portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

imperialism & war

I was arrested for no reason on Saturday at Pioneer courthouse square!

The Portland Police department has chosen a side, and it is not ours!
I went down to Pioneer courthouse square on Saturday and was a little dissapointed when I first arrived because there were only a handful of anti-war protestors and there were about a dozen or so people participating in the "die-in" in the center of the square.

I took my video camera and walked slowly around the square waiting for some friends to arrive and noticed a couple of police standing and talking to the "support your troops" supporters. The cops were very friendly to these people and joked and laughed as they conversed for about 15 minutes.
Shortly afterwards, I noticed one of the motorcycle cops drive by with a "support your troops" sign on his bike with a couple of American flags on it.
I remember thinking that it wasn't proper for a public payed employee to use public property to advocate a political position, but I didn't give it much thought after that, until later.

A friend of mine arrived with his signs that spoke to the current pending Senate bill 752 and state senator John Minnis who introduced the bill.
His sign said that "fascism was alive and well in the Oregon state senate".
My sign said "Consume Consume, Bomb, Bomb, Consume Consume".

We walked a short way down Broadway to distance ourselves from the "support your troops" people and stood in the small inlet that is used to pull off of the street in front of a parked car.
We were standing there for about 45 minutes with 2 cops about 10 feet from us the entire time. Not once did these policemen or any others tell us that we could not stand where we were standing.
We were not blocking traffic in any way and were standing directly behind a parked car.

Shortly after that, two policemen came up to and very agressively told us to get up on the curb. We immediatly complied with their request and told them we thought it was ok to stand where we were standing and he said, "did I stutter?"
I started to explain to him that we had been there for 45 minutes and we thought we were in a spot that was ok since no other officer told us that we should move despite the fact that there were two officers just a few feet away from us the entire time.
He told me to be quiet and give him my id.

I asked him what law required me to show him my id and he told me that if I didn't give him my id in three seconds, I would be arrested. I told him that I was more than willing to provide him my id if he could tell me what law said that I had to provide id. He arrested me and my friend who also did everything the officer asked except provide id.

The support your troops people were not asked for their id and were not hasseled at all.

I am asking anyone who was at Pioneer courthouse square at approx. 01:20 pm and saw the events that led to our arrest to contact jailsupport and inform them of your contact information.

If we don't stand together in solidarity, the cops will continue to take these sort of unwarrented actions in an effort to quell dissent.

This is wrong people.

hmm 31.Mar.2003 08:58

i see

I'm sorry you had to go through that bullshit, but you obviously made it out with no problem, and they didn't snap your fingers off, so it seems you're back home able to submit to Indymedia again. Get a lawyer if you feel completely violated about this whole incident.

I.D. 31.Mar.2003 09:30

trooper

I guess next time you will show your I.D., wont you....dumbass

Looking for it 31.Mar.2003 09:40

anon

Clearly the cop was looking for a reason to arrest somebody. Silent compliance may have been enough to escape the cop's wrath, but from this side of the story there were no grounds for arrest. None.

ID? 31.Mar.2003 10:38

sonking

As far as I know you don't have to show your ID unless you are being charged with something. Good for you. Everyone should know their rights when faced with these kinds of situations.

LOL 31.Mar.2003 10:39

Mojo

the angry young man calling himself "trooper" says:

"I guess next time you will show your I.D., wont you....dumbass"

and completely misses the point.

More of these "brown shirt brains" around and the Bush crime enterprise known as "the administration" will be able to start up the death camps without problems.

Police offers, not Kings 31.Mar.2003 11:55

la Vierge Rouge

Hey trooper, there are laws to protect us from police corruption. Maybe you've gotten spoiled into thinking that it's OK to break laws becuse nobody does anything about it. But we are watching.

Isn't there a law that if you are arrested you have to be told what for? Any lawyers have any say on this?

But we won't stop because of this. Cops like to try to be intimidating, and they misuse their power because they feel weak, just like any bully. Unfortunately, they have backing, so they get away with it. (For now.) Kinda like our wanna be King George.

I have the feeling that this is just the beginning. They are watching us, and they are definitely not on our side. But it just makes us mad, not scared. Don't turn the people against you, trooper, you are their servant, and though some fools might think that you should beat up anyone who holds and anti war siogn, or arrest anyone who shouts a slogan, doesn't mean that it's right or moral or that the majority of the people want this.

