[JRandomFreeper]

a citizen call alledging a crime took place, something you're very carefully dancing around. In the course of the investigation, they asked for identification.

I'm not dancing around it. I'm saying it doesn't apply to requiring identification. They can ask all they want. There is no requirement to cooperate under the 5th amendment. Just don't lie.

And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.

/johnny

[marktwain]

“And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.”

---

Exactly. They have a legal duty to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest. They should have talked to the complainant first, it they were available.

If the person that complained was not available, then they have to start from ground zero.

[kingu]

And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.

Jack-booted thugs... It was a criminal investigation, it has always been common practice to identify those the police speak with, and failure to produce identification is cause for detention until identification is established. Personal identification has never successfully been argued as a protected right under the 5th, and I believe it goes completely against the intentions of the 5th to even lay that claim. Is there a case where this has been established?