Identification

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

What does it mean when an opinion is"not designated for publication?"

I can't see where in the opinion cited that the absence of ID alone was sufficient to justify the belief that the individual would not appear on a summons, thus justifying arrest. In fact the opinion says, "Based upon what he knew..." So it would seem there was more to the knowledge upon which the no-appearance conclusion was made than just no ID.

http://tinyurl.com/23sxvu

Also, this individual was driving, a circumstance in which, by law, the driver is to be carrying his driver's license. Thereis no law requiring the carrying of a walking license, an eating in a restaurant license, etc.

It seems to me that the absence of a law requiring ID would tend to undermine the availability of the conclusion that one who doesn't show ID won't appear. Whatever on earth did the police do before driver's licenses? Arrest everybody?

"if any person is believed by the arresting officer to be likely to disregard a summons issued"

This is all I need. The courts have ruled and I shall do what needs to be done.

In my book... if you have noID and you could go to jail for a year.... this is enough for you to give me a fake name and not show up. You might even give me your brother's name and DOB.

Before the day of ID cards..everybody knew everybody.

Still hoping for some cites and, if possible links.

Also, there would seem to be two factors here:

1) The law.

2) The officer's belief, and how he arrived at it.

With regard to #1, in the absence of cites, I have to do my thinking with the information available. The law doesn't say that all whorefuse to show ID shall automatically be arrested and brought immediately to the magistrate. Something the legislators could have easily said in order to clarify that the absence of a law requiring ID does not hinder this law.Along thisline, neitherdoes the law say that ID refusal is prima facie evidence of disregard for the summons. Also, the law doesn't say that those who show ID are exempt from being arrested and brought immediately before a magistrate. Of course, none of thesepoints are conclusive. More than likely they didn't even think of it.

With regard to #2, it would seem that an officer who decides in advance that no-ID or a refusal to show ID equalsa likelyhood of failing to appear is not taking each situation on the merits before him. I question the validity of such a cookie-cutter, pre-determined belief. Its one thing for an officer tobelieve based on observations in front ofhim. Deciding in advance and always applying the determination seems on the surface alazy-thinking approach. Moreover, it is guaranteed to arrest any citizen who really does know his rights and is just standing on them.I just can't believe an honestcourt,if itfully saw and considered all the issues and angles, wouldwant such a citizen to be arrested. I just can't believe an honest officer, who reallythought it over, wouldn't want to try to make an individual determinationrather thanautomatically arresting such a citizen. It is also hard for me to believe that an honest legislature wouldintend such an arrest.

 

[para_org]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

What does it mean when an opinion is"not designated for publication?"

I can't see where in the opinion cited that the absence of ID alone was sufficient to justify the belief that the individual would not appear on a summons, thus justifying arrest. In fact the opinion says, "Based upon what he knew..." So it would seem there was more to the knowledge upon which the no-appearance conclusion was made than just no ID.

http://tinyurl.com/23sxvu

Also, this individual was driving, a circumstance in which, by law, the driver is to be carrying his driver's license. Thereis no law requiring the carrying of a walking license, an eating in a restaurant license, etc.

It seems to me that the absence of a law requiring ID would tend to undermine the availability of the conclusion that one who doesn't show ID won't appear. Whatever on earth did the police do before driver's licenses? Arrest everybody?

"if any person is believed by the arresting officer to be likely to disregard a summons issued"

This is all I need. The courts have ruled and I shall do what needs to be done.

In my book... if you have noID and you could go to jail for a year.... this is enough for you to give me a fake name and not show up. You might even give me your brother's name and DOB.

Before the day of ID cards..everybody knew everybody.

Still hoping for some cites and, if possible links.

Also, there would seem to be two factors here:

1) The law.

2) The officer's belief, and how he arrived at it.

With regard to #1, in the absence of cites, I have to do my thinking with the information available. The law doesn't say that all whorefuse to show ID shall automatically be arrested and brought immediately to the magistrate. Something the legislators could have easily said in order to clarify that the absence of a law requiring ID does not hinder this law.Along thisline, neitherdoes the law say that ID refusal is prima facie evidence of disregard for the summons. Also, the law doesn't say that those who show ID are exempt from being arrested and brought immediately before a magistrate. Of course, none of thesepoints are conclusive. More than likely they didn't even think of it.

With regard to #2, it would seem that an officer who decides in advance that no-ID or a refusal to show ID equalsa likelyhood of failing to appear is not taking each situation on the merits before him. I question the validity of such a cookie-cutter, pre-determined belief. Its one thing for an officer tobelieve based on observations in front ofhim. Deciding in advance and always applying the determination seems on the surface alazy-thinking approach. Moreover, it is guaranteed to arrest any citizen who really does know his rights and is just standing on them.I just can't believe an honestcourt,if itfully saw and considered all the issues and angles, wouldwant such a citizen to be arrested. I just can't believe an honest officer, who reallythought it over, wouldn't want to try to make an individual determinationrather thanautomatically arresting such a citizen. It is also hard for me to believe that an honest legislature wouldintend such an arrest.

