Replies

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