Did protest arrests violate rights?
By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 25, 2008 at 3:06 p.m.
Updated August 25, 2008 at 3:17 p.m.
Photo by Tim Hussin © The Rocky
A Re-create 68 security guard who wouldn't provide his name stands at an entrance to the Greek Amphitheater during a Re-create 68 assembly at Civic Center Park in Denver on Monday, August 25, 2008.
Two protesters were arrested Sunday for not giving their names to police, raising questions about when that constitutes a crime.
“Isn’t this America?” asked Denver attorney John Holland. “Don’t you have the right to protest? Don’t you have the right to remain silent?”
Law-abiding protesters don’t have to give their names to police, he said.
But police can “require” a person to give their name and address when there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed.
“Cops don’t have any right to demand identification from people unless they have reason to believe a crime has been committed, and then you are obligated to give your name,” said Denver lawyer David Lane.
“Otherwise they have no authority to do that,” he said. “The cops can’t just walk up to any old person on the street and demand ID and then arrest them if they say no. You are not allowed to lie to the cops but you can say, “Take a walk.’”
In this case, the two protesters whose faces were covered with bandannas attracted police attention by engaging in “suspicious” activity by ducking down and appearing to hide items behind public toilets near 7th and Lawrence Streets as police passed by.
“Why didn’t they see what they put behind the toilets before they asked them for their names?” Lane asked. “Those protesters may end up in federal court on a civil rights violation case and I’d be happy to represent them.”
The duty to respond to a request for identification, Holland said, “depends on a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, not that you’re dressed in a mask and attending a demonstration. They better have something on the criminal side or it is a wrongful violation of your constitutional right to protest.”
The two protesters, Austin Hunter and Frank Anello, were cited for violating a Denver city ordinance for giving false information to police.
Police listed them as “John Does”, but it’s unclear whether the two gave John Doe as their names or if police identified them as John Does after they refused to identify themselves.
Hunter told the judge, “I didn’t give them any information at all.”
The two gave their names in court after the judge told them he couldn’t set bond unless they identified themselves.
Telling police your name is John Doe or Bugs Bunny could be construed as giving false information, “but what that means to any reasonable person is that I’m not going to give you my name,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Under the city code, not giving your name or saying you are John Doe is still a violation under the Denver ordinance if police say they are investigating something.
A 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the authority of police to demand identification upon “reasonable suspicion” of a crime, Holland said.
“But they can’t just stop you for running breathlessly down the street,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.”
The court held that requiring identification under such circumstances did not violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to be protected against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination, he said.
In the case of the two protesters,“police may have found something or may say they are worried about threats to public safety or that something dangerous could have been put behind the toilet,” Holland said.
“To hide something in a public place is not a normal behavior,” he said. “You’ve got this tension in a sitaution like this, between their duty to protect the public from dangerous conditions and our constitutional right to protest.”
Holland advised protesters asked to identify themselves to ask the police what their concern is. If police say they suspect criminal conduct, police have the right to demand identification.
“Reasonable suspicion is central here,” Holland said. “What is the conduct that is criminal? They can’t ‘suspect’ everything that is not something they would do. If they’re just targeting protesters and picking them up, First Amendment rights to protest are being violated.”
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 25, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
To answer the question posed as the story title, "No".
August 25, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
If a law abiding citizen is abiding the law and has nothing to hide than the answer is no. The may have a genuine reason for asking such a question. What is odd here is: Why is the person so adament about refusing?
Is it a statement? A publicity stunt?
If an officer asks me my name, I give it. I have nothing to hide.
I.
August 25, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jen23 writes:
These are the same people that demand improved security measures when innocent people are afflicted by others who didn't give a second thought to other people's rights.
August 25, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
steel -- moron! Denver police are breaking the law.
"Two protesters were arrested Sunday for not giving their names to police ... The two protesters, Austin Hunter and Frank Anello, were cited for violating a Denver city ordinance for giving false information to police." -- Not only did police not have reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed, but they charged the protesters with giving false information when they gave no information. This appears to be yet another instance of D.P.D. committing false arrest. We need to make the D.P.D. a professional force, by giving them competent leaders. The administration of this city is rotten to the core. Certainly Chief Whitman should resign; the D.P.D. openly defies the Law, but Manager of Safety LaCabe, who apparently endorses false arrest, and Hickenlooper must go too. Is Denver dumb enough to elect Craven Councilman Doug Linkhart to be our next Mayor ? I'm afraid so. To progressive Democrats in Denver: the voters need you on the primary ballot to replace the likes of Hickenlooper, Linkhart, and Morrissey.
August 25, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
I agree with both steel and Jim. Most of these loons claiming their rights were violated don't understand what their rights are to begin with. You now have the right to remain silent. Off you go to jail.
August 25, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
If you refuse to answer the police do you not raise questions as to your status of "possible up to no good"? The right to remain silent means you do not have to incrimenate yourself in testimony or answering questions. By refuseing to answer as to who you are is not incrimenating at all.
No rights violated here. If you do not give your name the police have a responsibility to determine who you are. A responsibility to protect those around them from those who may want to do harm. This is nothing but an ACLU ploy to line their pockets with more money and waste the courts time.
August 25, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
By the way, steel, Jim_in_Erie, and NotUrFriend:
Denver's coffers are not limitless. The City is paying more and more money out in settlements to people whose rights they are violating, and it is setting itself up for even larger losses. These settlements are being paid by the taxpayers of Denver, in effect punishing us for poor electoral choices. I resent your support for bad policing, both because it violates the rights of citizens, but also because it is throwing tax dollars away!
August 25, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
All the rest of you nitwits, off to the right-wing blogs with you! You don't know or care about the Law, your own civil rights, or the welfare of Denver.
August 25, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Steel writes:
"Put him in a real jail with the general population for a night, and show him what it's like to get violated."
Steel-What would Jesus have said. Once again follow in the footsteps you are suppose to.
August 25, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
adam1mc writes:
Every single person who commented on this story who say that the rights of the protesters weren't violated should be ashamed of themselves.
Do we really live in the Totalitarian society in which police can interrogate, question and arrest people who are expressing their constitutionally protected right of assembly and free speech.
Do you really want to a live in a society in which behavior such as this is NOT tolerated? The comments on this board tend to make me believe that the people in this country would rather live under the rule of a totalitarian or communist Country such as China.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Didn't you learn anything in civics class?
August 25, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
JCRiggle writes:
adam1mc
Did you read the article at all? These two kids (two out of the thousands of others that are there "expressing their constitutionally protected right of assembly and free speech") "attracted police attention by engaging in 'suspicious' activity by ducking down and appearing to hide items behind public toilets near 7th and Lawrence Streets as police passed by." The police had every right to question their suspicious behavior as it is their responsibility to keep everybody safe, even those who wish ill will on the cops.
Why is everything so black and white in your view? Two people are arrested and that makes our society "Totalitarian"?