Гражданин, ваши бумаги, пожалуйста.

Forgive me here WA, but???

How can a case which bans the police from stopping people legitimately on the street from checking ID's support your position that there isn't any prohibition to such practices?

For instance:
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

That's the VERY FIRST paragraph of the opinion (in relevant part). The emphasized part seems to mirror the exact requirements of the Ohio law.

Here's the holding:
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 . The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [443 U.S. 47, 48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Click to expand...

In other words, unless the police have a basis for suspecting someone of misconduct, the 4th amendment, security, and privacy require the police to get a warrant even to check identification.

You are wrong.
 
I have read all of the protests of being uncooperative with LEOs just 'on principle', 'because it's my right to be silent if I want to'.

To that I say you may be right! Quit bellyachin' about it, get yourself a good attorney and become a test case to change the law.
OR
Contact your elected representitive, canvass your neighbors, form lobbying PACs and work within the system to change what you feel is an unjust statute.
OR
Continue to live a law-abiding life and cooperate with LEOs if you have nothing to hide and get on with your life.

Divulging Identification to LEOs isn't an imposition or an infringement. If you have nothing to hide.

Just my .02
 
Trainman-
One simple question:
What's your REAL name and location?
You need not provide us an address, DOB, SSN or explanation of where you are when you post; not even why you're posting from that location.

What's the harm? Explain in detail, should you refuse what I offer below.
Rich Lucibella
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
 
Simpler answer: YOU are not a LEO in the official performance of assigned duty. YOU are trying to make a comparison where none exists to try and make a point.
Doesn't work.
Go ahead and become a test case. - I said you might be 100% right!
We would all be grateful to you.
 
Oops, seems you stepped on your, umm, foot.

You're the one lecturing that you have nothing to hide while those who object may have something nefarious going on.

I'm the one who posted under my real name and location. You find the quid pro quo too invasive, unless I wear a uniform of the Government.

You're dismissed now. Next case? :D
Rich
 
trainman said:
Divulging Identification to LEOs isn't an imposition or an infringement.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way. But if I'm out and about, minding my own business, it most assuredly is an imposition to be stopped in whatever I may be doing, to demand my ID. Without reasonable suspicion, it becomes an infringement. That's the very definition of those two words.
If you have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
Overused; Overworked; Non-sequitur... Over and above that, why should such a concept even matter?

It's not a Bill of Needs or Wants. It's the Bill of Rights.
 
My, umm feet, are firmly on the ground.

And yes it's true, "those who object may have something nefarious going on - and may not - I said that too.

You protest quite a bit for someone being agreed with.

Yes you posted under your real name - good for you. Nobody asked you to, so your point is , umm pointless.

And by the way the latin is "Quid Pro Quo" - i.e. something for something. Not , umm 'prid'.

And sir - you will not dismiss me unless I allow you to.

I do not.
 
How can a case which bans the police from stopping people legitimately on the street from checking ID's support your position that there isn't any prohibition to such practices?
Click to expand...

isnt the Ohio statute tailored to meet constitutional requirements?...read it again

WildprimeribAlaska
 
Sometimes I get confused...it's "TrainMan", isn't it?

The point is that your logic offers an absurd result, TrainMan.

You insist on anonymity in a claim that it is non-invasive to provide your personals to those with a "need to know". By your own definition, you "may" have something to hide; I don't; nor do I have any felt need to prove that fact to any agent of the government in my daily routine. See the difference in our positions? I think I should be free to go about my business; you don't. Of course, you don't deny me that "right" under your name, but under the respectability of anonymous internet handle.

While I can't dismiss you from this debate, you seem to be doing a fair job of it on your own. :)

Rich
 
Color of authority is an interesting concept

When typing on a forum, and you see the staff and admin line up, I always start to wonder where and when the line will be drawn. I see it coming on this thread big time.

One has a difference of opinion and is not quite in step with the forum moderators or admin and the next thing you know insults and deletion occur.

Been there done that. It starts out with a difference of opinion (like I said) then it is you are wrong and we are right then the slight slurs, and next thing you know up comes the, this is my board and I see some deletions coming up.

Why, Why go there? Funny really. Read it like a book.

Regards, Harley
 
WA, please tell me how any LEO can have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "about to commit a crime"?

Telepathy maybe?

Or is too remote a possibility that some LEO may just "manufacture" a reason to stop people and ask for ID.

Afterall, tyme posted that he's regularly stopped while jogging so the cops can ask for his ID. I guess jogging after dark is sooooo suspicious; I mean it's not like a lot of people do it so whenever the cops see someone engaged in that activity it rings their alarm bells.