There are more protesters than there are police, and we will not stop because of threat of arrest or violence. one drops another replaces them. After awhile we won't even be afraid of your arrests anymore, or your billy clubs.

Hey trooper! 31.Mar.2003 12:29

anti-fascist

Your comments are not only embarassing, but they expose some deep seated ignorance and hatred that can only be pitied!

You are the kind of individual that will require a "team" of phycologists in order to help you.

Why don't you jump off your cop supporting bandwagon long enough to get a clue before spouting your vial hate and ignorance?

Stopping dissent in the manner that the Porland police department has undertaken is a threat to everything that is good about America.
If you don't understand that, get up from your tv tray in front of your black and white set and walk out of your double wide down to the library and begin to shed the ignorance that plagues you?

What I found about presenting ID 31.Mar.2003 12:45

Not a Lawyer

check this out

(a) Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, such questioning does not result in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 216-217.

The full case here:
 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=210


So maybe I'm interpreting this wrongly (most likely I'm interpreting this wrongly) but you didn't have any right to refuse to present an ID until he threatened you with arrest if you didn't present ID at which point your 4th amendmant rights could have been asserted.

This of course does not include any state or city laws that might give you more protection.

Again I'd like to stress that I am NOT a Lawyer and am in fact a lowly freshman sociology student.

This IS wrong. 31.Mar.2003 14:46

Sage

Not a Lawyer is not a lawyer. You DO have grounds to refuse to show an ID. Not to mention a basic moral human right to exist without having to show ID.

This is arbitrary, wrongful arrest.

As to the first comment up there, I think your comments are very demoralizing: "I'm sorry you had to go through that bullshit, but you obviously made it out with no problem, and they didn't snap your fingers off ... Get a lawyer if you feel completely violated about this whole incident."

I'm sorry, but that response is NOT solidarity with someone who's been wronged and has an excellent case against a fascist cop. He's not "okay" -- he's been wronged and he should not have had to suffer that. Nobody should. That's nothing but pure intimidation for his political beliefs, and that's pure fascism. If his story is accurate, then it's an outrageous abuse of power and we should all be supporting him, at least progressive people who work for liberation.

As one who's been arrested in a very similar way, and dragged through court for 8 months, costing me $4000, for doing NOTHING but holding a sign that said "Not in our names" -- I know it's psychological intimidation. There should be damages for it. I know it may SEEM small but it's not. It's symbolic, and it's also a sign of worse things to come. Let's be responsible and supportive as a progressive community, or we are NOT a community.

Boston

This IS wrong. 31.Mar.2003 14:46

Sage

Not a Lawyer is not a lawyer. You DO have grounds to refuse to show an ID. Not to mention a basic moral human right to exist without having to show ID.

This is arbitrary, wrongful arrest.

As to the first comment up there, I think your comments are very demoralizing: "I'm sorry you had to go through that bullshit, but you obviously made it out with no problem, and they didn't snap your fingers off ... Get a lawyer if you feel completely violated about this whole incident."

I'm sorry, but that response is NOT solidarity with someone who's been wronged and has an excellent case against a fascist cop. He's not "okay" -- he's been wronged and he should not have had to suffer that. Nobody should. That's nothing but pure intimidation for his political beliefs, and that's pure fascism. If his story is accurate, then it's an outrageous abuse of power and we should all be supporting him, at least progressive people who work for liberation.

As one who's been arrested in a very similar way, and dragged through court for 8 months, costing me $4000, for doing NOTHING but holding a sign that said "Not in our names" -- I know it's psychological intimidation. There should be damages for it. I know it may SEEM small but it's not. It's symbolic, and it's also a sign of worse things to come. Let's be responsible and supportive as a progressive community, or we are NOT a community.

Boston

This IS wrong. 31.Mar.2003 14:46

Sage

Not a Lawyer is not a lawyer. You DO have grounds to refuse to show an ID. Not to mention a basic moral human right to exist without having to show ID.

This is arbitrary, wrongful arrest.

As to the first comment up there, I think your comments are very demoralizing: "I'm sorry you had to go through that bullshit, but you obviously made it out with no problem, and they didn't snap your fingers off ... Get a lawyer if you feel completely violated about this whole incident."

I'm sorry, but that response is NOT solidarity with someone who's been wronged and has an excellent case against a fascist cop. He's not "okay" -- he's been wronged and he should not have had to suffer that. Nobody should. That's nothing but pure intimidation for his political beliefs, and that's pure fascism. If his story is accurate, then it's an outrageous abuse of power and we should all be supporting him, at least progressive people who work for liberation.

