Papers PLEEEEZE!

[Moses]

I just got back from the University of Oregon. Moved my son into his freshman dorm. Great days. Wonderfully organized campus and the biological sciences curriculum looks great. Anyway...

After getting Justin moved in, my wife and I went back to our hotel and Justin stayed on campus for an evening of school sponsored events including a dance at the student union building. The dance was scheduled to end at 1:00 AM.

Shortly after midnight Justin was walking back to his dorm by himself. He tossed his empty soda bottle into a trash can. As he headed down the sidewalk toward his dorm he was stopped by a police officer who demanded to know what he was drinking. The officer was rude and intimidating. He shined his flashlight into Justin's eyes and then into the trash can. The diet Pepsi bottle was on top. Finally the officer let him continue on his way. WTF????

I asked Justin if he had been drinking alcohol, was stumbling or being loud or boisterous. No, no, no and NO. I'm pissed. He's 18 years old, thoroughly responsible and I believe him completely. Since when do officers stop citizens on the streets for random interrogations? The officer told Justin the University had a zero tolerance policy on alcohol consumption. Well, I've got a zero tolerance policy on harassment. I guess my first letter to the University is on it's way.

Here's my boy;

[porsche4life]

Just starting school now? Its almost October. Heck we are getting close to midterms.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by porsche4life

Just starting school now? Its almost October. Heck we are getting close to midterms.

Quarter system.

[vash]

that is BS. i think it is fine for the cop to talk to justin, but be friendly...easier to chat a kid up, and smell for booze, and look at behavior without switching immediately to badcop. cop 101..people want to admit to stuff...

[Gogar]

Cop, or Campus Security? Campus security is a half-a-notch up from mall cop.

[pwd72s]

If it had been a joint, the campus cop would have ignored him...or perhaps asked for a toke.

Welome to the University of Nike...

[RWebb]

yes, welcome to Eugene - he's lucky the pigs here didn't taze him

do a Google search on Ian van Ornum - poor kid from MN got beat up bad the cops last year

[pavulon]

Can't imagine folks much more serious than the Eugene TSA group...it's was only toothpaste and shaving cream but those folks were wound awful tight.

[slodave]

Dunno, he looks like a trouble maker to me.

[mattdavis11]

Maybe he threw the bottle in the wrong trash bin, ie. plastic bottle in with the cans, or paper. I hear it's a mandatory jail time offense up there.

[9dreizig]

Damn,, college has come along way since I went to school.. I still have pics of my RA sucking on a bong while sitting on a keg in the hallway!!

[Moses]

Originally Posted by vash

that is BS. i think it is fine for the cop to talk to justin, but be friendly...easier to chat a kid up, and smell for booze, and look at behavior without switching immediately to badcop. cop 101..people want to admit to stuff...

If he's not staggering or acting suspiciously, why stop him at all?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

And just think - you're paying them thousands of dollars so they can treat students like a liability. What a wonderful system.

If I were you, someone high up in the administration would be getting a pissed-off letter tomorrow. No joke.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If I were you, someone high up in the administration would be getting a pissed-off letter tomorrow. No joke.

The letter will go out Monday. I really am pissed. It's the kids first night in his new home. He's a little afraid, trying to adjust. And he gets hassled by a cop for no reason. Welcome to Oregon!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Right there with ya. I'm all for police presence on college campuses and I'm even okay with an aggressive anti-alcohol policy on campus. What you experienced is flat-out harassment and it's not okay.

There are actually some college students out there who are bright kids, who take their studies seriously and are there to learn - not just to stumble around drunk for five or six years.

Best of luck. I hope you get an apology.

[Moses]

The University of Oregon has a big problem with theft. Laptops and bicycles. Nobody can recall any arrests ever having been made. Walk across campus with a diet Pepsi, however, and you just might find yourself on the wrong side of the law...

[Dueller]

If the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed, in this case violating campus ETOH bans, then a limited investigatory stop has been upheld by our (conservative) SCOTUS. An excerpt from Hiibel v. Nevada showing a bit of the deveopment/rationale of stops since the Terry "stop and frisk" cases...

The Court has recognized similar constitutional limitations on the scope and operation of stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51-52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of "arbitrary and abusive police practices" was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52. Four Terms later, the Court invalidated a modified stop and identify statute on vagueness grounds. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352 (1983). The California law in Kolender required a suspect to give an officer '"credible and reliable'" identification when asked to identify himself. Id., at 360. The Court held that the statute was void because it provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with it, resulting in '"virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.'" Id., at 360 (quoting Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130, 135 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in result)).

The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer "credible and reliable" identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.)("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means - a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make - the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207.

III

Hiibel argues that his conviction cannot stand because the officer's conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree.

Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. "[Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure." INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 216 (1984). Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 881 (1975). To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer's action must be '"justified at its inception, and... reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.'" United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212 (1979).

Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect's identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229 (1985) ("[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice"); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 816 (1985) ("[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information"); Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972) ("A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time").


2004...Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.


4th amendment be damned!

[porsche4life]

Our campus cops are pretty good here(SWOSU). But the OSU campus cops are dicks. Not a whole lot better than parking Nazis.

[vash]

bottomline...how did your son take it? he is in for the best time of his young life...good for him.

i hope this doesnt taint a damn thing...just an idiot campus cop.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I swear politicians just put that word "reasonable" in all over the law books to keep their buddies gainfully employed obfuscating the real intentions for years to come. It's maddening.

There is NOTHING reasonable about assuming that a kid walking across campus with his dad drinking a soda is engaged in criminal activity. A simple "good evening" walking by would have been appropriate. Detaining you was not.

Many years ago I worked security at the former Foxboro Stadium (now Gillette). An old-timer gave me some very good advice: simply make eye contact with people as they enter your section - particularly any that give you a "vibe". Nothing aggressive, just simply look them in the eye and say "good evening" as they pass. You know what? It worked. It cut down on a lot of the shennanigans and B.S. It was a way of politely saying to them "I know you're here, and now you know I'm here and I'm keeping an eye on things, so behave, have a good time and enjoy the game/show/whatever".