Remember..LEO229 has repeatedly said things like the above AND then done an about face and said he ALWAYS makes consideration of each situation before him.

Which can be decoded into LEO229 saying whatever is appropriate for the issue at hand, and not necessarily what is morally or ethically correct.

It also means that you and I and others are probably wasting our time with a person who is not in charge of his 'honor', but has turned that part of his soul over to the 'state'.

LEO229 stands for nothing other than what he is told to do. He is the perfect 'robo-cop'.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

HankT wrote:

AbNo wrote:

That being said, I think you anonymity, 229, gives you a bit of a repreve from not being able to speak your mind.

That's essentially what Tarzan1888 said earlier today: "A LEO should maintain a certain amount of anonymity..."

But T1888apparently doesn'tthinknon-LEOs should be anonymous here. It's a different deal for the rest of us, I quess.

I do think that being LEO 229 being anonymous allows him to speak his mind way more freely. And isn't that what a discussion forum is for?

When I talk about not ratting people out... I am talking about minor junk. If there was a serious violation or crime... this would need to bereported.

If you roll up and find another cop sleeping.. do you go tell on him or her?

If you see a minor violation... the informal rule is to talk to the person about it. You do not go tell the supervisor. Doing this will get that person and his friends to watch for you to make a minor mistake so they can return the favor.

Now.. you have a hostile work environment and you have to fear the people you work with.

As I said... I have people approach meand question something that was done to them. Since I amunknown to the LEO in question.... I always advise what was right and what was wrong. I encourage them to report the violation and leave my name out of it.

It really has nothing to do with "Courage".... It has more to do with quality of life on the job. Going to work each day would really suck if everyone knew you as a rat and avoided you.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

What does it mean when an opinion is"not designated for publication?"

I can't see where in the opinion cited that the absence of ID alone was sufficient to justify the belief that the individual would not appear on a summons, thus justifying arrest. In fact the opinion says, "Based upon what he knew..." So it would seem there was more to the knowledge upon which the no-appearance conclusion was made than just no ID.

http://tinyurl.com/23sxvu

Also, this individual was driving, a circumstance in which, by law, the driver is to be carrying his driver's license. Thereis no law requiring the carrying of a walking license, an eating in a restaurant license, etc.

It seems to me that the absence of a law requiring ID would tend to undermine the availability of the conclusion that one who doesn't show ID won't appear. Whatever on earth did the police do before driver's licenses? Arrest everybody?

"if any person is believed by the arresting officer to be likely to disregard a summons issued"

This is all I need. The courts have ruled and I shall do what needs to be done.

In my book... if you have noID and you could go to jail for a year.... this is enough for you to give me a fake name and not show up. You might even give me your brother's name and DOB.

Before the day of ID cards..everybody knew everybody.

Still hoping for some cites and, if possible links.

Also, there would seem to be two factors here:

1) The law.

2) The officer's belief, and how he arrived at it.

With regard to #1, in the absence of cites, I have to do my thinking with the information available. The law doesn't say that all whorefuse to show ID shall automatically be arrested and brought immediately to the magistrate. Something the legislators could have easily said in order to clarify that the absence of a law requiring ID does not hinder this law.Along thisline, neitherdoes the law say that ID refusal is prima facie evidence of disregard for the summons. Also, the law doesn't say that those who show ID are exempt from being arrested and brought immediately before a magistrate. Of course, none of thesepoints are conclusive. More than likely they didn't even think of it.

With regard to #2, it would seem that an officer who decides in advance that no-ID or a refusal to show ID equalsa likelyhood of failing to appear is not taking each situation on the merits before him. I question the validity of such a cookie-cutter, pre-determined belief. Its one thing for an officer tobelieve based on observations in front ofhim. Deciding in advance and always applying the determination seems on the surface alazy-thinking approach. Moreover, it is guaranteed to arrest any citizen who really does know his rights and is just standing on them.I just can't believe an honestcourt,if itfully saw and considered all the issues and angles, wouldwant such a citizen to be arrested. I just can't believe an honest officer, who reallythought it over, wouldn't want to try to make an individual determinationrather thanautomatically arresting such a citizen. It is also hard for me to believe that an honest legislature wouldintend such an arrest.

How many people have you arrested the did not show up in court?

How many people have you arrested that actually had valid ID did not show up in court knowing they were going to go to jail if found guilty?

I have had many people fail to come to court and had bench warrants issued. That bench warrant is worthless unless the Judge has the real name of the person.

Now you know why I have made my decision.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

Remember..LEO229 has repeatedly said things like the above AND then done an about face and said he ALWAYS makes consideration of each situation before him.

Which can be decoded into LEO229 saying whatever is appropriate for the issue at hand, and not necessarily what is morally or ethically correct.

It also means that you and I and others are probably wasting our time with a person who is not in charge of his 'honor', but has turned that part of his soul over to the 'state'.

LEO229 stands for nothing other than what he is told to do. He is the perfect 'robo-cop'.

Pointless Dribble....

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

How many people have you arrested the did not show up in court?

How many people have you arrested that actually had valid ID did not show up in court knowing they were going to go to jail if found guilty?

I have had many people fail to come to court and had bench warrants issued. That bench warrant is worthless unless the Judge has the real name of the person.

Now you know why I have made my decision.

Two separate items in this post.

1) I haven't been trying to attack you. I'm trying to sort out the matter for myself. A big factor in sorting it out will be the court rulings. It would be helpful if you could provide cites, and if possible, links.

2) In thisitem I am addressing the quote above. I do not even have the faintest doubt about what you say above regardingmisdemeanants who have not shown up.

I think the above quote focuses only the no-shows. Wouldn't a fuller consideration of all the facts yieldan even better answer?

Wouldn't a fuller consideration include how many have appeared?

In fairness, I'll answer your question. I have caused a number of people to be arrested. All misdemeanors--shoplifters.All showed.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

How many people have you arrested the did not show up in court?

How many people have you arrested that actually had valid ID did not show up in court knowing they were going to go to jail if found guilty?

I have had many people fail to come to court and had bench warrants issued. That bench warrant is worthless unless the Judge has the real name of the person.

Now you know why I have made my decision.

Two separate items in this post.

1) I haven't been trying to attack you. I'm trying to sort out the matter for myself. A big factor in sorting it out will be the court rulings. It would be helpful if you could provide cites, and if possible, links.

2) In thisitem I am addressing the quote above. I do not even have the faintest doubt about what you say above regardingmisdemeanants who have not shown up.

I think the above quote focuses only the no-shows. Wouldn't a fuller consideration of all the facts yieldan even better answer?

Wouldn't a fuller consideration include how many have appeared?

In fairness, I'll answer your question. I have caused a number of people to be arrested. All misdemeanors--shoplifters.All showed.

I know your not attacking me.. We are cool.

I am going by the state code as a guideline. That was already posted.

If you have ID and you have a prior FTA (Fail to appear)... your might very well be going downtown.

But no ID at all and you cannot prove to my satisfaction you are....

I had a DWI that provided his brother's identity.... So you better know ALL the info I need when you do not show me any ID and give "your" info.

There are some good fake ID cards out there now too.... Hispanics have them and we are currently busing the ID manufacturing rings now.

So even when the have ID..... sometimes it is no good. :banghead: They never get punished for their crimes. That is not fare to all the other people who are charged and convicted by the Judge for the same stuff.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO229,


Got it.

Does the non-traffic misdemeanor summons your jurisdiction useshave a blank for a driver's license number or ID card number?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO229,


Got it.

Does the non-traffic misdemeanor summons your jurisdiction useshave a blank for a driver's license number or ID card number?

The summons is designed by the state with required fields that all departments must have. There is a block that permits the entry ofa Driver's Licenseor SSN.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The summons is designed by the state with required fields that all departments must have. There is a block that permits the entry ofa Driver's Licenseor SSN.

Hmmmm.

Does that block have a little asterisk denoting a "required field?"

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The summons is designed by the state with required fields that all departments must have. There is a block that permits the entry ofa Driver's Licenseor SSN.

Hmmmm.

Does that block have a little asterisk denoting a "required field?"

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

None of the fields are identified as Optional.....

Some people have neither an ID or SSN so that field can be blank. For the class 3 and 4 misdemeanors I only need a name. But the Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors I need a name that can be verified.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP But the Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors I need a name that can be verified.

"Ben Franklin from Philadelphia. That's my name, Officer."

"You want to know if I canverify it for you, officer?"

"Um, sure. I think I havesomething from a government agencyin my walletwith my name on it."

"Here it is. No, no. Go ahead. You can keep it. We'll just forget all about this little indiscretion on my part, won't we?" (Joke, folks. Not a suggestion.)



Probably been tried before, eh? (Don't forget to tell us whether it was successful. )

 

[para_org]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP But the Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors I need a name that can be verified.

"Ben Franklin from Philadelphia. That's my name, Officer."

"You want to know if I canverify it for you, officer?"

"Um, sure. I think I havesomething from a government agencyin my walletwith my name on it."

"Here it is. No, no. Go ahead. You can keep it. We'll just forget all about this little indescretion on my part, won't we?" (Joke, folks. Not a suggestion.)



Probably been tried before, eh? (Don't forget to tell us whether it was successful. )

I grew up just outside of Chicago.

And that *IS* the way things went there.

And if you did not 'pay the fare' you were worse off, guaranteed.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP But the Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors I need a name that can be verified.

"Ben Franklin from Philadelphia. That's my name, Officer."

"You want to know if I canverify it for you, officer?"

"Um, sure. I think I havesomething from a government agencyin my walletwith my name on it."

"Here it is. No, no. Go ahead. You can keep it. We'll just forget all about this little indescretion on my part, won't we?" (Joke, folks. Not a suggestion.)



Probably been tried before, eh? (Don't forget to tell us whether it was successful. )

:celebrate