This couldn't happen here, could it?

[Swift River Rob]

Naw... that could never happen in America....Ohio would allow the cops to arrest for no crime



http://news.yahoo.com/s/wews/3133362



Like the final scene in Casablanca, round up the usual supects, all those gun owners!

 

[cdkayak]

I"m amazed it made it to his desk [!]

 

[Nickle]

The bill is irrelevant. I think you'll find the police already can do that. They have the right to make you identify yourself.

Years ago, we had some Anti-Abortion protesters that thought they'd be smart and not carry ID then give names like John Doe. They were locked up for just over 90 days, then released. The joke was on them, the max punishment for unlawful trespass (what they were charged with) was 90 days. Yup, do 92 or 93 days sentence for a crime that the max is 90 days, then declare that you beat the system. [roll] [roll]

 

[Chris]

McGinty said he isn't sure the law would do what it's intended to do.

"I think anything we do to enhance security and give power to protect the public to police officers is a good idea," he said.

I think it was Ben Franklin that said "those who would give up liberty for security do not deserve either".

The sad thing is that so many of the sheeple would go along with that. Sure, make it someone else's problem, here's my arm for tatooing.

Man if there was ever a clear need for a 'dope slap'....

</vent>

 

[Nickle]

You're 100% right, Chris, but the point that it's redundant, and the only power it may give the police is maybe the lack of requirement for an offense to be committed.

If they have probable cause to ask for your ID and you either refuse or don't have ID, they CAN detain or arrest you until it gets sorted out. And that's the CURRENT law, I'm pretty sure. Remember, my state has strict restrictions on LEOs and they have and can arrest you for failure to ID yourself. And they aren't allowed to do DWI Roadblocks up here, unless they get special permission from the courts, then they have strict requirements, and are only allowed a very few a year (way less than 10 per year, entire state).

 

[reinbeau]

Oh, man, do I hate to do this, but in this case I agree with the ACLU.

"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.

Ben Franklin was absolutely correct [shock]

 

[Nickle]

Just a simple question to everyone. Why does everybody have the idea that all these invasions to our freedom and privacy started with the Patriot Act of 2001?

You do know that you lost your freedoms and privacy a LONG time ago, don't you?

I know the bill is an especially distasteful one, but, I love it when they propse this kind of stuff. It wakes the sheeple out of their trance, and soon they'll MAYBE do something about it.

When the original Patriot Act passed in 2001, 98 Senators voted for it, 1 against, 1 abstained. Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Jeffords, Klinton anfd the usual bunch voted FOR it. People have forgotten that, and think it's a "Republican thing". Nope, just a bunch of damned power mad jerks in Congress.

 

[C-pher]

I think that the statement of, "If they have probable cause." is what they are worried about.

It seems like now cops can just walk around and ask for you ID.

And what if you are under 16 and don't have a Drivers License. I didn't have any ID until I got my license. What about those people?

 

[RKG]

If you do your history, you will find that in America, the "people" have had a tough time with public anonymity since the day after the first ones landed on these shores. Every colony had a law requiring persons "abroad" to identify themselves to watchmen or constables or whatever, either after dark or at any time. Massachusetts continues to have such a statute today.

If you accept that, and if you accept that there is no natural or constitutional right to toodle about in public anonymously, then the "crime" involved is the failure to identify oneself when asked to do so by a person displaying the indicia of authority to make the request.

This case came up to the United States Supreme Court a couple of years ago, and they rejected a federal constitutional challenge to the state statute (out west somewhere) requiring one to identify oneself if requested by a uniformed police officer.

 

[dwarven1]

Oh, man, do I hate to do this, but in this case I agree with the ACLU.

"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.

Ben Franklin was absolutely correct [shock]

Hate to tell you, Ann... but we're already there. There was a case within the last year or so, I think it was Kalifornia, where it was determined that yes, you can be arrested for not providing ID to the police when they ask for it.

I don't remember if it was Ninth Circuit or SCOTUS that made the decision, though. Perhaps one of our lawyers can check in on this.

 

[Nickle]

And what if you are under 16 and don't have a Drivers License. I didn't have any ID until I got my license. What about those people?

I'm sure they can still detain you, until someone with ID vouches for you, like a parent. It is a little different, since most laws like this will affect you starting at 18, the age of majority.

 

[reinbeau]

Well, I don't take any of this easily, and I'm surprised that anyone posting here would, either. I frequently have no 'papers' on me, if I'm out walking, hiking, whatever, and dammit, I don't think I have to. The more we let them take our freedom the more they will.

There are other threads that mention being monitored or recorded. I have no problem with that. I'm not doing anything wrong. I do, however, have a huge problem with my personal freedom being impinged for lack of 'papers'. This is scary stuff guys, seriously scary.

 

[C-pher]

Well, I don't take any of this easily, and I'm surprised that anyone posting here would, either. I frequently have no 'papers' on me, if I'm out walking, hiking, whatever, and dammit, I don't think I have to. The more we let them take our freedom the more they will.

There are other threads that mention being monitored or recorded. I have no problem with that. I'm not doing anything wrong. I do, however, have a huge problem with my personal freedom being impinged for lack of 'papers'. This is scary stuff guys, seriously scary.

Ditto.

 

[Nickle]

If you don't like it now, wait until you get an ID with a chip on it.

ETA - Before you say it'll never happen, I've had one for several years now.

 

[C-pher]

If you don't like it now, wait until you get an ID with a chip on it.

ETA - Before you say it'll never happen, I've had one for several years now.

I know, it's all the RFID stuff that's also creaping me out as well.

They are talking about companies that are doing that to track products and where they are going.

Won't be long before they can do that with our DLs as well. So yes Nickle, it's on the way.

 

[Nickle]

RFID, yup, the military has been using that for about ten years or so now, to track semi trailers, containers and railcars. They put a receiver in a railyard or trailer transfer point, and they know when items go in and out.

And your brother in law also has one of those ID's with the chip (same employer). Now you know what kind they are.

 

[C-pher]

Oh, I knew what ID you were talking about.

 

[rscalzo]

ID's

I think you are missing the point here somewhat. I'm not aware of any statutes that make it a criminal offense to not ID yourself to a police officer. That comes from 30 years in law enforcement. Where the lines are getting crossed here is that IF one is arrested for a criminal offense and refuses to identify themselves by way of failing to provide ANY information, such as name, date of birth, social security number, they will be held until identification is made. Depending on the type and methonds used to seek out this identification, it could take hours, as in the use of an AFIS system (automated fingerprint identification system) if the prints are on file, or other means. Not giving the ID doesn't really help anyone. As far as the police department is concerned, you sit and wait until the ID is established. Ya gotta love those bologna sandwiches the county jail serves.

So in short, not providing ID where no other crime is committed is NOT against any law I'm aware of....

 

[C-pher]

Re: ID's

So in short, not providing ID where no other crime is committed is NOT against any law I'm aware of....

It will be in Ohio. I could be walking into DQ for a blizzard in Dayton, Ohio and a Cop can ask me for my ID. Let's say I'm out jogging and I don't have it on me. Instant Arrest under this new law.

Ihre Papieren, bitte!

 

[Garys]

The bill is irrelevant. I think you'll find the police already can do that. They have the right to make you identify yourself.

You are incorrect. If you are arrested for a crime the police can compell you to ID yourself. If you are operating a motor vehicle you must, as a condition of your license, present an officer with your license upon demand. However, if you are walking down the street or in any place legally, you can not be compelled to produce ID. The police have no right to randomly stop people and ask them questions. The controlling case on this is Terry vs Ohio.

In Massachusetts at least, if a police officer restricts your right to walk away, you are technically under arrest. He does not have to touch you or say the words "You are under arrest". In order to stop you, there must be at least reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime. IIRC, the Supreme Court defined reasonable suspicion as circumstances not rising to the level of probably cause, but more than a mere hunch. Unlike what you may see on COPS in other states, police officers in MA cannot handcuff you for "your own protection". Once the cuffs are on, you are under arrest.

At least that's how I was trained by a police officer who was also a lawyer. The law may have changed over the last few years, and of course I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

 

[KMaurer]

Re: ID's

So in short, not providing ID where no other crime is committed is NOT against any law I'm aware of....

It will be in Ohio. I could be walking into DQ for a blizzard in Dayton, Ohio and a Cop can ask me for my ID. Let's say I'm out jogging and I don't have it on me. Instant Arrest under this new law.

Ihre Papieren, bitte!

At least you're still free to travel around the country (Ohio excluded) without having to produce a government issued ID, assuming that you don't drive, take a bus, train or plane. Of course attempting to walk or ride a bike or skateboard across country probably would constitute reasonable suspicion of something nefarious ... I thought Conrad Veidt had died a couple of years after making Casablanca. Guess I must have been mistaken.

Ken

 

[rscalzo]

ID

As I said in my post, if you are arrested you can be compelled to produce ID. The posts here seem to infer that it is a crime not to produce ID for no apparent reason. I don't see it that way. Of course no one has printed the law verbatim so until we see it in black and white, most will only guess at its' content.

I doubt a law such as that would stand up to scrutiny on the higher court level if ever passed in the first place.

 

[RKG]

A number of states that make it an offense not to identify oneself generally at the request of a police officer. I don't know if Massachusetts still does. I do not that G. L. ch. 85, sec. 16 requires anyone driving a car at night "when requested by a police officer, give his true name and address," without regard to whether any offense has been committed.

 

[rscalzo]

ID's

I think we are both moving in the same direction here. I agree that there are times when an ID must be presented. Operation of a motor vehicle is one, as you stated.

I got the impression that this new legislation makes it a offense to simply not present ID when asked to do so without any other violation of law involved. Kind of like "Show me your papers". That to me sounds way out of line. [shock]

 

[Garys]

Chapter 90: Section 25 Refusal to submit to police officer

Section 25. Any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall refuse, when requested by a police officer, to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of such motor vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse or neglect to stop when signalled to stop by any police officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to operate such vehicle or his certificate of registration, or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer, and any person who on the demand of an officer of the police or other officer mentioned in section twenty-nine or authorized by the registrar, without a reasonable excuse fails to deliver his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or the number plates furnished by the registrar for said motor vehicle, or who refuses or neglects to produce his license when requested by a court or trial justice, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars.

Gary

 

[rscalzo]

MV Stops

Once again, I agree totally in what you are saying. We had the same statute in NJ except we called it "Interfering with a Police Officer in the Performance of his/her Duty". Fancy title for "I'm not giving you my DL".

No argument there. Total agreement. But many years back we also had a statute called "Failure to Give a Good Account". Not being from NJ (I'm guessing) and probably not old enough to remember) it was found totally unconstitutional based on the fact it was based on nothing. What is Failure to give a good account? I never knew and I was charged with enforcing it...

What I am saying is that making it a violation to SIMPLY not supply identification based on nothing further than contact with the authorities cannot stand the test of a constitutional challenge.

And I agree there are many instances where ID would be required but there must be a prior reason to demand this ID as you stated, such as a motor vehicle infraction.

And I must state at this point ---we have strayed so far from the subject of firearms that the moderation is going to kick our butts off the site...

And due to the date and time ----Merry Christmas to Everyone..... [shock]

 

[Garys]

Oh, we don't disagree on this at all. Terry was a pretty good decision because it struck a balance between a mere hunch and probable cause. We really don't want to live in a society where the police can stop people at random and demand ID and a "Good Account". Which is why I don't like some of the things going on here and in England. While I understand that video surveillance of people in public places is perfectly constitituional, I don't have to like it or think that it's good public policy.

Gary