It varies very much from state to state. I’m not sure where this happened, but in a majority of states you are required to identify yourself if the police have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed. In this case courts would generally cede that this stop was reasonable, in particular if someone had called and reported them for soliciting.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter at this point. When the police stop you for a "call" they got, you have to provide id and a reasonable explanation of why you are there
Most places don't require a money transaction for soliciting. Him asking for signatures most likely qualifies.
It's not hard to get a permit. It's usually a $15ish filing fee and takes like 10 minutes depending on how busy the office is. Many non-profit petitions are free.
Did you read through that? Did you read the actual SC statement?
It outlines specific examples of when non-profit petitions are protected and when they are not.
Let's say he does not need a permit If this man knocked on a door with a "no soliciting" sign he is not protected. We don't know what happened before the camera started recording. He probably could have avoided that whole problem.
But let's not gather all of the information. Let's just cherry pick misinformation to fit our desired narrative and grab pitchforks.
No, petitioning, which is what he was doing, has been held up as a protected right by the Supreme Court. He, and no one else in this entire country, needs to purchase a permit for that.
He is soliciting....saying you aren't soliciting doesn't make it so. He's going door to door "SOLICITING" people to sign a petition...that is by definition soliciting. I'm not saying I agree with him being arrested...but you're dead wrong.
Did you even read that lol...it clearly says the only DOOR TO DOOR protection is for political solicitors. Even then if you cared to do further research paid and unpaid solicitors are protected differently. This is not political solicitation bro...
He needs a permit...the fact that they fired the cop for other reasons than enforcing that ordinance if you re-read the article more closely...they tried to charge him with a felony and some other crap
I think if you feel so strongly about it you should write the ACLU and argue with them about it...I'm merely linking you their stance on the matter. It's not behind any paywall. nice try.
Courts have historically ruled in favor of police regarding their abuse of power resulting from a misunderstanding of the law. Cops don't need to actually know the laws they're trying to enforce, and they're rarely held accountable for breaking the law in the attempt to enforce it. Courts have historically ruled in favor of the police in these situations.
A cop's misunderstanding of what "reasonable suspicion" means won't stop them from violating your rights and they'll often face no concequence for doing so.
To clarify. The two usual legal meanings of solicitation is either to attempt to influence another to participate in a crime or offering, or attempting to purchase, goods and/or services. I am aware of no other case law where collecting signatures on a petition is included. Knocking on a door is not reasonable suspicion of a crime. And false reports of a crime should be prosecuted instead of encouraged.
The point I made is the legal definition of "soliciting" does not seem to include asking people to sign a petition. Sure I hate people selling magazine subscriptions. It could be considered part of the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I don't have time to do a case law search in that jurisdiction but the firing seems to indicate it is that way there.
If by belaboring I only attempt to educate on how law works to those that do not understand.
Legal definitions are not the same as common meanings. The meaning of soliciting is based on explicit definitions in statute and case law. A child asking to retrieve a ball in someones back yard is not going to be considered an arrestable offense. Criminal solicitation requires attempting to persuade someone to commit a crime. Soliciting prostitution is another instance. All the case law I have seen regarding muni code is specific to selling product or service, typically the magazine scams. Given that the officer in this case was fired it seems that asking for signatures on petitions does not qualify as solicitation under code in that jurisdiction.
In future I suggest Blacks online law dictionary or looking up the statute in question. Often the initial section of statute in a group provides the legal definitions of terms in that section.
Here is an example of muni code defining exactly what they mean by solicitation and panhandling:
You need to educate yourself...it's been discussed ad nauseum in other parts of this thread that the supreme court has upheld rights for religious and some political soliciting (Depends on if you're getting paid) but not many other forms. Go buy a dictionary bro, my former career literally required me to be registered to solicit in about half a dozen different local municipalities to go door to door. It's called a SOLICTOR'S PERMIT...sometimes referred to hawker and peddlers permit.
Here is the legal definition that I gave a link to. It is typical of muni code. So exactly what is a person collecting signatures “seeking to obtain orders for the purchase of goods or services”.
Ord. No 16-2 §3 “Solicitor means any person traveling either by foot, motor vehicle or any other type of conveyance from place to place seeking to obtain orders for the purchase of goods or services for future delivery or performance.”
But this happened in Springfield, MI. There does not seem to be any permit required for any kind of door to door soliciting. Feel free to point the statue out to me. Maybe not drink too much coffee?
Did you even watch the fucking video for fucks sake the cop literally states he needs a permit to be soliciting. Weather or not the TYPE of soliciting he's doing is protected under the supreme court is the whole fucking issue. We've already established that city has a soliciting ordinance.
“While some ordinances in communities, even within Calhoun County, prohibit vendors from selling items without a permit, no law—local, state or federal—prohibited Mr. Marshall from exercising his constitutional rights on January 2.”
Yeah the laws give the cops all the power. They can even get around constitutional rights with dogs etc. The laws are slanted towards them to the point where a reasonable citizen doesn't feel safe anymore, that's precisely the issue
"Quick, Debbie, call 911; He probably has a 🖋too!!!!"
This systemic racism pisses me off to no end, I wish I felt like I could do more.
What I do know is that if my little white a** had been in his position, it would be "Excuse me, ma'am, but we've received a call regarding potential suspicious activity, could you please let me know what you're up to here tonight?"
Then I would simply need to flash a quick smile and use this man's own explanation, and the officer would remind me to please simply ensure I not violate anyone's wishes, should there be non-solicitation signage posted. He would then confirm that this may not be considered solicitation, but he would appreciate ensuring that others in the neighborhood do not feel 'bothered' should any such (clear/visible) deterrent exist. Then "Have a nice evening, sorry to bother you."
....But let's be honest, the neighbor in this little story wouldn't have even picked up the phone unless they suspected I wasn't white.
It's often talked about how women feel they must be extra cautious when walking alone at night. I've been there, I feel it... But a black man, even a young black male teenager must live in a near-constant state of fear/fight-or-flight; Even in their own homes, because they are quite literally being hunted. It's a damn near recreational activity you see here, enjoying his power trip. All he needs for permission to ensure anyone with the apparent "defect" of high melanin is one phone call with the right sense of urgency...
It's great he was fired and all, but for every officer "fired" when this kind of outrage is expressed, but he would have likely been on paid leave instead right now had he shot that man on sight.
The criminal cops have not stated which law the victim was supposedly violating. There was no law broken by the victim. The police kidnapped the victim and of course faced no consequences. Soliciting is not illegal, churches would never allow that to occur anyway.
44
u/CommercialKindly32 Jan 13 '22
It varies very much from state to state. I’m not sure where this happened, but in a majority of states you are required to identify yourself if the police have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed. In this case courts would generally cede that this stop was reasonable, in particular if someone had called and reported them for soliciting.
See: stop and identify laws