Encounters of a Brief Kind: On Arbitrariness and Police Demands for Identification (From Criminal Law Review, P 59-94, 1988, James G Carr, ed. -- See NCJ-114710)

• NCJ Number: 114712
• Author(s): M E Murphy
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 36 pages
• Sale Source: Clark Boardman Company, Ltd
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Reprinted from 1986 Arizona State Law Journal 207 (1986).

Annotation

This chapter examines fourth amendment issues on the undefined and broadening use of citizen/police encounters to identify an individual.

Abstract

A 1984 appeals court decision (Purse vs. United States) suggests that police officers may request identification from citizens without cause and may persist in demands even if they are an arbitrary and time-consuming intrusion into the life of citizens. Such brief, police-citizen encounters are largely unregulated, constitutionally unrestricted, and judicially unrecognized unless and until police conduct triggers the protections against police intrusiveness and arbitrariness found in the Terry vs. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision on police field interrogation. The brevity of an intrusion is significant under a fourth amendment review for reasonableness that balances individual interests and State law enforcement needs. Arbitrariness also is an independent concern under the fourth amendment. While some have argued that the fourth amendment might require police to self-regulate through procedural guidelines, rule-making has not controlled low-level police intrusions. The U.S. Supreme Court has failed to provide guidance on statutory efforts to define or criminalize unsatisfactory police-initiated identification procedures and has excluded a review of brief encounters from the purview of the fourth amendment. A reevaluation of such encounters is needed to ensure that, at minimum, judicial review of gross abuses of police discretion is available. 228 footnotes.