for being stupid, not for lack of identification.