Posted on 04/20/2009 7:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater
Nope, not anymore. SCOTUS weighed in with Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself.
What planet do you live on??? Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, you are forced to give evidence against yourself via the Breathalyzer, refuse and you lose your license for 1 year in most states. That is but one example, another, a growing movement across the US to require DNA from people who are merely arrested, not convicted, just arrested. And there are legion here on FR that are just fine with this.
By your reasoning Reagan was a RINO because he signed amnesty.
I don’t think I have ever heard Reagan called a RINO.
i figure it won’t be long before we having crossing guards going from state to state so they can better control the masses.....
You missed one that has been used on me - “We are looking for someone who looks like you / drives this kind of vehicle...”
The description in this article of the purpose and effect of the amendment to the Failure to ID law in the bill proposed by Senator Patrick is a lie.
Currently, a person must identify himself if he is arrested. The new law would add that a person must identify himself [i.e., give name and date of birth] if he is stopped for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [referred to as a “Terry Stop.”] A person does not have to carry ID.
The left wing is opposed to this because they do not want to give officers added ability to do criminal checks and find illegal aliens.
What if the LEO thinks the person is an illegal alien, Juan?
Would THAT be okay with you?
I was stopped for 71 in 70 zone and 22 in 20, just to see what was in my SUV.
“I’m against the bill. Smacks of big brother. And I’m irritated that a (R) is sponsoring it.”
Please see my prior post. This article is nonsense.
From the article:
“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.”
Rubbish. Security Guards? Neighborhood watch? Only peace officers can temporarily detain a person for reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.
Also from the article:
“The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.”
Nonsense. Random detentions are not legal. The bill does not even apply to that.
Oh fantastic another reason for a 20 year old hall monitor in a swat vest to pull you over in the middle of no where and impress his girlfriend as he acts like an ass.
That is just silly trying to be wordsmith. It’s Barry Davis.
ping
And yet there is rampant identity theft among our illegal immigrant population.
How about we put some focus on who should have ID?
“Cause robbers are young handsome businessmen in suits and tie, driving a brand new Land Rover in broad daylight? Here is my license.”
We were still laughing.
He looked at us in disbelief and All of the sudden said we don't exactly match the description and walked back to his car.
We must have stayed on the side of the road another 5 minutes laughing and making fun of each other.
Another time I was pulled for “Surging”. The office said I was surging and that is why he pulled me over.
I said you are kidding right. It is extremely foggy out here and I was nowhere near the speed limit, on a city street and could barely see at times. How is it you could see me doing all this in this fog. I mean I am trying make sure I don't hit anyone in front of me I can't see.
All of the sudden, he had a more pressing call.
I have been pulled several times and even 5 minutes after buying a new car. The office actually wanted to know why I would be buying a new car at 12midnight. I said not that it is any of your business but the headlight in other car went out just as I was passing the dealership. I pulled in, told them they had 2 hours to sell me a car and here I am.
See the cops will pull you over just because. Why should you be forced to give them any information?
they are charged with investigating crimes and prevention, not inventing things as they go along.
Gestapo tactics by the left once again. For people who scream “Fascist!” all the time they sure do love heavy handed governments.
Let’s not forget that Nazi is “National Socialism” and Democrats and liberals are just that, and here they are presenting Gestapo tactics (”Your papers, please!”) to be used against us. This is nothing short of another declaration of war against this country and our freedoms and liberties by yet again the Democrats and liberals.
Arm up...they are!
Dan Patrick is the most conservative member of the Texas Senate.
This article is a hit peace, full of either incompetence or intentional lies, from the very first sentence.
For example: “Any ‘peace officer’ can demand i.d. any time, doesn’t say exactly who qualifies as a ‘peace officer.’”
What an idiot. How can someone so ill informed write about a criminal law bill. Peace officer is what the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure uses to define law enforcement officers.
Here is a link to the actual bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB01175E.htm
Notice the bill says that a person must give name, address, birth date if that person is either arrested or lawfully detained.
Lawfully detained is a legal term and referred to as a Terry stop. 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.
—
QUOTE:
July 20, 2008
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled “The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s Plan For America,” Obama’s “Service” section runs a close second to “Education” in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs’ statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service “will be a central cause of my presidency.” He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
(cut and end QUOTE)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
Call into Dan Patrick’s radio show and talk to him about it.
4:00 - 6:00 PM CST when he isn’t in session.
Statboy confirms:
"The description in this article of the purpose and effect of the amendment to the Failure to ID law in the bill proposed by Senator Patrick is a lie. Currently, a person must identify himself if he is arrested. The new law would add that a person must identify himself [i.e., give name and date of birth] if he is stopped for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [referred to as a “Terry Stop.”] A person does not have to carry ID. The left wing is opposed to this because they do not want to give officers added ability to do criminal checks and find illegal aliens."
Premise bad = faulty conclusion. Dan Patrick is still a great guy.
I guess if a person is stopped for prowling in your backyard, you dont want to know if its a drunk nieghbor who lost his way or a potential burglar?
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.