.....In my pocket I carry only some cash and a
BORSE.
Also, bear in mind that in
HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. where..
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
SCOTUS held that :
Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.
Think about that for a moment....
according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio)
YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote:
Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
If you
get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is
NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth
MUST be satisfied by a
VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable.
Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible:
Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445.
If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241)
Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes.
(All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine)
