"...Running a red light.... and creating a disturbance" is what you should have said. herbig's situation sounds reminiscent of a modern-day Alice's Restaurant Massacree.
This policing technique is also known as "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
Obie said he was making sure, and Obie was, cause he took out the Toilet seat so I couldn't hit myself over the head and drown, and he took Out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars roll out the - roll the Toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll and have an escape. Obie Was making sure, and it was about four or five hours later that Alice (remember Alice? It's a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few Nasty words to Obie on the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back To the church, had a another thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat, And didn't get up until the next morning, when we all had to go to court."
It's a long song, there's a lot before and after this bit.
I've been singing for 20 minutes, I can sing for 20 more.
I'm not Proud.
Or Tired.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5928424
Keep your powder dry!
He was IRIS scanned. I don't know where this idea that retina scanning is a thing comes from, but there are literally no products that do this. All eye-scanning technology for biometrics are iris recognition systems.
Anytime I get pulled by a cop I just assume they're already pissed off so I act accordingly. I'm not going to obviously break the law and then have the balls to give them a hard time about what they are and aren't allowed to do. I just broke the law by blowing a stop sign. It's just such a mind-numbingly privileged viewpoint to think I can break the law and expect to just get away with it. I'd expect that out of some white collar criminal or something, but not Joe the cyclist.
All because you blew a red light, which by the way is basically instantly a ticket if you're in a car, and couldn't immediately admit wrongdoing and move on. Sorry, if you were a buddy of mine telling me that story, I'd tell you you were a moron for deciding to "educate" the police officer. Smart move bro.
Neither do your personal anecdotes about cyclists. Try not make generalisations about groups of people based on your narrow experience.
Personally I notice a lot of bad drivers, but I'm not going to then leap to the ridiculous conclusion that drivers think they're above the law. Because there is larger percentage that I don't notice doing the right thing, just like with [insert chosen group here].
I don't know if you've heard of this rift between cyclists and motorists but it gets pretty heated and intense in urban areas. Typically the people pushing for legislative changes and updates to infrastructure are cyclists. Typically, those cyclists are the militant ones and NOT your "A-to-B style cyclists, just going to and from work with a bike, yeah a bike lane would be nice but whatever"-style cyclists. Many of the militant cyclists hold an attitude similar to parent, which is "yeah I broke the law but fuck the police" which makes it very difficult to enact any change.
I'm talking specifically about the militant cyclists which, like I said, are also the ones attempting to push the cause, enact positive changes, for cyclists.
So.
We can't have MILITANT cyclists(again the ones doing the walking when it comes to updating infrastructure etc.) pervade an attitude that they're above the law because surprise no one will take them seriously and thus no positive changes for cyclists.
You're missing the point. I'm talking about your personal experiences not speaking to a larger issue.
You've clearly had negative interactions with cyclists that have helped you arrive at your view, that isn't in dispute here. What I'm trying to say is don't apply your narrow vision on what is a diverse group of people, the majority of whom obey the law and make a positive contribution to society.
Again; Your personal observations do not equate to evidence of a widespread problem, just as my negative interactions with red haired people does equate to evidence of a MILITANT Ginger brigade out to do harm.
When you have an altercation with a cop, give at least the respect you expect to receive.
Yes, because I live in a country where--supposedly, anyways--I am given the right of free expression. Telling a cop anything short of a threat, especially as it concerns the laws and especially especially when it is the cop being wrong about the laws, should be a non-issue.
You're a damned fool if you think that this being "just about standard procedure" is anything other a really bad sign.
It bears repeating: treat people with the respect you expect to receive. Cops are no exception.
Here's what you want: "Vehicle operator runs a red light and is arrested"
So, the "american way" you propose is to BEND OVER and take abuse and injustice from police officers?
You sure are pragmatic -- but I would hate to live in your world.
