Posted on 01/24/2009 10:16:42 PM PST by Domandred
So it seems. As are people who go swimming or perform any athletics, because with the amount of clothing they wear at times I know they aren’t carrying i.d.
A later ruling allowed that Terry Stops are also Constitutional.
The space between the two rulings is occupied by the police having or not having reasonable suspiscion.
______________________________
Please cite the law.
I would have fought that.
There is no law in any State stating that you must have any form of identification other then those related to what you are doing (driving, flying, hunting, fishing, etc).
A quick perusal looks like AZ law is that law enforcement will only accept one that is verifiable. Does not require that you actually have an ID, nor does it require that you present one.
Even Arizona’s stop-and-identify law only goes as far as full name is required, and makes no mention at all of actual identification.
Just because you are cited for something also doesn’t mean that law actually exists. Can’t remember what it was that my friend was charged with a few years ago, but he fought it. It was thrown out at discovery because there was no law that said the charge actually existed. It was a policy/proceedure written by the police, but never actually made into a law.
read later
What happens when you go someplace and don’t want to take your purse or backpack?
If I’m going for a bike ride, then I don’t take my purse.
If my husband and I are going for a quick drive to pick up a child from someplace and my husband is driving, I don’t take my purse.
If I’m going for a walk on the trail by my house, I don’t take a purse.
Sometimes, I don’t even take my phone and keys if my husband has his.
If you can't do the above, just stand by for microchip implants. Coming soon to a tyranny near you.
Interesting thread. It seems to have beckoned the badge kissers as well as the libertine libertarian Free Republicans, or whatever the other side is called.
I do recall a case going to the SCOTUS. It was an articulate black guy who wore dreadlocks, back in the 1970’s. He would take walks at night and was often harrassed by police for not producing his ID, so he took it all the way to the SCOTUS and won.
What about when you are swimming? What about when you walk to the park by your house?
That is a very un-American law.
I have a copy of this test and always get a good laugh reading it. Thanks for bringing it up as I needed a laugh today.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread but for anyone not aware of this farce called the The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), here's a brief excerpt of the test with some sample statements pulled directly from this 566 statement joke. You are required to choose either True or False.
I have a good appetite.
I have diarrhea once a month or more.
I am very seldom troubled by constipation.
I am bothered by acid stomach several times a month.
I have a cough most of the time.
Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over.
I have had no difficulty in starting or stopping my bowel movement.
I loved my father.
I hardly ever feel pain in the back of my neck.
I like poetry.
I would like to be a nurse.
I believe in the second coming of Christ.
There seems to be a fullness in my head or nose most of the time.
The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick.
I like to cook.
I am neither gaining nor losing weight.
I am against giving money to beggars.
I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma.
I very much like hunting.
I have been disappointed in love.
Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little.
Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke.
My mother or father often made me obey even when I thought that it was unreasonable.
I think Lincoln was greater than Washington.
The point, lost to the ‘jack booted thug’ idiots was the guy was his own worst enemy. Then he came on FR to ask about it.
It was a report call the cop came to, was called to, and he was just filling out a frigging form. I can only sympathize with the guy if the quality of Freeper he had to deal with was similar to what has been demonstrated on this thread.
We are a nation of laws. The cops are there to enforce them. Yet there are people here who hate them with a passion.
No, there is no difference between the liberals who hate America's military because they protect us out there, and those who hate the cops who protect us here.
Except the forum they post on.
Nonsense. As I posted earlier, in Brown v. Texas SCOTUS held that the individual’s right to privacy and anonymity trumps the police’s empowerment to demand ID except in the case where the police have a reasonable suspiscion that the individual has been, is or is about to be involved in criminal activity or has witnessed such activity. That is the case law.
He probably does have that authority. Doesn't mean it's legally binding nor does it mean it's against the law to not present. Problem is that you just said "Okay here's your money" and didn't check to see if you actually broke a law. You also consulted with the police department and not a lawyer.
You should so know that the police departments are NOT the law, they only enforce the laws as they interpret them.
A large portion of police officers don't know what the actual laws are and only go by policy and procedures on the books, which may or may not be actual law. So by making a new policy or new charge police departments make pseudo laws they can cite people with, bypassing the legislative process to create an actual law.
Part of the court system determines if any laws were actually broken after you have been charged.
If there is no actual law, you have committed no crime, regardless of what a desk clerk at the PD says.
“We are a nation of laws. The cops are there to enforce them. Yet there are people here who hate them with a passion.”
So is it THE LAW that you have ID at all times? If it is the law what do you think of that?
Serious question: Along the spectrum that runs from anarchy to totalitarinism where would you draw the line as to where the police oversteps its purpose.
Checkpoints?
Searches?
Eavesdropping?
It appears that you think the ‘lickers’ and ‘thugs’ are on opposite sides of this argument since you referred to me as a thug but they are both on your side of the argument.
The lickers and thugs go hand in hand and neither are on my side of the argument.
“So? What does your tag line got to do with anything?”
You obviously have never read “1984”.
Or if you have, you read it upside down if you don’t see the connection between 1984 and this thread.
Not even remotely comparable. In the case of an accident report, the police have an obligation to insure that the information contained therein is accurate, and that includes verifying the claimed identities of those who have given statements.
To settle it once and for all, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have the right to expect ID. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
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.