Ohio's Patriot Act

S

steve154

New member
New Ohio Law Allows Cops to Request ID
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft on Wednesday signed a bill into law passed by the state legislature with barely a word of dissent. Supporters of the state's security measure, which takes effect in 90 days, say it's a tool the state can use in fighting terrorism.

But dissent is building over authority given to police officers, who can now ask, "What's your name?" as a tool to fight terrorism. Failure to identify oneself could land an individual in jail.

"Like everyone else, after Sept. 11, I became a lot more concerned about our safety and security," state Sen. Jeff Jacobson said.

Critics call the measure the Ohio Patriot Act. The law also requires those applying for state driver's licenses to sign a form that they haven't supported terrorist organizations.

"We felt very strongly that we needed to have laws in Ohio to out our state on the frontline of fighting terrorism," Jacobson said.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure because of the new powers it gives to police.

"[It] takes us back to the days of Sen. McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities with demands that people confess their sins," said Jeffrey Gamso, a spokesman for the ACLU.

But supporters such as police agencies say the new law will be useful without abusing civil rights.

"I think there's enough checks and balances and enough guidelines have been set up by the courts that we will follow," said Michael Weinman, legal liaison for the Columbus, Ohio, police department.

The final version of the bill passed the state Senate with only two 'no' votes.

"People are very afraid to vote against any bill of this nature," said Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University. "They have to stand for re-election and no one wants to be perceived as soft on terrorism."

Others agree that the measure will come up in the upcoming election.

"This doesn't have a little to do with the upcoming election. It has everything to do with the upcoming election," said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
Click to expand...



Does anyone know any details on this? The story is limited in actual detail and makes it appear that the police in Ohio can now randomly ask for ID? I would really like some more information.
 
Sec. 2921.29. (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link. It is pretty much what I thought it was going to be. The Fox News article that I posted is REALLY lacking and they could have made things much clearer with a sentence, or two of more effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top