Besides getting stopped for a traffic violation he was asked to provide something that was not mandatory by law. Even worse, the policemen cited the law wrongly (and for something quite basic). This is indefensible.
But that's beside the point. I take offense with the notion against his "stupid reaction" in general.
What this talk about "stupid reaction" reveals is a citizenry that is conditioned to receive all kinds of abuse from police officers and to blindly obey orders, to avoid getting on their nerves.
He should be allowed to have any kind of "stupid reaction". He should be allowed to voice his protests and discuss the matter without being hailed to jail. There's nothing "throw him in jail" about "trying to educate a police officer".
In every country with a civilized police force (at least in Western Europe), that is in any country where police is catering to citizens and not barking at peasants, you CAN have all kind of "stupid reactions" when talking to the police and you don't get beaten or thrown in jail for it (at least not as a regular occurence -- it might happen from time to time).
That you can casually get shot for reaching for your mobile phone or tased just because you said something to protest being asked to leave some place, is something that just does not happen.
Even the "hands on the dashboard" and "don't get out of the car when pulled over or you'll might get shot" routines are unheard of.
Perhaps it's time to demand more courtesy from the police, instead of taking for granted having to be all too cautious whenever they appear.
> He should be allowed to voice his protests and discuss the matter without being hailed to jail
"while according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, you are not legally required to carry ID, they say "Lastly, an officer cannot write you a summons if you do not provide i.d; instead he must arrest you. That means that if you are stopped for a violation such as loitering and do not provide i.d., you will be arrested"
He wasn't arrested as punishment, but as policy (they can't just write you a ticket if there's no way to identify you on a bike). There are cases of polices taking people at their word that they give the correct name, but for obvious reasons that's a courtesy. This re-casts the story from "police spitefully violate the law in response to shit-talking" to "police (spitefully) refuse to extend voluntary courtesy and instead go by the book, in response to shit-talking".
Now obviously the way he was treated _after_ arrest was an abuse of the system, and there are no arguments here about that. But 'debt' is correct in that you shouldn't expect to be rude to someone and then turn around and demand that they violate by-the-book law to do you a favor.
As far as the rest of your comment, I really feel pretty much the exact same way; I just don't think it contradicts the advice given by 'debt'.
Aside from all that, aren't us hackers trained to never say a damn word to a police officer let alone "educate" them about anything?
If the officer is wrong, unless your life is in immediate danger, you comply and you sort it out later. Call your lawyer to complain when you get home.
I would like this too. I've seen multiple accidents caused by selfish and arrogant bike riders, motorcyclists and pedestrians.
This is in addition to the single persons -- it's always just one in the vehicle -- who drive gigantic SUVs and assume that it's my job to stay out of their way, even when I have the right of way and am trying to do something like drive from point A to point B down the street. Silly me, I should be second-class to them because I didn't buy a giant SUV.
I recommend you listen to this if you're wondering why (apart from bullshit police state) people like us are getting arrested for petty offences:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning Edit: See the section called "The six rules"
I'm sure there's a few lawyers out there who think that even giving your name is too much of a risk.
1) The authority to imprison you on a whim and suffer no repercussions for exercising that authority in ways that judges and other police officers agree is excessive.
2) The authority to lie about what you said or didn't say and suffer no repercussions.
There's a large cost associated with the "never talk to police" strategy, and it only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).
The point is that there is no way that talking will help you. They are trying to make a case against you.
Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.
Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake. If the result of this police contact results in a criminal charge, you may have saved yourself from the worst possible outcome (at the time) by being silent. You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.
Silence is simply a dominant strategy.
If they're in a good mood today. Maybe.
> The more you speak to a cop, the more likely you are to say something that you'll regret.
Yes. My point was that staying completely silent makes it more likely you'll piss off the cop. You'll regret that, too.
> Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake.
Right back at you.
> You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.
If you can make a cop beat you to death by (in their eyes) being obstinate, the difference is immaterial.
