Posted on 09/07/2001 5:01:29 PM PDT by pa_dweller
Last year's Fat Tuesday riot on South Street showed the area's ruffians have learned you can get drunk, break windows and trash property in Philadelphia as long as you don't bring an ID. Dozens of rioters nabbed on summary charges in last February's melee apparently walked free after giving phony names to police.
State Rep. Alan Butkovitz, D-Philadelphia, has a solution: Permit cops to hold summary offenders until their identification is confirmed. But that idea was challenged in a legislative hearing yesterday as an attack on civil liberties.
"I begin to wonder whether we really did defeat our totalitarian enemies in the 20th century," Larry Frankel, director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union, told a state House subcommittee in City Hall. "Essentially, this legislation is calling on all of us to carry identification papers."
Butkovitz's bill would permit police to detain anyone suspected of a serious summary offense, such as public drunkenness or disorderly conduct until the police get "reasonable verification or confirmation of the offender's identity."
The provision would not apply to traffic offenses.
The bill was spurred by Daily News revelations of revelers who gave phony names, and of the case of Jaclyn Reed, who found she'd been convicted of public drinking on Fat Tuesday even though she'd been at work at the time. It turned out someone who was arrested on South Street had given police Reed's name instead of her own.
District Attorney Lynne Abraham testified in favor of the bill yesterday, accusing its detractors of claiming a "constitutional right to be anonymous."
"No one has an inherent legal right to commit a crime and then to lie about or conceal their identity," Abraham said.
The ACLU's Frankel said police should charge people who commit serious offenses of public disorder, such as smashing windows or assault, with arrestable crimes, instead of relying on blanket summary offenses like public drinking.
Imposing a potentially lengthy stay in a police station for minor infractions doesn't make sense, he said.
"At some point you have to decide this is a summary offense," Frankel said. "If it's a minor offense, how much resources are we going to expend, and how much freedom are we going to sacrifice on crimes we've already decided are the least serious on the books?"
Police Lt. Harry Giordano said that a certain number of summary offenders were wanted on more serious crimes, and the bill would make it easier to apprehend them.
He cited the recent case of a man who was released on a summary offense in Harrisburg after giving a phony name and who then shot a police officer in nearby Cumberland County.
Butkovitz said that if lawmakers did not give the police the tools they need, no one should be surprised when laws aren't enforced.
"I don't think there's any serious Big Brother problem in this," Butkovitz said. "We might as well go one way or the other. Either you don't have these laws, or if you do, you have a reasonable way of enforcing them."
Butkovitz said he expected passage in the state House by the end of the year, and hopes for Senate action next spring. *
Why does this person not have an ID? It has been my expirence, that about 90% of those people with out ID, are hidding something.
As for arresting someone for lack of ID, I don't think so, but maybe hold them for a short period of time to try and identify them.
Of course your alarms go off. It's the status quo perpetrated on citizens by Big Brother.
Why does this person not have an ID? It has been my expirence, that about 90% of those people with out ID, are hidding something.
I note that you said hiding something. Competence seems to require that you be suspicious of a person hiding an illegal thing, not just something.
This says it all.
It has been my experience that about 95% of the soldiers in our local, state, and federal standing armies have the same mentality as MI.
I'm sorry I was not more clear in my statement. If someone is hiding something from a police officer, there is a very good chance that it involves an illegal someting.
You sound like an armchair lawyer.
No we didn't, Larry. The fact that your tax exempt law firm still exists is proof of that.
Being drunk is NOT a serious offense!!! It is not even an offense!!! This mentality makes me sick.
Maybe Maybe Maybe ! Maybe doesn't hold legal water! Gotta do better than that.
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.