A Complete Unknown: Bob Dylan Detained by Police for Failure to Produce His Papers
August 15th, 2009Via: Telegraph:
A novice policewoman picked up an “eccentric old man acting suspiciously”, completely unaware that it was Bob Dylan.
The 22-year-old officer was dispatched after residents in the New Jersey town of Long Branch had phoned to complain that a man in the Latin quarter was acting suspiciously.
When the officer asked the man for identification papers, he did not have a driving licence or other form of ID to prove his identity.
The songwriter, famous for hits such as Like a Rolling Stone and Mr Tambourine Man, was then ordered into the back of her police car and driven back to his hotel to authenticate his story.
It was not until she radioed her colleagues at the police station to ask who he was did she realise her mistake.
A spokesman for Long Branch police confirmed the incident with Dylan took place last month at the seaside town on the Jersey shore.
“It has been the talk of the station,” said one officer.
“The policewoman was very young and did not recognise Dylan. There was another officer with her and even he did not recognise Dylan.
“Both said they never listened to his music and had no idea what he looked like.”
Dylan, 68, who was in the area for a concert with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp, has been spotted out alone previously
Rather than use a chauffeur-driven car after a concert in belfast in 1991, he was spotted waiting at a bus stop by a television crew.
Earlier this year, Dylan climbed back to the top of the British charts for the first time in 38 years with his album Together Through Life.
And if he had lacked proof that he was Bob Dylan, he would have been charged with….. intent to burglarize?, loitering in the wrong sector?
Now it’s a crime to be old and eccentric . . . .
That his was Bob Dylan and that the two officers didn’t recognize him is completely irrelevant. That’s not the story, although it is the reason we’ve heard about it.
The real point is, of course, that a person was detained for the crime of not carrying identification. They say he was “acting suspiciously”, but note that he wasn’t charged with anything.
How can you write an article like that and not mention this obvious point? What the hell are they teaching the journalists these days?