Posted on 04/20/2009 7:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater
Any 'peace officer' can demand i.d. any time, doesn't say exactly who qualifies as a 'peace officer.'
Papers please!!
The Texas Senate has approved a bizarre measure which would require citizens to show some sort of identification to any police officer who demands it, at any time, for any reason, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Currently, it is illegal for a person to give a false name to police, but there is no law rewiring a person to provide i.d. at an officer's whim. And State Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) doesn't like the sound of this bill.
"We still live in a free society," he said. "I don't want police officers to be able to pull you over and ask that you identify yourself."
The bill would also require individuals to provide their date of birth and 'residence address' to police.
Supporters of the bill, like State Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) says there are safeguards.
"A police officer would not have the discretion just to come over and ask for i.d. on just anybody," he said.
Hinojosa said the officer would have to have a 'good reason' to demand identification.
The bill is sponsored by State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston), who is a strong supporter of individual rights.
"It is illegal for them to falsely identify themselves, but it is not illegal for them not to tell you who they are," Patrick said. "In this era of national security issues, if we have a police officer detaining someone at a high profile target, it is in the best interests of the safety of that officer and this community to be able to quickly determine who that person is."
Other lawmakers say if a person is bent on committing a crime, the individual is not likely to be deterred by the possibility of a misdemeanor charge of failure to identify.
Patrick’s' bill does not specify exactly who a 'peace officer' who is authorized to demand papers is. It doesn't say whether it would be limited to TCLOSE certified police officers, or would apply to constables, security guards, or neighborhood watch members. It also doesn't specify what passes for 'i.d' and wither it would have to be a photo i.d.
The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.
I imagine that’s exactly the direction it’s coming from. I don’t have a problem with it, as I understand how Texas works.
Are criminal illegal aliens exempted?
Any ‘peace officer’ can demand i.d. any time now and for the last 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regardless of the The One's diversion, this smacks of Nazism. There people need to learn the damn rules. What part of FREEDOM are they not understanding?
Wrong! And yes they can in TX!
>On point of contact with law enforcement, you don’t have to say squat.
That depends on where you are in this country.
It isn’t a Federal issue, but one left to the States, and it varies.
>You sure that’s where you want to take this Country?
This Country should already be there - the point where Achmed and Pedro, both illegal, criminal, or perfectly lawful, do have to identify themselves on request to LEO.
I see no problem at all with a reasonable request to identify yourself.
After all, if you have nothing to hide...
sorry, that argument has never worked. In fact, recent cases prove that "not having anything to hide" still doesn't mean they won't find something to charge you with anyway.
No thanks.
>>’good reason’
LOL!
LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave, RIP.
LOL! Then they are going to charge you irrespective of any facts, and you also then continue this argument is spite of any logic to the contrary that can be reasonably be made here?!!
Great circular logic.
Hey, no thanks!
Does that sum up your idiotic position?
I am befuddled that one must show ID while simply walking down the street but the same is not required prior to casting a vote....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Yep, and if you have neither on you at the time they ask for them, you have just incriminated yourself. Even if you actually possess them, but you left you wallet in your other pants/purse.
Not quite what the Founders had in mind for their Republic.
>>”We still live in a free society,” he said. “I don’t want police officers to be able to pull you over and ask that you identify yourself.<<
Not a good example - if you are driving you should have an ID anyway and the cops should have a reason for pulling you over.
I agree.
What about the passenger? Is he required to show id?
True. There is also a legion that are okay with checkpoints, breathalyzers and a host of other infringements.
We can't have 'degrees' of freedom. We're either free, or we're not.
Look, the guy may be a sterling Republican and an upstanding guy but he's barking up the wrong tree with this legislation.
-----
Notice the bill says that a person must give name, address, birth date if that person is either arrested or lawfully detained.
One's name, address and other info is evidence that can be used against you. The Constitution PROHIBITS one being coerced into give anything to the government.
-----
It requires that in order to temporarily detain a person the officer have reasonable suspicion that the person has or is about to commit a crime.
There's a legal term called presumption of guilt before establishment of legal fact.
The law can only arrest you if you HAVE done something.
Allowing them arrest you for what they perceive you MIGHT do makes criminals of us all.
I thought better of TX.
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.