Cops Harass Parents Who Let 6-Year-Old Daughter Take a Walk Outside, Arrest Dad
He did "what any dad would—he went to hug his crying kid," says former town councilman Keith Kaplan.

This fall, just as Keith Kaplan was finishing up his first term as a town councilman in the New York suburb of Teaneck, New Jersey, he proposed a Reasonable Childhood Independence bill. It states that when parents allow kids to perform age-old independent activities, like walking or playing outside, they are not committing negligence unless the kids are in obvious, serious, and likely danger.
For Kaplan, the bill is especially important. That's because of an incident he witnessed involving his friends, their daughter, and the police.
On December 31, 2020, Kaplan received a text from friends who lived a few blocks away. They wanted to know if kids were allowed to be outside alone with parental permission. The police, it seemed, were at their house. Kaplan headed over, too.
His friends had allowed their daughter, who was almost 7-years-old, to take a walk around the neighborhood. A retired police officer had seen her and called the cops to report a child outside by herself in the cold.
The responding officer easily located the girl who was "dressed appropriately," according to his report. He asked for her address, which she gave him. It was a few blocks away, and the cop proceeded to walk her home.
When they arrived, the girl introduced the officer to her mother and father, according to Kaplan. But the officer refused to release her unless her parents presented their identification. When they declined to do so—arguing they hadn't done anything wrong—he called for backup.
When Kaplan arrived at his friends' home, he started filming the encounter. By now, the girl had started crying. Then her father did "what any dad would—he went to hug his crying kid," says Kaplan. "And at that point he was arrested. With handcuffs."
The police report, which was reviewed by Reason, states that the father attempted to prevent the police from taking his daughter into protective custody. "I'm not going to let you do that," he said, according to the report.
Three cops wrestled the father to the ground and then placed him in a police car, according to Kaplan. He was taken away and charged with obstructing justice, a disorderly person offense.
Later, in his cell, he was interviewed by a woman from child protective services. She determined he was not a threat to anyone, and he was released and given a court date. The court found him guilty and he was fined $133.
Kaplan had already been a champion of childhood independence. While the family wished to remain anonymous, Kaplan drafted the bill in response to the incident. Kaplan's Childhood Independence bill represents his efforts to stop treating every child as if they're in constant danger, and every adult as if they're a potential predator.
It passed by a vote of 4 to 1 in December, and went into effect at the beginning of this year. This makes Teaneck a place where kids can be kids, and parents can breathe a little easier.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But won't someone PLEASE think of the chickens!?!?!?
If chickens aren't chicken-shit afraid of taking a walk by themselves, HOW will we EVER scare them into thinking that they need to be PROTECTED by Government Almighty, in EVERY way, night and day?!?!?
Introducing the chickens to the SQRL personally would probably scare the hell out of them in an Almighty, Tim the Enchanter, way.
But the officer refused to release her unless her parents presented their identification. When they declined to do so—arguing they hadn’t done anything wrong—he called for backup.
Standard police procedure is to demand identification of anyone they encounter, and if the person refuses then they are unlawfully arrested. This includes people who naively ask the police for help. The assumption is that everyone has warrants unless proven otherwise. The false charges are subsequently dropped and nothing happens to the officer. They will continue to do this until they face consequences for their criminal behavior.
Also, what kind of moron demands identification from people the child is calling mom and dad in order to prove they are the parents of a child who doesn't have identification, and then arrests them in front of the child? It doesn't pass the smell test. Arrests like these are criminal retaliation for failure to obey an unlawful command.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Your entire first paragraph is a bald assertion that is false.
Only in 24 states is their a legality to identify oneself. In many red states it is only when driving, such as in Arizona or if under arrest for a crime. An example from Illinois.
https://www.defenselawyersite.com/do-i-have-to-show-police-my-id/
When police ask for ID, they expect you to produce it. But there’s no law in Illinois requiring you to carry an ID if you aren’t driving. There’s also no law that you have to show the police ID just because they ask you for it.
Above is just first state from search. But arizona is the same.
Are all your arguments from ignorance or is it intentional gaslighting?
It is the same in Maine as in Arizona. So youre either an ignorant moron or gaslighting for some reason.
https://www.aclumaine.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-police-encounters
And apparently it is down to only 23 states.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/stop-and-id-states
So once again sarc talks incorrectly out of his ass.
A lot of unpleasant things come out of Sarc’s ass. Especially after a night of dumpster diving and cheap muscatel.
Actually YOU are the ignorant moron. He stated that Police PROCEDURE is to ask for ID. He didn't say anything about the Law.
I can't believe that I'm defending sarcasmic 🙂
Except youre being as stupid as he is. Because you ignored this statement of his.
and if the person refuses then they are unlawfully arrested
Again. This doesn’t fucking happen in over half the states. Again. I provided the evidence, not a bald assertion which you have joined.
I have personally refused to identify myself multiple times in Arizona. Not a single unlawful arrest.
Please defend the assertion by providing a citation of any kind.
There is not a single state without stop and ID that has it written to unlawfully arrest someone. Not one. So it can't even be a fucking police procedure.
I will even add in for the states with the law, it is a lawful arrest.
So your defense of sarc even gets worse lol.
There's a difference between being required to identify yourself and being required to present identification. One is saying, "Hi, I'm Bill Everman," and the other one is responding to a "papers, please" request by handing over a driver's license, passport, or similar document. Get it?
Where did I say differently?
Cops routinely make illegal demands.
Making a request is not illegal. Arresting someone in a non stop and ID state is.
So far not a single one of you in the know have provided evidence this is a standard practice.
I will patiently wait.
Here is the Maine police procedure manual. Please find me the procedure that sarc describes.
https://usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/police/ProfConduct.pdf
If file not found, here.
https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/BP-PolicyProcedures.pdf
Are you in the least bit aware of the distinction between SOP in an official police procedures manual, and the SOP in the real world?
I'm sure he'll say that cops stopped illegally arresting people for recording them because the Supremes said they can't.
As far as I can tell from my years of lurking, JesseAZ just loves those cop's dicks and pussys in his mouth. So many fucking bootlickers in these comments. I mean, hey, nothing wrong with oral but save it for someone who reciprocates and isn't an agent of the state.
I don't really like sarc much either (contradicts himself a lot) but he clearly said "unlawfully arrested", then Jesse comes in quoting the laws. Even if we assumed that cops know, understand, and follow the law, that one adjective (unlawfully) makes the response illogical.
Another shrike sock?
Do you leftist narrative pushers ever actually use evidence or just blind assertions?
By the way. Your defending people who cheered the Capitol Police for shooting an unarmed woman. Lol.
I'm sure you and sarc have access to the hidden manuals to cite them shrike.
Sir, I direct you to the following movie clip, at about 2:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N16YkjFVAyE
No further questions.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that there is not a single state with a law providing that if you fail to produce ID the police can then unlawfully arrest you? Because if the law provides that the police can arrest you, then it's not unlawful for them to do so.
Thats kind of the point buddy.
I state that clearly.
It does happen in states without a requirement to identify. It happens in Texas, where the law expressly says there's no duty to identify at all unless under arrest. Yet people get arrested for refusing to produce ID all the time.
You've misunderstood him and now you're flailing in that continued confusion. His use of the word "unlawfully" should have clued you in.
I have JesseAz on mute because any reply to him must begin by dispelling all the lies he says about what I say and do before I can even begin to get to my point. It's not worth the effort, especially since all of his subsequent responses will also require a long preface to refute his lies. It's better to just let his lies go unchallenged.
I literally provide multiple citations as evidence instead of blind assertions. Good work buddy.
Your entire first paragraph is a bald assertion that is false.
And even in this case the argument is malicious. I don’t agree with the arrest but, absent something like shouting “Hey, is this my kid?” over to the neighbor with the cop and kid in plain view or holding up a family photo or something, how is the cop to know? They aren’t running an escort service and just because someone says, “Yeah, I’ll take the kid.” doesn’t escape the police from all culpability for dropping the kids anywhere, especially under the retardedly scrutinous eyes of people like sarcasmic.
Are the cops supposed to detect things or not?
If the kid takes you to the place they claim is their home and tell you that those people are their parents, why would you assume otherwise.
I addition, what does producing an ID do here? The kid doesn't have an ID. You can ask for their last name and match that to an ID - but what does that do that 'this is where I live and those are my parents' doesn't?
"You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture,"
So, opposed to separating families at the border then I take it?
I don't even loan tools out to complete strangers and even with my own family members I frequently ask what's going to be done with it and when I'll get it back. It's not like the guy was walking down the street doing nothing and the police just stopped him, he's unloading a kid on him here.
If the kid takes you to the place they claim is their home and tell you that those people are their parents, why would you assume otherwise.
And if a kid is in the mall with their parent and, through whatever perversity goes through the kid's mind, starts shouting "That's not my Daddy/Mommy!" it should be an automatic arrest with charges based on the kid's word? Seems like an equally authoritarian regime conveniently set up to give kids selective agency right up to and including the right to vote to me.
Or, you know, the officer could detain them both ask the kid if he knows his phone number (or what school he goes to or where his other parent works or...), call that, and confirm that the kid is with his guardian or, if the kid gives him the number from the Empire Carpet commercial on TV, know that he's being deceptive.
You cite ways the cop could have verified the kid's identification of the parents as the parents, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COPS WERE DOING. They demanded ID cards, which would have proved nothing, then went full Eric Cartman on the family.
There's a medical adage that applies here: "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
Because kids can be manipulated easily and don't necessarily understand questions asked by strangers
Either the kids have agency or they don't. If you thought cops responding to calls from neurotic Karens and retired cops was abusive, nanny-state authoritarianism, just wait...
There was nothing for the cops to detect here. No crime was committed. The escorting wasn't voluntary either.
There was nothing for the cops to detect here. No crime was committed.
I counted the votes we collected without checking anyone’s ID or chain of custody on again and got the same number. Nothing detected, no fraud.
Being called to the scene wasn’t voluntary either.
I’ve got no problems slashing the tires (or whatever commensurate punishment short of cruel and unusual is deemed appropriate) of the guy who called the cops. I’ve got no problem suspending or even prosecuting the officer for making the arrest (though if he was just held and released I still don’t see a *huge* problem). I’ve got no problem with tarring and feathering the judge and DA or even smacking every last juror in the head. But I wouldn’t hand a work laptop to someone without some second factor ‘closed loop’ form of identification (them knowing who I was and that I’d have a laptop being the “first”). It’s a kid, not a pizza, and his job is both protect and serve, nominally equally.
I mean, FFS, you people are making it look like Barack Obama really is some sort of Messianic figure with his Beer Summit. Like both sides couldn't reach an "OK, I really should be able to prove this is my kid, somehow. He doesn't know me and I wouldn't want him to give my kid to someone else without knowing who they are." and "OK, I don't need ID, just show me a family photo, a Christmas card, *something* that, independent of you, demonstrates that you and this kid, together, didn't just appear in this house yesterday." mutual ground without Chocolate Jesus having to step in.
So let's not bother to rattle them with law-changing libertarian spoiler votes?
Get a grip.
I don't see anything wrong with demanding id from the parents as prep to release the kid. No reason for the encounter to devolve the way it did.
“In an unrelated story, a retired police officer was found in his Teaneck home, dead of an apparent self-inflicted series of gun shot wounds to the head.”
CB
Was he at the J6 riot?
It's too bad BLM doesn't actually start protests to cover for crimes against actual fascists.
Dollars earning straightforward job to figure and earn on-line. begin now creating daily over $500 merely acting from home.~hn114~ Last month my earning from this are $16205 and that i gave this job solely two hours from my whole day. simplest way to earn additional financial gain online and it doesn’t desires any quite special experience. Move to this web site without delay andfollow details to induce
started right now……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Was he a friend of Bill and Hillary?
Ex-friend.
Earn income while simply working online. work from home whenever you want. just for maximum 5 hours a day you can make more than $600 per day online. From this I made $18,000 last month in my spare time.
Check info here==============>>> http://www.join.hiring9.com
The girl was walking around the neighborhood alone - the ordinance is quite vague '...child of sufficient maturity...' and talks about playgrounds and 'playing' but does not appear to cover this situation of a child walking alone by herself, so it seems to validate the police stopping the girl and taking her home. After that it's a case of over reaction by the police. A father acting like a father should never be convicted.
The court found him guilty
The most interesting line in the story has nothing more to say about this. I want to hear about this court case. How on earth did he get convicted? Was this a plea bargain to avoid spending 1E+37 years in prison?
The court found him guilty of what ? Did I blink and miss something ?
Guilty of disrespecting a cop's authoritah!
Basically. From the context disorderly conduct and obstructing justice, because he would not provide identity and hugged his distressed kid against the officer's orders.
We are way past defunding at this point.
"It passed by a vote of 4 to 1 in December, and went into effect at the beginning of this year. This makes Teaneck a place where kids can be kids, and parents can breathe a little easier."
Neighborhood Karens, cranks, and retired cops hardest hit.
passed by a vote of 4 to 1
Does that mean the town council has only one male Karen (the female Karen was absent that day) or is the dissenter someone who always defends the police?
> A retired police officer had seen her and called the cops to report a child outside by herself in the cold.
Fucker.
Add in the judge and prosecutor/DA as well.
Antisocial misfits seem very protective of shitty parents.
^looks forward to the day his children can be sold at auction^
My children have graduate degrees (from strong liberal-libertarian mainstream schools), good livelihoods, and homes in modern, educated communities. They are not bigots and not gullible enough to fall for childish superstition. No clingers among them.
Smug, yet filled with impotent rage. It's beautiful to behold the cope and seethe LARPer.
Aren't you the fellow who likes to post about children leaving their shitty parents behind, moving to successful communities, and becoming superior ubermensch?
My children have graduate degrees (from strong liberal-libertarian mainstream schools), good livelihoods, and homes in modern, educated communities. They are not bigots and not gullible enough to fall for childish superstition. No clingers among them.
^Shit that didn’t happen.
Even parents who are gushingly proud of their kids aren't this retardedly vague and unverifiably boastful about it. If they're your kids, they're probably full of beliefs that aren't true.
Are you saying that parents who let their children walk around outside are shitty? If so, then you're condemning just about every parent in my parents generation, as they regularly let my classmates and me walk to first grade. Every Fucking. Day.
My children have graduate degrees (from strong liberal-libertarian mainstream schools), good livelihoods, and homes in modern, educated communities.
The same 'educated' communities that went from having their children walk to school daily from an early age to having them queue up daily in a long line of exhaust pulsing (Green!) SUVs to be dropped off and picked up from school. Buses are too dangerous for these folks.
Ha. We'll see what the next gen brings. Already we have an anxiety riddled and depressed 'modern' child.
This is a different generation. I walked to elementary school. Which was about 3/4 of a mile away. There was a cop there who was a crossing guard who said good morning to us every day. It no more occurred to him to report our parents than it occurred to him to go to the moon.
I started walking to school by myself a few weeks into Kindergarten.
Antisocial conformists seem very protective of child abusers, what's your point?
And fascists love to make up dangers and terrify people into conforming.
>>court found him guilty
of being in his yard.
Was this a jury trial?
He was taken away and charged with obstructing justice, a disorderly persons offense.
I'm guessing it was a bench trial.
"I'm not gonna let you find me guilty, your honor."
If the article is accurate, it would be hard to see a jury convicting. Unless there's some other factor the article overlooks, not that I'm saying there was, but you can't be too careful.
Thanks for the good news. More Lenore!
It states that when parents allow kids to perform age-old independent activities, like walking or playing outside, they are not committing negligence unless the the kids are in obvious, serious, and likely danger.
The necessity of the exceptions of obviousness, seriousness, and likelihood of danger to "committing negligence" are... interesting.
Fucking pigs. As if an ID will prove anything.
Dollars earning straightforward job to figure and earn on-line. begin now creating daily over $500 merely acting from home.~hn114~ Last month my earning from this are $16205 and that i gave this job solely two hours from my whole day. simplest way to earn additional financial gain online and it doesn’t desires any quite special experience. Move to this web site without delay andfollow details to induce
started right now……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
When I was five, I'd get sent up to the grocery store to get things for supper, etc, and cigarrettes for Mom. I ad to walk along busy East 38th Ave in Oakland. No one ever took a second thought. When I was 7 I had to walk to school, about two and a half miles over a not very direct route. Next year my little sister joined me.
We both survived.
WHY do gummit uffishuls usurp arental authority and demand THEY must make such decisions along a one-size-fits-all pattern?
Stupid nannies... meanwhie these same folks don't even take a second look at the real hooligans roaming about and perpetrating REAL crimes now they are twelve years old......
Rev. Artie (see above) says you had shitty parents.
"Dressed Appropriately?"
Has anyone checked Buford Pusser's grave?
"when parents allow kids to perform age-old independent activities, like walking or playing outside, they are not committing negligence unless the the kids are in obvious, serious, and likely danger."
Any parent who has this attitude to risk needs to have their kids taken away to safety as a matter of urgency. That isn't just negligent, it's outright insane.
"Childhood Independence" bill is an effort to stop treating every child as if they're in constant danger, and every adult as if they're a potential predator. Passed 4-1.
WHO IS THE IDIOT WHO VOTED AGAINST THE BILL?
Come forward. Let's debate the constitutionality of the Bill, why it is even necessary, and what ignorance and power-addicted attitude fueled the vote against it.
IDK, not that I oppose the spirit of the law, but I'm pretty sure the *obvious* *likelihood* of danger that rises to *committing* *negligence* is limiting the degree to which pink unicorns can legally turn perceptibly invisible.
Truth be, I think this is more a case of the impossibility of good samaritan-ism in an age of paranoia, mindless bureaucracy, and Karen. I don't think this retired cop intended to screw this guy's life up - I think he just saw a little girl walking alone, was concerned, and hoped to help. And then Mommy Government got involved and screwed everything up. I don't fault the retired cop - but I will say, that it's an illustration of why people are remiss to help or get involved these days.
A few years ago, I was driving by the bus stop at the edge of my neighborhood. A girl I recognized from the neighborhood was standing there, alone, cold, and waiting for a bus that I knew (but her parents apparently didn't) was never going to come pick her up. I rolled down my window, asked her if she knew there was no bus - and she said she didn't.
Here's the dilemma: do you help a little girl out when you suspect she might genuinely need some; or risk someone thinking you're a creeper luring a girl into your car; or just leave her to the elements? The fact that we need litigation and media coverage these days to defend the former, well... forget it Jake, it's Clown World.
(For the record, I do fault the State in the article.
Parents: "That's our girl."
Girl: "That's my mom and dad."
Cop: "OK folks, have a nice afternoon."
And that should have been the end of it.)
The fact that that cop survived that encounter is the reason humans deserve to be slaves. The state is not to be faulted, it is doing what it was designed to do. The cops are not to be faulted, they are doing what they were hired to do. The fault lies with the people and the people deserve nothing good.
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com