Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Personal Identification KRS law ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I'm wanting to know if there is a KRS that requires a Kentucky resident to obtain and have on their person, some form of government issued identification at all times when out in public.

    I would especially like to hear from any KY police officers on this subject.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    Do y'all understand just how difficult it is to prove that something does not exist - in law or in logic? In law you have to examine every statute and sub-section and interpret it liberally in the direction of the question. In logic it is a student's exercise to understand and show that an universally quantified statement is falsified by a counter-example and to find one the whole universe of discourse must be examined.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Well, I'm not a laywer. Since ignorance of the law is no defense, I would have to say yes.

    Because of this, I think our entire legal system is ambiguous and asinine. If we left it up the legislative branch to tell us which ways it is unlawful to tie our shoes, we'd have spent around 50 billion USD codifying the tying of shoes.

    Only in government can this happen.

    I think specifically, I was told that I was "required by law" to actually have identification, on my person, anytime I go out in public. I say it's not true, however a friend of mine is saying the opposite. You provided two links on "stop and identify", which doesn't seem to require any kind of official identification card or license.

    Thank you for the comments and links.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I would ask the question, would it matter if there was a law. I don't think I would carry my papers even if it was required. If I do go out I'm usually not driving and if I'm open carrying I purposely leave my id at home. I don't need it and neither do you.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I want to address something. Like a lot of things we are conditioned to believe, the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." I believed that without thinking much about what I was saying. Is that really true? Can ignorance of the law really not be an excuse when there are literally thousands of laws out there? I know it's easy to understand," don't hurt other people." But our local and state plus federal statues and codes have so many laws that don't even address the idea of not hurting other people that I find it laughable that anyone person could know either the language of the law or the meaning. Just something to think about.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." That is not true. That is a con job by the court.

    There is only one person in the US that is required to be learned in the law. That is the Solicitor General.

    28 USC 505 - The President shall appoint in the Department of Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Solicitor General, learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties.

    28 USC 503 - The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.

    So, if only one person must know the law and it is not you then how would Ignorance of the law not be an excuse???????



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." That is not true. That is a con job by the court.

    There is only one person in the US that is required to be learned in the law. That is the Solicitor General.

    28 USC 505 - The President shall appoint in the Department of Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Solicitor General, learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties.

    28 USC 503 - The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.

    So, if only one person must know the law and it is not you then how would Ignorance of the law not be an excuse???????

    Because you are confusing "excuse" and "defense".

    What the term actually means is there is not a positive defense against conviction of a crime simply by arguing that you didn't know the act was a crime.

    If so, the only defense a person would have to present in court is "Crud, I didn't know it was illegal."

    Again and again, the people of this forum disapoint me with their "interpretation" of laws to suit them.

    The anti-government sentiment in here is really starting to get old...


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    And as a Kentucky police officer, I can tell you that no, you do not have to have ID on your person to go out and about.

    However, if you are stopped when driving, you must present an operator's license upon request.





  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    I'm wanting to know if there is a KRS that requires a Kentucky resident to obtain and have on their person, some form of government issued identification at all times when out in public.

    I would especially like to hear from any KY police officers on this subject.
    There is no such law in KY nor any other state - nor could there be under Kolender v. Lawson (striking down ordinance requiring people to carry and prodeuce on demand to the police identification).

    Further, Hiibel limits state stop and ID statutes to persons subject to bone fide Terry stops, appears to limit reach of statute to only require a person state their name, and further, notes that those with Fifth Amendment interests at stake (i.e., bad guys) could lawfully refuse to state their name.

    Hiible makes little sense(e.g., how does the citizen know what "reasonable articulable suspicion" is in the mind of the oficer detainer her?, why have a statute only applicable to good guys, etc.) and both the Nev. S. Ct. and US S. Ct. were sharply divided on the issue, both tribunals only being one vote away from striking down the statute. An Obama S. Ct. pick, if it replaces one of the Hiibel majority jusitices, would probably vote to reverse or limitHiibel were the issue to come up again.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    color of law wrote:
    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." That is not true. That is a con job by the court.

    There is only one person in the US that is required to be learned in the law. That is the Solicitor General.

    28 USC 505 - The President shall appoint in the Department of Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Solicitor General, learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties.

    28 USC 503 - The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.

    So, if only one person must know the law and it is not you then how would Ignorance of the law not be an excuse???????

    Because you are confusing "excuse" and "defense".

    What the term actually means is there is not a positive defense against conviction of a crime simply by arguing that you didn't know the act was a crime.

    If so, the only defense a person would have to present in court is "Crud, I didn't know it was illegal."

    Again and again, the people of this forum disapoint me with their "interpretation" of laws to suit them.

    The anti-government sentiment in here is really starting to get old...
    We must agree to disagree. You are a police officer, which means you are at a disadvantage. I understand. I am a paralegal. Paralegals are usually 10 times smarter than attorneys and 20 smarter than judges.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    We must agree to disagree. You are a police officer, which means you are at a disadvantage. I understand. I am a paralegal. Paralegals are usually 10 times smarter than attorneys and 20 smarter than judges.
    ROTFL!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    color of law wrote:
    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." That is not true. That is a con job by the court.

    There is only one person in the US that is required to be learned in the law. That is the Solicitor General.

    28 USC 505 - The President shall appoint in the Department of Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Solicitor General, learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties.

    28 USC 503 - The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.

    So, if only one person must know the law and it is not you then how would Ignorance of the law not be an excuse???????

    Because you are confusing "excuse" and "defense".

    What the term actually means is there is not a positive defense against conviction of a crime simply by arguing that you didn't know the act was a crime.

    If so, the only defense a person would have to present in court is "Crud, I didn't know it was illegal."

    Again and again, the people of this forum disapoint me with their "interpretation" of laws to suit them.

    The anti-government sentiment in here is really starting to get old...
    We must agree to disagree. You are a police officer, which means you are at a disadvantage. I understand. I am a paralegal. Paralegals are usually 10 times smarter than attorneys and 20 smarter than judges.
    Ok, would you like to fill me in on how my argument is wrong?

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    ignorance of the law is no excuse

    The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine: Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him. John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.

    If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.

    This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).

    However, the law in the USA has swelled to a size that is unknowable even by experts. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the U.S. Code (i.e., federal statutes) occupied 32 feet of library shelf space. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the New York state statutes occupied 22 feet of library shelf space. Who can know all that is within these pages? A criminal law class in law school contains only about 40 hours of lectures, mostly about homicides, with a little about larceny and rape. The only solution seems to be a detailed search of statutes and cases in a database on a computer (e.g., WESTLAW), plus the avoidance of any behavior that harms people, either through physical, financial, or emotional injury, or by deceit.

    A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "willful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).
    Based on the the above quote it would appear ignorance of the law is no excuse is on shaky ground.

    I have a 2000 addition/copy of the federal United States code. It's now 35 feet tall. I also have a copy of all the federal laws enforce in 1935. It's 4" thick.

    If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to the citizen, then it also applies to the LEO.

    So, the LEO does not get to escape his arrest/citation of the citizen because he did not know the citizen did not break the law. The LEO has a duty to know the law. The LEO makes out a complaint and signs it under penalty of perjury. The LEO said that the citizen broke the law as written. The LEO did not sign under penalty of perjury that the citizen broke the law as to what the LEO thought he understood the law to say.

    So, on cross examination of the officer on the stand the following takes place.

    Pro se/defendant: Officer, you cited the defendant for xxx, is that correct?

    Officer: Yes.

    Pro se/defendant: Officer, what legal authority did you rely on to make the legal determination that the defendant violated the law?

    Prosecutor: Object, the officer is not an attorney and he cannot make a legal determination that the defendant violated the law.

    Pro se/defendant: Judge, is that true the officer cannot make a legal determination?

    Judge: That is correct, the officer cannot make a legal determination.

    Pro se/defendant: Judge, based on your deternination that the officer cannot make a legal determination as to what the law is and if it was violated, then neither can the defendant make the legal determination that he violated the law. Judge, based on your determination you must dismiss the case.

    As you can see ignorance of the law is an excuse.

    http://tinyurl.com/6vg6kh










  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    ignorance of the law is no excuse

    The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine: Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him. John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.

    If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.

    This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).

    However, the law in the USA has swelled to a size that is unknowable even by experts. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the U.S. Code (i.e., federal statutes) occupied 32 feet of library shelf space. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the New York state statutes occupied 22 feet of library shelf space. Who can know all that is within these pages? A criminal law class in law school contains only about 40 hours of lectures, mostly about homicides, with a little about larceny and rape. The only solution seems to be a detailed search of statutes and cases in a database on a computer (e.g., WESTLAW), plus the avoidance of any behavior that harms people, either through physical, financial, or emotional injury, or by deceit.