As one who's been arrested in a very similar way, and dragged through court for 8 months, costing me $4000, for doing NOTHING but holding a sign that said "Not in our names" -- I know it's psychological intimidation. There should be damages for it. I know it may SEEM small but it's not. It's symbolic, and it's also a sign of worse things to come. Let's be responsible and supportive as a progressive community, or we are NOT a community.

Boston

Looking forward to this 31.Mar.2003 15:08

Can't be anonymous?

Perhaps wireless cameras that send signals to stationary locations will help document these kind of things? Your camera might be taken/destroyed and you arrested, but everything was recorded at the base station in your car.

 http://www.uemedia.com/CPC/article_5189.shtml

Only a range of 2000 feet for now, but let's hope the future gives these things more range and makes them more affordable.

ant 31.Mar.2003 15:56

ant

Alan Graf talked about this issue on KBOO last week. My understanding of this issue is that unless you are being detained or arrested you are not legally obligated to show ID.

If you are asked to show ID, ask if you are being detained or arrested - if not, just walk away. I will talk to a lawyer friend of mine in order to further clarify the meaning of "detained".

It would be useful to have a page/clearinghouse that clearly delineated our rights/responsibilities in regards to this/these things. One of the bike sites had the ORS relating to bikes which was really helpful. I'll look into this...

ant

ID & 4th Amendment 31.Mar.2003 16:51

Freddie

Its time to back to Civics 101. The cops can legally stop and detain any person when the cops have reasonable suspicion that a crime has committed, is possibly going to be committed or the person being contacted has information related to a crime being investigated by the cops. The legal standard to stop and detain is "reasonable suspicion". If the cop has "probable cause" the games over, you are going to jail. When stopped or detained by the cops you are required to identify yourself. Failure to do so is a seperate crime. Also, since there is nothing incriminating about mere identity, there is no Fourth Amendment right to refuse to identify yourself on those grounds. So when a cop asks for your ID just give it to him or her and either one of two things will happen. The cop will either investigate and reasonable suspicion will evaporate and you get your ID back and the cop leaves alone. Or the investigation will result in probable cause and you get to go to jail. Even then, you'll only have the basic charge not the added charge of failing to identify yourself. Remember, the cop has a lot more experience with the law. They deal with it everday. Most people don't. There's alot of urban legends about what is legal, illegal etc. Jailhouse lawyers are not your friends.
If the jailhouse lawyers were SO GOOD, SO KNOWLEDGEABLE, whay are they in jail?

Not so fast, Freddie 31.Mar.2003 18:10

Not a medic

Dear Freddie,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You assert one correct fact and then follow it with a number of incorrect statements that you pass off as facts.

Identifying oneself merely requires that you give your name and your address. It does not require that you produce a card or anything else. This was decided a number of years ago at the Supreme Court level and, even with the right-wing hacks currently on the Court, has not been over-ruled. There is no requirement that an identity card be produced anywhere in the U.S. (yet) unless someone is driving a vehicle.

Your statement that the police 'know more about the law' is, of course, a laugh. Police are not lawyers. Their knowledge of the law is extremely limited. And flawed. And, further, they are allowed to lie. That also was decided by the Supreme Court, the current one.

So, if you are going to protest - and I hope you are - don't listen to sociology students or folks like Freddie. Or even me. Go to a Rose City Copwatch training or a civil disobedience training. Learn the laws.

Learn when we have to break them. The original laws about free speech came about because revolutionary activists broke them in the late 1700's ("no taxation without representation", remember), the 1800's (it was forbidden by law to teach slaves to read or for them to have political meetings), the early 1900's (the Wobblies broke the laws forbidding public assemblies), and the 1960-70's (the Black freedom movement and the free speech movement broke the existing laws in the South and the North). We are establishing in Portland the right of political protest unhindered by the city's demand that we get a permit (May Day 2000 and since).

I have not cited case law on any of my statements above. It is fairly easy to check any of my assertions. Go to the ACLU website or any discussion on the web ahout "free speech". But, as importantly, people should begin to realize that getting legal advice from postings on Indy Media Portland means you get what you pay for. Anonymous posters tossing around stuff that they learned in a frosh sociology or law enforcement class when they should have been catching a nap.

