Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 141

Thread: House Bill 435

  1. #1
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?081+ful+HB435

    "or (ii) who while in a public place or a place open to the public refuses to identify himself at the request of a law-enforcement officer in uniform or a properly identified police officer, when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    This makes it purely subjective and does not provide for an opportunity to leave without showing ID. Possibly making everyinteraction the same a detainment until ID is show.


    You can write Delegate Frederick at http://www.va52.com/contact.asp.

    Or just start writing your Delegate about it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?081+ful+HB435

    "or (ii) who while in a public place or a place open to the public refuses to identify himself at the request of a law-enforcement officer in uniform or a properly identified police officer, when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    This makes it purely subjective and does not provide for an opportunity to leave without showing ID. Possibly making everyinteraction the same a detainment until ID is show.


    You can write Delegate Frederick at http://www.va52.com/contact.asp.

    Or just start writing your Delegate about it.
    I just called Del. Frederick's office and was transferred to his aide in Richmond. He said that those bills and a few others are not being sponsored by Frederick. His aide mentioned that they *MIGHT* be sponsored by Marshall. While I had him on the phone I voiced my opposition to this bill and asked for my Delegate (Frederick) to vote against it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    Xeni wrote:
    I just called Del. Frederick's office and was transferred to his aide in Richmond. He said that those bills and a few others are not being sponsored by Frederick. His aide mentioned that they *MIGHT* be sponsored by Marshall. While I had him on the phone I voiced my opposition to this bill and asked for my Delegate (Frederick) to vote against it.
    I really doubt that Marshall would patron such a bill, so I checked LIS. According to LIS, Frederick is the chief patron of this bill. Either LIS is wrong or his office is wrong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Your papers please!

    Nice to see the delegates working to strip away our freedoms, progress in Richmond is underway!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    LIS just must have fixed the goof, they now list Jackson Miller as chief patron for these.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    Not sure where the confusion lies....vrwmiller...even the link you provided shows
    Delegate Jackson H. Miller
    (R) - House District 50



    as the chief patron of this bill.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    bayboy42 wrote:
    Not sure where the confusion lies....vrwmiller...even the link you provided shows
    Delegate Jackson H. Miller
    (R) - House District 50



    as the chief patron of this bill.
    As posted in another thread...

    That is so bizarre! I checked LIS, literally, not 10 minutes ago and Frederick was the sponsor of HB435.
    I notice that it has been updated as well. Still, Marshall is not the chief patron, though it does not surprise me Miller is the patron.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    While I dislike the idea of this bill, and will urge my lawmakers to oppose it, I also do not see that it says "produce identification documentation". It simply says "identify himself".



    To me, that means stating name and city of residence.



    What am I missing?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Happy, Happy... Joy, Joy!!!!

    Sorry guys.... I like this proposed change!! Don't hate me.

    One thing to remember is.....

    "when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    This means that the jack booted thugs cannot just walk up and ask you for your "papers" unless there is a good reason.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Papers Citizen before vee shoot you I hafe decided that you are a threat to the fatherland... who are you, vere are you goink and vere have you been you svine...

    ...(Said with a east German Accent.)



    sheeeesh.
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

    Leo,

    I for one don't believe that you personallywould try to abuse this power and my comment was not aimed at you...I have read your posts and agree with you alot I do. (For a cop you seem like a good one and are okay by me...)

    But there are thoes that will try to mis-use this power... and they will do so with a clear concience that they are doing what is best....and so it should NEVER be granted...

    Zieg Hiel!

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C. S. LEWIS


    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Freeflight wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

    Leo,

    I for one don't believe that you personallywould try to abuse this power and my comment was not aimed at you...I have read your posts and agree with you alot I do. (For a cop you seem like a good one and are okay by me...)

    But there are thoes that will try to mis-use this power... and they will do so with a clear concience that they are doing what is best....and so it should NEVER be granted...

    Zieg Hiel!

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C. S. LEWIS
    You are right... I only use my powers for good. Like Superman. He would NEVER use his x-ray vision to see through women's clothing.

    I know of cops that have pulled people over to ask them out on dates. Others that ran tags and knocked on their door to ask them out. So they abusedtraffic stops and VCIN information.

    There is always something that a few are going to abuse. This "paper check" can also be abused but the possibility of the minorabuse is outweighed by those that will use it properly.

    Out of the 850,000 cops out there.... there are not that many abusing their position. You have to have a bad apple in the bushel.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Happy, Happy... Joy, Joy!!!!

    Sorry guys.... I like this proposed change!! Don't hate me.

    One thing to remember is.....

