A few weeks back, we covered an 11th Circuit case involving a passenger in a car who refused to identify himself during a traffic stop and, as a result, was arrested. That case, which arose in the context of a Section 1983 claim, came out in favor of the police, with Judges Tjoflat and Brasher holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity (and Tjoflat going further and holding that the officer could ask the passenger to identify himself).
Last Friday, in yet another refusal-to-identify fact pattern, the tables were turned and the police lost a qualified immunity issue before the Court. Police in Alabama encountered two men working on a car in a parking lot (one of the men was Plaintiff, who was a mechanic). An officer asked the men what they were doing, with the Plaintiff responding they were working on a car and suggesting the officer call the customer. Then the officer asked the Plaintiff to give her his "ID or driver's license," which the Plaintiff refused to do, resulting in arrest.
The Eleventh Circuit held that the police did not have "arguable probable cause" to arrest the Plaintiff, pointing to the "broad background rule" that a person can refuse to answer questions from the police and "go on his way." And the Court didn't find an Alabama "stop and identify" statute applied because, while the statute allowed an officer suspecting criminal activity to ask a person provide a name/address/explanation, it did not permit the demanding of IDs/driver's licenses.
Good recap of the "arguable probable cause" standard, with the Eleventh Circuit going out of its way to clarify what the standard means. Important reading if you do Section 1983 work.
McCabe by John Byrne on Scribd
3 comments:
"We" covered.
Vacated, en banc, coming up. How can you oppress poor people and minorities if you cannot force them to produce their papers whenever and wherever you want? The right will not stand for this bs opinion.
spot on. the two dem cjs have corrupted the bush dj. sad!
Post a Comment