Posted on 01/24/2009 10:16:42 PM PST by Domandred
Buying a new house and today while we were over at the new place painting my wife backed our minivan into the next door neighbor's volvo. Great way to meet the new neighbors right?...ouch.
Anyways I was in the passenger seat watching right (wife pulled out left so I never saw the car).
When the police showed up the officer asked me for my driver's license.
I said "Sorry officer, I was a passenger, not driving, you don't need to see my driver's license." Yea she didn't like that.
The officer said "the DMV requires us to enter the driver's licenses of everyone in the vehicle that is involved in a traffic accident. I'll need to see it."
Being that the neighbors (including the guy across the street that wasn't involved at all) were all standing around now watching I decided to not press the issue as our neighbor approval rating is already sub-congress. I handed over my drivers license (reluctantly) and said "you really don't need to see my driver's license, but here it is anyways".
She tried to speak up some more and I said "it's fine you have it already it's done". Yea she didn't talk to me again.
I used to carry an ID on me (not driver's license) for times that I wasn't driving or planing on driving...like when I was planning on drinking, but don't have it anymore.
Now I know without a doubt that since I was not driving I had no legal obligation to produce a driver's license. The question is did I have to legally produce any ID or would name and such have been sufficient?
I seem to remember a supreme court case about this a few years ago.
Sorry but the supreme courts has ruled. Brown v Texas held that officer could not compel ID because they lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. We have one constitution for all so the state laws are irrelevant.
It was the ‘her’ part I messed up on. I thought you were being a jerk to your wife as well as the cop. Now it is just the cop.
Look, the tazer part was hyperbole, something far above the reasoning for most of the Freepers on this thread. It should have been obvious when talking about making a report about a fender bender. What wasn't hyperbole was this was a minor incident involving you and your wife in a traffic accident where your wife damaged another car.
The cop wants all info from all occupants and ID from the adults for the report. This way if it turns out later you or your wife lied about who was driving, she had verified the occupants. As far as I know this is standard. It was when a girl totaled my wife's car when pulling out of a rural driveway onto a country highway.
Instead, you wanted to pull out your pocked Constitution and find out where it said you had to provide ID when involved in an accident. Get a grip. It isn't in there anymore than the laws about registration, insurance, traffic laws, etc.
Did your wife get a ticket? Is that what you are truly mad about? Or that the cop didn't treat you with the proper deference you thought you were due?
The end analysis of your original post was that you were out of line in the manners department, unreasonable under the circumstances, and at best should have understood that the cop was there to investigate an accident she was called to and was trying to do her job. You needed a case number for your insurance. The people whose car your wife damaged needed a case number. So grow up and stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.
This has been an ugly thread. Too many Freepers have come out of the woodpile to show their true colors. And they are the colors of those that do not respect laws or the people who enforce them. Like the Catholic hating threads, the NeoConfederate threads, and the ‘jack booted thug’ threads, the ignorance and hatred has been eye opening.
Good. Then there is no problem.
The man needs the report for his insurance. The man provides the info. See? No problem.
The big picture is that it is a minor fender bender, not the Versailles Treaty.
I not only have read those two books I own them. I have a lot of other books too. I read them too. You have no point.
We are a nation of laws. If you have something that says that the occupants of a motor vehicle are not required to identify themselves when involved with the accident, please supply the citation. That would be cool in a Constitutional Republic.
All you have is opinion. My opinion is that the guy was out of line. Your opinion that filling out a minor accident report is the death of the Republic.
Doesn’t seem rational, does it?
You said — “yeah, that’s much easier than simply carrying an ID.”
I’m glad you see it that way. It’s certainly easier to replace a piece of paper, and simply write another one quickly, than it is to go through the process of getting a lost ID replaced (what a hassle that is). So, I would rather lose the piece of paper than the ID.
AND, where no state-issued ID is required (to be carried on the person) it’s absolutely not necessary and anything that is needed can easily be done on a piece of paper (like medical info, which might be more important and contact numbers, which might be useful).
BUT, OF COURSE..., the “issue” was never what is easier to do or how much difficulty one has to replace a state-issued ID — but rather — to “make” one show an ID — where *none* is required to be shown.
That’s the issue...
By the way, how about this video from a law professor, and a police investigator, in a law seminar in which they both agree to the problems of “talking to the police” and in which it is said to —
“never talk to the police under any circumstances”....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en
—
Would you agree with that (in terms of what the law professor was saying...)?
[very interesting viewing for all concerned...]
Funny, buy all I see is a statist boot licker pretending to be a conservative.
Here’s an interesting video for protecting one’s rights under the Constitution...
BUSTED: The Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&NR
And a website associated with this ...
http://www.flexyourrights.com/
I think this information should be known and exercised by all citizens. It’s a “use if or lose it” type of thing..., I would say...
You asked the State for that ID. They can ask you for it whenever they want.
Consider yourself lucky.
Of course, if the police officer said so, it MUST be true.
Thank you for proving my point.
You are not even making sense any more.
If you read the two books I listed, and you still come away with the opinion you seem to have, well then I can’t help you.
Occupants of the vehicle are supposed to identify themselves. But it is not mandatory for anyone besides the driver to provide a drivers license.
You know that. You are just grasping at straws to help your argument.
Let it go. You are wrong on this issue.
Here are your other straw points. Guy is out of line. How? by not wanting to do something he is well within his rights not to do? Sounds like good decision making to me.
The police could fill out all the reports they want to. It just won’t be with info an American Citizen doesn’t legally have to give them.
That is a fact. A is A.
Tell the truth....you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, have you.
can’t watch the video at work. but i assume that statement about not talking to police concerns criminal investigations. this thread is about a car accident. big difference. but, i havent seen the video.
Once again, I feel like I am talking to children.
This isn’t a traffic stop. You would have a valid point there. This is an accident. All occupants are involved.
If you can’t start there, there is no help for you.
Straw points? Do you even know what they mean? Or do you just not know how to use the term?
Don’t call the cops to begin with if you don’t want them to do their job. He should have told the neighbor he would pay for the damage and for the neighbor to get three estimates. Then, no officer need show up. But, when you want to put it through insurance then they want a report. So, give the information, get the case number, and drive on. For everyone else, grow up.
You said — “can’t watch the video at work. but i assume that statement about not talking to police concerns criminal investigations. this thread is about a car accident. big difference. but, i havent seen the video.”
Okay, whenever you can. It will be there for a long while, I’m sure. It is very informative. But, no..., not for criminal investigations — but — under *any* circumstances (of course, short of things like talking enough to hand an officer a driver’s license, while behind the wheel of a car...).
So, no..., just not for *only* criminal investigations.
But, take your time and look at it sometime in the future...
Good luck, my friend!!!
I have no problem with that...never have. I have had minimal contact with the police over the years. I can say that in the overwhelming majority of those times, I got attitude FROM the police.
It seems some folks here can't differentiate between "law and order" and "law enforcement."
“Once again, I feel like I am talking to children.”
________________________________________________
The problem is, even a child could understand that you are dead wrong on this issue.
I think you kinda know it too. You have just dug yourself too deep into that hole, and you just don’t want to admit you are wrong.
You aren’t even arguing points anymore, just jumping on your high horse telling everyone what you believe is right.
This question has one answer:
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE AND OPTIONAL COMPLIANCE
(there is a difference)
The correct answer is simple
We (American Citizens) have a right to privacy and a right to be presumed innocent until and/or unless proven guilty.
This means we do not have to provide an ID to an officer in the circumstances explained in the original post. In this scenario, only the driver of the vehicle is required to provide the ID.
It doesn’t matter how many times you tell us, “you should provide it”. You and your opinion of what we should do, don’t matter. Thank God!
The law says we do not have to.
I wish I was talking to children. Most of them would understand this.
Please understand the definitions of these words and phrases:
should do it
could do it
must do it
If you understand the difference of the above phrases, you will come to the correct answer.
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.