> Silence is simply a dominant strategy.
I still don't buy it, unless the cop is already antagonized or you suspect that a judge/jury will be involved before this is all over.
The only countries where I've never seen any open abuse by police so far have been Britain and Germany, and I haven't spent a lot of time in Germany.
EDIT: Actually, there has recently been a famous case in Britain where a police officer shoved a citizen to the floor and the citizen died of internal injuries [0]. I didn't actually witness the abuse, but it proves that even the UK isn't immune.
But my impression is that it's rather less common than in the USA and the courts, prosecution and conservative public don't side with the police as much.
Still, these occurrences are isolated cases, receive large media attention and are definitely not considered "the norm".
That sounds like wishful thinking. Where exactly did you check?
> the "never talk to police" strategy ... only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).
> Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.
The problem is this: "investigation" in any discipline means "finding a story that matches what I can show." This means whatever you say that matches the story will be held on to and whatever you say that doesn't match it will be easily forgotten. This is the root of confirmation bias. It's a very dangerous thing in this context.
Yes there are times to talk to the police. Give an alibi along with sources who can confirm it if that is relevant. But say as little as possible. Stick to the minimal details. The less you say, the less they are likely to grab a hold of something you said and hang you with it.
But remember: The job of the police is to arrest someone and tell a good plausible story as to why they are guilty. They are there to gather evidence. The DA is there to convince a jury. Nobody can know what really happened who wasn't there. So don't give them ideas.
It worked quite well, thank you. I did not say a word, gave the cop my license and registration as required by law, signed my ticket, and hired a lawyer to get it thrown out later.
I used to drive for a living and would speed all day. Every day. Not excessively or recklessly, I had over a million miles without any preventable accidents. But still I would always exceed the speed limit on a clear stretch of road by 10-30mph or so. The extra income from this more than offset the occasional legal bill. By a large margin (somewhat ironically my job's 'safety' bonuses usually covered the lawyer fees). I sped, kept my record clean, and never accepted a ticket without legal representation.
I'm not advocating that others do this or that it was smart, I'm just saying that for some people it makes mathematical sense to speed + hire lawyers versus doing the speed limit and/or accepting tickets without challenging them.
Are you describing a bribe?
I wish you the best of luck in the future, specifically with regard to the moods of the police officers who will try to speak with you.
If there's no video, the arrest is invalid.
Also heavy personal fines and loss of pension for any misconduct.
Dudes, seriously? You just read a blog post about how thuggish police officers just abuse you however the fuck they want to, with no regard to your rights or due process or anything, and you're citing some obscure, minute details of the laws that were supposed to somehow prevent those very same abuses from happening?
It's like you've just seen fish swimming, but proceed to cite some obscure document that says fish cannot swim.
"After voicing his concerns, Schoolcraft was reportedly harassed and reassigned to a desk job. After he left work early one day, a SWAT unit illegally entered his apartment, physically abducted him and forcibly admitted him to a psychiatric facility, where he was held against his will for six days."
But Schoolcraft was expecting them to do something like that, and was able to make a recording of the entire incident.
It seems that the NYC police have adopted the Soviet practice of using the psychiatric system as a weapon against their enemies[2] (which happened both to Schoolcraft and the author of the posted article).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Sov...
Upon his release, he immediately went to an ER where he was told he had developed gallstones and that it had gone on so long that it was affecting his other organs. His pancreas was on the verge of shutting down. He was told that it was good that he came in when he did, as he would have been dead in another month or so. It was eventually revealed that the gallstones diagnosis had been made by the jail doctor approximately 16 months before his release, and that he had recommended a surgery be scheduled. That never happened and he was never told about the diagnosis. At one point during his incarceration, his attorney requested bail based on the jail's inability to properly diagnose/treat the problem. The prosecutor mocked the request in open court, saying he "had stomach pains sometimes too" and the judge denied the renewed bail request because jail staffers insisted that they were doing everything medically reasonable.