    "when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    This means that the jack booted thugs cannot just walk up and ask you for your "papers" unless there is a good reason.
    I don't think I want to hear you complaining anymore, as it looks like Richmond is trying to give you all sorts of breaks: you won't have to wear a uniform to work anymore, you won't have to report accidents with under 5k in damage, you'll be able to demand anyone to ID themselves (if you think you have reason for "public safety"), you'll be able to arrest for ANY misdemeanor, and after all of that you'll be able to retire early!

    Because I guess more than 25-years of not wearing a uniform and demanding people to ID themselves for the safety of the general public, could kill you!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    I don't think I want to hear you complaining anymore, as it looks like Richmond is trying to give you all sorts of breaks: you won't have to wear a uniform to work anymore, you won't have to report accidents with under 5k in damage, you'll be able to demand anyone to ID themselves (if you think you have reason for "public safety"), you'll be able to arrest for ANY misdemeanor, and after all of that you'll be able to retire early!

    Because I guess more than 25-years of not wearing a uniform and demanding people to ID themselves for the safety of the general public, could kill you!
    I promise... give me this one thing and I will be happy for the rest of the year. :P

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Freeflight wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

    Leo,

    I for one don't believe that you personallywould try to abuse this power and my comment was not aimed at you...I have read your posts and agree with you alot I do. (For a cop you seem like a good one and are okay by me...)

    But there are thoes that will try to mis-use this power... and they will do so with a clear concience that they are doing what is best....and so it should NEVER be granted...

    Zieg Hiel!

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C. S. LEWIS
    You are right... I only use my powers for good. Like Superman. He would NEVER use his x-ray vision to see through women's clothing.

    I know of cops that have pulled people over to ask them out on dates. Others that ran tags and knocked on their door to ask them out. So they abusedtraffic stops and VCIN information.

    There is always something that a few are going to abuse. This "paper check" can also be abused but the possibility of the minorabuse is outweighed by those that will use it properly.

    Out of the 850,000 cops out there.... there are not that many abusing their position. You have to have a bad apple in the bushel.


    I'm glad you see it my way I know I'm right... Joke leo... Joke...

    I will have to disagree with you on this one. This bill is just another attempt to have everyone "Feel better" ...as in, "see what we have done to keep you safe... now we can clean up the streets because we can detain and search anyone "We LEOS"reasonably viewas athreat... for any good reason that we believe is true.."when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"the reasonsawfully nebulous by design and open to interpretation so that our "Net" will catch as many Flies as possible...but thats okay... we are your servants and will never misuse this power..."

    Nazi Germany viewed the Jews as a threat and made similar laws to be able to Stop and Identify... see what happened to the Jews...

    Not in AMERICA and not on my Watch...

    my whole point is that if even 1 or 2Jack booted thugs could (will)mis-use this then it just can't be...its a Pandora's box as far as I'm concerned.

    take this made up scenario for instance. Some Leo's upon seeing an armed person entering 7-11...could reasonably suspect that he is up to no good "Being Armed" andwill be allowed under this law to harass and harangue said armed person... because in "Good Faith" they... the said leo's believe that.."the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    You see where I'm going with this...

    I do believe our men and women in Blue deserve all the Tools they need. Just Not this one... It gives up yet another bit of freedom to exchange for feeling safer...

    In no way should we Pile on the Leo on this one. I knowI'm Right, I also see where Leo is coming from and understand..I've said my bit and thought it through as I'm sure he has..

    Its all cool Leo 229 we are all entitled to our beliefs..we can disagree without coming to blows or stooping to calling names.... and we can continue with dialog as long as we (both parties)desire...














    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Freeflight wrote:
    I'm glad you see it my way I know I'm right... Joke leo... Joke...

    ....
    Its all cool Leo 229 we are all entitled to our beliefs..we can disagree without coming to blows or stooping to calling names.... and we can continue with dialog as long as we (both parties)desire...
    I was getting ready to call you names till I got to the end!! Kidding!

    I understand the man with a gun scene.... The copwas probablygoing to approach in either case. Having to show the ID now takes out the confrontation aspect like Danbus had.I see it as a quick check that was going to occur anywayand all is good in the motherland.

    The bill isout of our hands... we will see what happens on this one.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    TEX1N wrote:
    I don't think I want to hear you complaining anymore, as it looks like Richmond is trying to give you all sorts of breaks: you won't have to wear a uniform to work anymore, you won't have to report accidents with under 5k in damage, you'll be able to demand anyone to ID themselves (if you think you have reason for "public safety"), you'll be able to arrest for ANY misdemeanor, and after all of that you'll be able to retire early!

    Because I guess more than 25-years of not wearing a uniform and demanding people to ID themselves for the safety of the general public, could kill you!
    I promise... give me this one thing and I will be happy for the rest of the year. :P
    If you give a mouse a cookie.... he will wan't a glass of milk...
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Freeflight wrote:
    I'm glad you see it my way I know I'm right... Joke leo... Joke...