I can see it now..."Really your honor, I saw this guy sitting on the bus bench by himself and I thought he was gonna rob the bank. I mean he was looking right across the street at it. Maybe he was casing the place".

Or even...

"Yes your honor, I followed him into the hardware store where he bought 2 cans of spray paint and paid with cash. I thought he might be one of them graffiti bandits so I stopped him to check his ID."
 
You insist on anonymity in a claim that it is non-invasive to provide your personals to those with a "need to know".
Click to expand...

I am not insisting on anonymity - I choose to utilize my 'forum-authorized' handle - you don't - Hooray! for you and your exersize of free will.

Yes if a LEO asks for my ID I will relay it to them.
They may (or may not) have a legally defensible reason for the request. Either way I will not be defiant and demand they produce a satisfactory probable cause for the request prior to my compliance because I disagree with, as you put it: "their need to know". This is MY choice - You may not share the same feeling. I say GO FOR IT! See your position all the way through and stop whining about it!

By your own definition, you "may" have something to hide; I don't; nor do I have any felt need to prove that fact to any agent of the government in my daily routine.
Click to expand...

Me - or you: something to hide? perhaps, or not. If you don't wish to do ANYTHING when requested by anyone, agent of anything, it is certainly your choice to do as you please. No one can deny you of free will. That is an 'inalienable' right.

See the difference in our positions? I think I should be free to go about my business; you don't.
Click to expand...

I certainly feel you should be free to go about your business. So that makes our positions identical. I just don't agree that it is always prudent to fight a battle that I will likely lose "just because" - you disagree with that - so go for it and be an inovator, be a test case!

Of course, you don't deny me that "right" under your name, but under the respectability of anonymous internet handle.
Click to expand...

Ummm, What???
 
Last edited:
WA, please tell me how any LEO can have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "about to commit a crime"?
Click to expand...

before I chime in Ill let the LE guys handle that

Or is too remote a possibility that some LEO may just "manufacture" a reason to stop people and ask for ID.
Click to expand...

Read my earlier post about that sort of behavior.

WildkingkongAlaska
 
WA, please tell me how any LEO can have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "about to commit a crime"?
Click to expand...

Heh, ok I know I am not WA and I know that I am not LEO but I have to address this...

The guys that are about to commit a crime are usually wearing the black "bandit style" facemask or a black stocking cap with eyes cut out of it, a black and white horizontally striped shirt, black pants, and black shoes. They usually have a bag of stuff over there shoulder and are creeping along the street on tip-toes.

Ooh, yeah they also always have on black gloves and dirty unshaven faces. They also smoke cigars sometimes...
 
Harley-
You've been around four months; I've been here 7 years. My history (and Staff's) is pretty much a matter of record. When we agree on civil liberties issues it is never by design nor back room caucus; it is always by happenstance, except to the extent that we've always chosen Staff from the most articulate, even handed and Liberty-oriented of Members.

So to predict that this thread will result in personal attacks initiated by Staff, followed by censure of the discussion, I have one question: Source, please?
Rich
 
Trainman, Anipitas, Rich Lucibella

This thread, three persons one man out. Slight slur, my input. Change of direction.
Other Forums. Observations and closing of threads, based on group gang up.

Just threw my nickel into the circle.
****
Ace of spades,

Since the face of the earth has a certain number of people on it I thought I would bring up an article with some information from other countries making an observation on the plight of the American inner cities and why we as a nation are suffering.

Did you even read it? Write it off as White Supremaist if you want, BBC is a fairly good source of information. Among the races on the face of this earth the white race is the minority.

There are very few major inner cities in the USA that have a majority of white living in them. I find it interesting that the newspapers in America have gone so far as to fail to mention the race when crimes occur and the perp is observed.
Yet everytime you fill out a Government form they will ask your race.

It happens everyday and in every city across the USA.
Why don't they publish it, because the percentage of crime in cities is a gimmie, since 'Tookie' and his Gang Bangers have such a hold on these cities.
Along with other gangs of any color.

That story along with the amount of illegals in the US might be one of the reasons they are clamping down and want to know who is out and about.
Just a thought.

Like I said, I just threw that in the pot, maybe you can find something else you would rather have in this discussion.

Harley
 
+1 - to what Harley stated about the mods and administrators lining up on certain thread lines - there are lines that the powers to be won't cross.

It's not common - but it has happened - private site - rules are made buy those who run & rule this site.

Life goes on.

12-34hom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top