Good Cop, Bad Cop
Do We Need Stop-and-ID Laws?
Stop-and-frisk was a policy that was ruled legal in 1968. In Terry vs. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled to allow police officers the flexibility to temporarily detain and search anyone they suspected of doing something illegal. However, in 2015, the Court put additional limits to the policy, saying that the police are not allowed to investigate civilians for any crime other than the one the citizen was detained for. If you’re stopped for a traffic violation, for example, cops can’t have a police dog check you or your car for evidence of drugs. Nor can they detain you longer than it takes to write you a ticket.
Because of the abuse of the “Terry” law, stop-and-frisk policies went largely out of practice. But some legal experts began saying that not only do cops not have the right to frisk you without a reasonable suspicion you’ve committed a crime, they can’t even demand to see your ID.
I mentioned police bullying tactics in my April 7 blog. Since then, I’ve been watching more of these stops on YouTube, and I see now that it’s a complicated situation.
Click here for an example of a “bad cop” approach.
Click here for an example of a “good cop” approach.
In the “bad cop” example, the cop begins politely. But the moment the “suspect” refuses to give his ID, the cop gets angry and loses control. He is so far gone that he either doesn’t hear or doesn’t listen to the suspect’s excuse for being there, and proceeds to assault the man in order to cuff him. What he did resulted in a $5 million lawsuit. And because it was taped by the officer’s camera, it is admissible as evidence. Which means that his response to this situation will cost his department money and may cost him his job.
In the “good cop” example, the officer understands the legal limits of what he can do. (It’s not illegal to look suspicious.) So, while we can applaud him for acting both politely and legally, we can also empathize with how frustrated he must feel in that he can’t do what he was called on to do – which is to find out if this guy is up to no good.
On the one hand, I think Fourth Amendment protection is essential and must be respected. On the other hand, I can see how, if refusing to provide IDs becomes the norm, the course of police work will be difficult. Eventually, if refusing to produce IDs in such situations becomes commonplace, cops will stop responding to calls about suspicious people. 911 operators will inform callers that police can be dispatched only if an actual crime is witnessed.