Or joining a demonstration and making history.

here is the law smart girl! 31.Mar.2003 20:39

ff

If indentity can not be established, the police officer has he right to detain you until idendity can be established.

don't debate them, they won't debate you. (as you found out).

just give them the ID.


no lawyer is going to take this case. give it a try, waste your time. go ahead. see what happens..

Yap yap yapping ... all the way to jail 01.Apr.2003 09:29

gopher_p_quagmire

I see a lot of talk about the law, but very little application of law. One person has given documentation supporting his claim. One person? I'm not a lawer. I'm not a student of law. I'm not a protester, civil right guru, or political minded debater. I'm just a dumbass who stumbled across this site in search of some kind of truth; some kind of alternative to the MSNBC world that I live in. But I digress ... Aside from that one individual who did back up his claim with case law, the rest of the comments are merely OPINIONS. Just like this comment. If it is not based in FACT it is OPINION. I can write "I have the right to bugger a cop so long as i haven't broken any laws, and the Supreme Court upheld that right back in 1864," and it has the same weight as 99% of the arguments posted.

Don't get me wrong, I think what happened to Steve sucks. But was it illegal? I don't know. If it happened to me, I would probably call a LAWYER to find out if it was. If you think you've got a case, go for it. Take it to the Supreme Court. 10 years from now, TV cops will be reading TV crooks their "Steve G." rights.

By the way, when I inventoried merchandise at the last job I had, I knew more about inventorying merchandise than my GM, my DM, the CEO, my co-workers, and most importantly, the customers. I think, and maybe I'm wrong here, cops might know just a little bit more than me and you about when and how to arrest someone. Just my opinion, not a fact.

Identify yourself, trooper 01.Apr.2003 12:38

Dwight Van Winkle

Well, trooper, if you are really a trooper, why don't you identify yourself? Or perhaps you are not enough of a dumbass to do that, because you don't want it to be known that you have no respect for the law.

According to the guy's story, he immediately complied with the officer's order. Unless the officer wanted to issue a citation, he had no lawful reason, and therefore no right, to ask for ID.

Need reasonable suspicion of misconduct 01.Apr.2003 12:53

Dwight Van Winkle

The case linked to above, which isn't the latest and may offer less protection than Oregon law, says that reasonable suspicion of misconduct is needed to take further steps if the citizen does not consent to a search. Asking for the ID is OK and not a search or seizure; arresting someone for not producing the ID most definitely is NOT OK, unless the officer has reasonable belief that a crime is about to be committed. The Portland man's experience is more like Brown v. Texas, below, than like the immigration matter discussed in this case.

---------------------------
"Although we have yet to rule directly on whether mere questioning of an individual by a police official, without more, can amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, our recent decision in Royer, supra, plainly implies that interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. In Royer, when Drug Enforcement Administration agents found that the respondent matched a drug courier profile, the agents approached the defendant and asked him for his airplane ticket and driver's license, which the agents then examined. A majority of the Court believed that the request and examination of the documents were "permissible in themselves." Id., at 501 (plurality opinion); see id., at 523, n. 3 (opinion of REHNQUIST, J.). In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), when two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers' request to identify himself. The Court held that absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Id., at 52."

All the case is saying is that the police can ask questions without it being a seizure, even without telling the people they have a right to refuse.

"What is apparent from Royer and Brown is that police questioning, by itself, is unlikely to result in a Fourth Amendment violation. While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response. Cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 231 -234 (1973). Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. But if the person refuses to answer and the police take additional steps - such as those taken in Brown - to obtain an answer, then the Fourth Amendment imposes [466 U.S. 210, 217] some minimal level of objective justification to validate the detention or seizure. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S., at 554 ; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 21 ."

So where's the objective justification for arresting the guy because he refused to show ID? There is none, and a polce officer should not be allowed to get away with his unlawful arrest. Good cops agree with me, bad ones don't.

I Witnessed 01.Apr.2003 21:01

Den Mark

I witnessed this arrest in question & consider it to have been absolutely unreasonable & will contact the support group tomorrow.

I'M SO UPSET 07.Jul.2003 10:01

MACCAROY BROWN-SAMUEL

on reading this article i could see my self in that exact same place but my story was more brutal the policemen raped me and cut off my toe nails i could never sleep with another woman after that now i live in a small vilage with my compyuter as my only comfort. p.s i'm only 19

07719175494