Carry your papers with you!

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not your papers, your state issued DL or ID card. That is a law in all 50 states, rarely enforced thanks to online DMV and NCIC capabilities. It's not a federal law, its a state law in all 50 states. Prior to everything being computerized, a cop wouldn't know if a person had a valid DL without it being present, and cops couldn't tell if a person was a fugitive without ID, so DMV's issued ID cards in the absence of a DL if a person was ineligible. Today, the online NCIC and DMV allows cops to run a name and DOB check to ID any citizen without an ID, so it's basically a law that is not really necessary, but still IS ON THE BOOKS in all 50 states.

I promise if you get pulled over, the cop will verify your identity if you don't have a DL or ID card on you. But you had to be issued one, as all people are, whether they know it or not, through their state ID by virtue of having a social security number. It's called a "customer number" in most states, so if you drive drunk without a valid DL, you have a number they can "suspend" for punishment so if you get caught again you can be subject to the Driving Under Suspension 2nd offense statute. A non-citizen won't be in this ID system, because they have no DL or no social security number, THUS the federal law requiring them to "have their papers" on them at all times.

I'm not advocating or criticizing this set of laws, I'm informing the lefties that every person, like it or not, is verified through some type of "papers", be it physical or electronic.

Not everyone who agrees to be verified agrees as a matter of law. This is about ID on demand. If I am not a suspect in some way, who I am is none of the state's business.

you are advocating we all become suspects

The courts have ruled on state laws that require an ID.

The limited issue resolved in Hiibel

CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004

The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.

The dissenters had precedent on their side

Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.

I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.

In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.

But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh gosh, oh golly gee. a real country with real borders toto..

Immigrants should be required to carry their papers on them at all times. So what? Citizens do not by law have to do so. Good luck to anybody who thinks they can reliably spot an illegal immigrant, from a legal one or a citizen, all the time.

As a citizen I have the right to walk the streets of my country without having to prove I'm a citizen. That right is more sacrosanct than any imagined health care right.

Oh really????????

Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006

Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Not everyone who agrees to be verified agrees as a matter of law. This is about ID on demand. If I am not a suspect in some way, who I am is none of the state's business.

you are advocating we all become suspects

The courts have ruled on state laws that require an ID.

Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.

I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.

In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.

But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WillowTree]

Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.

I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.

In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.

But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's the demonrats version of "don't ask don't tell" donchyaknow?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Novel idea huh, the whole borders thing.

I'd like to ask an honest left winger a true question I'm pondering. They are claiming these illegals have a right to be here, that we have no right to kick them out, etc etc. They are saying it's their civil right to be here and stay, etc.

So, accepting that, I want to ask a liberal: Of the other 5.7 billion people in the world, who does NOT have the civil right to come here at will and live in this country? Really? Do all 6-7 billion people in the world have a civil right to live in the USA if they choose, with or without legal permission to be here? Or do only Hispanics, thus making it racist. Do all Swedes and Swiss also have that same civil right to live illegally in the USA? What about the untold thousands of illegal Russian immigrants in America. Oh yes, the media never focuses on them, but thousands of Russians have sought refuge here and are living here illegally, just like the Hispanics, but these white, blond haired Russians don't make such a good racial token for the left to play off of. So, do these Russians enjoy the same right to live here?

Who is "claiming these illegals have a right to be here,"??????? You switched from leftist to liberal. What liberal politician or leader ever said illegals had a 'right' to be here?

Well, lets start with every politician with a D beside their name, and many with an R. Every person employed at MSNBC. Any one of the tens of thousands who marched on May 1st. You aren't really gonna claim you've never seen someone on the left claim an illegal has a right to be here and that enforcement would violate their civil rights, are you?

SO, the question again: Of the other 6 billion people in the world, who does not have a right to come here illegally?

You claimed things you cannot back up. Some idiots make outrageous statements. You then attribute the beliefs behind those statements to leftists and then liberals. I ask you to name a credible liberal politician who ever claimed to hold those beliefs and you come up empty handed.

seems like you're another idiot with a keyboard who thinks ranting and raving passes for rational discussion. in short, you're looking more and more like a wingnut loser,

 

[bucs90]

Not everyone who agrees to be verified agrees as a matter of law. This is about ID on demand. If I am not a suspect in some way, who I am is none of the state's business.

you are advocating we all become suspects

The courts have ruled on state laws that require an ID.

Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.

I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.

In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.

But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Well, I'm gonna have to give you a law lesson here. During ANY lawful, reasonable suspicion stop, a cop can "detain" the suspect, in handcuffs, for his own safety "until a reasonable amount of time has passed for an investigation". For example, on a traffic stop, legally a cop can detain a person until the ticket is finished, then release them with the ticket. Now, cops do this only about 1% of the time, thankfully, but it was not an "illegal detention". Again, part of the rights fear of big government is what the gov't sometimes allows. But, most cops are smart enough to use common sense and usually don't detain people. So, when you get pulled over, sitting in your car, you are in fact "detained", but the cop just decided, as usual, not to place handcuffs on.

But, if you got a ticket and court date, I suppose you had an additional charge. Can't speak on the ID thing, I wasn't there. Sounds like he probably didn't search your wallet hard enough to find that ID. But, mistakes happen, and yes, about 5% of cops shouldn't be cops, so you may be among the few that got a bad deal and thus the charge was dropped.

And yes, tax money is being wasted by the necessity of the Arizona law. The Feds should be enforcing their own law. They won't. So AZ must do it themselves. Fed law does supercede local law, BUT it does not void local law. So, so long as the local law does not make legal any act that is illegal according to federal law, it's OK. If AZ's law is word for word the same as the fed, but simply granting locals the authority to enforce it, then they aren't trying to supercede the feds, thus making it legal. They aren't deporting them themselves, thus they aren't taking over. They are simply making it illegal to be an illegal alien in that state, trespassing, and stating they will "detain" them and hand them over to the feds. They are doing it 100% in a legal manner. Many other states will follow.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Immigrants should be required to carry their papers on them at all times. So what? Citizens do not by law have to do so. Good luck to anybody who thinks they can reliably spot an illegal immigrant, from a legal one or a citizen, all the time.

As a citizen I have the right to walk the streets of my country without having to prove I'm a citizen. That right is more sacrosanct than any imagined health care right.

Oh really????????

Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006

Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

Yeah right. You ever run around the corner to 7/11 to buy a pop and encounter a cop there who thinks you look like a 16 year old runaway he's been looking for??????? (I was actually 20 at the time, but I always did look young)

Well it happened to me, and let me tell you, I almost ended up in the back of a cop car, all because I left my ID at home.

Trust me. A cop asks you who you are, and you don't have ID, they are going to IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT there's something up with that. I don't care what liberals tell you is the law, that's the reality on the street.

Thankfully I was able to convince him I was actually 20, and not 16.

And I don't think any "right" is being hampered by carrying some ID. Americans do it all the time, and immigrants in this country should most certainly be required to prove they are in this country legally.

 

[teapartysamurai]

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's the demonrats version of "don't ask don't tell" donchyaknow?

Exactly!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.

I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.

In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.

But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

they won't be enforcing laws against illegal immigration.. they will be suspecting people after the fact of already having become illegal immigrants., nothing local police will do can stop an illegal alien from coming here. asking police to verify citizenship of everyone stopped for whatever reason smacks of fascism. it's a fishing expedition and true American patriots want no part of a fascist sate.

 

[bucs90]

Immigrants should be required to carry their papers on them at all times. So what? Citizens do not by law have to do so. Good luck to anybody who thinks they can reliably spot an illegal immigrant, from a legal one or a citizen, all the time.

As a citizen I have the right to walk the streets of my country without having to prove I'm a citizen. That right is more sacrosanct than any imagined health care right.

Oh really????????

Ohio Revised Code 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006

Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh really????????



Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

Yeah right. You ever run around the corner to 7/11 to buy a pop and encounter a cop there who thinks you look like a 16 year old runaway he's been looking for??????? (I was actually 20 at the time, but I always did look young)

Well it happened to me, and let me tell you, I almost ended up in the back of a cop car, all because I left my ID at home.

Trust me. A cop asks you who you are, and you don't have ID, they are going to IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT there's something up with that. I don't care what liberals tell you is the law, that's the reality on the street.