    ....
    Its all cool Leo 229 we are all entitled to our beliefs..we can disagree without coming to blows or stooping to calling names.... and we can continue with dialog as long as we (both parties)desire...
    I was getting ready to call you names till I got to the end!! Kidding!

    I understand the man with a gun scene.... The copwas probablygoing to approach in either case. Having to show the ID now takes out the confrontation aspect like Danbus had.I see it as a quick check that was going to occur anywayand all is good in the motherland.

    The bill isout of our hands... we will see what happens on this one.
    Like Tess said........where does this recommended change say anthing about having to show ID??????:what:Just to bring it back to the top of the thread:

    "who while in a public place or a place open to the public refuses to identify himself at the request of a law-enforcement officer in uniform or a properly identified police officer, when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"


    My name is bayboy42 from Gloucester Point Virginia. Am I being detained or am I free to leave?
    (please don't misconstrue my question as any type of support for the bill!!!)

  20. #20
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    It seems it was a problem with LIS this morning that has been corrected.

    This is from this morning:


    Frederick, Jeffrey M.

    ...HB 430 Zoning ordinance; provisions for issuance of inspection...
    ...HB 431 Title insurance agents; pre-licensing education course.
    ...HB 432 Arts and cultural districts; adds City of Manassas to t...
    ...HB 433 Motor vehicle; forfeiture thereof for three or more off...
    ...HB 434 Defacement of buildings; immunity.
    ...HB 435 Law-enforcement officer; penalty for failure to identif...
    ...HB 436 Arrest or summons; charge for misdemeanor at discretion...
    ...HB 437 Public schools; composite index formula for basic state...
    ...HB 438 Learner's permits; issuance to minors when school recor...

    Since this was corrected, I feel much better about my delegate now!

  21. #21
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Happy, Happy... Joy, Joy!!!!

    Sorry guys.... I like this proposed change!! Don't hate me.

    One thing to remember is.....

    "when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

    This means that the jack booted thugs cannot just walk up and ask you for your "papers" unless there is a good reason.
    If this passes, I will show you ID.

    On the other hand, many LEO consider OC a safety issue, so without better definitions of the public safety requirement, it does mean a LEO can just walk up and ask because the LEO has a safety concern.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    If this passes, I will show you ID.

    On the other hand, many LEO consider OC a safety issue, so without better definitions of the public safety requirement, it does mean a LEO can just walk up and ask because the LEO has a safety concern.
    I hear your point....

    But even without the bill approved... LEOs will still approach with that same mindset and check out a guy who is armed.

    We all know that many OCers here have their ownmindset that they will just turn and walk away knowing they do not have to show any ID. We also know that this creates problems unnecessarily.

    We have to look beyond the few OCers that may be approached and questioned. I do not believe this isthe intended purpose.Those that OC could still be stopped but this time asked to show ID.

    I do understand the inconvenience this may cause.... but until all departments are on track with OC not being a crime.... it will happen anyway.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    While I dislike the idea of this bill, and will urge my lawmakers to oppose it, I also do not see that it says "produce identification documentation". It simply says "identify himself".



    To me, that means stating name and city of residence.



    What am I missing?
    I agree with Tess. Where does it say that we are required to carry identification?

    I almost always carry ID on the off chance that I may get hit by a car or something (it happened to me once), and I want my wife to be notified. I don't want to be a John Doe knocked out in the emergency room.

    Until a law is passed requiring us to carry identification of some type, this is pretty irrelevant.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    IANAL, but the way I read this is that the right to remain silent doesn't extend to your name. If requested by a LEO to identify yourself, you will be required to answer the question truthfully, or risk being charged with obstruction.

    Again, until they begin requiring us to carry identification papers at all times, this is unenforceable.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    The new law would only require you to identify yourself to the police, not to SHOW them your ID.

    or (ii) who while in a public place or a place open to the public refuses to identify himself at the request of a law-enforcement officer in uniform or a properly identified police officer, when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification,
    It's my understanding that current law requires the officer to have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity before involuntarily requiring you to identify yourself. Why is that not a good enough standard? Why are we lowering this requirement? This seems like a slippery slope to me.

    It's also unconstitutional. The police cannot involuntary stop you, to ask you to ID yourself or for any other reason, without an articulate reasonable suspicion that you are currently involved in criminal activity:

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) [emphasis added]
    And simple "good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964).
    And

    Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) [emphasis added]
    In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51—52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible.

    ...

    Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975).
    Let me quote that paragraph from Terry again, because I feel it strikes at the heart of this issue:

    "If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •