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.
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?
Apples & oranges. It's the difference between searching someone's personal belongings & demanding an ID. There's already (terrible) Supreme Court precedent that basically says people on public transportation & busses have less Fourth Amendment protection for searches.
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.
Well, you may ultimately be proven right in this case. However, you said Hiibel gave them the authority to do it. It does not.
Hiibel was if a) there's a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and b) there's a state law authorizing such. I don't know about "b" in Colorado but "a" does not apply here.