Identification

Citizen · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:

SNIPGreet the LEO accordingly, once they start asking for ID, ask why...and then ask what crime are you suspected to havecommitted and are you under arrest? If not under arrest, tell the officer to have a nice day and walk away.

I might change that to asking whether you are being detained instead of under arrest.

The VA Court of Appeals said:

In Wechsler v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 162, 169, 455

S.E.2d 744, 747 (1995), this Court summarized the three types of

police-citizen encounters:

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes

three categories of police-citizen

confrontations: (1) consensual encounters,

(2) brief, minimally intrusive investigatory

detentions, based upon specific, articulable

facts, commonly referred to as Terry stops,

and (3) highly intrusive arrests and searches

founded on probable cause.

http://tinyurl.com/3cft8r

LEO 229 · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

In reading all that was written I have learned the following:

Showing your ID to a bouncer to get into a club.... OK
Showing your ID to a LEO while your holding a can of beer.. NOT OK!

If I am under 21... it is OK to drink because the laws are unjust. I will pick and choose the laws I feel are good and will only follow them. I live by my own rules. Screw society! But I want that same society to back me up in protecting my rights.

Showing my ID to a LEO means "I want to give up all my rights"ending up getting my house searched by the Government too. If I do not exercise my rights... I am inviting the Government to enter all areas of my life and explore as they like. I am so interesting that they will spend hourschecking me out since they have nothing else to really do.

What makes you think the government wants to search YOUR house??!! Are you scared they will find your porno stash under the mattress? Get over it!

Your cooperation with the police and providing an ID when asked will not cause the Judges to join together and strip you of all your rights. Unless your actually wanted.... you have nothing to worry about.

I have NEVER had anyone refuse my reasonable request for their identification. The only people I know who fear an ID check are criminals hiding from the law and a few paranoid people here.

What a world it would be if you could be witnessed committing murderand never fear being caught if you leave town. You would be in the system as wanted but the police would neverEVER be allowed to catch you since they cannot request your ID.

Let me sum things up...... LEOs do not stop and askeveryone for their ID. There is normally a good reason when they do ask. They are not out to violate the rights of people for kicks or personal gain. Often times theLEO receives a reportor observes something suspicious. The person may not have broken any laws but theLEO does get a chance to make sure.

Citizen · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP In reading all that was written I have learned the following:

Did you read my post? Third or fourth up from the bottom of page one?

LEO 229 · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

Citizen wrote:

acrimsontide wrote:

SNIP What would be the harm in showing a LEO an ID?

Click to expand...

Here is how I look at it. Police are supposed to do nothing BUT protect our rights (and render assistance.) If someone tries to murder me, are they not trying to deprive me of life without due process of law? (5th Amend). If someone steals from me, are they not depriving me of property without due process of law? (5th Amendment). If someone kidnaps you, are they not depriving you of liberty without due process of law? (5th Amend.) Is the police officer who stops a drunk driver doing anything more than protecting the life and property of the drunk and everybody else along the drunk's path?In a free society, police are there to protect rights.

Don't believe me? Not sure you agree?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --from the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)

Police are part of the government instituted to secure these unalienable rights. Their whole purpose is to secure these unalienable rights. This is more and different than justnotviolatingunalienablerights while they go about their job. It is an arbitrary and artificial distinction tosay thatpolice are not supposed to violatesome rights while protecting other rights (rights not to be murdered, thieved, kidnapped, etc). They're supposed to be protecting all of them.

I've personally had police get out of line with me. We've all seenvideos of police going over the line.

A quick, simple way toremind police of the location of the line is stand fast on your side of theline. Real pro's will understand. All the rest need the lesson.

You're doing them and everybody else a favor by giving them that lesson.

That first line seems a little off. I do more than protect your rights and render you assistance. Unless you feel that my actively searching for the bad guy goes towards protecting the community.

Otherwise, if this were the case..... I would not be allowed to actually investigate crimes. I would only protect you from immediate harm and help change your tire.

But your on the right track.... The police are here for the PEOPLE and their purpose is to assure YOU have the quality of life that all people should enjoy.

You can only tie the hands of the police just so far before they are useless. People are always demanding I do things I am not legally permitted to do. People are also demanding I not do things I am obligated to do.... enforcing the laws!! You cannot make everyone happy.

