My take is that you provide ID when doing something that requires it.
Usually this means when the LEO asks for it. Anywhere for any reason.
My take is that you provide ID when doing something that requires it.
Usually this means when the LEO asks for it. Anywhere for any reason.
I disagree.. and luckily the supreme court agrees
Perhaps so, Antipitas's knowledgeable post seemed to agree with that statement, and I am no scholar.
As an idea I called the LEO's office and ask if I need to have my ID with me when not driving. His answer was " yes" so you may be correct but it just might save you a problem one of these days to not have it with you, right or not.
Usually this means when the LEO asks for it. Anywhere for any reason.
You try to make a list of instances where you are not required an ID. The fact is that is really a short list. In fact, you simply need an ID for most interactions in our modern society.
Call it what you want, but it is a reality. If you are just walking down the street and a police officer asks you to identify yourself all he would have to do is say there has been a robbery in the area or almost any other crime and he could ask you to identify yourself. If you had no ID he can detain you until your identity can be verified.It isn't that I don't want to carry around ID. It is that there is no reason for me to be stopped and have my ID demanded. That is harassment.
It isn't that I don't want to carry around ID. It is that there is no reason for me to be stopped and have my ID demanded. That is harassment.
It is that there is no reason for me to be stopped and have my ID demanded. That is harassment
My take is that you provide ID when doing something that requires it. walking round town is not one of those situations.. see my edit above, too.
Call it what you want, but it is a reality. If you are just walking down the street and a police officer asks you to identify yourself all he would have to do is say there has been a robbery in the area or almost any other crime and he could ask you to identify yourself. If you had no ID he can detain you until your identity can be verified.
The sad fact of the matter is that some folks just enjoy making the job of others tougher.........that's it.
Untrue...I had it happen to me. I was detained at the scene because I was in the wrong place, when police were looking for a man of my description, for over an hour while they ran my information. I had just come from playing paintball and had left my ID in my bag and could not find it when I was stopped when I got out to buy a soda at local convience store.No, he can't detain me just to verify my identity unless he is arresting me.
Untrue...I had it happen to me. I was detained at the scene because I was in the wrong place, when police were looking for a man of my description, for over an hour while they ran my information. I had just come from playing paintball and had left my ID in my bag and could not find it when I was stopped when I got out to buy a soda at local convience store.
When I told my lawyer about it he said that all they had to do was say "he fit the description" for any crime they could think of and they could detain me legally for a certain amount of time. That whole you either have to arrest me or leave me alone thing is just not true. You are required to cooperate to a degree with law enforcement if they are actively investigating a crime. It does not matter if you later turn out to be innocent. They just have to say they had reason to believe you might be involved at the time.
The reality is, as my lawyer stated, in these cases it would be your word against his. Anytime an officer asks you for ID there is an assumption that he has reason to suspect something. He does not just spend his day stopping everyone he sees. So you really cannot win that argument as long he he does not arrest you without cause. In this case I was never old what the crime was, what the description was, or anything. My lawyer said it could have been completely fictional but there would just be no way to prove that.He is not legally empowered to lie about reasons for demanding ID.
He is not legally empowered to arrest you for NOT having ID, either.
So just to summarize what we've got so far---the idea is to preserve and protect our own personal rights and civil liberties as citizens/legal residents while effectively eliminating the ability for someone of illegal status from gaining such liberties under illegal means, and empowering authoritive entities to enforce and maintain both.