38 thoughts on “Arrested for not giving his name, after literally giving his name”

  1. All you have to do now is give them restraining orders to prevent FURTHER retribution while you pursue their police certifications and surety bond.. be safe and end careers

  2. Cops are hired with low I Q. I actually saw on one of those talkshows like Johnny Carson, or the newer ones with this guy applied to be a cop, and they would not hire him because his IQ was too high!

  3. Alot of felonies and capital felonies these aggravated kidnapping traitors with badges committed…..

    NO OBLIGATION to identify unless lawfully arrested, Brown v Texas, 4th and 5th and state law.

    AND IF LAWFULLY ARRESTED, the RIGHT to REMAIN SILENT INVOKES…..

    NO OBLIGATION to answer questions per:

    Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which Justice Robert Jackson famously opined, "To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that, in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem. Under this conception of criminal procedure, any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."

    In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction.

    Terry v Ohio 392 U.S. 1
    "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."

    “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that refusal to answer law enforcement questions cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ("We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.") – U.S. v. Santos 403 F.3d 1120 (2005).

  4. Hey Sue these white cops in federal court for violating this m a ns Civil and constitutional rights and falsifying their police reports. He did not have to give his name or any ID. These cops just wanted to lock up a black person. It's their pride and joy to hender a black person . They gets a nut out of harassing a black.man.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top