1nterceptor

"An NYPD spokesperson confirmed that Nash was taken in at 9:01 p.m., but couldn't verify what he was charged with or how long he spent in jail. "He was arrested for some violation." We contacted the Manhattan DA's office; a spokeswoman noted that because Nash's charges were dropped, his record was sealed. So there was no way of knowing exactly why Nash was arrested in the first place? "No." "

Read the full article:
https://gothamist.com/2012/04/04/vide...t_arrested.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3uJ...ayer_embedded#!
#!

genec

Wow, I never realized cycling was such a terror inducing activity... enough to cause nearly immediate arrest. Amazing.

Can this guy sue for anything... such as false imprisonment or kidnapping or whatever?

Clearly this is an unsat situation.

Spoonrobot 

This isn't news.

He got arrested because the police couldn't issue him a summons since he refused to provide his address. This is not unheard of and can lead to detainment of up to 72 hours while the police establish identity, including address so that if you don't show before the court they have a place to start looking for you.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it happens. Same thing can happen down here if you are driving without your license on your person and get pulled over. You get taken into custody in order to establish identity so that you may be properly issued your ticket.

This thread would be a lot better if the article was about the poor ticketing practices of the NYPD with regard to bicyclists avoiding obstacles in the bike lane. That's the real issue here.

DX-MAN

The video still needs to make it to Bloomberg's office. It clearly shows abuse of police authority by deliberately blocking bike lanes in order to produce bogus tickets.

The vet could have just given the address and fought the ticket (unless he was homeless), and stayed on the street that evening. A "token martyr" for basically nothing. Not riding in a blocked bike lane is a BS ticket; arrest for failure to ID yourself when detained isn't BS. They didn't ask for an ID card, or his "papers".

Some people might say, "But he's a VET!" It's not obvious, not written on his forehead, it's reasonable to know who it is you're dealing with. It's a pointless gesture that causes nothing but personal grief without recourse when you refuse to identify yourself.

Hell -- I'm not ashamed of who I am, and when I fight and BEAT that BS ticket, I want that pig to know who I am! If he wants to play games, I'll have his badge, and then it's just mano y mano. (GGGRRRRRROWWWWLLLLL, FLEX/FLEX!)

Except for the last paragraph, in which I joyously make fun of folks deriding "internet muscles", I am serious...........

Charles Ramsey

In Colorado where I'm at not the police can arrest any cyclist who has been ticketed if he thinks the cyclist will not show up in court.

CB HI

The cyclist provided NYPD a federal government issued ID. That is more than the U.S. Supreme Court, who states that verbally providing name and possibly birth date is sufficient for establishing ID. NYPD did not have legal basis under the constitution for demanding the address and arresting because no address was provided. Why do you think the DA dropped the case so quickly.

Spoonrobot 

They were not just establishing identity, they needed an address to properly issue a summons since it was thought an offense had occured. When an offense to a statue or law occurs and a citation or summons is issued it is reasonable to take a person into custody in order to establish positive identity, including address. Supreme court decisions on identifying yourself to a peace officer do no apply here because it was thought an offense occurred.

He was arrested for refusing to provide an address in order to be issued a summons for a violation of the bike lane statues. After being taken into custody it was determined that no violation occurred, so no summons was issued, so he was released. Although it doesn't specify if his identity was established or he was just held in custody while a determination was made whether to charge with the supposed bike lane statute violation.

This still isn't news.

If the police cannot establish identity they can and will hold you indefinitely. There are news reports every so often of John Does refusing to identify themselves in any way and who cannot be found in any identifying database that are in jail and are continually put before a judge, found in contempt when refusing to identify themselves and placed back in jail.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually other than his current home address (and how many people update their driver's licenses as they're suppose to when they move) a military ID does have one's picture, height, weight, name, and signature. So other than the lack of an address the police should accept a military ID as a valid form of ID.

I recall several years ago while I was out GeoCaching someone had planted a cache on what he had thought was "public property." I had a security guard approach me and ask me what I was doing. As well as to provide my ID. I showed him my military ID and he was okay with it.

The irony here is that if the VA/DOD was a little more communicative with other government offices the police would have been able to call either the VA or the DOD and confirm his ID.

Digital_Cowboy

Uh, because they're hoping to avoid a laundry list of charges being filed against them? It'd be interesting to learn if they've offered him some sort of settlement NOT to sue the police department, as well as the DA's office for the above mentioned laundry list of charges being filed against them.

Digital_Cowboy

Ah, but the problem here is as you have concurred with is that NO LAW was BROKEN. Therefore they had no LEGAL right to compel him to identify himself. And therefore they had no LEGAL right to take him into custody until they could get an address out of him.

Hopefully IF the police/DA's office any sort of settlement he didn't take it and will be pursuing a lawsuit against both the NYPD as well as the NY DA's office.

klunkrleaguenow

that aint how it works, whether you break a law or not, if a cop asks you to identify yourself, you have to. If you dont, then theres the law you've broken. Failure to self identify. At least in IL and FL its that way

CB HI

Provide cite for those laws please. And how they fall under Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

Cops must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry Stop and demand you identify yourself. Even then you only have to verbally give your name and maybe your birthdate.

Digital_Cowboy

Ah, but the point is that he DID identify himself. It's just that the ID that he used DIDN'T have his address. If he had been a homeless person how accurate do you think that the address on any ID s/he might provide would be? Also as I asked before how many people actually update their addresses on their driver's licenses when they move like they're suppose to?

And again, as has been shown (if I remember correctly in other threads on this and/or related topics) if there was no violation of the law in the first place then any order after that fact is an illegal order.

So in the example in the OP given that the individual who was arrested/detained HADN'T committed any crime, the order by the officer to provide identification was itself illegal. And thus legally the individual was under no obligation to follow it.

Yes, maybe he should have provide ID that included his address to avoid such a confrontation, but he DID in fact provide a federally issued GOVERNMENT ID card. The only "problem" with it is that it didn't have his address on it.

rydabent

This is just another example of someone that has just a little bit of power throwing his weight around. People like that cop are the bane of existance for many people.

PaPa

Not quite - (NY Statutes):

https://law.onecle.com/new-york/crimi...50_140.50.html

" § 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.

It's important to point out that many States differ in regards to "Stop and Identify:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a...ntify_statutes

Stop and Identify is typically only required when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime.

CB HI

Most of it is rephrasing of the Supreme Court case law currently known as a Terry Stop.

Of greater importance, it is not a law that a citizen can violate or must comply with. It is a police procedure law that POLICE MUST COMPLY with. The asking of an address exceeds what the Supreme Court has indicated is required of a citizen to provide and would likely get struck down if taken to the Supreme Court. A citizen cannot violate this law and thus cannot be arrested under this law.

DX-MAN

WHAT, GOVERNMENT OFFICES actually COMMUNICATE with each other?!? YOU MUST BE MAD!

I'm surprised police precincts communicate with each other, or even POST OFFICE branches!

nelson249

It sounds to me that the NYPD was irritated about the Critical Mass ride and was lying in wait for ANY violation or alleged violation to throw a net over the whole bunch. Whether or not it was legal isn't the point so much as the determination of the NYPD to use whatever powers at its disposal to quash the rights of those advocating for better accommodation for cyclists. Nothing but official harassment here and Robert Nash called them on it and consequently got chucked in the slammer.

Digital_Cowboy

I know, the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing, madness, right?