Next stop: Big Brother (???)

papersplease.org ^ | unk | Deborah Davis (presumably)

[Past Your Eyes]

This is not from a periodical but from this woman's website.

[ChefKeith]

Well this should prove interesting.

4th Amendment.

No probable cause.

Harrassment.

[Sonny M]

Though not enforced, NYC does have one of these laws on the books.

Its an "anti-vagrancy" law.

It is expected to actually become more widespread as a possible law enforcement tool against illegal immigration nationwide.

[mountainlyons]

BOYCOT DENVER

[birbear]

Okay... I'll be the first to say it....

What is this woman hiding? She's obviously hiding something if she felt uncomfortable showing her ID. I think she should be hauled in because now she's acting suspicious.

Oh, and in case I need it...

/sarc

[no-to-illegals]

Most states have laws on the books that an ID must
be presented if an officer of the law requests an
ID from that individual. Failure to do so, carries
a penalty. No state, of which I am aware, allows its
citizens to not present an ID if one is requested
by a law enforcement official.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[no-to-illegals]

Again someone please correct me, if I am incorrect.

And I believe Most state have laws should be changed
to All states have laws.

But again someone please correct me, if I am incorrect.

[Laz711]

There is a big, big, BIG difference between an officer of the law and a security guard, that is where this is wrong. It says that it was a security guard, which means a private security guard on public transportation. He has no jurisdiction on that bus, and in fact, not many places at all, much less enough to demand an ID from people.

[no-to-illegals]

ah, but some states recognize security personnel
as officers of the law. Colorado may be such a
state...... though I don't know.....

What raised my suspicion was the link to the web
site.

[Emile]

Appalling. This is how they control their subjects in totalitarian states. Is this where we're going?

[KevinDavis]

There has to be more to this story...

[darkangel82]

We're already gone.

[Past Your Eyes]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. This is HER website so it's her side of the story. She's obviously trying to make a statement and an example of herself. And notice that ACLU logo on the left hand side.

[KevinDavis]

I saw that.. I want to see both sides of the story before I make a rash judgement...

[ThreePuttinDude]

What I noticed when I went to the link, was the picture of her holding
the picture of her military son. She has that Cindy al Shehani look to her.

I might be wrong, but something doesn't smell right about this whole deal.

[ThreePuttinDude]

.....ACLU logo on the left hand side.

You have to remember that the ACLU also backed Rush in the doctor shopping deal.
They're not to be trusted, I know I don't have to mention that here...

[ol' hoghead]

check out Brown v. Texas for ID on demand. Absent reasonable suspicion, local cops can't demand id. Don't know about fed rent-a-cops.

[middie]

Antivagrancy laws have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case from the late 60s or early 70s, a case arising from Jacksonville, Fla. They are incapable of defining the criminal act: ''wandering aimlessly from place to place without any visable means of support,'' or, 'asking passers-by for money,'' and so on.

[cope85]

This is not America.