Fair enough. I can't say that's wrong.

In a lot of areas, that’s a valid criticism of America. This isn’t one of them. The law is for pedestrian safety. She would have gotten fined for her violation. It looks like the cop wasn’t even going to do that. Instead, she acted completely unreasonable.

I assumed you were using “highway” with its colloquial use, which does not refer to regular streets the way I understand it. There are no sidewalks that I am aware of next to highways, as I would use the word. Under Michigan law, “highway” does refer to regular streets.

I’d say you’re wrong after reviewing the applicable statutes. But regardless be sure to to exactly what this lady did if a cop ever calls you out on it. I’m sure it will work out great.

It seems the cop had the requisite legal justification.

It’s not that simple.

lol. Ignorance. It’s simple really. I know what I’m talking about and you don’t. Oh and I’m not a cop.

Because she didn’t say it wasn’t. She would have

We live in a world where an officer can stop you for driving 66 in a 65. The officer then has the right to ask for identifying information. Your refusal to provide it can result in being arrested. Resisting that arrest will result in a charge of resisting arrest.

If you read the linked article, it appears that there is in fact such a law. No, they wouldn’t have charged the small misdemeanor when they have an easy felony as an alternative. That’s not how prosecutors think.

Not a highway. He politely asked her to get on the sidewalk and asked for her name when she refused. She escalated the situation. For once, the cop was not at fault.

Police can arrest for fine only offenses. It’s constitutional. Some departments have regs against it. I believe the infraction would be in a different section. Once the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, you have to provide identifying information when requested. Refusal to do so would…

Kinja’d

Cleared it up. It is a crime not to provide it if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Not the same as stop and identify.

Apparently it is in this case. Anyways, she wasn’t arrested for running in the road according to the article. She was arrested for failing to identify herself once the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe she had been illegally running in the road—which is a crime.

Fooled me. She was arrested for failing to identify herself when requested. Or at least that’s the justification that was given at the time, according to her. Have you watched the video or read the linked article. It is all there. She was being arrested. Then she resisted. This is not complicated.

She was initially arrested for failing to identify herself when requested. That was a crime because the officer had probably cause to believe she had committed a crime by failing to run on a sidewalk.

Failing to identify herself when asked to. Failing to run on a sidewalk.

You are legally obligated if the cop has reasonable suspicion OR state law makes failing to answer a crime.

Well, IF Michigan does have a stop and identify law, she had to ID herself regardless of whether the cop had reasonable suspicion. I believe SCOTUS’ holding on this matter is that officers need no reasonable suspicion to ask for identifying information, but if the state does not make it illegal to refuse to provide…