Thankfully I was able to convince him I was actually 20, and not 16.

And I don't think any "right" is being hampered by carrying some ID. Americans do it all the time, and immigrants in this country should most certainly be required to prove they are in this country legally.

again, you are in disagreement with law. asking you to produce an ID because a cop thought you were a runaway was a violation of rights. asking you for ID because you fit the description of a law breaker is not a violation.

If you go to court for a civil offense and you are not in the state database, they can print you and get nothing back. No way they can hold you after they print you and have no charge against you.

get it? In a simple case like mine and yours the police do not have the right to keep you until your ID is verified.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh really????????



Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

all citizens do not have state issued ID. most citizens choose to get one. there is no legal requirement to show or produce ID on demand

 

[bucs90]

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

they won't be enforcing laws against illegal immigration.. they will be suspecting people after the fact of already having become illegal immigrants., nothing local police will do can stop an illegal alien from coming here. asking police to verify citizenship of everyone stopped for whatever reason smacks of fascism. it's a fishing expedition and true American patriots want no part of a fascist sate.

Then you are saying every cop is practicing fascism every single day. Because on every legal traffic stop, terry stop, or ANY lawful encounter in which a law may have been broken......a cop is demanding a citizen provide identity. All legal citizens will do so through state issued ID's. All non-citizens' through immigration papers or passports.

So, are you saying all cops in America are practicing fascists on a daily basis?

 

[teapartysamurai]

first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.

as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.

Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble

Oh heaven forbid the cops are able to enforce the law against illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!

they won't be enforcing laws against illegal immigration.. they will be suspecting people after the fact of already having become illegal immigrants., nothing local police will do can stop an illegal alien from coming here. asking police to verify citizenship of everyone stopped for whatever reason smacks of fascism. it's a fishing expedition and true American patriots want no part of a fascist sate.

Putting bait cars out is a fishing expedition to catch car thieves but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Is it "fascist" to have the FBI pose as underage girls on the internet to catch pedophiles or have bait cars to catch car thieves?

Then it isn't wrong to ask someone for their ID, even if you think it is "fishing" for illegals. If they are breaking the law, "fishing" for them is PART of ENFORCING THAT LAW!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!

You liberals don't like it because you know unless you guys get enough vote fraud from those illegals, you are toast in November and 2012.

Everyone KNOWs that's what liberals are really worried about.

Don't even try to argue otherwise.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh really????????



Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

Sounds to me like I have to identify myself to law enforcement.

When I was pulled over by police I needed my license, my registration, and proof of insurance.

When I registered to vote, I had to prove my residency.

When I registered my kids for school, I had to supply their birth certificates to prove they were my children and where they were born.

Sure sounds to me like we have to provide papers.

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

wrong!!!


no criminal crime. in a civil situation they can print you and let you go. no way police can detain you until Id is verified. I know the law.

 

[teapartysamurai]

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

Yeah right. You ever run around the corner to 7/11 to buy a pop and encounter a cop there who thinks you look like a 16 year old runaway he's been looking for??????? (I was actually 20 at the time, but I always did look young)

Well it happened to me, and let me tell you, I almost ended up in the back of a cop car, all because I left my ID at home.

Trust me. A cop asks you who you are, and you don't have ID, they are going to IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT there's something up with that. I don't care what liberals tell you is the law, that's the reality on the street.

Thankfully I was able to convince him I was actually 20, and not 16.

And I don't think any "right" is being hampered by carrying some ID. Americans do it all the time, and immigrants in this country should most certainly be required to prove they are in this country legally.

again, you are in disagreement with law. asking you to produce an ID because a cop thought you were a runaway was a violation of rights. asking you for ID because you fit the description of a law breaker is not a violation.

If you go to court for a civil offense and you are not in the state database, they can print you and get nothing back. No way they can hold you after they print you and have no charge against you.

get it? In a simple case like mine and yours the police do not have the right to keep you until your ID is verified.

Tell that to the people who's lives could have been saved had the cops did their jobs on the DC sniper or the 9/11 terrorists if they HAD done their job.

Like the fact Mohammed Atta's green card had expired.

Yeah! It's soooooooooooooo terrible to verify if someone is in the country legally.

 

[teapartysamurai]

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

wrong!!!


no criminal crime. in a civil situation they can print you and let you go. no way police can detain you until Id is verified. I know the law.

He knows the law because he says SO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bucs90]

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

Yeah right. You ever run around the corner to 7/11 to buy a pop and encounter a cop there who thinks you look like a 16 year old runaway he's been looking for??????? (I was actually 20 at the time, but I always did look young)

Well it happened to me, and let me tell you, I almost ended up in the back of a cop car, all because I left my ID at home.

Trust me. A cop asks you who you are, and you don't have ID, they are going to IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT there's something up with that. I don't care what liberals tell you is the law, that's the reality on the street.

Thankfully I was able to convince him I was actually 20, and not 16.

And I don't think any "right" is being hampered by carrying some ID. Americans do it all the time, and immigrants in this country should most certainly be required to prove they are in this country legally.

again, you are in disagreement with law. asking you to produce an ID because a cop thought you were a runaway was a violation of rights. asking you for ID because you fit the description of a law breaker is not a violation.

If you go to court for a civil offense and you are not in the state database, they can print you and get nothing back. No way they can hold you after they print you and have no charge against you.

get it? In a simple case like mine and yours the police do not have the right to keep you until your ID is verified.

OMG. This is gonna be fun:

All runaways are listed in NCIC, the National Criminal database. They are treated as fugitives, just like having a warrant. Being a runaway (minors only) IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND THE JUVENILE CAN BE CHARGED IN FAMILY COURT AS SUCH.

So, if you look like a runaway, the cop has reasonable suspicion to stop you and ask for ID. By law.

And you are 100% wrong. Failing to provide an ID to law enforcement is illegal when you are under a lawful stop or detention and you can be held until further. Fact is it is highly inefficient, and most cops never do it. But it is legal, and is done.

As for civil court, they are civilians. They do not have access to NCIC and do not have authority under state codes to access DMV records for civil purposes.

You are WAY out of your league debating law enforcement issues with me. I'd suggest you stop, but I'm sure you won't.

 

[bucs90]

all voluntarily where law enforcement is concerned, unless you are a suspect of sorts. Americans are not required by law to carry or produce proof of citizenship.

stop playing silly game now.

or better yet, go play with yourself.

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

wrong!!!


no criminal crime. in a civil situation they can print you and let you go. no way police can detain you until Id is verified. I know the law.

Yes. They can. They do it every day in every state. Civil courts aren't granted access to NCIC and DMV records. That takes a law enforcement certification, and civil courts don't provide those.

But you can't grasp the idea of what they "can do" and what they "practice". DMV systems online go down often. Sometimes it's not worth the effort to detain someone for a speeding offense b/c the DMV isn't coming back with info. Could, but don't.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You're not getting it.

All citizens have a DL, ID or customer number card from their home state DMV. You cant get one without a SS number, and anyone with a SS number has one whether they like it or not. THAT is your proof of citizenship. And by law in all 50 states you must have that with you. But, without another violation, cops can't stop you and ask for it. Under a Terry Stop, however, you are required to prove identity, through DL, ID, CN, and thus, citizenship.

Like it or not, you are required to provide this on any legal stop by the law. It proves your identity. Without citizenship, you wont' have this proof. Next is a passport or immigration papers. Absent these you will probably be detained until ID is proven. It's fact. Sorry.

wrong!!!


no criminal crime. in a civil situation they can print you and let you go. no way police can detain you until Id is verified. I know the law.

Yes. They can. They do it every day in every state. Civil courts aren't granted access to NCIC and DMV records. That takes a law enforcement certification, and civil courts don't provide those.

But you can't grasp the idea of what they "can do" and what they "practice". DMV systems online go down often. Sometimes it's not worth the effort to detain someone for a speeding offense b/c the DMV isn't coming back with info. Could, but don't.

Have at em! I'm got a date with a giant flying turtle (Gamera) (I don't know why but I put a 50s/60s sci-fi movie on and I'm asleep in five minutes. )

I can tell you, he lives in his own leftist fantasy world. You have a tall order, talking reason to him.