This is like asking the IRS to not charge you for tax evasion. Do we like paying taxes? No.. But we do not get to choose not to pay. Wedo not get to pick the laws we want to follow.

Either we are equal or we are not. With guns and cash and traffic violations! The people should be armedwith theirwill to abide by the law.

Tomahawk · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Showing your ID to a bouncer to get into a club.... OK
Showing your ID to a LEO while your holding a can of beer.. NOT OK!

When a cop asks me for ID, it's because he is looking for an excuse to put me in jail.

When a bouncer asks me for ID, it's because he is trying to stay out of jail.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't need an ID to prove I have permission to exist in a free country.

para_org · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Showing your ID to a bouncer to get into a club.... OK
Showing your ID to a LEO while your holding a can of beer.. NOT OK!

Click to expand...

When a cop asks me for ID, it's because he is looking for an excuse to put me in jail.

When a bouncer asks me for ID, it's because he is trying to stay out of jail.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't need an ID to prove I have permission to exist in a free country.

I agree wholeheartedly....

Alas conerning your last point, the Patriot Act is unpatriotic in that it (with earlier infringements of civil rights by lawmakers) allows for criminal acts by police...er um, what *use to be* illegal acts by police. i.e. The country is perilously close to not being free any longer. Currently the FBI can decide it needs to enter your life without ANY oversight by anyone other than themselves. No court involvement, so no court redress or accountability.

Sigh......

Cue-Ball · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

If I am under 21... it is OK to drink because the laws are unjust. I will pick and choose the laws I feel are good and will only follow them. I live by my own rules. Screw society! But I want that same society to back me up in protecting my rights.

What we're talking about is the opposite of "screw society". We're talking about the difference between a law that enforces morals and a law that enforces property rights or personal liberties. These are the rules which binds society together and preserves the rights of everyone.

You are right, I want society to back me up in protecting my rights. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights end only when they cross the line of another person's right to the same.

Unless someone can point at me and say "that man harmed me" or "that many harmed my property", I've done nothing wrong. Drinking while under the age of 21 doesn't meet this qualification. Driving over the speed limit (so long as no one is endangered) doesn't meet this qualification. Walking around in public with a firearm doesn't meet this qualification.

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right. Our founding fathers saw this quite clearly. It's a shame you have such trouble with the concept.

Citizen · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Here is how I look at it. Police are supposed to do nothing BUT protect our rights (and render assistance.) If someone tries to murder me, are they not trying to deprive me of life without due process of law? (5th Amend). If someone steals from me, are they not depriving me of property without due process of law? (5th Amendment). If someone kidnaps you, are they not depriving you of liberty without due process of law? (5th Amend.) Is the police officer who stops a drunk driver doing anything more than protecting the life and property of the drunk and everybody else along the drunk's path?In a free society, police are there to protect rights.

Don't believe me? Not sure you agree?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --from the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)

Police are part of the government instituted to secure these unalienable rights. Their whole purpose is to secure these unalienable rights. This is more and different than justnotviolatingunalienablerights while they go about their job. It is an arbitrary and artificial distinction tosay thatpolice are not supposed to violatesome rights while protecting other rights (rights not to be murdered, thieved, kidnapped, etc). They're supposed to be protecting all of them.

I've personally had police get out of line with me. We've all seenvideos of police going over the line.

A quick, simple way toremind police of the location of the line is stand fast on your side of theline. Real pro's will understand. All the rest need the lesson.

You're doing them and everybody else a favor by giving them that lesson.

Click to expand...

1. That first line seems a little off. I do more than protect your rights and render you assistance. Unless you feel that my actively searching for the bad guy goes towards protecting the community.

2. Otherwise, if this were the case..... I would not be allowed to actually investigate crimes. I would only protect you from immediate harm and help change your tire.

3. But your on the right track.... The police are here for the PEOPLE and their purpose is to assure YOU have the quality of life that all people should enjoy.

4. You can only tie the hands of the police just so far before they are useless. People are always demanding I do things I am not legally permitted to do. People are also demanding I not do things I am obligated to do.... enforcing the laws!! You cannot make everyone happy.

This is like asking the IRS to not charge you for tax evasion. Do we like paying taxes? No.. But we do not get to choose not to pay. Wedo not get to pick the laws we want to follow.

Either we are equal or we are not. With guns and cash and traffic violations! The people should be armedwith theirwill to abide by the law.

1. Yes, actively searching for the bad guys is directly applicable to protecting the rights of the members of the community. As does the deterrent effect from your existence as a police officer. Catch that drunk driver and you probably protected someone's right to life and/or property. Deter the would-be mugger and you protect someone's right to property (wallet and money).

2. Yes, investigating crimes and suspicious people plays right into #1 just above.

3. Yes, that quality of life is summed upnicely in rights.Right to keep my own property rather than have it stolen, not be injured or killed, to drive safely to work, not be held for ransom (liberty with a small "L") If you keep the violations of my rights to a minimum by enforcing the criminal statutes, I can work on creating the qualityof life I want. That is to say, if you keep the road clear of criminals violating my rights, I can create the life I want (Liberty with a capital "L").

4.Part of the problem here is that Man has been evolving his political philosophy and government for 50K years.He may not have gotten the idea that people have rights in connection with government until comparatively recently, but the idea of rights not to be killed, thieved, kidnapped, etc. have been around a very long time. They'reimplied in the criminal statutes. All the Bill of Rights does is enumerate more rights. People realized government could injure just as bad or worse than criminals. Thus the Bill of Rights is directed at government.The Founders understood that government has very broad effect. A criminal who steals my shoes, affects only me.The Bill of Rights are really just more rights beyond the ones youprotect by enforcing criminal statutes.If you believe, support,and actto protect all rights, I believe you'll bea rare police officer.

You can't beexpected to detect all violators becausethe Bill of Rights,which includes those not enumerated (9th Amend),prevents you from detecting all violators. Roadblocks are actually put directly in your way, so nobody has any room to complain that you don't catch them all.OK, so a criminaldoesn't get searched and thus avoids detection or the collection of the evidence necessary to convince a jury (another barrier to government trouble). Its better than having government get out of hand, which affects everybody. The Founders could not havemissed this when theyset it up the way they did.

TrueBrit · Sep 11, 2007

imported post

A simple question from a simple man:

If the legislature felt it necessary to make folks on foot produce ID at the request of a LEO, then the production of such ID would be legally mandatory, surely, the same as a driver being obliged to produce a driving license if requested?

Seems that it is NOT mandated in law!

Gotta be a reason for this, surely?

Something to do with civil rights, perchance, folks being able to go about their business without let or hinderance from intrusive cops, unless the cops can articulate a GOOD REASON for even approaching such folks?

TrueBrit.

mark edward marchiafava · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

I started 30 years ago. Let's just say most Amerikans don't give a damn. As long as they can buy beer, lottery tickets, cigarettes and "go to the boat" (casino), life is good. As for DMV participating in educating citizens of the POLICE STATE OF LOUISIANA about their rights, forget it. Back in 1996, I attempted to renew my driver's "license" without a social security number. After I pointed out how their procedure violated both state AND federal law, all they could do was dig in their heels and chant "that's our policy." It only took less than 30 minutes before judge Janice Clark to totally slam dunk their "policy." As true fascists, they appealed. A phone call to the governor's personal attorney ended their appeal within 2 days.

possumboy · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I have NEVER had anyone refuse my reasonable request for their identification. The only people I know who fear an ID check are criminals hiding from the law and a few paranoid people here.

What a world it would be if you could be witnessed committing murderand never fear being caught if you leave town. You would be in the system as wanted but the police would neverEVER be allowed to catch you since they cannot request your ID.

Let me sum things up...... LEOs do not stop and askeveryone for their ID. There is normally a good reason when they do ask. They are not out to violate the rights of people for kicks or personal gain. Often times theLEO receives a reportor observes something suspicious. The person may not have broken any laws but theLEO does get a chance to make sure.

You are too general here, I would agree with your statement if you used the words "most" in front of every LEO that you used.

It is not about being paranoid, I just don't know if you are the officer that is going to hold my license until the LEO cannot find anything, or if you are the one just trying to do your job.

Image a world where a LEO can ask you for you ID anytime he wants. The rules are in place to help prevent abuses. While I don't see being asked for an ID on the road, giving them the right to search my house; I do see being force to show ID causing all sorts of other abuses.

So, to use your words: "Get over it." We are protected from being forced to without reasonable cause. Being in an area where something happened is not reasonable cause. Just because it makes your job harder, so what? It is not being paranoid. I should also just run everything I post here by a LEO to make sure it is OK. It is a right protected by the same document as search and seizure.

You are always coming up with reason we should show ID to LEOs - why not just cut and paste from previous posts?

Just a few other comments about other posts...

LEO job is to investigate, not protect. Sure, many try, but the only requirement is to investigate after a crime is committed - not saying that policy in departments try to protect citizens. Legally, all that is required is investigation (check out all the SCOTUS rulings). If the bad guys gets away do you lose your job? Is there a requirement to bring in so many bad guys a month? BTW, not expecting an answer.

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Showing your ID to a bouncer to get into a club.... OK
Showing your ID to a LEO while your holding a can of beer.. NOT OK!

Click to expand...

When a cop asks me for ID, it's because he is looking for an excuse to put me in jail.

When a bouncer asks me for ID, it's because he is trying to stay out of jail.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't need an ID to prove I have permission to exist in a free country.

T-Hawk... your almost there... but a little off.

The LEO is NOT looking for an excuse. If I wanted.. I could lock you up for anything if that is what I wanted. I could easily say you were exposing your genitals to traffic or throwing stuff at cars. You got the LEO all wrong in this aspect.

It really depends on the situation when your asked to identify who you are. If I suspect you may have been entering cars and stealing stuff... I will not know for sure till the owner can be contacted. Having no proof you did it means I have to let you go. Having your name gives my something to follow up on if it turnsout that "someone" did enter cars and leave evidence. I can now go back and see if it was you.

Furthermore.... if your wanted for committing a crime... this is my chance to find out and lock you up on a warrant that was obtained by someone else. Criminals must be taken before the man and answer for the charges. Why should criminals be allowed to roam free and never be checked?

It is true that you do not need an ID to exist in this country. But most people do obtain one anyway. That ID that is used for whatever reason may be used to provide proof of who they are.

I would love to take people at their word and believe what everyone says.... but this is not possible. People lie to get out of trouble and unless the ID is fake..... this lets me know who I have before me.

The LEO has a job to do. Catching the bad guy is one of those jobs. Running ID checks is a way to do that. Do not mistake that for a deep desire to find something and make up excuses to lock you up. That is completely inaccurate!!

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

para_org wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Showing your ID to a bouncer to get into a club.... OK
Showing your ID to a LEO while your holding a can of beer.. NOT OK!

Click to expand...

When a cop asks me for ID, it's because he is looking for an excuse to put me in jail.

When a bouncer asks me for ID, it's because he is trying to stay out of jail.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't need an ID to prove I have permission to exist in a free country.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly....

Alas conerning your last point, the Patriot Act is unpatriotic in that it (with earlier infringements of civil rights by lawmakers) allows for criminal acts by police...er um, what *use to be* illegal acts by police. i.e. The country is perilously close to not being free any longer. Currently the FBI can decide it needs to enter your life without ANY oversight by anyone other than themselves. No court involvement, so no court redress or accountability.

Sigh......

True... the difference is that your not told it is being done. The LEO standing before you makes it obvious your getting checked out.

Those that have no warrants on file need not worry. We do not call the FBI and tell them to tap your phone now.

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

If I am under 21... it is OK to drink because the laws are unjust. I will pick and choose the laws I feel are good and will only follow them. I live by my own rules. Screw society! But I want that same society to back me up in protecting my rights.

Click to expand...

What we're talking about is the opposite of "screw society". We're talking about the difference between a law that enforces morals and a law that enforces property rights or personal liberties. These are the rules which binds society together and preserves the rights of everyone.

You are right, I want society to back me up in protecting my rights. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights end only when they cross the line of another person's right to the same.

Unless someone can point at me and say "that man harmed me" or "that many harmed my property", I've done nothing wrong. Drinking while under the age of 21 doesn't meet this qualification. Driving over the speed limit (so long as no one is endangered) doesn't meet this qualification. Walking around in public with a firearm doesn't meet this qualification.

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right. Our founding fathers saw this quite clearly. It's a shame you have such trouble with the concept.

I can understand you.. and think some laws are stupid.But as a LEO.. it is my job to enforce ALL the laws... People do not get to pick and choose the ones they want to follow and I do not get to pick and choose the laws I want to enforce.

If I do not believe in physical assaults and view them as fair fights.... I cannot tell the victim.. "I do not like that law so I will not be arresting him. Go home and clean up. Learn to fight next time"

The LEO is like a tow truck driver. They love you when they need you... but when your doing you job and doing something that involves them... they hate you.

PT111 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

This is probably the most enlightening thread I have ever read. I did not know that I could just pick and choose which laws I wanted to obey. I also see why people have such a fear and hatred for anyLEO. They are trying to enforce unjust laws. After reading all this I think that it is unjust that my neighbor chooses to use his leaf blower at 7:00 am on a Saturday morning when I am trying to sleep late, so next time he does it I am just going to go over and blow him away with my .45.

I have also learned that a LEO cannot investigate a crime unless he already knows a crime has been committed and can question only the guilty parties. This is going to be a fun weekend.:lol:

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

Citizen wrote:

1. That first line seems a little off. I do more than protect your rights and render you assistance. Unless you feel that my actively searching for the bad guy goes towards protecting the community.

2. Otherwise, if this were the case..... I would not be allowed to actually investigate crimes. I would only protect you from immediate harm and help change your tire.

3. But your on the right track.... The police are here for the PEOPLE and their purpose is to assure YOU have the quality of life that all people should enjoy.

4. You can only tie the hands of the police just so far before they are useless. People are always demanding I do things I am not legally permitted to do. People are also demanding I not do things I am obligated to do.... enforcing the laws!! You cannot make everyone happy.

This is like asking the IRS to not charge you for tax evasion. Do we like paying taxes? No.. But we do not get to choose not to pay. Wedo not get to pick the laws we want to follow.

Either we are equal or we are not. With guns and cash and traffic violations! The people should be armedwith theirwill to abide by the law.

1. Yes, actively searching for the bad guys is directly applicable to protecting the rights of the members of the community. As does the deterrent effect from your existence as a police officer. Catch that drunk driver and you probably protected someone's right to life and/or property. Deter the would-be mugger and you protect someone's right to property (wallet and money).

2. Yes, investigating crimes and suspicious people plays right into #1 just above.

3. Yes, that quality of life is summed upnicely in rights.Right to keep my own property rather than have it stolen, not be injured or killed, to drive safely to work, not be held for ransom (liberty with a small "L") If you keep the violations of my rights to a minimum by enforcing the criminal statutes, I can work on creating the qualityof life I want. That is to say, if you keep the road clear of criminals violating my rights, I can create the life I want (Liberty with a capital "L").

4.Part of the problem here is that Man has been evolving his political philosophy and government for 50K years.He may not have gotten the idea that people have rights in connection with government until comparatively recently, but the idea of rights not to be killed, thieved, kidnapped, etc. have been around a very long time. They'reimplied in the criminal statutes. All the Bill of Rights does is enumerate more rights. People realized government could injure just as bad or worse than criminals. Thus the Bill of Rights is directed at government.The Founders understood that government has very broad effect. A criminal who steals my shoes, affects only me.The Bill of Rights are really just more rights beyond the ones youprotect by enforcing criminal statutes.If you believe, support,and actto protect all rights, I believe you'll bea rare police officer.

You can't beexpected to detect all violators becausethe Bill of Rights,which includes those not enumerated (9th Amend),prevents you from detecting all violators. Roadblocks are actually put directly in your way, so nobody has any room to complain that you don't catch them all.OK, so a criminaldoesn't get searched and thus avoids detection or the collection of the evidence necessary to convince a jury (another barrier to government trouble). Its better than having government get out of hand, which affects everybody. The Founders could not havemissed this when theyset it up the way they did.

The laws protect the criminals in so many ways right now. The police have to jump through hoops to get proof before they can lock them up. Often times... the criminal is allowed to go free when you KNOW he did it but your hands are tied and your powerless to get what you need to lock him up.

