[patrick4588]

Last night my friend and I were arrested for "interfering with an officer" for refusing to show id while we were in the backseat. Without going into detail, I am looking for an attorney because I want to sue for illegal detainment. Problem is, I'm a broke college student. Are any available that would do a % of the award if we won, and nothing up front? They also took our firearms and apparently the atf has to run ballistics before we get them back...

 

[patrick4588]

Also was never read my miranda rights.

 

[patrick4588]

ttt

 

[spector]

Miranda rights are only read prior to "interview" (official interrogation) and have nothing to do with arrest.

Regardless, you should be able to fight that. I think first step would be getting a not-guilty verdict, but IANAL. Call Doug King?

 

[dcannon1]

You could also try contacting GCO leadership. If there's a chance to establish good case law that would further gun rights they might be interested in sponsoring it. Without knowing all the details (which you probably shouldn't post here) it's hard to say though.

 

[budder]

Doug King for the defense and expungement, then John Monroe if you want to try a civil suit. Contacting the department and getting the officers trained may be the best result.

 

[mb90535im]

Broke college student = public defender

Good luck.

 

[EJR914]

Doug King for the defense and expungement, then John Monroe if you want to try a civil suit. Contacting the department and getting the officers trained may be the best result.

THIS FTW!

 

[patrick4588]

Broke college student = public defender

Good luck.

Papers peasant!

 

[patrick4588]

You could also try contacting GCO leadership. If there's a chance to establish good case law that would further gun rights they might be interested in sponsoring it. Without knowing all the details (which you probably shouldn't post here) it's hard to say though.

Yeah honestly not a ton of details. Neither of us ever did anything, I think they were just bored.

 

[mb90535im]

Broke college student = public defender

Good luck.

Papers peasant!

I know.

Folks on here do offer suggestions for what I understand to be the best legal representation available for firearm related issues and maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt either would do anything without a retainer. Afterall, they are in business to make money.

 

[budder]

Broke college student = public defender

Good luck.

Papers peasant!

If you're an undergrad wanting to use the PD's services, you may/probably need to get your parents' financial information (like last year's taxes).

 

[EJR914]

Broke college student = public defender

Good luck.

Papers peasant!

I know.

Folks on here do offer suggestions to the best legal representation on firearm related issues and maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt either would do anything without a retainer. Afterall, they are in business to make money.

You would be correct. Most attorneys here do make people have them on retainer, especially when arrest is involved.

Now I know one here that may do something small for your for a flat fee, but even that fee may still be too large for some of us here. About the price of a very good quality brand new semi-auto pistol.

However, I will say this, with attorney's YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. If you want THE BEST, and you want PROPER representation, you are going to pay for it.

Believe me, when it comes to things like legal trouble, YOU WANT THE BEST. You do not want to live the rest of your life with a conviction, that you know is wrong, and that you know are not guilty of.

When it comes to legal trouble, HIRE THE BEST. That is my advice. I don't care if it bankrupts you. Do not let the STATE take advantage of poor people, by arresting them, charging them, and convicting them on bogus trumped up charges.

That's just my two cents about the expense when it comes to PROPER representation by an attorney. :righton:

Do you know what the difference is between a $300/hr and a $600/hr attorney is? The $300/hr has NO connections, and very little experience, and is most likely going to tell you to plea down, and plea guilty to something that you should have never been charged with in the first place.

A $600/hr attorney has a lot of experience, knows everyone, knows every law, ever inch of it, this isn't his/her first rodeo, is a member of the country club, where the judge plays Golf, and he takes the judge on a Golf outing before your case goes to court, and he KNOWS the outcome of the case, before you EVER step inside a court room.

That is my experience with attorneys.

Get a public defender, and drop trout, bend over, and get ready for the STATE, and they will not take it easy on you. No KY.

 

[gunsmoker]

If you hire an Atlanta area attorney (Doug King, John Monroe, or myself, among others here)... travel costs would be very expensive. There is only so much you can do by mail, fax and telephone. Attending court to defend you in the criminal matter requires at least a couple of personal show-ups.

My suggestion: Find a local criminal defense attorney first, and second run the idea of a civil suit for money damages by that attorney and a couple others and see of anybody thinks it's worth pursuing.

Random thoughts based on some of the annotated cases following 16-10-24:

Obstruction means to resist with force or threat of force, or to lie to interfere with the cops completing their lawful tasks.
Verbal harassment or arguing with a cop in a way that they could reasonably ignore you and go on with their lawful duties is NOT obstruction. Woodward v. Gray, 241 Ga. App. 847 (2000).
BUT: Even if the comments are not threatening to the officers, any comments that serve to distract them from their duties at hand can be misdemeanor obstruction. Carter v. State, 222 Ga. App. 397 (1996).

Refusing to open the door to a police officer's demand for entry is not and act of knowingly and willingly obstructing, opposing, or resisting an officer. Vince v. State, 113 Ga. 1070 (1901) (decided under a different Code section).

BUT: If the passengers in a car where the driver is suspected of a crime (and the passengers are not suspected of any crimes) bail out and run, and if this has the effect of hindering the cops' duties to detain or ticket the driver, this IS obstruction. Sanders v. State, 204 Ga. App. 545 (1992).

LAWFUL DEMAND FOR I.D.? A cop has the right to demand your I.D. if the cop has reasonable suspicion to detain you at the scene. If the cop is asking for your I.D. without suspecting you of any offense, your refusal would not be obstruction because the cop's demand would not be "in the lawful discharge of his official duties." Gainor v. Douglas County, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1259. See also Overand v. State, 240 Ga. App. 682 (1999). (Actually, there are NUMEROUS cases holding this, both for the "obstruction" statute and the "giving a false name to officer" statute. When the cops wrongfully detain somebody without reasonable suspicion, they are not acting within the lawful discharge of their duties.)

HOWEVER, it can be obstruction to refuse an officer's reasonable demand to remain at the crime scene while the officer briefly investigates the crime, and leaving against the officer's instructions is a form of obstruction. (I wonder what was the basis for holding people against their will at the crime scene? Because the cop wasn't sure which one(s) of them might be offenders? Or was he holding them as potential material witnesses?) Overand v. State, 240 Ga. App. 682 (1999) (also dealing with refusal to produce I.D.).

REFUSAL TO IDENTIFY ONE'S SELF TO A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT ITSELF A CRIME, but it could be if it had the effect of hindering an officer who was trying to investigate a crime that a third person is suspected of. Clark v. State, 243 Ga. App. 362 (2000) (not the opinion of the Court; only 1 judge so held and 2 others would only agree with the outcome, but not the reasoning).

PASSENGERS in VEHICLE STOPPED FOR TRAFFIC OFFENSE or EQUIPMENT VIOLATION may be required to produce I.D. for the cops, even though the alleged crime being investigated was the crime of the driver, not the passenger. And it's OK for cops to threaten to arrest passengers with obstruction charge if they don't cooperate by identifying themselves.
Clark v. State, 243 Ga. App. 362 (2000) (One judge's opinion; 2 other judges only agreed in the judgment of the case only).

HERE'S WHAT I'M SURE OF: nothing. You need to pay a lawyer to carefully review the facts of what happened to you, what the officer thought was going on (which may be different from what YOU thought was going on in the same incident) and then that lawyer needs to do some serious legal research on the caselaw. The above was just 10 minutes' worth of reading. There's 50X more reading to be done.

 

[Hack Causality]

This is why I don't carry ID except except when I'm driving or CC'ing.

 

[budder]

Get a public defender, and drop trout, bend over, and get ready for the STATE, and they will not take it easy on you. No KY.

Poor DKing.

 

[patrick4588]

before they arrested us, we eventually handed them our id's. We didnt commit any traffic offense to even be stopped. Man i want to explain everything on here, but like i assumed and others stated that may not be the best idea. The charges are completely bogus. I asked are we free to go and they said the driver of the vehicle was but we couldnt. Been in less trouble if we would have just driven drunk. Instead got a sober driver, got harrassed and arrested. Us vs them right.... and ya know it makes me not want to carry anymore for fear of being illegally arrested again and i cant do anything about it.

 

[smn]

Arizona v. Johnson:

This case concerns the authority of police officers to "stop and frisk" a passenger in a motor vehicle temporarily seized upon police detection of a traffic infraction. In a pathmarking decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Court considered whether an investigatory stop (temporary detention) and frisk (patdown for weapons) may be conducted without violating the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court upheld "stop and frisk" as constitutionally permissible if two conditions are met. First, the investigatory stop must be lawful. That requirement is met in an on-the-street encounter, Terry determined, when the police officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a criminal offense. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous.

For the duration of a traffic stop, we recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes "everyone in the vehicle," the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007). Accordingly, we hold that, in a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry conditionâ€"a lawful investigatory stopâ€"is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.

If the driver was free to go and you weren't then the officer must have RAS on you guys....
Go back and revisit Terry, and also Florida v. JL. Start filing ORAs get all the paperwork on the stop and the video.

 

[patrick4588]

i already planned on filing an ORA on Monday. The officer said her RAS was i looked young and had been drinking. :?

 

[Savvy Jack]

Ok, so in a nut shell, when MUST you show I.D. and what I.D. must be shown?

C'mon, lets hear it! :waiting: