-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Vesselin Dittrich, 64 and speaks with an accent, is an American citizen and resident of Hoboken, New Jersey. He was sitting on a PATH (Port Authority) train in the Hoboken station looking at a heavily tattooed woman. She objected to his staring and asked him to move to another car. He refused. She threatened to call the police and, overhearing this, the conductor summoned the Port Authority police.
After an officer spoke with the woman, the officer informed Dittrich there would be no charges but requested identification. Dittrich did not want to give it. According to Dittrich, the officer told him he would be charged with obstruction. Dittrich gave his name and address. The officer then asked what country he was from. When he refused to answer claiming the question was irrelevant, the officer insisted, and he refused again. The officer then handcuffed Dittrich and took him to the police station where he was issued a summons.
The summons accuses him of disorderly conduct “by causing public inconvenience and annoyance and refusing to provide pedigree info.”
The implication is that either every member of the public was inconvenienced and annoyed, or the inconvenience and annoyance took place in public instead of in private.
Dittrich was offered a reduction to a municipal ordinance violation if he pleaded guilty, but he refused. Disorderly conduct carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1000 fine. At one hearing, the prosecutor told the judge he would like to see Dittrich spend time behind bars.
According to the ACLU:
Q: Do I have to answer questions asked by law enforcement officers?
A: No. You have the constitutional right to remain silent.
In the case of State v. Camillo, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, ruled:
In this appeal, the question presented is whether defendant’s refusal to provide his name, date of birth, and social security number to a state trooper who required the information to prepare an incident report constituted an obstruction of the administration of law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1a. We conclude that under the facts of this case it did not, and consequently we reverse defendant’s March 24, 2004 conviction of that offense.
Clearly, Dittrich, who is acting as his own lawyer, was arrested for asserting his constitutional rights.
H/T: Hudson Reporter, NY Times.
Good on you, Mr. Dittrich.
I like any American who stands up for his/her rights. It is the only way change will come.
Nate,
I’ll work on that.
BTW, don’t forget to vote here.
Interesting case, but what catches my eye about this post is the remarkably similar language between it and the news stories written on the subject. It might be taking “close paraphrasing” a bit too far. Compare the NYT and David Drumm in this passage, for one example:
“She asked him what he was staring at, he said, and ultimately told him to leave the car. He didn’t want to. She threatened to call the police. Overhearing this, the conductor summoned the Port Authority police, and three officers arrived.” –NYT
“She objected to his staring and asked him to move to another car. He refused. She threatened to call the police and, overhearing this, the conductor summoned the Port Authority police” –Drumm
Ok, so when recounting facts in on obvious manner a too-close resemblance between two passages might be excused. Let’s look at another passage:
“After speaking to the woman, an officer told Mr. Dittrich there would be no charges, he said, but requested identification. He told her he did not want to give it. She told him, he said, that he would be charged with obstruction. He gave his name and address. Then she asked what country he was from. He said he did not have to say. When she insisted and he insisted, he was taken to the police station in handcuffs and given a summons.” –NYT
“After an officer spoke with the woman, the officer informed Dittrich there would be no charges but requested identification. Dittrich did not want to give it. According to Dittrich, the officer told him he would be charged with obstruction. Dittrich gave his name and address. The officer then asked what country he was from. When he refused to answer claiming the question was irrelevant, the officer insisted, and he refused again. The officer then handcuffed Dittrich and took him to the police station where he was issued a summons.” –Drumm
And another:
“Dittrich was offered a reduction to a municipal ordinance violation if he pleaded guilty, but he refused. Disorderly conduct carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1000 fine. At one hearing, the prosecutor told the judge he would like to see Dittrich spend time behind bars.” –Drumm
“Early on, Mr. Dittrich was offered a deal to truncate the matter: if he pleaded guilty it would be reduced to a municipal ordinance violation that would probably entail a small fine. He declined. ” –NYT
and
“At one hearing, the prosecutor advised the judge that he would like to see Mr. Dittrich spend a little time behind bars.” –NYT
Might as well just quote the NYT article and provide a link, eh?
“refusing to provide pedigree info” I never knew in this country we needed to ever do that. Jo, was right “ve have ways” Does immediately bring to mind, for me, First they came for the Jews. and so many others here say what we are letting be the obvious but ignore, that the police and other governing authorities are using scare tactics (and heck, violence) so we do not speak out.
Sure not the America I thought I grew up in.
War is the tool through which the remaining Constitutional restraints on government and rights of the people will be destroyed. War will be the gateway through which total statism in any of its forms (fascism, socialism, communism) will be imposed upon the United States. They will rally the people’s patriotism, and give the laws Orwellian sounding names like the “Patriot Acts”, and “Freedom Laws” and cries of “America First,” but these acts will be anti-patriotic, anti-freedom, and anti-American. At the core of all these activities will be one purpose –- to impose ever increasing control over the citizens, marching toward total statism. They will suspend due process and Constitutional restrictions proclaiming “extraordinary times” require extraordinary measures. At first they will only be used against a few select atrocious and most heinous individuals with unfamiliar appearance, customs and beliefs. Initially, it will simply be a matter of degree, but the precedent is now set. Extraordinary measures solely for extraordinary individuals, but slowly and then more rapidly the extraordinary will become the ordinary until such measures can apply to anyone. They will deride anyone who opposes these Orwellian acts as dangerously naïve, as pacifists, as isolationists, as unpatriotic, as sympathizing with “the enemy” whoever “the enemy” may be at the time, and as un-American. They will make war with vague, ever changing goals and objectives. They will make war on elusive, obscure enemies by proclaiming wars against “subversives” or “guerillas” or “militias” or “revolutionaries” or “aggressors” or “terrorists” or whatever ambiguous name they can imagine so that the “enemies” will always be elusive, never eliminated or fully defeated. There will always be more “enemies.” War will be perpetual, lasting years or even decades. War will be the final mechanism that destroys America from within; and the people will proudly cheer and defend and support the dismantling of their rights and destruction of their Constitutional Republic, all out of supposed “necessity” to support “the war.”
– Unknown
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Unknown.Quote.E448
What a waste of time and energy. This really shows you that the terrorist has won. Good grief. Has the whole damn country gone stupid?
When Air America was on, the local affiliate broadcast a lot of commercials from civil libertarian defense lawyer (who they would interview from time to time.)
I haven’t needed him yet, but I admit to placing his name and number in my wallet and phone.
Nal, at this page, which is related to the kyr pdf you linked to, http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you, the ACLU says:
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
Also at flexyourrights org / faq it says:
When do I have to show police my ID?
This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to “show their papers” to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.
From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.
As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.