Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place (Ohio "Patriot" Act
NewsNet5 ^ | December 20, 2005 | Newsnet 5 (Cleveland)

Posted on 12/20/2005 3:15:35 AM PST by E Rocc

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place

Citizens Would Also Have To Show ID

UPDATED: 7:22 pm EST December 19, 2005

CLEVELAND -- A bill on Gov. Bob Taft's desk right now is drawing a lot of criticism, NewsChannel5 reported.

One state representative said it resembles Gestapo-style tactics of government, and there could be changes coming on the streets of Ohio's small towns and big cities.

The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to the Taft's desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.

WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID.

"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.

There are many others who oppose the bill as well.

"The variety of people who opposed to this is not just a group of the usual suspects. We have people far right to the left opposing the bill who think it is a bad idea," said Al McGinty, NewsChannel5’s terrorism expert.

McGinty said he isn't sure the law would do what it's intended to do.

"I think anything we do to enhance security and give power to protect the public to police officers is a good idea," he said. "It is a good law in the wrong direction."

Gov. Bob Taft will make the ultimate decision on whether to sign the bill.

WEWS was told that Taft is expected to sign the bill into law, but legal experts expect that it will be challenged in courts.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Ohio; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: arrests; id; ohio; papersplease; policestate; totalitarian; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: oblomov
No, there was not due process. An unelected body (New London Development Commission) decided to take her property by eminent domain. This was not conducted in a court of law with strict procedures for finding evidence, but by a process of administrative hearings.

Evidence was not at issue in this case. There was no dispute of facts, nor any question about guilt or innocence. The only issue was one of law. The fact that she still owned her property as the case wound its way up to the Supreme Court is the very definition of due process.

21 posted on 12/20/2005 5:28:36 AM PST by Maceman (Fake but accurate -- and now double-sourced)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

The "law" is that you must always have a picture ID on you at all times, whether it is a driver's license or state ID card. Now this is barely enforcable unless you get detained by officers. The truth is that if your license is suspended, and you aquire a state ID card so as to comply with the "have ID at all times" law, then you must re-test to reaquire your driver's license once the suspension ends. Obviously very few people will take the state ID route, but rather they wait it out and get their license reinstated. You can not hold each ID as valid concurrently. This is my personal experience.


22 posted on 12/20/2005 5:37:11 AM PST by FilthyHands (Live so that you may live forever. (viva ut vivas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

These are considered to be acceptable primary id in Ohio, and you must have one of them on you at all times.

Driver License - (Any State) with photograph, current or expired not more than 6 months.

U.S. Birth Certificate - Must be original or certified copy, have a seal and be issued by an appropriate government agency. (U.S. territories are included, i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands)

State Issued Identification Card - (Any State) with photograph, current or expired not more than six (6) months.

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) Documents - Must be original and valid.

Certified Copy of Court Order - Must contain full name and date of birth. Examples include: Adoption document, name change document. (Cannot be related to any Bureau of Motor vehicles issues).

Birth Registration Card - Must be an original containing the official seal of the issuing county health department and display the registration or file number; include name, date of birth, gender, and name of parent(s). Must also be signed by the City Registrar of Vital Statistics.

U.S. Valid Military Identification with photograph

Valid U.S. Passport

State Issued Learners Permit - (Any State) with photograph, current or expired not more than six (6) months.


23 posted on 12/20/2005 5:52:08 AM PST by FilthyHands (Live so that you may live forever. (viva ut vivas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

You apparently are not required to supply ID, just state your name and address.


24 posted on 12/20/2005 5:52:44 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

OK, I see your point.


25 posted on 12/20/2005 7:24:10 AM PST by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FilthyHands

"The "law" is that you must always have a picture ID on you at all times, "

Would you give us a reference to this law please?


26 posted on 12/20/2005 7:59:08 AM PST by B4Ranch (No expiration date is on the Oath to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

Allowing people to be arrested for "no reason" is not correct. Here is the relevant section and link to the bill ( http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_9 ).


Sec. 2921.29. (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.


27 posted on 12/20/2005 8:37:15 AM PST by Dr. Free Market (Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky

metesky wrote:

"AFAIK, most states already have laws requiring you to identify yourself to the police when asked."

-- Do cops have to provide me with an pic &id also? I want them to provide ID and pic before they break down my door.


28 posted on 12/20/2005 8:37:57 AM PST by 1FASTGLOCK45 (FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc; freepatriot32

Just as I suspected, the freedom-hating totalitarians are out on FR today.
Ping, you're not gonna like this one.


29 posted on 12/20/2005 9:10:34 AM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1FASTGLOCK45

You know darn well that when they come to break down your door, it's not real police that come, it's them secret ninja cops.


30 posted on 12/20/2005 9:24:26 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

As long as it pisses off the ACLU, it is OK by me.


31 posted on 12/20/2005 9:27:20 AM PST by verity (The MSM is a National disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FilthyHands
That seems like an odd law. The birth certificate, for example, is not going to have a picture.

It wouldn't be current anyway. >:)

-Eric

32 posted on 12/20/2005 10:55:50 AM PST by E Rocc (Bah Humbug.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

It was all I could find as far as "acceptable" primary ID in Ohio. It's from the BMV site. I do believe that the standards that the police work by are more strict.


33 posted on 12/20/2005 12:42:02 PM PST by FilthyHands (Live so that you may live forever. (viva ut vivas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Check out the number of small less intrusive government freedom loving FReepers that support this law.Its absolutly disgusting. Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
34 posted on 12/20/2005 1:26:18 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
Not even the second sentence, and the Nazi reference comes out.

And for good reason.

35 posted on 12/20/2005 2:08:21 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

After reading this, it doesn't seem to be as bad as I originally suspected. From what I understand, the USSC had already ruled that a person must give law enforcement officers their name if they were suspected of a crime or a witness. The birthdate seems to be new.

The one problem I have is if circular logic is used to where a person that does not give their name could be considered as committing a criminal offense and therefore meeting the criteria of demanding their name. I hope that makes sense.

To be more clear, imagine the following situation. A LEO approaches a person and asks for ID. The person then refuses and says that they don't have to since they have committed no crime. The LEO then says, you are committing a crime right now by not giving your name when requested and that gives me the power to request your name.

I know it's circular logic, but it was used a few weeks ago on a bus incident where the charges where eventually dropped.

36 posted on 12/20/2005 2:20:25 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
The day will come when FReepers will be considered "terrorists".

Yep, around 2008 sounds about right! Blackbird.

37 posted on 12/20/2005 5:23:41 PM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

They just read in the article that the ACLU is opposed so they think they have to be for it.


38 posted on 12/20/2005 7:50:48 PM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Corporate Law

ping


39 posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:22 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

Yeah I know.


40 posted on 12/20/2005 8:10:18 PM PST by Paul_Denton (The U.S. should adopt the policy of Oom Shmoom: Israeli policy where no one gives a sh*t about U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson