HB 1049: Mandatory self-identification

Does anybody really think that the police will articulate their RAS?

More likely:

"You are being detained for suspicion of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will soon happen. Please state your name, address and social security number to me. Failure to identify yourself is a class 1 misdemeanor for which I will arrest you."

Click to expand...

Thundar wrote:

Does anybody really think that the police will articulate their RAS?

More likely:

"You are being detained for suspicion of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will soon happen. Please state your name, address and social security number to me. Failure to identify yourself is a class 1 misdemeanor for which I will arrest you."

Click to expand...

SNIP Cop: We received a call about a man with a gun. That's a school over there. Are you aware you are within 1000 feet of a school?

OC: I thought open-carry was legal in Virginia.

Click to expand...

Another new and different twist on pre-existing common law. Cops and deputies in Virginia have "the powers of a constable at common law". That includes the power, but only at night time, to stop and question any person, who shall be required to state his full name and the address where he customarily resides...

Click to expand...

I wonder who is actually behind this bill?

It can't be your average cops; too many of them already demand identity without legal authority. It would never occur to them to get a law passed giving them authority--they already think they got it.

How does one go about finding out the "identity" of the little amorphous glob of rock-hidden slime who prompted the submission of this bill?

(Just let somebody refuse to releasesuch identity. Imagine the enraging irony of such refusal to identify: the rest of us have to identify ourselves; but the clown who prompted the bill's submission does not.)

Click to expand...

Scott supports the fight of Virginians to keep and bear arms as affirmed in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He will fight to protect Virginia's sportsmen and gun owners.

Click to expand...

I wonder who is actually behind this bill?

It can't be your average cops; too many of them already demand identity without legal authority. It would never occur to them to get a law passed giving them authority--they already think they got it.

How does one go about finding out the "identity" of the little amorphous glob of rock-hidden slime who prompted the submission of this bill?

(Just let somebody refuse to releasesuch identity. Imagine the enraging irony of such refusal to identify: the rest of us have to identify ourselves; but the clown who prompted the bill's submission does not.)

Click to expand...

Cop: We received a call about a man with a gun. That's a school over there. Are you aware you are within 1000 feet of a school?

OC: I thought open-carry was legal in Virginia.

Cop: Please show me some identification.

OC: I don't carry my Driver's License with me when I open-carry.

Cop: Show me your ID.

OC: No.

Cop: Give me your ID now!

OC: Am I free to leave?

Cop: No! Show me your ID now or I will place you under arrest.

OC: Well, issue me a summons.

Cop: No ID, no summons. Put your hand behind your back.


See, makes it easier than ever to wage war on gun owners.

Click to expand...

Repeater wrote:

SNIP Cop: We received a call about a man with a gun. That's a school over there. Are you aware you are within 1000 feet of a school?

Click to expand...

So telling him your name orally because you have no paper ID would not satisfy the law?

Click to expand...

user wrote:

Another new and different twist on pre-existing common law.  Cops and deputies in Virginia have "the powers of a constable at common law".  That includes the power, but only at night time, to stop and question any person, who shall be required to state his full name and the address where he customarily resides... 

Click to expand...

Would not such a "common law" be over-ruled, in a manner of speaking, by the 4th Amendment (1791) and subsequent court rulings like Terry v Ohio and later state appellate court rulings that cite those cases as precedent in arriving at their own holdings?  Specifically, the parts about cops needing RAS and reasonable inferences based on their exerience as cops.  Very little of that stuff ever mentions anything about "night time", except in the context of one circumstance that can contribute to RAS, as opposed to supplying RAS entirely--as far as I can recall, anyway, and from what decisions I have read (meaning I've not read all decisions).

Click to expand...

Stop and identify statutes have their roots in early English vagrancy laws that required suspected vagrants to face arrest unless they gave “a good Account of themselves,” a power that itself reflected common-law rights of private persons to “arrest any suspicious night-walker, and detain him till he give a good account of himself … .” In recent decades, the Court has found constitutional infirmity in traditional vagrancy laws. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness. Its broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law.

Click to expand...

Citizen wrote:

user wrote:

Another new and different twist on pre-existing common law. Cops and deputies in Virginia have "the powers of a constable at common law". That includes the power, but only at night time, to stop and question any person, who shall be required to state his full name and the address where he customarily resides...

Click to expand...

Would not such a "common law" be over-ruled, in a manner of speaking, by the 4th Amendment (1791) and subsequent court rulings like Terry v Ohio and later state appellate court rulings that citethose cases as precedent in arriving at theirown holdings? Specifically, the parts about cops needing RAS and reasonable inferences based on their exerience as cops. Very little of that stuff ever mentions anything about "night time", except in the context of one circumstance that can contribute to RAS, as opposed to supplying RAS entirely--as far as I can recall, anyway, and from what decisions I have read (meaning I've not read all decisions).

Click to expand...

I would think so...

Hiibel wrote:

Stop and identify statutes have their roots in early English vagrancy laws that required suspected vagrants to face arrest unless they gave “a good Account of themselves,” a power that itself reflected common-law rights of private persons to “arrest any suspicious night-walker, and detain him till he give a good account of himself … .” In recent decades, the Court has found constitutional infirmity in traditional vagrancy laws. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness. Its broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...