    A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "willful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).
    Based on the the above quote it would appear ignorance of the law is no excuse is on shaky ground.

    I have a 2000 addition/copy of the federal United States code. It's now 35 feet tall. I also have a copy of all the federal laws enforce in 1935. It's 4" thick.

    If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to the citizen, then it also applies to the LEO.

    So, the LEO does not get to escape his arrest/citation of the citizen because he did not know the citizen did not break the law. The LEO has a duty to know the law. The LEO makes out a complaint and signs it under penalty of perjury. The LEO said that the citizen broke the law as written. The LEO did not sign under penalty of perjury that the citizen broke the law as to what the LEO thought he understood the law to say.

    So, on cross examination of the officer on the stand the following takes place.

    Pro se/defendant: Officer, you cited the defendant for xxx, is that correct?

    Officer: Yes.

    Pro se/defendant: Officer, what legal authority did you rely on to make the legal determination that the defendant violated the law?

    Prosecutor: Object, the officer is not an attorney and he cannot make a legal determination that the defendant violated the law.

    Pro se/defendant: Judge, is that true the officer cannot make a legal determination?

    Judge: That is correct, the officer cannot make a legal determination.

    Pro se/defendant: Judge, based on your deternination that the officer cannot make a legal determination as to what the law is and if it was violated, then neither can the defendant make the legal determination that he violated the law. Judge, based on your determination you must dismiss the case.

    As you can see ignorance of the law is an excuse.

    http://tinyurl.com/6vg6kh








    No.

    You are confusing misinterpretation of the law with ignorance of the law, and that is not only the biggest problem I see with people in this forum, it is the problem that will get you into trouble more than any other thing.

    Again, you are wrong.

    A misinterpretation of the law and ignorance of the fact of the law itself are two very, very different things, my friend.

    The Link you posted only strengthensMY argument.

    As an LEO, I can tell you that if we BOTH misinterpret a law, the favor WILL GO TO ME. As long as I acted in what is called "good faith", any mistakes on either side will be in my favor. That is one of the points that I try my damndest to get across in these forums, and it is one that very few non LEOs understand...

    I am allowed to be "ignorant of the law", as long as I acted in good faith. You, as a citizen, are not allowed that luxury...

    Is it biased for LEOs? Yes. Is there anything that you or I can do about it? No.

    I consider myself a citizen first, and an LEO second.

    I am with you in your fight to OC. I belong to the Constitutionalist Party. We have out own version of the Pledge of Allegiance. If you doubt me, check out my profile...









  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    No.
    As an LEO, I can tell you that if we BOTH misinterpret a law, the favor WILL GO TO ME. As long as I acted in what is called "good faith", any mistakes on either side will be in my favor. That is one of the points that I try my damndest to get across in these forums, and it is one that very few non LEOs understand...
    Um, not quite, but not quite wrong either.

    Under Saucier v. Katz, LEOs are due "qualified immunity" in Section 1983 actions for violations of civil rights as follows: First,the court determines whether the law governing the officer's conduct was "clearly established." If the law is "clearly established," then the court determines whether a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of the clearly established law, that his conduct was lawful.

    So LEOs do not get a freebie if they misinterpret the law - it is assumed they know law which is "clearly established." The question then becomes whether (assuming the LEO knew the clearly established law) under the facts at the scene, might a reasonable [not the actual] officer have believed that his conduct was lawful.

    Whether the LEOs conduct is further actionable under state law is another matter that will vary from state to state.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    No.
    As an LEO, I can tell you that if we BOTH misinterpret a law, the favor WILL GO TO ME. As long as I acted in what is called "good faith", any mistakes on either side will be in my favor. That is one of the points that I try my damndest to get across in these forums, and it is one that very few non LEOs understand...
    Um, not quite, but not quite wrong either.

    Under Saucier v. Katz, LEOs are due "qualified immunity" in Section 1983 actions for violations of civil rights as follows: First,the court determines whether the law governing the officer's conduct was "clearly established." If the law is "clearly established," then the court determines whether a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of the clearly established law, that his conduct was lawful.

    So LEOs do not get a freebie if they misinterpret the law - it is assumed they know law which is "clearly established." The question then becomes whether (assuming the LEO knew the clearly established law) under the facts at the scene, might a reasonable [not the actual] officer have believed that his conduct was lawful.

    Whether the LEOs conduct is further actionable under state law is another matter that will vary from state to state.
    SIr,

    We are saying the same thing, I just much prefer to use layman's terms. Again, "good faith" is the same thing as what you are saying.

    If, in "good faith" I beleive my (an LEO) actions to be an accurate reflection of the law, I am covered.

    If, in "good faith" a citizen believes their actions to be an accurate reflection of the law, they are not covered.

    Not saying it is fair or not, just saying that is the way it is.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Again, "good faith" is the same thing as what you are saying.

    If, in "good faith" I beleive my (an LEO) actions to be an accurate reflection of the law, I am covered.
    No, it's not the same thing, read Saucier. It does not matter what you think as an officer - that factor is irrelevant.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    Again, "good faith" is the same thing as what you are saying.

    If, in "good faith" I beleive my (an LEO) actions to be an accurate reflection of the law, I am covered.
    No, it's not the same thing, read Saucier. It does not matter what you think as an officer - that factor is irrelevant.
    And I am speaking of the general principle of good faith, not what is spelled out in one particular decision.

    In general, if I think what I am doing is lawful, and can reasonably articulate it as so, I am covered. I might make myself seem like a totally ignorant twit in spelling out my reasoning, but I am still covered.





  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    Again, "good faith" is the same thing as what you are saying.

    If, in "good faith" I beleive my (an LEO) actions to be an accurate reflection of the law, I am covered.
    No, it's not the same thing, read Saucier. It does not matter what you think as an officer - that factor is irrelevant.
    And I am speaking of the general principle of good faith, not what is spelled out in one particular decision.

    In general, if I think what I am doing is lawful, and can reasonably articulate it as so, I am covered. I might make myself seem like a totally ignorant twit in spelling out my reasoning, but I am still covered.
    Penalty Flag on the Play: Proffering rule of law without citing to authority.

  21. #21
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by superdemon View Post
    Mike wrote:

    And I am speaking of the general principle of good faith, not what is spelled out in one particular decision.

    In general, if I think what I am doing is lawful, and can reasonably articulate it as so, I am covered. I might make myself seem like a totally ignorant twit in spelling out my reasoning, but I am still covered.
    Ok, explain this: if it is not required by law to have identification on you in the state of sky, and you, as a LEO, know this, before I go any further, how long have you been on the force? I ask that because a couple of friends of mine were stopped tonight, just as a casual conversation, and the cop requested ID from them. My male friend didn't have his ID, and the cop sat there and said "in the state of KY, it is required to have some form of identity on you." I happen to overhear that and said, "excuse me, but no it isn't. I have the laws on my phone to prove it." He looked at me in a condescending tone and said, "son, I've been on the force for 35 years, and it has ALWAYS been a law. Now, can I see your ID?" "I looked back at him, asked him, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" "You are free to go." I looked back at him and said, "well, in that case, by law, I'm not required to show you ID, you have a nice night." And walked off.

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    dear new poster...welcome, to the forum, however, you have responded to an 8 year olde thread...

    great story w/good outcome...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Statesman View Post
    I'm wanting to know if there is a KRS that requires a Kentucky resident to obtain and have on their person, some form of government issued identification at all times when out in public.

    I would especially like to hear from any KY police officers on this subject.
    I know of no state that mandates the carriage of a hard-copy ID of any sort.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I know of no state that mandates the carriage of a hard-copy ID of any sort.
    Look harder and longer until you find it. Then and only then come back and post the result(s).
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Look harder and longer until you find it. Then and only then come back and post the result(s).
    For interested readers, the relevant US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case seems to be Kolender vs Lawson. In this case, California law required a detainee to provide satisfactory identity documentation to a questioning police officer or face penalty. SCOTUS ruled the California statute too vague, giving the police officer too much latitude to issue a summons or arrest. What satisfies the requirement? A utility bill? What if the cop decided well prior to the encounter that he would only accept a state-issued identity document, but the person only had a utility bill on him? You see the problem. So, SCOTUS shot down the California statute.

    But, here is the crux of the issue. I have seen at least one state statute (mid-West?) that gets around Kolender by requiring a detainee to provide to a requesting cop a drivers license or state issued ID card if he has it on him at the time.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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