OT: Cops can demand ID, high court rules

[joedoe]

But hasn't this been a reality for a significant portion of your population for a long time anyway? Or have I been fed another load of BS?

[cerebus]

Not exactly. Cops could stop you and ask for your ID, but if they didn't give you a reason why (responding to a situation, you match description of someone they're looking for or you might have witnessed something, etc.) you could refuse to tell them anything. They might try to intimidate or bully you into giving them your name, but they couldn't throw you in jail and fine you unless you were obstructing an investigation or were a suspect.

[SanSoo Student]

This all stems from that stupid Patriot/Homeland Security Act. Neighbors spying on other neighbors for "suspicious doings". I had to Arab friends come over to my house, and both of them had big Suburban trucks. so when the parked it naturally went over my driveway into the sidewalk.

So my neighbors call, saying there were suspicious people going into my house. Cops come, and give them tickets for double parking. and see the neighbor across the street (the one that called) was park off the edge of the curb. He was about to give them tickets, but my friends convinced the cops to let them go, since they did their job here. Shows you how stupid our suspicions can be, just because they are big, buff, and "Middle Eastern"

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

It reminds me of the Nazi movies.. "your papers, please".. in which the "please" was simply a formality, the civilian had no choice.. I agree that there is no inherent problem with asking someone to identify themselves.. but, there is a pattern to this administration's policies, an erosion of civil liberties in the name of "homeland security".. yes, we are moving closer to those Nazi/Soviet tactics where each "citizen" is expected to be an agent for the state.. The state serves its own purpose, it exists largely to perpetuate itself, to preserve its ideology.. originally, the government was intended to regulate commerce and provide for the common defense of the nation.. consider how far removed from those simple charges we are today. The same people that fund and empower the government are subjugated by it, are fearful of it.. and, can't even elect a a leader by common vote (Gore/Bush).. For the first time this nation has engaged in pre-emptive aggression (our right to defend ourselves on the belief that another government is likely to attack us).. pre-emptive aggression based on poorly gathered intelligence or, worse yet, the possibility that the intelligence was manipulated to entice support for such unilateral and pre-emptive aggression..

In the words of commercial advertising, "this is not your father's America".. there was a time when the right to free speech was revered and respected with the responsibility such a right demands.. but, i sense that is losing its appeal as well.. as i stood in line at the grocery store with my 9 year old son, the "gentleman" (and i use that term loosely) in front of us was wearing a t-shirt that sported nudity and very disturbing language.. i suggested that it might be inappropriate to wear that where children could see it and the "gentleman" asserted his "right to free speech" yet, agressively suggested that i didn't have a right my own free speech in commenting on his poor choice of appearal.. (the rest is memorialized in the court records, sorry)..

Are the "rights" we enjoy superior to common decency? is it essential to push at every limit the rights we are afforded.. cripe, some of the lyrics of music made today suggest that we are no more that animals.. that violence and lawlessness are virtues to the new culture.. Anyone that knows me knows that i am far from a saint, but.. i sense that the government simply represents the opposite extreme of the current cultural influences.. to the degree that popular music and culture suggests lawlessness and violence, so then the government seeks to counter that threat to the nation's stability.. There is a "middle path" where freedoms can be enjoyed and society can mend itself.. how can the world respect a nation whose culture and economic foundations are built on beating the system that supports it.. the system, in defense, retalliates with oppressive legislation and rules.. we struggle against ourselves.. a poor example to the rest of the civilized world..

So, the request to produce identification on request seems to be a minor issue in the big scheme of things.. but, it is another "brick in the wall"..

Be well...

[cerebus]

Heh, heh. I had the same image go through my mind when I read about this.

Police Officer: Halt! Your papers please!

Me: Uh, well all I have is a passport and I left that at home.

Officer: Franz! Zis vun does not haff his papers! Vhat should vee do vith heem?

Officer #2: Ja Hans! Vee know how to deal vith zis type of lowlife! In zee car now! Mach Schnell!

Cerebus disappears never to be heard from again.....

[Vash]

All of a sudden, those crazies living in the hills, away from civilization, and packing away guns like there's no tomorrow, well, they don't seem so crazy.



Good post, TaiChiBob.

[dodger87]

Sansoo student, your friends should've let the cops fine your neighbours. Thats what they get for being nosy *******s.

[Becca]

Ayear or so ago I got pulled over 4 times in one day and asked to show my I.d. When I asked why they had stopped me, all they would tell me is that they couldn't tell me why. I was very annoyed! Right up to watching the nightly news were the lead story was about a suspected kidnaper who mached my description and was driving a car the same color and similar body style as mine. I even have a son the same age as the one who was missing. They showed her pic.. she could have been my twin.

I didn't mind being a little inconinienced after that...

They often won't tell you if they are looking for stalkers and such, either. But an i.d. check will help them in the search for one. A "bad guy" can change thier apperence, but if they don't have a differnt I.d., they will likely run. Or atleast be spooked enough to leave the area.


I don't know about you, but I don't mind havong to show my I.d. on the chance I could be helping the cops keep someone else safe.

[inic]

I'm not some anti-american person, but the amount of things that happen here and things that people get away with, I give this country 20 years max. Then another country will take its turn as super power. we may have won world war 2, but I think thats when this country started its downfall.

[WinterPalm]

My condolences go out to all the Americans posting on this board. At one time your country was noted for its civil rights and internal unwavering respect for the constitution. I don't think your country is democracy anymore and I feel sorry for you.
I still think, that just like you accepted people from the broken parts of Europe and elsewhere, countries like Canada and the EU members will be willing to take refuges. I know Canada accepted several Arab origin refuges right before the second Iraq war.

[Meat Shake]

"we may have won world war 2, but I think thats when this country started its downfall."

I dont think so... America is the only true superpower. America is dangerously powerful... That wont change any time soon...

[WinterPalm]

THe biggest threat facing the American "power" which is more like "force", is the people it houses. Soon people are going to realize the rights being removed and then it will either be a civil war or an outbreak of anarchy. I think the weapons the US has will pose a threat but then it will be the job of the UN to disarm America so that things like George W. cannot every happen again. IF he is reelected, there will be dark times for America, but I think the rest of the world is willing to help the citizens as America has done for the rest of the world in its past.
Time can only tell how far the government will have to go before they cannot control the population anymore. I just hope my country doesn't go down with it...

[Merryprankster]

Blah blah blah "Hate America." Blah blah blah, "America sucks." Blah Blah Blah "Erosion of Civil rights." Blah blah blah:

"I don't understand law, the constitution, how it's applied, what my rights REALLY are and regurgitate what is fed to me like pap from a spoon."

I might remind those shivering in the corner that this was a 5-4 vote. It's bound to come up again.

The bottom line is simple. The defense argued the case on 4th and 5th amendment rights as well as the "right to privacy," found in the pen-umbra of several amendments. I want to say 9th, 11th and 12th, but I'm sure Judge Pen will correct me!

4th doesn't apply. 5th doesn't apply. Privacy doesn't apply.

WHAT THEY DO WITH YOUR NAME afterwards may invoke these rights, but being required to produce ID in and of itself doesn't invoke these rights.

[3rdrateIMAkilla]

Hmm. I don't know. It seems that everyone's right here, and the people's hearts and minds is what counts. Maybe it's possible for hope in a horrible communist dictatorship, if people are good and considerate. But what if you are homeless, and they can make you dissapear. Looking at situations like the abu graib and guantanoma or whatever they're called, I don't know, I don't know.

[Merryprankster]

Ok, so I probably went a bit overboard.

But people need to stop behaving as if somehow their rights are being "taken away."

The truth is, that prior to this ruling, there wasn't a decision on constitutional grounds that this was a right at all.

What we had before was an absence of a ruling. This did not reverse a decision.

It's funny. People talk about legislating from the bench, but when people adhere to the law/constitution, you get even more *****ing.

I mean, look at the HMO case decision that was released the same day. Justice Bader-Ginsberg basically said "if you want to change our decision, you have to get the law changed."

MY biggest peeve comes from when justices apply different standards to their legal rulings depending on which point of view they agree with. Now THAT's legislating from the bench. I firmly believe your approach needs to be as consistent as possible, from case to case.

I always liked Justice Black. I didn't agree with all his opinions, but at least you knew where he was coming from!