The police request to obtain the ID required a valid investigation termination, Rule 4 with the partial win of the Black motorist


Constitutional Right

Police officers who arrested a black man when he refused to identify him violated his Fourth Amendment rights. But they have qualified immunity because they relied on a county decision that made it a crime to refuse to provide officers with IDs, the Federal Court of Appeals has ruled.

In: Decision of February 4 The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled in favor of Wingate III’s lawsuit against the officers on the basis of an identity document. But he found it for him with another requirement. That one of the officers mistakenly told him that he was not free to leave until he provided his ID, which turned the meeting with the police into an investigative stop, which violated the fourth amendment.

The Court of Appeal revived Wingate’s unjust termination claim and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Chief Justice Roger Gregory wrote the unanimous opinion. He was was nominated for the first time The fourth term by President Bill Clinton, when the Senate did not work, re-appointed Gregory as President George W. Bush.

The incident took place in Stafford County, Virginia, in April 2017, after Wingate overturned his car at around 2 am because the control engine light was on. Former mechanic Wingate thought he might be able to fix the problem. He pulled a bag of tools from his trunk and looked under the hood. Then he got in his car again and tried to diagnose the problem using a car code reader.

An officer approached to offer help. Wingate left his car and walked over to greet the officer. When the officer asked what was going on, Wingate said he was on his way to his girlfriend’s house but was pulled over after having problems with his car. The MP asked Wingate to reveal his identity.

“Did I commit a crime?” Wingate asked. When the officer said he did not say, Wingate asked. “I will go free.” The officer replied that he was not currently free. “Am I under arrest?” Wingate asked. The officer said it was not him. “I will go free,” Wingate asked. The officer said it was not him և he would not be free to go until Vingate provided proof of identity.

A second Arrived officer said there had been numerous thefts of catalytic converters in the area, Wingate was on the side of the road in an area where businesses had been hit. After Vingate again refused to provide identification, officers attempted to arrest him. Wingate resisted, got rid of it and ran. The officers caught him, handcuffed him and put him in a patrol car. When they searched Wingate’s car, they did not find the tools commonly used to steal catalytic converters.

Prosecutors later dropped charges against Wingate, which included not disclosing his identity and preventing the officer from making a lawful arrest. Winget sued Civil Rights Act 1983 ընդհանուր General Virginia Law.

The officer argued that the stoppage of the investigation was constitutional because he reasonably suspected that Wingate was involved in criminal activity. He said Wingate’s car was parked in a dimly lit area near a car booth, which was idling during the car’s rearing period.

But the court of appeals said that the fact that the car was turned over only shows that the car has problems. There were only eight larcenies in the area of ​​the car in six years, and only 18 larcenies in the surrounding area in six years.

The court also found nothing suspicious about Wingate getting out of his car.

“But the opinion that the driver of a broken car raises suspicions of criminal activity by approaching an officer who is trying to help him, frankly, ignores the justification,” the court said.

And Wingate’s dark clothes “are far from enough. “Indeed, wearing dark clothes is often as harmless as following the latest fashion trends,” the court said.

The officers violated Wingate’s fourth amendment rights by making her ID “out.” Terry “Stop,” the appellate court said, citing Terry vs. Ohio, 1968 The case of the US Supreme Court on the claim of reasonable doubt. “But since that right was not clearly defined at the time of arrest, officers have the right to receive quality immunity from this claim.”

But the court ruled in Wingate’s custody. The lawsuits should have informed the first deputy prosecutor that “suspicion of criminal activity should arise from conduct that presupposes more criminal involvement than Mr. Wingate,” the court said.

As a result, the deputy does not have the right to qualified immunity. The court dismissed Wingate’s claims, which were filed under ordinary Virginia law.

The other members of the Board were President George W. B. Bush Appointed Judge Paul Niemeyer և President Donald Trump Appointed Judge Jul Ulius Richardson.

At the same time, Richardson said that he agrees that identification can not be done without proper suspicion. But he said he wanted to make it clear that the decision applies only in the context of investigative stops, չի it does not address the requirement of identity before entering police checkpoints, border crossings or secure facilities.

Hat tip to: How attractive, which was related to the decision և coverage Associated Press:, Court News Service It also has a history.

Like it? Share with your friends!



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *