What’s Yo Name?

I guess by now we have all heard of the pastor who was arrested for watering his neighbors flowers. That’s right, Officer A. Whyte and Sheriff D. Klan responded to a 911 call about a suspicious black man watering flowers…

Caller: Hello? I want to report a suspicious black man…
911: Does he have a gun?
Caller: Probably..
911: Well what is he doing?
Caller: He is acting like he is watering my neighbors flowers…
911: You go into your house and lock the doors.. that boy is up to no good! We will send somebody right away!!
Five minutes later:
D Klan: Boy whatcha think you doing…
Pastor: I’m watering my neighbors flowers…
A. Whyte: You got a gun on you boy… Oh lawd have mercy!! What’s that coming out dat hose boy!!
Pastor: Water… my neighbors asked me to water their flowers while they are away…. and no I don’t have a gun..
A. Whyte: Where’s the drugs at boy.. you sure you ain’t hid no marywahnee in dat hose… make it easy on yourself…
D. Klan: So you expect us to believe you just over here watering these flowers out of the kindness of yo heart?!!
A. Whyte: Yeah… we can believe that…. and my name is James Brown and Ima sex machine.. let me see some ID boy..
Pastor: I don’t have to show you anything!! It’s not a crime to water flowers!!
D. Klan: Boy let me tell you something!! You can show me some ID here… or you can show it to me in the emergency room!!
Pastor’s Wife: Hold on!! Hold on!! Here is his ID.. His wallet was in the house!
A. Whyte: You lucky boy.. you’s got a goodun.. She just save you from a FAFO charge..

Anywho.. they arrested the pastor but dropped the charges after the neighbor said she recognized him and he “belonged there.” Seems the pastor lived across the street from where he was watering his neighbors flowers. His wife saw the officers arrest him and ran out with his ID. He is now suing the Childersburg Alabama Police Department in federal court for discrimination based on racial profiling. So at the end of that dialogue between the pastor and the police, he was told that they were about to charge him with FAFO… What’s a FAFO? Oh that stands for (#$$@!) Around and Find Out.. That brings us to this week’s article about whether the police can request your ID if they have no reason to believe a crime has been committed or no suspicion that a crime is being committed or is going to be committed.

So let’s began with a case called Hiibel v Nevada. In order for us to proceed, we first have to understand a term which is used in the case… a Terry Stop. In our community it is also known as walking while black. In 1963 a police officer was on duty in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, when he spotted a couple of men standing on a corner. One of the men, John Terry, walked down the street and looked into a store window, proceeded down the street, turned around, came back and looked into the store window again before returning to the street corner. The other dude with him, Richard Chilton did the same thing. The officer watched the men as they repeated this routine more than a dozen times. A third man joined them and the three started walking toward the store. The officer figured they were casing the joint and confronted them. He asked them for their names but you know how a folk do when they don’t want to give you their names… they shucked and jived.. ” My name is Bennett and I ain’t in it..” The officer then grabbed Terry and Chilton, put them in the position, patted them down and found a couple of Mr. Ugly’s in their jacket pockets. They were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons. When they went to court Terry’s lawyer went straight ghetto… “Wait a damn minute.. what kind of uckery is this…? How you gonna stop my man, and pat him down cause he was walking in front of a store, then charge him with a crime? You violating!! Im calling the Fourth on this one!!” The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Well the judge looked at Terry’s lawyer and said.. ” Oh Yeah!! Well I’m calling the First!!.. First of all who do you think you talking to!! Bailiff take them @!!## away!!” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where on a vote of 8-1… they voted against Terry. They upheld the constitutionality of the “stop and identify” procedure as long as the police officer performing it has a “reasonable suspicion” that the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be “armed and presently dangerous”. By the way, this was the Warren Court, who’s illustrious members included one Thurgood Marshall. Marshall voted with the majority and against Terry.

So a Terry stop can be done if the officer suspects that “the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be “armed and presently dangerous”. Finally there are two more legal terms we need to be familiar with before we proceed. Suspicion and Probable. You can be detained on suspicion. In other words if you are stopped and after a few questions from the police, you ask the officer, “Am I free to leave?,” If he says no, you are being detained on suspicion. If you are arrested, then the officer thinks it is probable that you are involved in a crime. Now for the sake of transparency, don’t let my Googling get you knocked upside yo head… You: But I read it online!! You not suppose to do that! You suppose to… Oww!!” Police: Get yo azz in that car.. and take some of this billy stick with you!!” You: “Oww! Oww!! Dayum!! Oww!!” … none of this is legal advice.. so I just want to throw that out there.. anywho… let’s talk about Hiibel v Nevada now…

So we just talked about Terry v. Nevada and how that case set the precedent that police officers can stop you and ask for you identification if they have a suspicion that a crime has been committed, is about to be committed or you are in the act of committing a crime. Remember suspicion is grounds for you to be detained, but it is not the same as being arrested. But once you are detained, do you have to give them your name? Well Larry Hiibel didn’t think so and he took it all the way to the Supreme Court. In May of 2000 the police in Humboldt, Nevada… (yeah Nevada .. right) got a call that a woman had been assaulted riding in a red and silver GMC truck. A responding deputy saw a truck matching the description on the road and notice a man standing outside the truck smoking a cigarette. There was a woman inside the truck and skid marks behind the truck denoting a sudden stop. The officer came up to the man and told him about the report of an assault and asked him for an ID. The man then blew smoke in his face and told him … “What do I look like.. a DMV?” Okay he didn’t do that.. but the man protested and said there was no reason for him to provide identification. The officer persisted in asking him for an ID and the man became agitated. “Look I’m one of y’all.. I don’t even like chicken!!” Okay.. Ima stop… Anywho, the man became agitated and the deputy reminded him he was conducting an official investigation and if he didn’t cooperate he faced arrest. The man said he wasn’t going to cooperate because he hadn’t done anything and then he turned his back on the officer. The officer thought to himself.. “Whoop there it is..” and promptly arrested the man. Of course that man was Larry Hiibel and the woman in the truck was his daughter, Mimi Hiibel. Larry was arrested for obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty. He was convicted and had to pay a $250 fine. Now Larry was one of those kinds and he wasn’t about to let it go. He appealed to the 6th Circuit and the Nevada Supreme Court and both of them told him… “We don’t have no time for this shat..” Larry then went federal on them, and took it to the Supreme’s saying they violated his 4th and 5th Amendments. Of course the 4th guards against unreasonable search and seizure and the 5th guards against self incrimination. So you know when they go Supreme, that affects all of us. Larry took his shot.

More than 23 states have laws that give the police the power to stop and identify. These laws are throwbacks to early English vagrancy laws when those authorities were able to stop vagrants and have them give a “good account” of themselves. As a matter of fact we all have the ability to stop and request identification from someone and ask them for an account of themselves if we suspect a crime has been committed, or about to be committed, or is in process of being committed under citizens arrest statues.

Citizen: Hey you there .. that’s right.. you with the Uzi.. What are you doing?
Uzi: Mind your own business Moe… before you be the guest of honor at a ten toes down party…
Citizen: You don’t scare me!! What is your name..? I’m placing you under citizens arrest!!
Later..
Witness: …then he shot him in the azz…
Police: …and what about these bullet holes in the front?
Witness: That’s when he grabbed him and said you under arrest…

So yeah.. I suggest you leave that stuff to the professionals. Anywho, you might remember that was the defense the killers of Ahmaud Arbery made in court, they were making a citizen’s arrest. It didn’t work out well for them because they were convicted and will now have to spend the rest of their probably short lives in a Georgia state prison where 60% of the inmates are young strong hairy black men… serving long hard sentences and don’t “eeeeven” give a (fill in the word). The murderers are trying to get the judge to send them to federal prison because they say they have already received death threats and are in fear of their lives. Arbery’s mother said that sending them to a federal prison is like spitting in her face. She said they should be sent to a Georgia State prison because they were convicted of a state crime and that it’s not fair that they should live in comfort under the protection of the federal government while she suffers everyday because they killed her child on account of the color of his skin. Last time I looked, the judge agreed with her. The Georgia Department of Corrections said they have the ability to protect them and feel they can guarantee their safety. I believe them.. just because they are under federal investigation for inmate on inmate crime… well I say innocent until proven guilty… Okay enough of the good news.. let’s get back to our story.. So yeah, 23 states have laws that give the police the power to stop and identify. When Larry brought his Nevada case to the Supreme Court, he was testing the constitutionality of these laws. So earlier I said that these laws were based on old English vagrancy laws. Modern Stop and Identify laws combine aspects of these old vagrancy laws. Remember Terry v. Ohio? The officer used aspects of the vagrancy law to stop Terry, make him identify himself and give a good account of of his activity. A lot of these vagrancy laws have been challenged at the federal level because of their vagueness. For instance here was Florida’s vagrancy law before they threw that stuff out..

Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses.

In a case called Papachristou v. City of Jackson, they used this now unconstitutional law to arrest two black dudes for riding around with white women… true story. Under that law anyone in Jacksonville could be arrested for vagrancy and required to identify themselves. Of course when Papachristou took that mess to the Supremes… they were like “WTF!!.” They struck that shat down! Unfortunately for Hiibel the Nevada stop and identify laws were more narrow. In his case the stop and identify law only required him to tell the police his name. He was not required to give them documentation. That squashed his claim to unreasonable search and seizure based on his 4th Amendment right. As for his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself, the court found that by just asking for his name, it didn’t mean that it would be used to link him to any crime or chain of evidence needed to prosecute him and finally because Hiibel himself did not articulate that by providing his name it would be incriminating. The last part means he didn’t take the fifth. So to make a long story short, they told him to get the hell outta here and stop wasting our time. It also meant that in at least those 23 states which have stop and identify laws on the books, they have been ruled constitutional.

So the main point of this article is to answer the question, do I have to show ID or give an officer my name when requested? Below is a list of states that you are required to present ID to police officers if asked.

States with “stop and identify” laws
Alabama	Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona	Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) & Tit. 28, §1595
Arkansas	Ark. Code Ann. [1]§ 5-71-213 – Loitering
Colorado	Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware	Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902 (requires suspicion of a crime), 1321(6)(in the context of loitering)
Florida	Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia	Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois	Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana	Indiana Code IC §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas	Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana	La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Maryland	Md. Criminal Code §4-206
Missouri (Kansas City Only)	Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska	Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada	Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico	N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York	N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law Laws of New York → CPL §140.50 (requires suspicion of crime)
North Carolina	State v Friend + N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–223
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah	Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont	Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. §968.24

If your state is not on this list then you are not required to to identify yourself when asked by police. For those who’s states are not listed I have also included a link to a list of Trauma and Emergency Medical Centers which you can access here … in case when they ask you your name and you say… “Ask yo mama what my name is.. I know my rights..

Thanks for reading Hill1News.

*Remember this article is for entertainment purposes.. Laws are constantly changing and you need to contact your state or local government for the best and most current information on stop and identify laws in you area.