# None Chapter 90 Refusal....



## POSD (May 21, 2010)

I had a first the other night...everytime I had a fare evasion call, I managed to convince the passenger to pay or a resolution was reached on the scene. Or, if I asked for ID it was handed to me.....

The other night the passenger, drunk of course, refused to pay his cab fare. The usually convincing "your going to be summonsed to court and have to pay hundreds of dollars instead of this $15 fare" didn't phase him. 

The passenger was very polite and did not cause a scene. However people were looking on and gathering about, so "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly" could have been a looooong stretch, to make this encounter arrest-able. 

Anyhow, he also refused to hand over his ID or provide me with anything more then his first name. He obviously knew this was a none-arrest-able offense.

What are my options when someone refuses to provide me with their Identification....

Thanks.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

This is becoming a problem lately, call the police. Once word gets out, these dregs will stop scamming free rides.
The MGL's mainly apply to Government run railways etc. however most towns have bylaws similar to the following:

Section 23. Evading Taxi, Bus Fare Prohibited
No person shall evade the payment of a fare for the engagement of a vehicle for hire.

Good luck to you.


----------



## Spart12 (Nov 30, 2006)

I would love an answer to this as well.... 90/25 only covers drivers of automobiles if they refuse....what to do if the person refuses ID, etc when its a misdemeanor and they werent driving??

The only thing I could come up with (but havent tried yet) is to charge them with obstruction of justice 268 s. 13b under the fact that they are "intending to delay, or otherwise interfere" with your criminal investigation (in this case, larceny). its a felony so you get power of arrest. 

It might be a stretch so I am not sure how it would work...


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Could you have PC'd him? If he was legitimately drunk, you may have been able to get away with it.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

couldnt you just beat the snot out of him


----------



## EnforceOfficer (Jun 1, 2010)

People don't have to give their name if they are suspected of a misdemeanor to the investigating Peace Officer (be it a Police Officer, Conservation Officer etc) in Mass ?

I hope I'm misreading the above posts, not giving your name to a Peace Officer when suspected of any offence in Canada, be it a civil (traffic/tresspassing/atv laws etc.) or criminal offence, constitutes a hybrid criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada...

Hybrid criminal offences can be prosecuted as a summary offence (misdemeanor) or an indictable offence (felony)...


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

I heard an interesting response to people who either have no ID, or refuse to present ID. Get the name they give, "run" it, then take out your cuffs and inform them that there is a warrant for their arrest out of another state for some violent offense. They will usually be quite forthcoming with their real name after that.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

He refused to pay? Larceny comes to mind. He is not paying in your presense, can't you articulate larceny?


----------



## jedediah1 (Jun 18, 2009)

wait til he walks away from the cab with no intention of returning to pay, and you have a willful larceny committed in your presence...that gets the clicking sound to start doesn't it?


----------



## 7MPOC (Mar 16, 2004)

Under the new intimidation law you could arrest. There is language in it about willfully misleading a police investigation. I cant remember all of the elements but I believe your scenario would fall into that category. Probably get dumped but it certainly wouldnt fall under false arrest. 

Your investigating a crime and he is prohibiting you from completing your investigation ie. evading cab fare. Sounds good to me. Plus its a felony.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

7MPOC said:


> Under the new intimidation law you could arrest. There is language in it about willfully misleading a police investigation. I cant remember all of the elements but I believe your scenario would fall into that category. Probably get dumped but it certainly wouldnt fall under false arrest.
> 
> Your investigating a crime and he is prohibiting you from completing your investigation ie. evading cab fare. Sounds good to me. Plus its a felony.


Creative. But a stretch at best.


----------



## Lost (Dec 19, 2006)

Hush said:


> I heard an interesting response to people who either have no ID, or refuse to present ID. Get the name they give, "run" it, then take out your cuffs and inform them that there is a warrant for their arrest out of another state for some violent offense. They will usually be quite forthcoming with their real name after that.


Works great, unless they call your bluff.


----------



## 7MPOC (Mar 16, 2004)

268/13B, Hit it right on the head Spart. Thats what I was referring to and its good all day long. They added new language to this a few years ago just for nit wits like that.



Spart12 said:


> I would love an answer to this as well.... 90/25 only covers drivers of automobiles if they refuse....what to do if the person refuses ID, etc when its a misdemeanor and they werent driving??
> 
> The only thing I could come up with (but havent tried yet) is to charge them with obstruction of justice 268 s. 13b under the fact that they are "intending to delay, or otherwise interfere" with your criminal investigation (in this case, larceny). its a felony so you get power of arrest.
> 
> It might be a stretch so I am not sure how it would work...


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

A larceny, regardless of amount, committed in your presence is arrestable.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

> 268/13B, Hit it right on the head Spart. Thats what I was referring to and its good all day long. They added new language to this a few years ago just for nit wits like that.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Spart12*  I would love an answer to this as well.... 90/25 only covers drivers of automobiles if they refuse....what to do if the person refuses ID, etc when its a misdemeanor and they werent driving??
> 
> ...


Of course I could be wrong, but the obstruction is only a felony if the crime that is being obstructed a felony itself. Not to pee on your parade, but I would not want to be a test case for the SJC if you clank the guy on obstructing an investigation of a misdemeanor. As Deuce said in the above post, a larceny in your presence is good to go any day. Why do you want to make more of it when you hae the right of arrest based on that. Clank the idiot, book him under John Doe, run his prints and then Add False Name at Booking charge.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

Comm v Geane "The fraudulent inducement of services is not larceny. 

Larceny is no good because tangible property was not exchanged.

Better off going with the Intimidation of a witness statute for hindering a police investigation.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

How do you articulate intimidation of a witness if all the ass-hat is doing is not providing you with a name?

I am not trying to bust your balls, but if I can learn something I don't know, then it has been a good day just based on that.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

There was case law a couple years back that allowed for an arrest of someone who was providing false info to you during a criminal investigation. It is under the intimidation of a witness statute. If you are investigating a crime(evading a fare/ defrauding an innkeeper) and the person is not giving you their information so that you can finish your investigation then they are in fact hindering your investigation and violating the intimidation of a witness statute.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

BRION24 said:


> There was case law a couple years back that allowed for an arrest of someone who was providing false info to you during a criminal investigation. It is under the intimidation of a witness statute. If you are investigating a crime(evading a fare/ defrauding an innkeeper) and the person is not giving you their information so that you can finish your investigation then they are in fact hindering your investigation and violating the intimidation of a witness statute.


If you find the name of the case, I would love to read it. But as I said, a larceny in your presence is arrestable any way. Larceny is still defined as theft of goods and services. So fare evading isn't arrestabe, OK then chare a larceny arrest, and take them in. If they are not identifiable, they aren't making bail plain an simple.

We had a female a couple of weeks ago "Obstructing" She was arrested and charged with it. Good thing that she gave consent for a serach of her apatment and before it even started she told the investigators that she was hloding close to 1/2 pound of weed, all packaged up and ready to go plus a playground violation. Good thing too because she was "Obstructing" a misdemeanor.


----------



## trueblue (Jan 21, 2008)

Killjoy said:


> Could you have PC'd him? If he was legitimately drunk, you may have been able to get away with it.


Interesting discussion...but I would go with killjoy's suggestion. PC him, ID him, then you can charge him. This presents the easiest course of action in my opinion.

It would be great if the Taxi Cab Owners association got together and lobbied to make this arrestable as soon as refused to pay.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

Right out of the sheft book, inducement of a service is not a LARCENY! And I am looking for that case.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Chapter 268: Section 13B. Intimidation of witnesses, jurors and persons furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings

Section 13B. (1) *Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully* 
(a) threatens, or attempts or causes physical injury, emotional injury, economic injury or property damage to; 
(b) conveys a gift, offer or promise of anything of value to; or 
(c) *misleads, intimidates or harasses another person who is:* 
(i) a witness or potential witness at any stage of a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type; 
(ii) a person who is or was aware of information, records, documents or objects that relate to a violation of a criminal statute, or a violation of conditions of probation, parole or bail; 
(iii) a judge, juror, grand juror, prosecutor, *police officer,* federal agent, investigator, defense attorney, clerk, court officer, probation officer or parole officer; 
(iv) a person who is or was furthering a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type; or 
(v) a person who is or was attending or had made known his intention to attend a grand jury proceeding, trial or* other criminal proceeding of any type with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish or otherwise interfere thereby with a criminal investigation,* grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 21/2 years in a jail or house of correction or not more than 10 years in a state prison, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. 
(2) As used in this section, "investigator" shall mean an individual or group of individuals lawfully authorized by a department or agency of the federal government, or any political subdivision thereof, or a department or agency of the commonwealth, or any political subdivision thereof, to conduct or engage in an investigation of, prosecution for, or defense of a violation of the laws of the United States or of the commonwealth in the course of his official duties. 
(3) As used in this section, "harass" shall mean to engage in any act directed at a specific person or persons, which act seriously alarms or annoys such person or persons and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Such act shall include, but not be limited to, an act conducted by mail, electronic mail, internet communications, facsimile communications, or other telephonic or telecommunications device. 
(4) A prosecution under this section may be brought in the county in which the criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding is being conducted or took place, or in the county in which the alleged conduct constituting an offense occurred.

If you check out this lawyers page about 3/4 of the way down he mentions people being charged with lying to police during investigations in MA.

Suffolk County Crime Defense Attorney :: Intimidation of a Witness, Juror or Law Enforcement Official :: Brighton, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer


----------



## 7MPOC (Mar 16, 2004)

You cant arrest for evading cab fare as Brion24 stated. It is a specific crime so you cant just use larceny as an excuse to lock someone up. It is the same thing as a chew and screw at a restaurant. They made specific violations for those offenses that are not a larceny (all elements present)

Like I said if they are refusing to give you their name they are hindering the investigation which becomes arrestable under the intimidation statute. Thats why the language was changed to add in misleading a police investigation.

Also, if they are refusing to give you their name there is probably a reason. Lock em up and let the chips fall.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

7MPOC said:


> You cant arrest for evading cab fare as Brion24 stated. It is a specific crime so you cant just use larceny as an excuse to lock someone up. It is the same thing as a chew and screw at a restaurant. They made specific violations for those offenses that are not a larceny (all elements present)
> 
> Like I said if they are refusing to give you their name they are hindering the investigation which becomes arrestable under the intimidation statute. Thats why the language was changed to add in misleading a police investigation.
> 
> *Also, if they are refusing to give you their name there is probably a reason. Lock em up and let the chips fall*.


That goes without saying.


----------



## Spart12 (Nov 30, 2006)

263FPD said:


> Of course I could be wrong, but the obstruction is only a felony if the crime that is being obstructed a felony itself. Not to pee on your parade, but I would not want to be a test case for the SJC if you clank the guy on obstructing an investigation of a misdemeanor. As Deuce said in the above post, a larceny in your presence is good to go any day. Why do you want to make more of it when you hae the right of arrest based on that. Clank the idiot, book him under John Doe, run his prints and then Add False Name at Booking charge.


A violation of 13B is a Felony carrying a maximum of 10yrs. in state prison, irregardless of the underlying offense.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

It sucks to have to admit it, but sometimes we have nothing left in the toolbox. If the charge doesn't have a provision for arrest for the failure to identify (such as the spitting in public statute does), I'd say your outta gas and will have to resort to legal trickery and other tools of trade.

I find this creative use of chrages intriguing, but basing an arrest of that creative use is a dangerous thing to do. That intimidation route sounds like it has some promise, but I certainly wouldn't be basing an arrest on such a charge. Save your creative streak for another day when you have another arrestable offense that is rock-solid. 

Remember, if this guy is smart enough to game the system at night after a few drinks, he's probably smart enough to game the system when he's sober by suing the crap out of you.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

May be I am wrong, but I have yet to deal with a drunk who isn't disorderly. May be the drunks in our town are bigger assholes but I seriously doubt it. As some members pointed out, fare evasion is not a larceny so no right of arrest exists. Witness Intimidation? I don't buy it. Sorry, guys. We can stretch and bend the statutes all we want, but do we really want to? I guess if you want to be known by Courts as "That Guy" and not be taken seriously all because you your PC is thin at best, then do what you want. 

My reputation is very important to me. I have had Attorneys stippulate to the facs of the case simply based on my report and my presence at the hearing. I am not about to ruin what took me 13 years to build for some POS drunk. 

My $.02 worth.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

Another thing you may want to look into is your city odinance/town bylaws because some cities and towns have laws that allow for arrest for failure to obey police or far failing to give thier true name. Just something else to consider.

263fpd when I find that case I will PM it to you.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

7MPOC said:


> You cant arrest for evading cab fare as Brion24 stated. It is a specific crime so you cant just use larceny as an excuse to lock someone up. It is the same thing as a chew and screw at a restaurant. They made specific violations for those offenses that are not a larceny (all elements present).


All well and good. So when the mope is blowing you off and the cabbie's looking at you like "WTF??", what are you gonna do, shrug your shoulders and walk away?

Specific crimes? Good, they also enacted Malicious Destruction of property, under $250 and over $250. What are you gonna do when some shit stain mars some normal person's property and the damage is under $250 and the vic is also looking at you like "WTF??" and the shit stain knows the system and is laughing at you? Tell the vic you'll summons the stain in on a criminal complaint? No, you're going slap the cuffs on the asshole for Wanton Destruction of Real or Personal Property. A felony regardless of the amount of damage AND the vic gets financial restitution.

I guess you could eventually put on the bracelets when you finally locate the ass munch years down the road, for that default warrant on that case you did all you could on..

Larceny is stealing, period. If they put the theft of telecommunications and intellectual property in the statute and consider it larceny, then the stealing of a service provided is larceny. Nowhere in the statute is it written that this can't be used.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest but c'mon, work the system, the shit heads do. If you get cooperation from a suspect, fine, charge the specific statute. But when you got a muff fucking over a normal person, don't be so black and white.

Of course, all bets are off if the DA's office says different...

And Brion I also would like to see the case so if you would, please just post it for all of us to peruse.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

```

```



Deuce said:


> All well and good. So when the mope is blowing you off and the cabbie's looking at you like "WTF??", what are you gonna do, shrug your shoulders and walk away?


Deuce, I see your point and I'm inclined to agree with you sentiment that it sucks to let the jerk win.

But these situations happen all the time--people give us the "WTF?" look frequently when we don't arrest for past simple A&B's that to the average person would seem like an arrest should be a no brainer.

Listen, I'm not saying don't do everything you can to try to effect an arrest in this situation. But I am saying that sometimes we simply have nowhere else to go. There are few things more irritating than losing you poker hand to a a-hole on the street, but when you start playing games by stretching the established law to win that hand, you're headed fir trouble. Unfortuneately there's no "Contempt of Cop" charge in some situations and sometimes you just run out of gas.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

I hear ya, and I'm not saying in any way to go out and make bad case law or worse, get yourself in the glue over some mope. I'm not saying lock someone up for disorderly and, oh ya, charge him with evading a cab fare. ADA's and defense atty's can see through that too. I'm just saying use your gray matter within the gray areas. Stretching it would be charging someone that didn't pay his hooker with shoplifting.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

The case Brion referenced is Commonwealth v. Geane, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 149

Link: GEANE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 149

From pages 154 and 155:


> The rub here is that, with respect to most of the subcontractors, services, not goods, were purveyed. In Massachusetts, consistent with ancient common law principles, the fraudulent inducement of services is not larceny. See Commonwealth v. Rivers, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 669 , 671 & n.3 (1991) ("theft of services . . . [is] not . . . considered a criminal offense in the absence of special legislation"). Rather, in order to be convicted for larceny, some tangible res must be converted. This is reflected in G. L. c. 266, s. 30, the general larceny statute, which criminalizes the conversion of "the property of another." "Property" is defined in s. 30, as amended by St. 1995, c. 272, s. 3, as:
> 
> "money, personal chattels, a bank note, bond, promissory note, bill of exchange or other bill, order or certificate, a book of accounts . . . a deed . . . any valuable contract in force, a receipt, release or defeasance, a writ . . . a public record . . . a security deposit . . . electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, data while in transit, telecommunications services, and any domesticated animal, including dogs, or a beast or bird which is ordinarily kept in confinement."
> 
> With the express exception of "data while in transit," "intangible" "electronically processed or stored data," and "telecommunications services," every item listed is some form of tangible property. The various types of construction services performed by all but three of the subcontractors here simply do not fall within the purview of G. L. c. 266, s. 30, or the common law definition of the offense.


(sorry for all the edits and merged posts...wish tapatalk would come out with an app for Palm webOS...)


----------



## POSD (May 21, 2010)

Wow, I didn't think this thread would end up at 4 pages....thanks for all the feedback.

I am still catching up on reading all the posts....

As for the Fare Evasion, *Chapter 266: Section 64; Fraudulent hiring of media of transportation is the statute that applies*. Furthermore, I spoke with my Criminal Law Instructor and he stated that there maybe changes to the statute coming down soon giving us power to arrest a fare evader on Probable Cause as this is becoming a more frequent issue. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Now, the way the statute is current written, Fare Evasion is a breach of the peace, misdemeanor, with a right of arrest in presence but, it is more intended for the case when you chase the fare evader through yards, etc... However, I believe by *keeping* or even *preventing* the cabbie from continuing on his way, or people turning their heads or gathering to look at the police/suspect interaction, this could of satisfied the "Breach Of Peace" element and made this an arrest-able Misd. in my presnce.....

As for not providing me with any ID or personal information....obstruction sounds like an option. I haven't seen anything in our Ordinances that would apply better.

I'll keep you updated as I find out more.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

Interesting read, made my pea brain hurt. Sounded like a civil action anyway, but what I gleaned is the DA lost the case. I don't know, theft of goods and services, maybe not tangible, is still, boiled down to basics, theft of money. Like the old saying goes: "time is money".. A fare might not physically take paper money from the cabbie, but he stole the cabbie's service. Then again, I guess one could theoretically charge the felonious Larceny from the Person..

Typical MA contradiction and convolutedness. How can they say theft of telecomm services is larceny but the theft of goods and services isn't. Isn't cable tv a service?

Screw it I'm going with my original proclamation.. Whatever the hell it was....


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

> Wow, I didn't think this thread would end up at 4 pages....thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> I am still catching up on reading all the posts....


Yet though you started this whole debate, you are still in red as a NOOB. Start Posting some more so that you can at least get blue. lol:teeth_smile:


----------



## POSD (May 21, 2010)

I hear ya...I a newbie yet again. I re-registered under a new screen name when the old site went down and the new version came up. Then, when the original site magically returned, instead of using the old, original, screen name, I re-registered with the newest screen name - hence a newbie, again, for the third time (can my rep/thank you's etc.. be restored to my original status?).

As for the [lack of] posting, with warmer days upon us, I am either out there working a detail, sleeping, or spending time with the family. Will try to catch up on my posts.

Be safe.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Lost said:


> Works great, unless they call your bluff.


Its all in how convincing you can be. Its up to you to sell it :teeth_smile:


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Deuce said:


> Typical MA contradiction and convolutedness. How can they say theft of telecomm services is larceny but the theft of goods and services isn't. Isn't cable tv a service?


The reason is because, in comparison to other states, MA laws are so frequently just the common law codified into a statute. And since larceny at common law never included services, neither does the MA statute except if the legislature makes a specific exception.

Even more simply stated, services are not "the property of another" which someone else is trying to permanatly deprive.


----------



## trueblue (Jan 21, 2008)

Hush said:


> Its all in how convincing you can be. Its up to you to sell it :teeth_smile:


Unless your one of the Boston cops who now must adhere to the new "anti-lying" policy or be fired!! Just saw it in their union newspaper.


----------



## Lost (Dec 19, 2006)

Hush said:


> Its all in how convincing you can be. Its up to you to sell it :teeth_smile:


Ah, but it's not. People do give other's names rather than false ones, and sometimes they come back with warrants. You'd think they'd come off the story when you gave the great news, but sometimes they will take the hook before they own up.


----------



## POSD (May 21, 2010)

Funny thing, this happened to me last night. Too many details to go into right now and I am still half asleep but when the individual refused to giveme his name, which was after I felt I had reasonable suspicious to conduct the [Terry] stop, he began abruptly walk away from me, and being loud about it . I tried to calm him down and convince him it was in his best interest to provide his information so I could eliminate him as the suspect we were looking for. There was no convincing him, and he had to portray the tough guy. The attention of near by residents who were out on their porches/landings/yards quickly turned toward our direction. He ended up getting locked up for Disorderly. We got his information at booking .

All he had to do was just give his name, we would of realized he wasn't who we were looking for, and he would of been on his way.


----------

