Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

May I see your papers, Citizen? 9vanity)
Little House on Unaka | January 3, 2009 | don-o

Posted on 01/03/2009 4:41:51 PM PST by don-o

Today as I was walking about six blocks from my home, a police cruiser rolled up. The officer said that a woman had called in that a person fitting my description had "been looking into her car." Now, this is without any basis in fact. I looked into no car, except at a street crossing, where I looked in the driver's eyes to assure that I had been seen as I was crossing.

In the course of the exchange, I was asked to produce identification. Which, I did. He also asked me where I was going. I told him. On reflection, I wonder if that is correct policy by the police and what would have happened if I had refused.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: don-o

“a totally false report enables my rights to be suspended”

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team continues to ask that very same question.


61 posted on 01/03/2009 5:48:24 PM PST by Jenny217
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

And when did peering into a parked car on public property become a crime? There is no allegation that anybody attempted to enter the car.


62 posted on 01/03/2009 5:48:30 PM PST by beandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
We haven't 'become' anything. It is simple human nature. Some people would blow off don-o's letter as a minor annoyance and think nothing of it. But some people are vindictive, aren't they? Some people lack the maturity to take thing for what they are and truly 'sweat the small stuff'.

Please do not tell me that you do not know at least 5 people who take even the slightest of slights and make a federal case out of it or hold an unreasonable, unhealthy long term grudge because of it. They exist in the police force. At your favorite restaurant (do not make them mad, either). At the DMV. In your own family.

If something happens that is a serious violation of your rights then damn straight, by all means, fight like hell. But for a minor inconvenience, be the bigger man, let it slide and be confident that you did the right thing...JFK

63 posted on 01/03/2009 5:49:23 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
It is against the law to be anywhere without ID and you must produce it anytime a cop requests to see it.

Maybe in your communist country it is, but in the commonwealth of Kentucky you only need ID if driving or flying. Otherwise, citizens don't have to have their papers onhand for the Gestapo to examine any time they want, at least so far as I know.
64 posted on 01/03/2009 5:51:35 PM PST by JamesP81 (Let the Great RINO Hunt of 2009 begin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER

“But some people are vindictive, aren’t they? Some people lack the maturity to take thing for what they are and truly ‘sweat the small stuff’.”

One would hope that cops are professionals and have better things to do with their time. Immaturity is not a trait cops should have.

“Please do not tell me that you do not know at least 5 people who take even the slightest of slights and make a federal case out of it or hold an unreasonable, unhealthy long term grudge because of it.”

I know some, again if cops are this immature they should be fired.

“If something happens that is a serious violation of your rights then damn straight, by all means, fight like hell.”

When exactly are the rights important?


65 posted on 01/03/2009 5:51:48 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
"Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in criminal activity."

I don't believe that this is accurate. As an earlier poster mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in the last 24 months that the police could in fact demand that a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) identify themselves.

I will look to find the court case. But, at the time, there was plenty of concern voiced by liberal and conservative libertarians about this ruling.

66 posted on 01/03/2009 5:54:32 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

“As an earlier poster mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in the last 24 months that the police could in fact demand that a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) identify themselves.”

There is a difference between identifying yourself and being required to carry and ID.


67 posted on 01/03/2009 5:55:49 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: King_Corey

Excellent video. Thanks.


68 posted on 01/03/2009 5:58:42 PM PST by tvdog12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: beandog
And when did peering into a parked car on public property become a crime? There is no allegation that anybody attempted to enter the car.

An uncooperative suspect, who fits an id, is going to be taken in and questioned. You asked what "crime," I tossed out suspicion of breaking and entering. If you've ever had any dealings with law enforcement, you know the mentality. This officer was following up on a complaint. Peering into a car is not a crime, but many who peer into cars commit crimes. It's an attempt to be preemptive. Do you honestly think that this officer was out of line, asking someone who fit the description, for his id and where he was going? I don't, and I detest bad cops, I detest no-knock warrants, paramilitarized SWAT teams and the whole nine yards. But, this officer sounds like he did what he was supposed to do, and broke no laws in doing so.

69 posted on 01/03/2009 6:00:35 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
One would hope, wouldn't they? Well, here is an experiment that my father taught me. Poop in one hand, and hope in the other. Tell me which one fills up first.

Secondly, immature people inhabit all levels of employment in this country. Like I said, it is part of human nature. Do we fire them all? And besides, who decides what is immature? What if the person in charge of deciding is immature himself? How in the world do you expect your way of doing things to be implemented in an inherently imperfect world made up of imperfect humans.

You seem to be showing a good bit of immaturity by insisting on perfection when you should know good and damn well that such a thing is necessarily impossible.

What do you do when someone is pointing a gun at you? Stand and recite that they should not be doing that and take your best right-fighter pose, like you are here, or do you take cover and otherwise defend yourself? The question is vital to your point. Do you deal with REALITY or do you insist that reality change to meet your point of view on a case-by-case basis, in the heat of the moment? I prefer to deal with reality, and have made it clear what I would have done in don-o's shoes. You would likely still be in custody, for no good reason at all.

As to your question of when rights are important, they always are. But where were don-o's rights violated? If you cannot prove that they were violated, your entire point falls apart. I contend that his rights were not violated. Prove that they were, your argument depends on it really...JFK

70 posted on 01/03/2009 6:03:31 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER

I believe the result of the Nevada case was as follows:

You’re NOT required to give or show a police officer your ID, but you are required to tell him or her your full name if he or she asks you your name. This was the Hilbel case.


71 posted on 01/03/2009 6:04:53 PM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (January 20th, 2009.....A Day That Will Live in Infamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

Thanks for the info! With your explanation, my memory concerning the case got a little jumpstart as well. I am pretty sure you nailed it...JFK


72 posted on 01/03/2009 6:07:43 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Relax. If you were wearing a red jacket and an orange sweatshirt, it was only the fashion police.


73 posted on 01/03/2009 6:09:09 PM PST by SisterK (pop culture is the opiate of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Actually, jiggyboy, on the Frequent Flyer Board, www.flyertalk.com, there have been a number of posts about people boarding airplanes (successfully) without a government issued ID.

These individuals were subjected to extra screening, such as wanding, pat downs, and a search of their carry-on bag, etc. but in the end they were allowed to board the aircraft.....it was just an additional series of hassles for the passenger to go through.


74 posted on 01/03/2009 6:09:29 PM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (January 20th, 2009.....A Day That Will Live in Infamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; jiggyboy
"There is a difference between identifying yourself and being required to carry and ID."

I couldn't agree more. I found a link to a CNN story that does a good job explaining the court case in question. I may have been premature with respect to the "reasonable suspicion" element. Then again, I suspect in a practical, real-world sense, "reasonable suspicion" is a low threshold to reach for law enforcement.

I personally am split on this issue. I understand the difficulties that police face everyday in trying to prevent crime. But, I also fiercely defend the right of the citizen as guaranteed under the constitution. These questions should promote intense, passionate debate on both sides - that's exactly what the founders would have demanded.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html

75 posted on 01/03/2009 6:11:23 PM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Depends on the state. Some states require by law that you identify yourself to police. Here in New Hampshire, you arguably don’t have to identify yourself unless the cop suspects that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, covered under the prowling statute.


76 posted on 01/03/2009 6:17:40 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

I got the impression that the case set forth that a state law that requires you to identify yourself when police ask you is not unconstitutional.

If your state doesn’t have such a law, the case doesn’t apply to you.


77 posted on 01/03/2009 6:19:42 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER

“You seem to be showing a good bit of immaturity by insisting on perfection when you should know good and damn well that such a thing is necessarily impossible.”

And you seem to be reacting in a very defensive manner because you have a weak argument. Not demanding perfection, I am demanding that our rights be respected.

“What do you do when someone is pointing a gun at you?”

Oh so now the cop was drawing down on him. Musta thought Don-o was a mirror.

“As to your question of when rights are important, they always are. But where were don-o’s rights violated?”

Lost the argument so now you are deflecting.


78 posted on 01/03/2009 6:25:22 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I would have told the officer that I was staring in shock when I noticed a handgun on top of the passenger seat of her car, wondering if she was a threat or not. Although she didn’t point it diretly at me, she did have her hand on the pistol and was giving me a threatening look.


79 posted on 01/03/2009 6:27:16 PM PST by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

Good one, although that may get you into trouble.


80 posted on 01/03/2009 6:32:11 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson