Posted on 11/29/2005 12:32:57 PM PST by CedarDave
Scotus recently ruled on this issue. You can be lawfully detained when you refuse to show ID when asked to do so, until such time as your Identity can be established.
This gal has no case.
They do make you register your car to "breathe" air. We're next! (Watch out for that tailpipe test, tho!)
Wrong. Only if you're suspected of a crime or plotting a crime. And only if you have a state law authorizing such.
Uh, because that's their entire purpose. They offer legal aid to people they believe are having their rights violated.
Regardless of whether you agree with them, you can see why they get involved every time.
"Doesn't she know that "Papers, please" was ruled constitutional not long ago?"
I think you need to go back and review that case. It ruled no such thing in respect to the current situtation. It ruled that cops investigating a report of a crime could ask for ID. That case does not apply here.
I thought this issue was already decided against We the People? I thought the courts ruled that the people must surrender an ID upon any government official's demand?
"And he said, 'May I see it?' " she recalled, "and I said no."
The guard told her she had to leave the bus, but she refused. Two officers with the Federal Protective Service were called. "
So ... she had the ID ... she refused to show it (because she is special and the rules do not apply to her) so she is asked to leave the bus because she does not abide by the rules. She refuses to leave. Because she refuses to leave, is removed. She should have been charged with trespassing if she refuses to leave when she is told to.
"Rusnok said the federal officers in Colorado told him the policy of checking the IDs of bus passengers and others entering the Federal Center began shortly after the April 1995 terrorist bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. "
Its reallt simple, she needs to get her own transportation if she doesnt want to follow the rules on that bus.
They do make you register your car to "breathe" air. We're next! (Watch out for that tailpipe test, tho!)
I am not sure the tailpipe test connection will be as bad as the 25 MPH run I am gonna have to do while they run the tailpipe test.
I was thinking more of the general attitude, not legalities. The legalities are that when you go on federal property you have to abide by the set rules. For example, just entering a military post allows them to search you and your possessions without conforming to the legal standards that civilian police must abide by.
UMMM so when police are doing random checks, as in New York recently, how exactly am I wrong? This was a random check that has been done for quite some time. What i said may well need more added to it but it was hardly wrong.
"Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Asking questions is an essential part of police investigation. In the ordinary sense a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."
"Monday's ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information, according to a report from The Associated Press. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities."
This gal was allowed to go on in prior contacts without showing ID because she claimed she didn't have any. She was checked again and said she DID have one but refused to show it. THIS action is reasonable suspicion to inquire further.
This case was a set up from the very get go and should be treated as such...I said it before and ill say it again, if you are asked for ID and you refuse it, you can be lawfully detained until such time as your ID can be established.
you are required to register your baby at birth with social security eh?
So if they had no reasonable suspicion to ask her for her ID in the first place, then how does a refusal constitute reasonable suspicion?
Isn't that rather circular reasoning, worthy of the KGB?
I'm no Constitutional expert, but it seems to me that if the Federal Center requires an ID check prior to entry, then the buses should either require an ID check prior to boarding the bus which enters the facility, or the bus should change it's route to bypass the facility.
Quite honestly, I think the city is a fault here.
reasonable suspicion is part of the normal checks they have been doing since ummm the murah building blew up!
Circular reasoning is at play when you want to deny police the very tool they need to do their job. Information. That is what this ruling is all about. Police have to be able to ask questions.
Look for a minute now. This gal was asked time and time again. She knows the rules. They even let her slide. She baited them. She set this up.
Do you disagree that muhammed atta should have had to give up his ID when asked?
That a refusal was cause to detain him further?
How about Tim Mcviegh? He was just driving a car after all....
Do you honestly try to make the case that you have a right not to be Identified by a police officer that just walks up to you and asks you who you are? If you would honestly make that case I would like you to tell me how they could EVER come up with any evidence that could be considered probable cause for a warrant....much less for a conviction.
You seem to seek the ultimate hamstring for law enforcment. In your world it is wrong for a law enforcment official to even ask you your name. So tell me sir, what WILL you allow them to do?
I would bet you hit the nail on the head. The bus route will not change but I could see Everyone having to show ID now. Maybe it will stay as it is, what remains is that this gal has the choice to drive a car or take a cab or use them two feet that were made for walking.
Suppose he did give it up? Suppose Tim McVeigh had done so as well? Apparently they would have just looked at it, checked to see that the picture matched his face, and sent him on his way.
How does that increase security?
Poor, sad law enforcement. Hamstrung by those pesky individual rights that our ancestors killed British soldiers over. So, so sad.
"Interesting conflict of priorities. The right to be secure in your own person vs. requirements to fight the war on terror. Constitutional experts weigh in here..."
Illegals don't have to show an ID....most times the officer doesn't want to stir up a hornets next.....so why should legal American citizens have to provide ID?
TSA pissed me off this week. Boarding at Las Vegas,I did the ritual of taking off the shoes, jacket, belt etc . Then the a$$hole on the other side of the metal detector told me to take off my sweatshirt . I thought he was kidding . I happened to have an undershirt on underneath , so I took it off. If I did not have an undershirt on , I would probably have made a scene BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE A DISRESPECT FOR IDIOTS THAT THRIVE ON AUTHORITY. This is IMHO OVERKILL on their part .
BTW the " hottie " female behind me ALSO had on a sweatshirt and was NOT told to remove it .( WISH SHE DID )
Looks like discrimination to me OR he might have been a MIAMI fan and I had on a Virginia Tech sweatshirt .
I'm beginning to get mad as hell about this crap .
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.