Stopped, searched and arrested for failure to give details

[crystalharry]

Evening everyone,

this is my first post on this site and basically Ive got a dilemma. About 2 weeks ago I was walking along with my friends when an environmental enforcement officer? Pulled me to one side and stated I had dropped litter, I know for a fact I didnt and this is why I protested so much I couldnt believe it.

Basically I didnt give details and knew I was gonna be screwed over so started recording - he video speaks for its self but basically ive now got a £75.00 FPN and the thought of giving the council money for nothing makes me feel physically sick. I have until 01/01 to pay or go to magistrates to defend myself, Im also not one of these people that goes out to deliberately annoy the police.

I was cuffed without being read the rights, was searched for my ID and this is how they obtained my details (I verbally stated I didnt consent) and was cuffed before even being arrested.

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lHcL_jInd0

[Too Far Gone]

The copper is only allowed to search you if he thinks you're carrying a weapon or something that may endanger him. Before the search, you can ask what gave rise to the search.

[delbertwilkins]

Another prime example why you just do not argue with the policy officers (enforcers).
They have procedures (acts and statutes) to follow to allow the policy officer to his duty.
No amount of refusing to give your name/detail/identify-yourself will make the policy officers stop and go away, they do not understand law- only acts and statutes which is all they need to operate.

Whether or not it is `lawful` to demand your identify isn't the point- if you look at other examples of people refusing to give their name, they end up arrested and a night in the cell.

Is this what we want?
Who is giving out the advice, that one should refuse to identify themselves or give `their` name to a policy officer when requested?

Always state you are identifying yourself or signing a ticker under duress, at least if you want to have any chance to have the `ticket` discharged.

Once you sign a ticket, what right have you to complain afterwards when you didn't make it known, at the time, you were being coerced and threatened (under duress) into signing.

Always, ALWAYS build a foundation of defence DURING the interaction of an event, not after.

[freeman52]

1) I will give you my name upon proof of claim that you have jurisdiction over the pending matter!

2) If there is an obstruction to you performing your duties I assume your duties are preventing any breach of peace!

3) May I offer remedy to the alleged breach of the peace by picking up the piece of paper and disposing of it in a proper manner to the satisfaction of all parties!

4) Immediatley claim common law jurisdiction!

What a waste of Police resources and another example that undermines the credibility of Police force when they engage in farcical revenue raising acts like this. Im sure if asked nicely you may have put the piece of paper in a bin whether you had thrown it on the floor or not - what is this country coming to

[delbertwilkins]

1) I will give you my name upon proof of claim that you have jurisdiction over the pending matter!

2) If there is an obstruction to you performing your duties I assume your duties are preventing any breach of peace!

3) May I offer remedy to the alleged breach of the peace by picking up the piece of paper and disposing of it in a proper manner to the satisfaction of all parties!

4) Immediatley claim common law jurisdiction!

After being taken to the policy station, then what?

Too many `freemen` waste the polices time to- I pay for the police as well, so lets not waste their time with `juristiction` `common law` or any other pointless arguments- and have them out catching real criminals, yeh?

You `freemen` think you are changing the world arguing with `clueless` robots known as pollcy officers (police) on the street- when all you are doing is speeding up the path to a police state by refusing to give your name and then spouting a load of nonsense, which won't discharge the `ticket` or help to build a defence- you only have to search out examples of people refusing to give the name to find out that it either does not achieve anything useful or ends up with the person going to a cell.

Why do people take leave of their senses?

[freeman52]

Too many `freemen` waste the polices time to- I pay for the police as well, so lets not waste their time with `juristiction` `common law` or any other pointless arguments- and have them out catching real criminals, yeh?

i understand your perspective

but this is a simple case of alleged litter dropping and a £60 fixed fine!!!

fair enough if the lad was blind drunk and urinating into a water fountain or something,

i think he has a right to defend himself against extortion

[Too Far Gone]

Too many `freemen` waste the polices time to- I pay for the police as well, so lets not waste their time with `juristiction` `common law` or any other pointless arguments- and have them out catching real criminals, yeh?

I can't agree with this. I seem to remember a "points" system where a speeding fine was worth more than catching a rapist. I would also argue that every time there's a serious crime, the first thing they police do is "Ask" for public help, whether it be information or witnesses. Perhaps if they stopped fooking about with their petty bullshit and focused on the proper criminals, they'd learn a bit more about their jobs.

There was also a case where the police spent something like £110,000 to prosecute a woman for eating an apple while driving. This resulted in something like a 60 quid fine. Yea, money well spent.

[delbertwilkins]

There was also a case where the police spent something like £110,000 to prosecute a woman for eating an apple while driving. This resulted in something like a 60 quid fine. Yea, money well spent.

You really think they spent £110,000 just to fine someone £60?

[Too Far Gone]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 54068.html

[Geronimo]

Another prime example why you just do not argue with the policy officers (enforcers).
They have procedures (acts and statutes) to follow to allow the policy officer to his duty.
No amount of refusing to give your name/detail/identify-yourself will make the policy officers stop and go away, they do not understand law- only acts and statutes which is all they need to operate.

Whether or not it is `lawful` to demand your identify isn't the point- if you look at other examples of people refusing to give their name, they end up arrested and a night in the cell.

Is this what we want?
Who is giving out the advice, that one should refuse to identify themselves or give `their` name to a policy officer when requested?

Always state you are identifying yourself or signing a ticker under duress, at least if you want to have any chance to have the `ticket` discharged.

Once you sign a ticket, what right have you to complain afterwards when you didn't make it known, at the time, you were being coerced and threatened (under duress) into signing.

Always, ALWAYS build a foundation of defence DURING the interaction of an event, not after.

I can only infer from your post you are advising members not to question police as to the legality of their actions when stopping/searching/arresting 'you' but just go along with what they want and all will be well. Isnt this more likely to lead to the police deciding that people will blindly do what they are told without question and lead to policing we see in America. Do people spend a night in the cells for not identifying themselves? Those on here who have reported being arrested for not ID-ing themselves at the scene or at the station have stated they were released a few hours later. Has any said they were held all night?