Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Informal discussions
Post Reply
Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by Robert Burns » Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:48 pm

For those who don't know, this informational sheet can be found here: https://www.natall.com/printable/Our%20 ... ribute.pdf

Most of it is good information, but I just noticed a part of it today which I think is a fairly serious error. Under the header "Remember These Points" it says this:
1. You don’t have to answer a police officer’s questions, but you must show your license, registration and insurance when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can’t legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to an officer.
At best this is very misleading, because there are places and situations other than traffic stops where you can definitely be arrested for not identifying yourself, although the details vary pretty widely by state.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The Court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk", "stop, question, and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop."
Maybe it was written before that 2004 decision, but what the sheet should probably say now, at the very least, is that you cannot be legally arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer if it isn't a valid Terry stop. If it is a valid Terry stop, all bets are off: at best you're in a legal gray area, and at worst you may be in clear violation of a "stop and identify" law in your state. The gray area is because even in states without "stop and identify" laws, some courts have determined that in these situations refusal to provide ID falls under obstruction of a police officer, so it's not like the absence of an obvious "stop and identify" statute means that you're free to refuse as you please.

One should note a few other things as well. The first is that, even if you are found innocent of any crime suspected prior to the stop, this does not meant that a court won't decide that it was still a valid Terry stop, so you can still be charged even if your only crime was refusing to identify.

Also, officers do NOT have to justify the validity of the stop to you outside of a courtroom, and they don't even have to tell you what they suspect you of until they actually arrest you, so you don't just get to decide for yourself that their detention and demand for ID is unreasonable. If they demand ID, you pretty much have to show ID or risk being arrested. Sure, maybe you can fight it in court and win, but is it really worth it?

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I don't see what refusing to identify yourself to a cop actually accomplishes, other than possibly pissing the cop off and giving him a new excuse to arrest you. You can just give your ID to avoid all that, and then just refuse to give any more information or to consent to any searches. If they're demanding ID but not arresting you to begin with, your ID of all things is not going to close the case.

But anyway, that's my two cents about it. I just don't want to see any members getting arrested because they took that part of the informational sheet a little too seriously.

User avatar
White Man 1
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:35 pm
Location: East TN
Contact:

Re: Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by White Man 1 » Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:53 pm

Good research, Riley. Maybe it would be good to have a lawyer review our rights since they seem to change by the month.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 3292
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by Jim Mathias » Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:03 pm

Good post, Riley.

I've been down this road personally and fought the matter all the way through trial in my state (Iowa, Scott county) and have some information you didn't mention.

First, Hiibel v. Nevada applies only to those states that have created a statute requiring an ID be shown upon request by an officer. That's about half the states at the time I went through my challenge. Iowa was not one of those states with such a statute.

In my case, I was charged with a different crime-- "interference with official acts" which is making a motion towards or physically making contact with an officer to prevent him from doing his official act. In the charging instrument, the sheriff's detective stated the act I had done was to simply refuse to ID myself. I argued through my mouthpiece the point that refusing to show ID had nothing to do with the charge and he then motioned for dismissal based upon that very argument and also citing Hiibel didn't apply to Iowa as this state has no law requiring ID be given under these circumstance (I was stopped for having an empty holster in a courthouse as I was serving process upon the then county attorney-- no laws violated, dragged into a dark interrogation room, then as I was asked the first question, I asked in turn "am I required to answer your questions?" upon which I was arrested). Long story short, the assistant county attorney offered to drop the one and only charge in exchange for not suing them; we went to trial, and I was found not guilty. Incidentally, the demurrer I had the lawyer file for me was never ruled upon--I failed to insist on that too, a strategic error on my part. I wanted the charges dismissed this way so I could have the detective's head later on. In the magistrate's decision to find me not guilty on the facts, he ruled that the stop was lawful-- the cop was right to detain me, giving the cop legal cover in a suit. They do play dirty here, both cops and courts together. Anyway...

Check the statutes in your state to determine if Hiibel is good law there and for gosh sakes beware of the games courts and cops play.

You mentioned not seeing the point of refusing to give ID just because it "might piss off the cop." In a future situation, you could be "caught" distributing literature-- and a cop could see his next promotion in busting a "White supremacist." Look, cops are trained interrogators, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Once you start answering demands and other questions that inevitably follow, you're now in the mindset of giving the cop what he wants and are more likely to do so as a result "just to keep him from getting pissed off." Suppose he asks you about other things. "What are you doing here?" "Where have you been?" "What's that bulge in your waistband?" "Is that a weapon?" "Mind if I search you?" "Would you come with me to the station to answer some other questions we have?" And the fishing expedition is on! An expedition to find anything, any reason to arrest you. They're pros at this. Remember anything you say will be used against you? Believe it, they will. Avoid them but shutting them down at the earliest opportunity--and that includes the time before any encounter. 'Boston T. Party's' You and the Police has some useful nuggets of the situations you could find yourself in. We Get Confessions is also a great work that shows how cops are trained to get you to give them the rope with which they will hang you. It used to be carried in the National Alliance's bookstore.

Some might say that this is too much trouble to risk. Yes, that is what our Judaic oppressors want you to think and have influenced every institution (including law enforcement) to reinforce. If we fail to speak for fear of pissing off anyone, they win.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by Robert Burns » Wed Jul 27, 2022 4:29 am

Jim Mathias wrote:
Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:03 pm
Good post, Riley.

I've been down this road personally and fought the matter all the way through trial in my state (Iowa, Scott county) and have some information you didn't mention.

First, Hiibel v. Nevada applies only to those states that have created a statute requiring an ID be shown upon request by an officer. That's about half the states at the time I went through my challenge. Iowa was not one of those states with such a statute.

In my case, I was charged with a different crime-- "interference with official acts" which is making a motion towards or physically making contact with an officer to prevent him from doing his official act. In the charging instrument, the sheriff's detective stated the act I had done was to simply refuse to ID myself. I argued through my mouthpiece the point that refusing to show ID had nothing to do with the charge and he then motioned for dismissal based upon that very argument and also citing Hiibel didn't apply to Iowa as this state has no law requiring ID be given under these circumstance (I was stopped for having an empty holster in a courthouse as I was serving process upon the then county attorney-- no laws violated, dragged into a dark interrogation room, then as I was asked the first question, I asked in turn "am I required to answer your questions?" upon which I was arrested). Long story short, the assistant county attorney offered to drop the one and only charge in exchange for not suing them; we went to trial, and I was found not guilty. Incidentally, the demurrer I had the lawyer file for me was never ruled upon--I failed to insist on that too, a strategic error on my part. I wanted the charges dismissed this way so I could have the detective's head later on. In the magistrate's decision to find me not guilty on the facts, he ruled that the stop was lawful-- the cop was right to detain me, giving the cop legal cover in a suit. They do play dirty here, both cops and courts together. Anyway...

Check the statutes in your state to determine if Hiibel is good law there and for gosh sakes beware of the games courts and cops play.

You mentioned not seeing the point of refusing to give ID just because it "might piss off the cop." In a future situation, you could be "caught" distributing literature-- and a cop could see his next promotion in busting a "White supremacist." Look, cops are trained interrogators, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Once you start answering demands and other questions that inevitably follow, you're now in the mindset of giving the cop what he wants and are more likely to do so as a result "just to keep him from getting pissed off." Suppose he asks you about other things. "What are you doing here?" "Where have you been?" "What's that bulge in your waistband?" "Is that a weapon?" "Mind if I search you?" "Would you come with me to the station to answer some other questions we have?" And the fishing expedition is on! An expedition to find anything, any reason to arrest you. They're pros at this. Remember anything you say will be used against you? Believe it, they will. Avoid them but shutting them down at the earliest opportunity--and that includes the time before any encounter. 'Boston T. Party's' You and the Police has some useful nuggets of the situations you could find yourself in. We Get Confessions is also a great work that shows how cops are trained to get you to give them the rope with which they will hang you. It used to be carried in the National Alliance's bookstore.