I helped him contact probably 50 attorneys. Not a single one would take the case on contingency, mainly because there was no permanent injury or death that had occurred. The government got away with nearly killing my friend while he was being held without bond on charges that were ultimately dismissed.
I guess my two cents would be to not get down and assume no one will help. I was furious about my experience, it really shocked me on a fundamental "I don't trust the system anymore" level. I was pretty close to just becoming more cynical and just deducing to hate all cops forever. I even had some friends say "well you must have done something" to deserves it. It was a terrible blow to hear that.
But I fortunately was so upset I didn't want to just get angrier, I wanted justice. I wrote my experience down while it was still raw, and shared it with some friends, one of whom was a reporter. I really did this initially for validation, I wanted someone to know what happened to me, to agree with me that what happened to me was an injustice: because up to that point I felt like no one cared. And I wanted to do something. I had to do something. I wasn't going to just accept what had happened to me as inevitable and just part of the system. It was wrong, horribly wrong.
My reporter friend asked if he could publish it, I was frankly surprised he wanted to publish it verbatim but I guess a raw emotional narrative makes better copy than and interview. And from that I started getting emails from law firms.
I know how awful it can be to unjustly treated by the police, how helpless you are, how dehumanized you can be, how violated the experience can be when you did nothing wrong. Don't give in. Youre not alone. You're a survivor. Yes, It can be hard to fight back, but it's worth it. It's a positive experience for me now, because you realize you can help prevent this from happening to someone else. That you can get justice. That you're not crazy, that what happened to you was wrong.
Just know the process is long, and there will be set backs. The system is overloaded with cases, don't expect anyone to hand victory to you quickly or easily. The cops will close ranks, and lie for each other. The courts will let them, just keep at it. Eventually they'll either settle to make you go away to spare them the continuing costs, or you'll get your day in court.
And maximal imprisonment without conviction here is 1 year. Not so popular ex-politician was held for 18 months on corruption charges and it was national scandal.
* normal crime (under 4 years) such as less violent robbery, bar fight... 1 year
* violent crime with death or permanent injury (around 8 years sentence) 2 years
* 4 years in exceptional violent cases (over 15 years or life-time sentence).
There is also condition that trial must start within first 1/3 of time period.
When I read stories like this and the original article, I genuinely wonder how long it will be before the people start to fight back. And I mean literally fight.
I'm not for a second suggesting that any individual should fight or even argue with the police, but I can't imagine how an entire society can tolerate this kind of behavior from the police.
As much as I hate to say it, it really only seems like a (short) matter of time before Americans start violently fighting back against this, as we've seen in the Ukraine, Egypt and now Venezuela (obviously all for different reasons)
Instead he was promptly raided by the same corrupt cops he wanted to disband a week into his term. Slammed with elections funding act violations and dozens of other charges. Didn't matter they were bogus charges, he spent his 4 years in office fighting the allegations and in and out of court, and even though fully vindicated when all charges were dropped and proved to be baseless, it was too late because the political image damage was already done, his party benched him and he soon resigned saying what a sham democracy has become, and how police reform is a pipe dream. The guy who replaced him resigned the contract for another 20 years.
Usually the police win due to overwhelming force, but in cases where the force is more equal (e.g. during a large scale protest) people who are arrested by police are sometimes forcibly "rescued" by fellow protesters. There are plenty of youtube videos of this happening.
There have been many cases of standoffs between minority groups and the police. Honestly, to say that even mid-high income/status people will do this on a large scale is laughable.
The chance of being shot dead or seriously injured in a situation like this is very real. I know I'm not willing to take that risk. Are you?
With violations the officer has 100% discretion about what to do. They can decide not to write a ticket/arrest someone for any reason. This officer was obviously a bad officer that is on a power trip but the OP has not much recourse for what was done. It is sad. I guess it could have been worse. The officer could have made up just about anything and made it worse (like saying you swung at them or threatened them)
[Edit: Thank you to OP for sharing, and my heart goes out for your exp]
Actually, the 14th Amendment (where the "equal protection" clause is) applies specifically to the states:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1]
The 14th Amendment is applied to the federal government via a process called "reverse incorporation":
"Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states though the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in reverse incorporation, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause located in the Fifth Amendment."[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_r...
Or maybe just make up a story that you swung at them and then kick the crap out of you?
This would solve a lot of problems for both police and civilians: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-ca...
http://petapixel.com/2014/02/04/police-officer-threatened-ar...
[1] http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/12/eight-police-officers-f...
[2] http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/12/kelly_thomas_f...
The ironic bit, that each group will tell how other group is bad by doing exactly the same misconduct.
And beside that, it's certainly the case that incompetent assholes should be pushed out in other circumstances. It is simply far less crucial when it's not as likely to end people's lives.
Three cop cars surrounded me. They got out, took my board, broke it, man-handled me, cut up my wrists with handcuffs, threw me in the car, and drove me to the jail. They put me in a gross-ass tiny cell with shit on the walls and vomit on the floor. There I stayed for 24 hours - no where to even sit.
The next day, I sought legal advice - just an ignorant kid, with ignorant parents. I called about 10 different law offices in the city. None would represent me - they all claimed that they represented the police and that it would be a conflict of interest.
Pointless story - but pretty much solidified my suspicion of the police ever since.
There are a sequence of laws resulting in you locked up (not exactly arrest, but held, same difference to you in the moment) if not carrying ID (you did), doing citable offense (you did).
1. If NYC cops suspect you of citable offense, felony or misdemeanor, they have right to stop you and demand you identify yourself:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAW...
2. Next step is, if you are going to be cited (the cop's discretion, so de-escalate first) then if they can't verify your ID, they can take you in till identified. Also true in many states, here's how Colorado sheriff puts it about cyclists:
"Another warning – When issuing a citation for a violation, if we can’t verify the identification of the cyclist, they WILL be taken to jail pending identification and their bicycles impounded. This isn’t a threat. Its the way we operate."
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/articles/a.cfm/legally-speaking-yo...
TL;DR:
In practice, if you might screw up to level of risking citation, your trade off is carry ID or donate your time:
"It's not against the law, of course, to be out on New York's streets without identification--but the courts can detain people without identification in jail until their arraignment in lieu of issuing them a summons."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/york-city-cop-imprisons-...
So, there were three outcomes once you ran the light and they had you: 1)they let you go without a summons because you don't have id (in which case getting out of summons would be easy). or 2) they detain you until you are id'd most likely either by a) escorting you to your apartment to get ID or b) arresting you. ( Note, option 3 doesn't exist: taking what ever name you give them for a summons, clearly shouldn't be an option as if you give someone else's name, they are in trouble.)
[0]http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-showing-id-nypd-our-times
Compare NY bike laws to Idaho, where "bike traffic is allowed to treat a Stop sign as a Yield -- and a red light as a stop sign".
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720...
Now obviously this is a ridiculous situation and the officer was on a powertrip, but you did break the law and technically she was within her privileges to bring you down to holding. Still, the fact that you encountered pretty much the worst scenario possible and were only held up for a few hours from start to finish is, to me, a sign that the system is working pretty damn well.
Wrong.
Job application. Have you ever been arrested? No job.
Mortgage application. Have you ever been arrested? No mortgage. No house.
Rental application. Have you ever been arrested? No apartment.
These are just a few places you will have the door slammed in your face. Now, the OP was lucky, because the matter was dismissed, the arrest record evaporates. If he was convicted of even the most minor criminal offense because the judge was having a bad day too, his life is now fucked.
NB, this is argument applies even if you're trying to make the argument to a very pro-law-enforcement person who accepts the premises that only guilty people need to worry about the police and that the laws are perfect so everything that is a crime ought to be one.
Arrest records do come up in the system when a background check is run as I can vouch for personally. They also come up (in Colorado) with the initially charged crime whether or not the charge was changed or dismissed. This has never hampered my ability to obtain employment, loan, or a lease.
Getting involved with "the system" in any way, even if you're not guilty, appears to be a red flag for some employers.
It's incredibly pro-landlord, but because there's a shortage of housing supply, they can get away with it.
Only source I can remember for this offhand is behind a paywall, but I used to work in drug policy, so this is something I've witnessed many times: http://bklynr.com/arrested-developments/
The worst thing that officer could have done to that person for that day, rather. A different officer, different victim, different judge on a different day? Could have been a lot worse. It often takes a couple of days just to see a judge.
>encountered pretty much the worst scenario possible
No.
The female officer could easily have beaten or killed this person and would never see justice. Don't even bother trying to convince me otherwise.
Now cops just hand out tickets for every petty violation they can to the homeless since they know they can't pay, and ticket protesters for jaywalking or some other BS, and when a major media covered event comes through they now have a legit reason to round them all up.
Cops can also detain you longer, like this guy who was kept 24hrs in a psych eval, even though he had already spent hours in jail.
Surely America should be compared with Developed (1st world) countries if it's to be considered one...
I believe in that situation, that you can defuse the dynamic of being accused of not having your ID, by sharing your social security number. So one response to the police in that situation is to acknowledge not having your ID, but offer to share your name and social security number so they can identify you in the database.
Initial app response is all automated.
"Consult my Lawyer" it should be called... You could choose to pay a fee to push it to a live legal person and seek a lawyer. Record audio during the encounter and have it attach to the incident.
Even video.
And the entire thing should be protected by law as a right to defend a truthful position.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have always been told that this was required in NYC, and I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that it is not[0][1]
[0] http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAW...
[1] http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-showing-id-nypd-our-times
Cardinal rule: Don't correct people, it's really not worth the hassle most of the time.
It's also a bad indictment of the system that the 90% of cops that are good don't stop the 10% that are bad. Could it be that every cop has a mistake in their past, and that keeps them from disciplining each other?
This also suggests the importance of bit ever talking back to police. I know of situations in Chicago where acquaintances were beaten up by police for disrespecting them.
I don't know if bicycles are considered vehicles in NYS/NYC. Clearly you can ride a bicycle without ever having a drivers license (as kids can do it), but it may be the case that if you have had one issued, you'd be required to provide it to them.
This is probably a nuanced enough argument that I wouldn't consider having it with a police officer who had just detained me for a real traffic infraction.
Not only that, but a great portion of the so-called good cops will look the other way and do nothing about it.
As a rule, don't mouth off to cops
Is this really a problem? Every time I've been arrested (in the UK) and placed in a holding cell, it's been 'solitary confinement' in the sense that the police cells are single-occupancy rooms. This is the case in every police station in the UK, although my understanding (from film and TV, admittedly) is that in the US shared cells are the norm for post-arrest detention.
Also, 'solitary confinement' for only ten hours is not a huge deal. In general population prisons, the solitary blocks are used to punish people for weeks at a time. Any period less that 24 hours is hardly worth mentioning.
Normally you're given a ticket and let go, but in this instance, the officers took issue with the fact that I was not carrying ID. Both officers told me that I "could be arrested for not having ID." For clarification, I asked if it was a city, state, or national law, and the officers adamantly maintained that it was a state law. I, stupidly, thought to educate them on this misconception, and one officer in particular decided to bring me in because she "knows the laws and doesn't need to be told how to do [her] job."
I was brought into the local precinct (Brooklyn's 88th). When I arrived, both officers denied saying I was required to carry ID when I asked the captain about the law. Of course the captain confirmed that I was not required to carry ID, but at that point it didn't really matter anyway. The charge was failure to obey a traffic signal.
I was held in solitary confinement for 10 hours. During that time, the female arresting officer would periodically come by to taunt me, and tell me that I shouldn't have questioned her, and then threw a huge tantrum when I requested not to be touched by her for fingerprinting. They sent another officer in to do it, but for a moment, I honestly thought was going to beat the shit out of me.
The other arresting officer, a guy of Filipino descent, noticed my Filipino flag belt buckle when they were taking my belt (so I couldn't hang myself, apparently). We talked about the country a bit (I was a volunteer there for 2 years) and to his credit he apologized to me, admitted that he was wrong about the law, but said that there wasn't anything he could do now that I was in there because the other officer wanted to make an example of me. I was, curiously, allowed to keep my shoelaces.
The other officers that would walk by my urine soaked cell and ask why I was there did not believe at first that I had been arrested for running a red light. When I mentioned who the arresting officer was though, they all gave a knowing sigh. One told me that she was not at all respected there, that she had a huge temper, and that I should not have crossed her. One officer went across the street and bought me a slice of pizza, which was nice.
Around 8pm, I was personally escorted by two other officers to a courthouse in downtown Brooklyn, where I was retina scanned and placed in a holding cell with around 10 other criminals. Charges ranged from domestic abuse to armed robbery. One man was on the floor going through drug withdrawals. Everyone scoffed at the idea that I was there because of a traffic violation, and likely assumed I was making that up. I talked to my escorting officers a bit and they also confirmed that my arresting officer was a bit of a joke at the precinct, and that I had been unlucky.
While at the courthouse jail cell, the officer that was watching everyone at one point began banging on the cell bars with his hands and yelling at the inmates, calling them niggers and going on about how they're all in there because they never had any fathers growing up. Some of the inmates laughed, but others were visibly scared. When that calmed down and another officer came by to drop off someone else, I told him what had happened and his only response was "so?"
I was offered the chance to make a phone call, but the only number I even have memorized anymore is my mother's, and despite knowing that my friends were probably scared to death looking for me, I wasn't at the point of calling her. She still does not know that any of this ever happened.
I was then given a chance to speak to my public defender through plated glass. That took about 20 seconds. She basically told me this whole thing was ridiculous, that I had likely pissed off an officer (I hadn't told her anything) and that we were going to ask the judge to dismiss the charge and that the judge would do so.
At 11pm I went before the judge for about 5 seconds and the charges were dismissed and I was allowed to go home. Unfortunately, I first had to walk back to the precinct to get my bike, keys, phone, etc. Luckily it wasn't too cold.
I had thought that I was handling things fairly well, but when I arrived at the precinct and was faced with the notion of going back in there, even as a free person, I began vomiting in the garbage can beside the steps leading in. Dehydration and stress were probably the causes, and for a moment I feared being seen, in case they would arrest me again right there for something or other.
My phone was dead, so I couldn't get ahold of anyone until I got home, but I was too tired and afraid to get back on my bike, so I walked back to my apartment. When I finally did get back on the grid, I had found that my brother, girlfriend, and work colleagues had all been desperately looking for me when I hadn't shown up to work, and had been calling hospitals and police stations. They eventually did get a confirmation from the 88th precinct that I was there, which of course no one relayed to me. My work was prepared to send their lawyer down, but my brother talked them out of it, thinking that it would likely make things worse for me inside (he was probably right, but go work). I felt even worse for putting them through such an experience.
All told, I was in custody from around 10am to 11pm and I've learned a few things on the inside. Knowing your rights doesn't matter. There are no repercussions to any officer for anything they say or do. If they want to make your life hell, they can and will. Carrying ID may not be required by law, but it will save you a lot of hassle and explaining if you ever do have a run in with the law. You can either exercise your right not to carry ID, but you put yourself in danger of the wrath of an ignorant police force (I still don't carry it). Also, don't run red lights on your bike.