As a passenger, not showing id but asking why they need it.

[westside]

The cop said in court that it was a consensual encounter in court, before then it was because they got a call, but public info proved that to be a lie.

In any event, it was not a traffic stop, so my earlier post was not relevant in this case.

 

[quincy]

The cop said in court that it was a consensual encounter in court, before then it was because they got a call, but public info proved that to be a lie.

The time to argue “rights” is not when you are sitting in your locked car in a dark private parking lot being instructed by the police to hand over a driver’s license and identification. You do what is requested and argue about rights later.

If you look at the incident from the police officer’s perspective, you can better understand how your friends‘ actions led to his arrest. The arrest was not inevitable at the start.

The officer had the right to approach the car and ask both occupants of the car for the reason they were there. The officer had the right to ask the wife for her identification. If the wife and husband had complied with this very simple request, an arrest would have been unlikely. The wife’s reactions were unreasonable and extreme.

What happened after the arrest, in the jail, was apparently deemed necessary by the police because of your friend’s actions, reactions.

All I can suggest for your friends is that the husband contact an attorney (the same one he had in court or another one) and have all facts reviewed. I don’t think your friends have any argument with merit to make, based on what I saw on the video.

It is too bad that an evening out playing a game had to lead to the police encounter and arrest and conviction.

 

[FlyingRon]

If you were parked, it was a consensual stop. They don't need any justification to approach and question you.

If you had been moving, then they would need an articulable reasonable suspicion of a crime. That's still a pretty low threshold.

Again, all this is MOOT at this point. Whether or not there was cause for the stop or whether or not there was a requirement for ID is things that needed to be raised at trial. Too late to argue those now. You have to show something wrong with the trial: a bad ruling on a point of law, prejudicial failure for a disability accommodation, ineffective counsel.

You may think your trial court was a kangaroo court, but the appellate level in NC (as in most places) is a different deal. You have to go at it in a formal legal fashion and within the time limits. That almost certainly means a lawyer (especially with someone like you who appears not only ill-informed about the law, but unwilling to learn about it).

 

[HighwayMan]

...then arrested for FTA and was sent to a maximum state prison and it cost 50,000.00 CASH to bond him out.

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what happened. One does not get out of state prison by posting bond.