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

Skip to comments.

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place
Newsnet5.com (Cleveland, OH) ^ | December 19, 2005

Posted on 12/23/2005 8:02:13 PM PST by sourcery

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: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: newworldorder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: Crim
You guys sound like the liberals

How can one be a liberal when they conservatively interpret the constitution.

You are the liberal.

61 posted on 12/25/2005 8:40:38 AM PST by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Buddy B

Military and civilians use the same "serial" number. It's called your social security number!


62 posted on 12/25/2005 8:51:55 AM PST by Momma Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

"Remind me: who won the Cold War again?"

The American faction of the world Soviet.


63 posted on 12/25/2005 8:57:30 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buddy B

"Civilians do not have serial numbers."

Yes we do, it's called a Social Security Number. You belong to the state citizen.


64 posted on 12/25/2005 8:58:59 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Crim
Name ,rank, serial number... If you can give to an enemy...you can give it to a local law enforcment officer...

A captured soldier is allowed to give his name, rank, and serial number to a capturing enemy.

He's also obligated to attempt to escape and/or kill the capturing enemy if the opportunity presents itself

You sure you want to extend that analogy that far?

65 posted on 12/25/2005 9:04:09 AM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dittohead68
by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

The old standard used to be the higher "probable cause"

66 posted on 12/25/2005 9:06:29 AM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Remind me: who won the Cold War again?

Why, the Soviets won the Cold War--they're alive and well and living in the Democrat party.

67 posted on 12/25/2005 9:07:18 AM PST by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sourcery; All
Related thread here.

The citations are worth examining.

68 posted on 12/25/2005 9:33:53 AM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

The bad news is that there is no limit to what Bill would allow. The good news is that Bill is no longer President.


69 posted on 12/25/2005 9:36:29 AM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Maturity has brought me the wisdom to realize what a dumb ass I really am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

Remember that the next time a child molester is running loose in YOUR neighbor hood...

Dont ask the cop to bother that man sitting in front of school staring at little kids for a couple hours....he's just waiting for the Bus that's not comming...

Bah.


70 posted on 12/25/2005 1:02:10 PM PST by Crim (I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

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.


71 posted on 12/25/2005 1:04:38 PM PST by Crim (I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Crim
Good afternoon.
"All that tells me is that you can read...but you cant seem to comprehend..."

I read and comprehend very well, thank you.

The ordinance is not about what a reasonable citizen would view as probable cause. It leaves it up to the officer to decide whether the citizen warrants a few innocent questions and in the past the courts have made it clear that a cop's instincts don't qualify as probable cause.

Your position on this is evidence that there is something to fear.

This is actually not new. In California we are required to provide our name if a LEO requests it, but the standard for defining probable cause is pretty high.

The funny thing about this thread is that my wife and I saw one of our local LEOs rousting a citizen a week ago. I know the citizen and I know the cop and the action was a just a mild case of abuse of authority. There was no arrest because there was no crime, but the citizen had to jump through a few hoops before he was sent on his way with a friendly "have a nice day." Had an arrest been made, the charges would have been dismissed but that wasn't the point so much as just showing who has the power.

This ordinance is already covered by existing law, but in our post 9/11, Patriot Act world, the fact that it is even being proposed is worrisome.

Michael Frazier
72 posted on 12/26/2005 3:13:22 PM PST by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 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