'Prowling' stop, ID Law Questions

[Giggan]

The story is long, and perhaps you can skip down to where I get into the legal questions if you don't wanna read the whole thing, but I tried to keep it all entertaining and relevant. Enjoy.

Last night my friend Joe and I ran from his house to downtown Concord (maybe a mile or less) and began tossing a Frisbee in the parking lot of Market Basket. As we were there, for maybe a fifteen minutes or less, of the few cars that drove by, one was a police cruiser, which went by slowly but did not stop. After about fifteen minutes, we decided to toss the Frisbee on Main Street, it was now maybe 11:30, and with so little traffic it was a chance to enjoy a venue we'd otherwise be restricted by traffic from frequenting. We toss it up the street, making it maybe a block from the state house when we leave the road for an oncoming vehicle, which as it passes, we see is a police car. We decide to let it get out of sight before recommencing, but unfortunately it does a turnaround at an intersection and pulls to the side of the road facing where we would be playing otherwise. We know they'd tell us to stop having fun if we started again, so we head for the parking garage by Margarita's to continue. We stop to talk for a second aside the stairs, and maybe two minutes later a cruiser comes the wrong way up a one way street. Perhaps it was the cruiser that was on Main Street, but I could not affirm that. He goes by slowly. My friend runs for one reason or another in the opposite direction, with the Frisbee. I'm standing empty handed there. I have no reason to run, but laugh internally at having to explain (or not) why the person I was just with ran. Fortunately, running is not against the law...completely (more on that later, as we searched the RSA). So the car pulls up to me and I give a friendly wave, "How's it going?" (quotes from memory, perhaps not 100%)
"Hi, what are you doing here"
"I was just playing Frisbee with a friend and now I'm just enjoying the night."
"Why did he take off when he saw me."
"That you would have to ask him, I can not speak for him."
"What's your name?"
I'm reluctant to give it. I think that reasonable suspicion may not have been reached for 'stopping' me, but I allow the info. I note that the demeanor of the officer is everything. It is the way he asks for one's name, not in a pompous manner, but intimidating just the same, like its expected you'll hand it over.
"I don't have to uhhh....never mind. My name's Garret." He asks how to spell, first and last, and starts punching it into his computer.
"Date of birth?"
I know that's not required, but I give it anyways, as they can find it out, and he's given me no reason to withhold info yet (though I know many of you would say give no info, I try and gauge when its appropriate to withhold as far as what will get me out of there quicker. He's a few clicks away from the info on his laptop either way).
I say as I stand there, to let him know I'm aware of this procedure, "Checking for warrants, I presume?"
He affirms. He asks my friends name. I think to myself, this is probably the first time I'll be withholding information.
"I'm not at liberty to give you that information." In retrospect I could have thrown in an "I intend no disrespect" to reaffirm I'm not being defiant for the sake of it, but he did not seem very annoyed or have an immediate negative reaction. He asks, "Why's that?"
I reiterate it is information I am not required to give.
"How's that?" A very ambiguous question. I thought, "what does he mean, 'how's that'? 'That' is the way 'it' is, I don't have to give it. I say "the law does not require I give it." This is when chapter and versing RSA's can really scare people in authority, because often they can not.

He stares at me, and for a second I recognize this stare as the one that scares those presumed guilty into speaking when they should keep it shut. Like he's expecting me to say something, like he knows something and is just waiting for me to say it. I know he's had practice at this stare, and perhaps he's unfamiliar with this approach, especially from an otherwise 'law' abiding person. I smile at him, in a friendly way, and truly want to break this awkward staring contest. I reiterate my stance with more legal knowledge. "For a stop, reasonable suspicion is required, it's questionable as to whether you had it with me, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and gave you the legally required information".
He realized I wasn't giving anything else, and asked, "So what are you gonna do now?" (I understand in text that may sound intimidating, like a line from a Steven Seagal movie, but his tone was more 'what are you going to do tonight'-ish.
"I'm probably going to walk around a bit, enjoy the night air, then maybe head home."
I purposely keep my response ambiguous so as to not commit to any future activity while still remaining innocent in my endeavors. Some police officers would respond with an 'I better not see you out here again tonight' or some empty threat intended to scare people off, but to his credit he does not. I believe he just said "Okay" or something neutral of the sort. I wish him a nice night and walk out of the South exit.
I go North on Main Street and find Joe in an alleyway (publicly accessible, not trespassing, etc) which actually connects to the parking garage. He is entering the garage, and I whistle to him and motion to stay put. I look to my left and see the cruiser, looking into the alleyway, probably seeing me, so I don't make it obvious I'm talking to someone. I walk towards the parking garage, and I tell Joe to meet back at his house. He seems adamant on going towards the parking garage, so I tell him the officer is there, and unless he wants to be questioned, to go home, I'll meet him there. He says what about the Frisbee, as he does not want to run with it. I say if I take it, and the officer sees me, he'll know I saw you. He says don't worry and flicks it at me. By this point I'm in the garage, in view of the officer. He sees me retrieve a Frisbee from someone behind me. I continue walking and don't look back at him. I notice out of the corner of my eye he begins driving towards me, and he pulls to a space, parks his car, and I believe the lights were left on and everything to make it obvious the car was there. He gets out of his car, and by this point I'm walking slowly away, west towards the next street up. I expect at any second to hear a "Hey, where's the Frisbee from," though perhaps he's smart enough to know I wouldn't give any more information. He's probably expecting me to meet with this outlaw jogger again, and I can't be sure because I didn't look back, I believe he followed me for two blocks at a reasonable distance (within sight, but not very close) because I heard footsteps and the walkie-talkie thing three or four times until I rounded the block, heading south again, and crossing the street away from the southwest corner of the garage. A block later, I check back and see no one behind me, and jog the rest of the way home. I would have jogged earlier if I did not believe I was being followed and did not want to appear to be 'running away'. I wait on Joe's porch. He returns within three minutes. I tell him fully what happened with me after he ran off. I ask if he was stopped, he said yeah. I won't try and recount the full story as he gave it to me because it was already filtered once through him and would be a second time through me. In short, the officer was waiting for him on foot on the exit opposite the cruiser (which is why I pointed out he left his lights on, to get Joe thinking he was at one end so the other must be safe). The summary of the interaction was they took his name, which Joe gave because he remembered I always told him name and residence is all you need to give if there's reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop. I told him since he's no expert on suspicion to bank on if they stop you, give your name, and know that you're covered. If you ask if they need that info legally, they'll always say yes either way, so perhaps its good to ask before giving if just to CYA that you were compelled to give it. As you can see by my hesitance when I was 'stopped' I considered asking, but didn't really care to. The officer, according to Joe, was condescending, though its not to say I wouldn't be suspicious of someone running from me if I were him. If I were the cop, I would have been less condescending then I understand him to have been. But then again, if I were Joe, I would have been more diplomatic than he may have come across. He had a few funny retorts to assertions by the officer, and here's the piece I find most important and would like to bring to discussion.
So they have a dialogue, and its not incredibly 'friendly' though it is not legally inappropriate either. At some point the officer says, "I could arrest you for prowling." Joe responded that he could not, though I'm not sure he knew the prowling statute himself. In his mind, he surely could not be arrested because he did nothing more than run, and he was never instructed to stop beforehand. Joe asserts people are innocent until proven guilty in this country, to which the officer says "not really" or something like that. He asks Joe where that's written and he responds the Constitution. I laughed when he told me this. An inaccurate statement, but by no means incorrect. I would have chapter and versed if I could, and perhaps been less brazen (though that's not to say he was very brazen) in my demeanor, and I found the statement of rights an interesting push, blind as it was. Eventually they part ways, which brings us back to his house.

I tell Joe to write down the experience, as we're both writers for fun, storytellers. I say we should do it now whilst it's fresh, but he says he wants to look up the 'prowling' law first. He asks how to do it. So I bring him to the gencourt site, show him how to do an RSA search. 'Prowling' as ambiguous an offense as it is, is written in an even more open way. Here's the text. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/644/644-6.htm

The strange thing about the law is that it enumerates suspicious activity, but does not limit suspicion to those enumerated, which seems to give police more power. If they can articulate it as suspicion, it could qualify as suspicion of prowling incidentally. I don't quite understand why 'prowling' is an arrestable offence instead of 'attempted (insert crime here that there's suspicion for)'. With prowling being suspicion of another crime, and prowling being an offence in itself, suspicion of suspicion seems to constitute a stop. Rather redundant if I understand it correctly, but I remind myself of the purposes the legal system serves, making sense is not one of them.

From what I understand, the officer can arrest for prowling (suspicion of a crime) in a sense, with just mere suspicion, however, it is unlikely any of this would be upheld without proof of other wrongdoing, which perhaps works as a deterrent for prowling arrests, because of these two lines: "Prior to any arrest under this section, unless flight or other circumstances make it impossible, a law enforcement official shall afford the actor the opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and give an account for his presence and conduct. Failure to identify or account for oneself, absent other circumstances, however, shall not be grounds for arrest." So that seems to mean 'these can get you arrested without explanation, but not explaining oneself cannot be cause to arrest in itself.' Confusing, but an err on the side of the burden of proof being on the police should work to a potential prowler's advantage (prowlers not looking to commit crime, but rather victims of the legal language, the deaf joggers, etc). Next line: "No person shall be convicted under this section if the law enforcement official did not comply with paragraph II or if it appears at trial that the explanation he gave of his conduct and purposes was true and, if believed by the law enforcement official at the time, would have dispelled the alarm. In such cases, any record of the arrest made under authority of paragraph I shall be expunged." So it seems easy to get it so it 'never happened' if there is no proof of further suspicion. I imagine in citing 'presence in a place at an unreasonable time' or whatever puts the arbitrary power in the hands of the judge or jury to decide if one's presence somewhere was 'reasonable'. In conclusion, I'll be looking to a avoid being detained over this statute simply by remaining in/on publicly accessible grounds or private property I have reason to remain on, though the law says I don't need to articulate the reasons. Whatever, legal ambiguity.

So my next point of discussion, another complex legal thing, is the idea that once an officer has reasonable suspicion, that one must give their name and residence. The law as I've seen it is short, and reads "A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going." RSA 594:2, if anyone cares to double-check.

I wonder if the gender specifications within the law void the laws when females are involved in the interaction, but that wasn't the point I wished to raise. Food for thought.
Anyways, it says an officer 'may demand' and lists these four things. It doesn't say you have to supply them with that, yet that's what I've been led to believe. Is there another law regarding forced ID, or is this it? And if this is it, has a court ruled suspects must meet these demands, or do they just remain demands?
It also says 'business abroad' and where 'he' is going, though I suppose those questions could be dismissed by implementing ambiguous answers, such as my business is 'living the dream' and I'm going 'wherever the wind takes me'. Neither answers can be tarnished (thought they can try) because one never truly knows where they are going and can not say for sure where they'll end up either way. I also wonder what 'abroad' is supposed to mean here as it is an ambiguous word itself. Perhaps there's legal meaning?
In regards to this law, and the prowling one, since it says, "Failure to identify or account for oneself, absent other circumstances, however, shall not be grounds for arrest," does that mean RSA 594:2 is void for a prowling stop? Or does RSA 594:2 not compel anyone to say anything, but rather points out that officers can demand it? And is it that we hear 'only give name and residence' because we're legally obligated or because officers can use refusal to give that info as further suspicion that more wrongdoing is going on?

Feedback much appreciated. And I'd like to say I feel like I've accomplished something by not blindly giving information, like I just discovered a new right I didn't realize I had until I used it, so thanks to everyone gone before who did this sort of thing without knowing for sure the consequences, not blindly obeying, as you have inspired me to test the waters and I hope more discover their rights.

[Dave Ridley]

maybe you need to start carrying a pocket cam and uploading to youtube!   or maybe call porcupine 411

if yo do either of those things be sure and inform the cop, from the beginning, he's being audiotaped.

mainly i'm just glad your respectfully exercising your "right muscles"
we need to make this spread

[FTL_Ian]

Interesting situation.  Here are my suggestions.

So my next point of discussion, another complex legal thing, is the idea that once an officer has reasonable suspicion, that one must give their name and residence. The law as I've seen it is short, and reads "A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going." RSA 594:2, if anyone cares to double-check.

I wonder if the gender specifications within the law void the laws when females are involved in the interaction, but that wasn't the point I wished to raise. Food for thought.
Anyways, it says an officer 'may demand' and lists these four things. It doesn't say you have to supply them with that, yet that's what I've been led to believe. Is there another law regarding forced ID, or is this it? And if this is it, has a court ruled suspects must meet these demands, or do they just remain demands?

Remember, statutes are rules for the Government people to follow.  (Though, we all know that they do not.)  Did you consent to follow their rules?  If not, try this the next time an officer demands information from you on a street contact.  (Preferably you will also be videotaping per Dave's suggestion.)

Cop: "What's your name?"
You: "(Your first name), I will be happy to give you my last name if you'll give me your business card."  (All cops, from what I understand are supposed to carry these.)
If he gives you his card, honor your agreement and give him your last name.  This gives him the "win" of being able to punch you in to his computer.
You: "If you would like to continue this conversation with me, unless we have a prior contract that you can show me, my time will cost you or your agency $200 per hour, with a $200 minimum.  Do you accept my terms?"

I bet he'll leave you alone then.

If he doesn't, ask if he's going to hurt you if you continue going about your business, because that is your intention.

Feedback much appreciated. And I'd like to say I feel like I've accomplished something by not blindly giving information, like I just discovered a new right I didn't realize I had until I used it, so thanks to everyone gone before who did this sort of thing without knowing for sure the consequences, not blindly obeying, as you have inspired me to test the waters and I hope more discover their rights.

Congratulations on your courage!  Seriously considering arming yourself with a video camera, and see how things feel.   

[Giggan]

I usually don't carry anything (wallet, keys, cell) when I go exercise for the sake of being responsible for something and having it weigh me down. Though I'll consider maybe bringing a bag, I see how a phone and camera would be handy. What a wonderful world it would be when cops are used to pulling up on a scene and seeing the camera come right out, knowing the person behind it won't be giving anything useful without needing to ask, and just moving on.

Charging for time sounds like a great idea. My only worry is on the off chance they pay, you've become obligated to give info, unless you 'retire' on the spot before accepting.

I've been stopped a number of times at night less formally, police just making sure us youths aren't robbing and pillaging, and they usually don't even take names, just ask what we're doing and leave. If there's ever an alleged 'offense' involved, for example, we were playing frisbee one night and had music playing in a parking lot, with no residences around and a cop rolled up and told us we had to shut the music off. My concern was whether it was bothering someone (in which case, I'd prefer they ask me themselves rather than sending a government gun out). I asked if there was a citizen complaint and the officer's response was 'that doesn't matter'. Asking again, he admitted 'no'.

Ian and Dave, your responses were much appreciated. And seconded, the public and police definitely need to consider filming and non-responsiveness commonplace.

[FTL_Ian]

Charging for time sounds like a great idea. My only worry is on the off chance they pay, you've become obligated to give info, unless you 'retire' on the spot before accepting.

You can be pretty certain they won't pay, and no you are not obligated to give any info.  They are only contracting to continue conversing with you.  That agreement in no way obligates you to give them any responsive answers whatsoever to their questions.  The appropriate response to the questions of bureaucrats is more questions back at them.

[doobie]

LEO: "What are you doing here?"
YOU: "Playing Frizbee."

LEO: "What is your name?"
YOU: "Am I under arrest?"

LEO: "No, what is your name?"
YOU: "For what purpose or purposes am I being detained?"

LEO: "(insert valid or non-valid purpose)."
1) If somewhat valid, maybe you can be helpful and just provide your name....maybe

2) Non-valid purpose: "Am I free to go?"
  a) LEO: "No."
      "For what purpose am I being detained?"
      i) For questioning.
         "I demand my right to council."
      ii) "Get out of here."
  b) LEO: "Yes."
     Turn and walk away.

Okay, it's a bit more dynamic than that...