Asking for someones ID card is not going encourage the police to make something up and arrest you. It is just a way to see ifthe LEOhave a known criminal standing before him. Showing the ID is not proof you committed a crime.

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

PT111 wrote:

This is probably the most enlightening thread I have ever read. I did not know that I could just pick and choose which laws I wanted to obey. I also see why people have such a fear and hatred for anyLEO. They are trying to enforce unjust laws. After reading all this I think that it is unjust that my neighbor chooses to use his leaf blower at 7:00 am on a Saturday morning when I am trying to sleep late, so next time he does it I am just going to go over and blow him away with my .45.

I have also learned that a LEO cannot investigate a crime unless he already knows a crime has been committed and can question only the guilty parties. This is going to be a fun weekend.:lol:

I do not believe it should be against the law to use a leaf blower before 7AM so when you call... I am NOT going to tell your neighbor to stop using it. :lol:

Mike · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I think everyone should have a photo ID in case you do get charged with something. Having ID can get you released on a summons. Even better.... if your injured and taken to the hospital... your family can be contacted if your unconscious.

It is not required to have ID to be released upon summons - VA law requires LEOs to issue summons for most misdemeanor offenses - custodially arresting a person merely b/c the person does not have ID, in lieu of summons, is unlawful. A person being issued a summons in VA is only required to give their name and address.

LEO 229 · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

TrueBrit wrote:

A simple question from a simple man:

If the legislature felt it necessary to make folks on foot produce ID at the request of a LEO, then the production of such ID would be legally mandatory, surely, the same as a driver being obliged to produce a driving license if requested?

Seems that it is NOT mandated in law!

Gotta be a reason for this, surely?

Something to do with civil rights, perchance, folks being able to go about their business without let or hinderance from intrusive cops, unless the cops can articulate a GOOD REASON for even approaching such folks?

TrueBrit.

I would actually like a law where you need to produce identificationIF..... I am conducting an official investigation that would be documented. I say this only because it would make the LEOs job easier and criminals could not hide when they are caught while "at work."

Just likeI can pat people down for weaponsbut need to justify it. Same thing would apply. I do not stop people on the street and pat them down for no reason.

I have no idea why it is not a law. I believe that MOST people cooperate so it is not necessary. As I said.... I have never had anyone refuse to provide their ID. It is only on this board that people talk about refusal. I am willing to bet that when confronted... they show it. Talking so bravely here is easy to do. When accused of doing something "WRONG" they will want to prove different. I am not talking about being stopped for OC.

I do not agree with just checking anyone out as they walk down the sidewalk minding their own business. And I can say that I have NEVER seen a LEO stop someone and just "check them out" for no valid reason.

With all the people in the USA.... this is not practical. The LEO will check out those people that are reported to be acting suspiciously.

I will close with this example so you can understand my thought process....

Child predator moves to the state. He is a convicted sex offender and is not allowed to hang out in any place kids gather. The parents call the police because he has been observed many times on several days "watching" the young girls at play.

You locate him and see him "leering at the kids" and approach him. What you do not know is that he is in violation of his parole and could be sent back to prison. He is actually intending on abducting a child and taking a little girl to his house to rape over and over before leaving the state again.

From your observations.... he is not committing a crime.. that you know of. But he is watching the kids in a way no other adults in the area do. You talk to him and later ask for his identity. He declines to tell you anything and says he he will not be subjected to any unreasonable search and seizure.

He says "Officer, am I free to leave?" and then gets on his bike or walks away on foot. You try to follow him but eventually lose track of him.

A few weeks later..... a child is abducted nearby! The person observed matches that same guy you talked to. Unfortunately... you do not know who he is. At best.. you have a photo of him walking away that you took with your camera phone.

Had you ran his name.... he would have been arrested and a little girl would not have been raped repeatedly.

HankT · Sep 12, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I have no idea why it is not a law. I believe that MOST people cooperate so it is not necessary. As I said.... I have never had anyone refuse to provide their ID. It is only on this board that people talk about refusal. I am willing to bet that when confronted... they show it.

unrequited proved you wrong. When he was detained in a Barnes & Noble by APD, he didn't show his ID.

Aha! Wrong again, LEO 229.

LEO 229 wrote:

Talking so bravely here is easy to do.

Really? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that....:uhoh:

Identification

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

State Researcher