Posted on 01/24/2009 10:16:42 PM PST by Domandred
In 2004 Supreme court decided that you should show ID or you can be arrested.
for more info google Hiibel vs. Nevada
WOW.
You didn’t read the thread nor the Hiibel case, or the thread.
Hiibel refused to give his name as well as ID. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision because the Nevada law did NOT require ID, but only first and last name was sufficient to comply with the Nevada law.
SCOTUS had previously struck down a California law (case cited in Hiibel) that had required ID.
Oi yikes grammar. I'm tired, been painting new house all day.
In other words the police officer did NOT need my license like she said she did for the accident report. Instead as I previously mentioned in the thread she just ran my name and license through the police records system snooping around.
THIS is exactly why I refused to give my license in the first place. I don't care what anyone says, she had no business rummaging around in my records because I was not a "suspect" and by admission of the person that owned the volvo I was not driving, so was at no fault.
By handing over my license I consented to a no warrant/no probable cause search as far as I am concerned.
Cop is underpaid. Cop may be in a bad mood! It is no wonder cops refer to citizens as sheeple. Just use the holocast model. You know those soldiers were just doing their jobs. Geez, with the submissive mentality of people doesn anyone wonder why this country is in the state it is?
Now you should know very well that our freedoms are not granted by government, nor are our rights limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Founders hashed this out during the federalist-antifederalist debates.
Around here the cops get annoyed being called to a fender bender unless there are injuries or serious traffic control problems, or perhaps if a person involved is being uncooperative. But in Oregon it is the responsibility of individuals to handle the civil matters related to traffic accidents, including reporting to DMV.
A couple months ago I got rear ended while waiting in traffic at a red light, my car was smashed pretty good actually. The guy who hit me I think had never been in an accident before and asked if we shouldn't be calling the cops. I told him he could if he wanted but they might cite him and then he'd have two hits on his insurance.
As it happened a cruiser did roll by & the occupant asked if we needed anything, and the other driver was quick to decline the offer. But I digress.
It's a good idea to collect information from witnesses and if a cop is there they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't collect it from the folks present. I personally don't think it's reasonable to expect a person who is not driving on a public road to produce a driver's license on demand, and probably in most states there is no implied consent to do that. But still it's the easiest and most convenient way for the cops to get the information they're supposed to be collecting under accident reporting laws.
In an adversarial scenario I'm all for a person being fully assertive of their rights, but in a situation with zero chance of some kind of jeopardy it's often better to just be cooperative.
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.