Some might say that this is too much trouble to risk. Yes, that is what our Judaic oppressors want you to think and have influenced every institution (including law enforcement) to reinforce. If we fail to speak for fear of pissing off anyone, they win.
I can see what you are saying about getting in the mindset of answering demands being problematic. That is a good point. On that note, I do think it is important to play out in your mind how you would handle being stopped and questioned by police in order to be prepared. Role-playing with a partner could be even more beneficial for practicing how you will handle the situation. Like anything, if you don't plan and practice you can easily fumble in a high-pressure situation.

Luckily that little section in the sheet, which can easily be made into a card and carried in your wallet, can do a lot of the work for us. It has a spot for you to fill in your name and address, which is sufficient ID in most cases that don't involve driving a motor vehicle or carrying a firearm (again, awareness of local laws is very important here). If you have that card and the cops approach and start asking you questions, you can pretty much just hand them that card and keep your mouth shut throughout the entire interaction. Perhaps handing over a card and then staring at the cops wordlessly isn't the smoothest way to handle every police interaction, but it's pretty damn fool proof, and it's the closest thing to a one-size-fits-all approach I can imagine. Even without the card, it's easy enough to just recite what is on the card and say no more.

I definitely don't think it's good to get in the mindset of trying to appease officers, but at the same time it's not a good idea to be rude and angry, which is more what I was getting at. I've seen a lot of videos of the indignant "I know my rights types" who frankly don't even know their rights half the time, and they often just make the situation worse by being super combative for no good reason. It does depend on the situation, but I think in most police interactions it's not worth fighting them right away, even if they are dead wrong. Just document their wrongdoing and take them to court. That's my general mindset anyway, but it is hard to really have a best course of action without knowing the specific situation.

I don't know if you've seen or read about false confessions, but there are some cases of the cops being so persistent in their interrogations of a suspect that they essentially hypnotized the person into giving a confession for a crime they didn't even commit. It sounds crazy that someone would do that, but basically they will lie and make the person believe that confessing a certain detail is not going to get them in trouble, but they just need to know to find the real criminal, dirty tricks like that. I've even seen stories where people were kept in interrogation rooms for hours or even days when they could have just left at any time, all because they were way too compliant and assumed based on implications alone that they were not free to leave. On some level I feel bad for those people, since they assume officers of the law are good people, as they should be, but people really need to wise up and be knowledgeable about this stuff.

User avatar
JohnUbele
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:47 am
Location: Iran
Contact:

Re: Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by JohnUbele » Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:19 pm

I think a Legal Studies subforum on this board could be helpful.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 3292
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Suggested change to the "Our Right to Distribute" informational sheet

Post by Jim Mathias » Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:06 pm

JohnUbele wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:19 pm
I think a Legal Studies subforum on this board could be helpful.
Perhaps for a little while longer, John. The cops/courts/legislatures are slowly dropping all pretense of legality in nearly everything they do. Soon, the law will be only for "Just Us" and meaningless or laughable to the rest.

It seems only the dominant and loudest voices in America are the ones who are catered to, the ones who get "Just Us." The Jewed mass media has long been dominant and the loudest. This is slowly changing, their influence is waning, but still powerful enough to have their narratives hammered into the brains of millions. This institution is where our focus ought to be, in my view. Building our own is a top goal of the National Alliance presently, and our need for supporters, content creators, platform inventors, and so on is the work of many more people, their time, and their effort to reach all our people. By being able at putting our values, ethics, goals, plans and so on into their hearts and minds, the law can be made to serve our goals of survival and advancing our path.

It has to be built first, and that means people joining us.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

Post Reply