[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
An officer developed reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in an assault. He approached the defendant, explained he was investigating a crime, and asked to see the defendantโs identification. The defendant refused the officerโs eleven requests to see his identification. The officer arrested the defendant for violating a state law that prohibited โobstructing a public officer in dischargingโฆany legal duty of his office.โ The legal duty that the defendant obstructed was a statute that provided โ[A]ny person so detained (Terry stop) shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.โ
Whether the state statute is constitutional in that it requires persons to identify themselves during a Terry stop?
Yes. โStop and identifyโ statutes do not change the nature of the seizure itself and the information obtained typically satisfies a significant governmental interest.
The Fourth Amendment requires all seizures to be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined โby balancing its intrusions on the individualโs Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests.โ Delaware v. Prouse. The Court held that the state statute satisfies this standard. The statute does not change the character, duration or location of a stop and the officerโs demand for identity had an immediate purpose for the Terry stop.
The defendantโs Fifth Amendment argument failed to persuade the Court because disclosure of his name presented no real danger of incrimination. The Court has previously determined that the Fifth Amendment privilege only covers those communications that are testimonial, compelled, and incriminating. The defendantโs โrefusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.โ
542 U.S. 177, 124 S. Ct. 1494 (2004)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved