Ariz. city cops ask citizenship proof

[Saguaro]

PHOENIX - Police in suburban Scottsdale have begun routinely asking for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest and turning those who are in this country illegally over to federal immigration officials.

The procedure was started Oct. 15, a result of the September killing of Phoenix police officer Nick Erfle by an illegal immigrant, Erik Jovani Martinez.

Scottsdale police had arrested Martinez on a misdemeanor charge 16 months earlier but they released him then because they didn't know he was an illegal immigrant who had been twice deported.

Erfle's killing "caused us to look at what were asking suspects," Scottsdale police Sgt. Mark Clark said. "If we arrest someone and then find that we called ICE (Customs and Immigration Enforcement) and they put a hold on them, then we know they have been deported and are back again."

Martinez was later killed by police after he stole a car and took a hostage, authorities said.

Now police in the affluent suburb ask every suspect about their citizenship, have ICE agents pick up those who are in this country illegally, and keep a database of possible illegal immigrants in case they turn up again.

Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross supports the policy change and said that because every suspect is asked about citizenship, police are not engaged in racial profiling.

"I would not tolerate that," Manross said. "I think the chief has struck the right balance to do what we want to achieve."

Clark said that in the past Scottsdale officers didn't routinely call ICE about illegal immigrants because the agency was short-handed and could not always respond.

That's changed, said Eduardo Preciado, an assistant ICE field officer in Phoenix. The agency was short-staffed until about a year ago when it added agents to man phones and to assist local law enforcement agencies, he said.

"Now we respond to every call," Preciado said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071223/ap_on_re_us/immigration_scottsdale;_ylt=AhHnTrTKn7BQiiBJyi0a5E Cs0NUE

[nixon]

Unbeleiveable. We actually started enforcing laws.

[Wabash]

I was doing this back in 1970, when I first worked the street.....every potential illegal, had to show his ID, no exceptions! So Good for AZ. cops! I'd like to see this to weed out all the phony voters too!

[nixon]

I was doing this back in 1970, when I first worked the street.....every potential illegal, had to show his ID, no exceptions! So Good for AZ. cops! I'd like to see this to weed out all the phony voters too!Even back in the '70's? You are my hero, man!

[Oceanbreeze]

Repeat offenders. Now send them back to MEXICO! :soapbox

[MW]

Nah, let's make him a citizen, it's b/c we haven't given him legal papers is why he shot the cop. :yep

[April15]

Unbeleiveable. We actually started enforcing laws.Do they know how to do that?

[Wabash]

Even back in the '70's? You are my hero, man!
Thank you....
Do they know how to do that?
Sure, rumors that they didn't have been greatly exaggerated!

[cassandra]

Hmm this coin has two very dirty sides.

You could prosecute him here and stick him in a prison costing tax payers money.

Or you could deport him to only have him return in record time to repeat his offense.

Seems pretty simple to me that if we kept him here and penalized him we might be better off. :shrug

[Oceanbreeze]

Hmm this coin has two very dirty sides.

You could prosecute him here and stick him in a prison costing tax payers money.

Or you could deport him to only have him return in record time to repeat his offense.

Seems pretty simple to me that if we kept him here and penalized him we might be better off. :shrug

OMG....that is flipping insane! WTF should our tax payer dollars pay for a criminal?????

[cassandra]

OMG....that is flipping insane! WTF should our tax payer dollars pay for a criminal?????

I listed the other option. I will assume you are fine with that one.

[Oceanbreeze]

I listed the other option. I will assume you are fine with that one.

Yes, deport their a$$.

[Trueblue]

What law are they enforcing by asking someone to prove their citizenship?

[Oceanbreeze]

What law are they enforcing by asking someone to prove their citizenship?

OMG...if you're not on a work visa or a citizen you don't have a LEGAL driver's license. :wall:wall:wall


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenterslis t8e20

[cassandra]

Yes, deport their a$$.

Sure hope the next time he gets back over here he doesn't harm anyone you know.

I can't just let him loose again. :no

[Trueblue]

OMG...if you're not on a work visa or a citizen you don't have a LEGAL driver's license. :wall:wall:wall


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenterslis t8e20

Stop banging your head and tell me how they can demand that someone prove their citizenship.

[Oceanbreeze]

Stop banging your head and tell me how they can demand that someone prove their citizenship.

When you get pulled over by the police what are you demanded to show to the police?

1. Driver's license
2. Registration
3. Proof of insurance

:snicker...yes, I was pulled over last week for going 5 miles over the speed limit. That's another story. :lmao

So, when we go to a Mexican border town or out of the country what are US citizens demanded to have to enter the country? PASSPORT.

BTW: We do have many Hispanic friends. On my daughter's soccer team of 12 there are probably 5 Hispanic kids. Yes, they're here legally, one or the other parent is active duty military.

[Trueblue]

When you get pulled over by the police what are you demanded to show to the police?

1. Driver's license
2. Registration
3. Proof of insurance

:snicker...yes, I was pulled over last week for going 5 miles over the speed limit. That's another story. :lmao

So, when we go to a Mexican border town or out of the country what are US citizens demanded to have to enter the country? PASSPORT.

I don't see proof of citizenship on that list. Are you saying that they can ask anyone who doesn't have a driver's license for proof of citizenship?

The police can't demand just any document from you when they pull you over, as far as I know. Even if you are breaking the speed limit or driving without a license.

[Oceanbreeze]

I don't see proof of citizenship on that list. Are you saying that they can ask anyone who doesn't have a driver's license for proof of citizenship?

The police can't demand just any document from you when they pull you over, as far as I know. Even if you are breaking the speed limit or driving without a license.

http://www.nilc.org/immspbs/DLs/index.htm

[bbrown]

OMG....that is flipping insane! WTF should our tax payer dollars pay for a criminal?????

Wait?! What? Did you know that taxpayer dollars always pay for criminals in jail? I'm actually quite in favor of government spending to incarcerate criminals.

Bill

[Oceanbreeze]

Wait?! What? Did you know that taxpayer dollars always pay for criminals in jail? I'm actually quite in favor of government spending to incarcerate criminals.

Bill

Yes, that of US CITIZENS.

[Trueblue]

That's a driver's license site.

Can the police demand "your papers, please"? Do any of us carry around our proof of citizenship all the time?

[Oceanbreeze]

That's a driver's license site.

Can the police demand "your papers, please"? Do any of us carry around our proof of citizenship all the time?

When I'm visiting a foreign country I do, as do my kids.

Try boarding a plane within the US without a federal ID or driver's license. :lmao You ain't getting on. Try boarding it a plane for an international flight without a passport.

[cassandra]

That's a driver's license site.

Can the police demand "your papers, please"? Do any of us carry around our proof of citizenship all the time?

TB they absolutely can and do. When was the last time you traveled Internationally? Was it pre 9/11?

[AYFR]

Unbeleiveable. We actually started enforcing laws.
About time
Do they know how to do that?
They can be taught
Hmm this coin has two very dirty sides.

You could prosecute him here and stick him in a prison costing tax payers money.

Or you could deport him to only have him return in record time to repeat his offense.

Seems pretty simple to me that if we kept him here and penalized him we might be better off. :shrug
That is why we need to also start enforcing our borders
What law are they enforcing by asking someone to prove their citizenship?
There are all sorts of laws requiring proof od citizenship.
http://www.hhs.state.tx.us/news/release/062806_Medicaid.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=law+to+prove+citizenship&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=law+requiring+show+proof+of+citizenship&btnG=Search

Besides the city itself could easily pass a law requiring it.

That's a driver's license site.

Can the police demand "your papers, please"? Do any of us carry around our proof of citizenship all the time?

Guess it is time we start, especially if we ever want to secure this country's borders.

[Trueblue]

TB they absolutely can and do. When was the last time you traveled Internationally? Was it pre 9/11?

I've never traveled internationally. I've only been to Mexico and Canada, and even there only briefly. So it's pre and post 9/11. :)

OB, thanks for the link on the other thread, it shows that the Arizona cops have been authorized to enforce the immigration laws.

"Your papers, please" is not a phrase that is easy on American ears. IMO, at least.

[Trueblue]

TB they absolutely can and do. When was the last time you traveled Internationally? Was it pre 9/11?

But wait a minute-I was speaking of US police, anyway. Not foreign police, so what does that have to do with the issue, whether or not I have traveled internationally?

[nixon]

I meet someone from Romania about a week ago.He tells me over there the Army guards their border. If you cross illegally, they will yell at you to stop, if you ignore them and continue to run, they will shoot you down. Needless to say, they do not have an immagration problem over there. And by the way, this man came here as an immigrant and so did his wife, it took them about 3 years to earn their U.S. citizenship, he is a U.S. Customs Agent, and she is a housewife raising thier son of about 4 years old. After all they went through to become legal, it would not be very fair to grant amnesty to somebody who sidestepped our laws for five years, now would it?

[nixon]

But wait a minute-I was speaking of US police, anyway. Not foreign police, so what does that have to do with the issue, whether or not I have traveled internationally?This guy was looking for trouble... and found it. http://newsitemichaelrighi.com

[Trueblue]

About time

They can be taught

That is why we need to also start enforcing our borders

There are all sorts of laws requiring proof od citizenship.
http://www.hhs.state.tx.us/news/release/062806_Medicaid.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=law+to+prove+citizenship&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=law+requiring+show+proof+of+citizenship&btnG=Search

Besides the city itself could easily pass a law requiring it.



Guess it is time we start, especially if we ever want to secure this country's borders.

Rev, the first link is a Google page, and the next two are about requiring proof to get medicaid benefits.

None of those apply to what we are talking about.

Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?

[nixon]

This guy was looking for trouble... and found it. http://newsitemichaelrighi.com

or this one; www.michaelrighi.com

[patriotsblade]

I meet someone from Romania about a week ago.He tells me over there the Army guards their border. If you cross illegally, they will yell at you to stop, if you ignore them and continue to run, they will shoot you down. Needless to say, they do not have an immagration problem over there. And by the way, this man came here as an immigrant and so did his wife, it took them about 3 years to earn their U.S. citizenship, he is a U.S. Customs Agent, and she is a housewife raising thier son of about 4 years old. After all they went through to become legal, it would not be very fair to grant amnesty to somebody who sidestepped our laws for five years, now would it?

Armed border police is not why Romania doesn't have an immigration problem.

Have a look at their unemployment rate and percentage of population living in poverty.

[AYFR]

Rev, the first link is a Google page, and the next two are about requiring proof to get medicaid benefits.

None of those apply to what we are talking about.

Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.

[Oceanbreeze]

http://www.channel3000.com/news/14916992/detail.html

Former Cop Deported For Lying About Identity Arrives In Mexico

[Trueblue]

Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.



No, they are not examples of what we are talking about, they are completely unrelated, and one of them is a Google page.

The police can ask a driver for a driver's license. I'm talking about asking for proof of citizenship.

People think that the police can just ask a person walking along to show them their documents, but they can't.

[AYFR]

A DL is proof of citizenship. A cop can check you DL with its record to see if the person holding it is actually the person registared. That is how the City of Irving is deporting illegals. Police can ask ANYONE at ANYTIME for ID. Which then they can run that ID.

As for my examples they wre example of laws requiring proof of citizenship and the google page was a list of links doing the same

[VRWC]

No, they are not examples of what we are talking about, they are completely unrelated, and one of them is a Google page.

The police can ask a driver for a driver's license. I'm talking about asking for proof of citizenship.

People think that the police can just ask a person walking along to show them their documents, but they can't.

Actually yes they can. It is called a Terry Stop. They can hold you until you prove who you are. And yes, they can do it just cause they want to. Every immigration law on the books gives them authority to ask someone to prove their legal citizenship should they choose. No special law required.

[cassandra]

But wait a minute-I was speaking of US police, anyway. Not foreign police, so what does that have to do with the issue, whether or not I have traveled internationally?

I was simply stating that other countries do demand this just the same as we do. If you go through regular channels, like flying or through any immigration office they will ask you this question. I thought that perhaps you had not traveled in a bit or experienced this lately.

Great info given by cholloway. :)

[Oceanbreeze]

Actually yes they can. It is called a Terry Stop. They can hold you until you prove who you are. And yes, they can do it just cause they want to. Every immigration law on the books gives them authority to ask someone to prove their legal citizenship should they choose. No special law required.

:paclap :paclap :paclap

Now if all law enforcements enforced this across the country we could do a clean sweep and DEPORT!

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD

[Trueblue]

A DL is proof of citizenship. A cop can check you DL with its record to see if the person holding it is actually the person registared. That is how the City of Irving is deporting illegals. Police can ask ANYONE at ANYTIME for ID. Which then they can run that ID.

Ask Paine about that, because he says differently, and he has a very good track record for accuracy, and he is a lawyer.

As for my examples they wre example of laws requiring proof of citizenship and the google page was a list of links doing the same

They were completely irrelevant. Their is a huge difference between applying for medicaid and walking down the street!!!!!!

The first item on the Google page is a story about Georgia having their "proof of identity" for voting law OVERTURNED!!!!!!
I was simply stating that other countries do demand this just the same as we do. If you go through regular channels, like flying or through any immigration office they will ask you this question. I thought that perhaps you had not traveled in a bit or experienced this lately.

Great info given by cholloway. :)

I don't know if it's great information or not. A poster on another board, who has an excellent track record of accuracy, says that the police cannot just stop you and ask who you are, and make you prove it. Talk to Paine. :shrug

[VRWC]

I don't know if it's great information or not. A poster on another board, who has an excellent track record of accuracy, says that the police cannot just stop you and ask who you are, and make you prove it. Talk to Paine. :shrug

All you have to do is look up a Terry Stop. It can be used to frisk for weapons also. No reason needed other than plain old curiosity.

So you always follow what other people say. "He says this so I believe it"?

[Trueblue]

All you have to do is look up a Terry Stop. It can be used to frisk for weapons also. No reason needed other than plain old curiosity.

So you always follow what other people say. "He says this so I believe it"?

No, do you always pretend to misread what people say, and by doing so make yourself look like you can't comprehend what you read? I didn't say that I followed people, I said that Paine had an excellent track record...and what I didn't say, but is true, is that you don't.

[VRWC]

No, do you always pretend to misread what people say, and by doing so make yourself look like you can't comprehend what you read? I didn't say that I followed people, I said that Paine had an excellent track record...and what I didn't say, but is true, is that you don't.

My track record is fine, except for disagreeing with you, which is where you claim I am wrong.

I'm not sure how I make myself look like I can't comprehend what I'm reading. I was trying to be a smart ass to get my point across. That point being that if you do some research yourself rather than rely on what YDT says, you might find out some new information.

I know you hate being proven wrong, but there is no need to attack those that do it on a regular basis.

[Trueblue]

My track record is fine, except for disagreeing with you, which is where you claim I am wrong.

I'm not sure how I make myself look like I can't comprehend what I'm reading. I was trying to be a smart ass to get my point across. That point being that if you do some research yourself rather than rely on what YDT says, you might find out some new information.

I know you hate being proven wrong, but there is no need to attack those that do it on a regular basis.

I have to disagree about your track record.

You misstated what I said, and tried to criticize me for saying what I didn't say-which is how you made it look as if you can't read.

Paine and Yellowdog Texan are not the same person.

You hate being proven wrong very much, cl, so I don't think that dog will hunt.

In a Terry Stop, there should be a reasonable suspicion. The police can't stop people and just demand ID.

[Kurtz]

The Terry Stop is in regards to search 'n seizure for brief times in which an officer may stop 'n frisk for his own safety. Officers of the law may briefly detain 'n question any person, but that person does not have to answer 'n can walk off if there is no probable cause present which is what's required for further detainment 'n questionin'.

Lots of court decisions on this 'n gonna be lots more when local cops start screwin' up. :lol

And since y'all got problems postin' resource links, I ain't postin one either. :lmao

Y'all have a fuckin' Merry Christmas! :santa

[Oceanbreeze]

Let's give all the illegals a free car and let them drive to Canada! :lmao

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/howto-e.asp

[toxic]

Let's give all the illegals a free car and let them drive to Canada! :lmao

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/howto-e.asp

I was thinking of just busing them to Iowa where the population is 95% White.

[toxic]

I think police can always create an excuse to question somone.

When I first moved to Plano, Texas, I was stopped while driving to work at 7:30 AM. I was recently showered, shaven and dressed in a white shirt and dress pants.

The City Police briefly placed me under arrest as a vagrant, for having a California driver's license and plates. I had no Texas ID or anything with my current address.

After telling me I was under arrest and he started to handcuff me, I produced a Corporate Photo ID and was released.

Yet, today, the City provides a Day labor pick-up point for several hundred illegal immigants.

[Kurtz]

I think police can always create an excuse to question somone.

When I first moved to Plano, Texas, I was stopped while driving to work at 7:30 AM. I was recently showered, shaven and dressed in a white shirt and dress pants.

The City Police briefly placed me under arrest as a vagrant, for having a California driver's license and plates. I had no Texas ID or anything with my current address.

After telling me I was under arrest and he started to handcuff me, I produced a Corporate Photo ID and was released.

Yet, today, the City provides a Day labor pick-up point for several hundred illegal immigants.

Bein's you were from California, in Texas that's probable cause. :lmao

[Trueblue]

Bein's you were from California, in Texas that's probable cause. :lmao

:wabash Too true! :lol

[VRWC]

In a Terry Stop, there should be a reasonable suspicion. The police can't stop people and just demand ID.

But they can and do. The Supreme Court said so.

[nixon]

But they can and do. The Supreme Court said so.It is the truth, and one day we are gonna take this fucking country back. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!!!

[Wabash]

That's a driver's license site.

Can the police demand "your papers, please"? Do any of us carry around our proof of citizenship all the time?

I do all the time! Drivers lic., SS card and my draft card!
TB...you mean you don't carry anything but your liberal rhetoric?

TB they absolutely can and do. When was the last time you traveled Internationally? Was it pre 9/11?
I was gonna say probably never, then we got our answer!

I meet someone from Romania about a week ago.He tells me over there the Army guards their border. If you cross illegally, they will yell at you to stop, if you ignore them and continue to run, they will shoot you down. Needless to say, they do not have an immagration problem over there. And by the way, this man came here as an immigrant and so did his wife, it took them about 3 years to earn their U.S. citizenship, he is a U.S. Customs Agent, and she is a housewife raising thier son of about 4 years old. After all they went through to become legal, it would not be very fair to grant amnesty to somebody who sidestepped our laws for five years, now would it?

Yep, that's the way we should be enforcing the borders here!
You go into any international airport in Europe and the police/soldiers are there with submachine guns. MP5Ks, Uzi, Sten, or a facsimilie thereof...

[Wabash]

Armed border police is not why Romania doesn't have an immigration problem.

Have a look at their unemployment rate and percentage of population living in poverty.

Their border policy is a good deterrent!

Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.


I've arrested many people for not being able to produce ID....

[Trueblue]

But they can and do. The Supreme Court said so.

Not unless there is reasonable suspicion, cl. Stop telling half the story!

[AYFR]

Not unless there is reasonable suspicion, cl. Stop telling half the story!

It is also teh police that get to decide what is "reasonable suspicion". All they have to say is "He/she looked like they had a gun."

Reasonable suspicion is very vague.

[VRWC]

Not unless there is reasonable suspicion, cl. Stop telling half the story!

That is not true. Read the law. They can for no other reason than they want to. Talk to officers, take a class, do a ride along, I have done it all. I have a degree in criminal justice. They can and do do it all day long.

[Trueblue]

That is not true. Read the law. They can for no other reason than they want to. Talk to officers, take a class, do a ride along, I have done it all. I have a degree in criminal justice. They can and do do it all day long.

It is true, you must have reasonable suspicion, cl. If you are asking people for their ID just because you want to, then you are yet another officer who is abusing your power. Do they do it? Sometimes. Is it legal? No.

Kurtz is also law enforcement, you realize, and she is stating something in line with what I have read, and with the USC.

[nixon]

It is true, you must have reasonable suspicion, cl. If you are asking people for their ID just because you want to, then you are yet another officer who is abusing your power. Do they do it? Sometimes. Is it legal? No.

Kurtz is also law enforcement, you realize, and she is stating something in line with what I have read, and with the USC.Listen to me, People!!! Liberty or Death!!! It is that simple!!! You join Nixon when you had enough of the man's bullshit!!! Fuckin' A!!!

[nixon]

Listen to me, People!!! Liberty or Death!!! It is that simple!!! You join Nixon when you had enough of the man's bullshit!!! Fuckin' A!!!
Had enough of the man's bullshit, yet????Then you join Nixon. Don't join Nixon? Then you just keep eatin' the man's bullshit. Fuckin' A!!!

[Wabash]

Listen to me, People!!! Liberty or Death!!! It is that simple!!! You join Nixon when you had enough of the man's bullshit!!! Fuckin' A!!!

You been drinking haven't you?

Had enough of the man's bullshit, yet????Then you join Nixon. Don't join Nixon? Then you just keep eatin' the man's bullshit. Fuckin' A!!!
Or smokin the funny weed ...

It is true, you must have reasonable suspicion, cl. If you are asking people for their ID just because you want to, then you are yet another officer who is abusing your power. Do they do it? Sometimes. Is it legal? No.

Kurtz is also law enforcement, you realize, and she is stating something in line with what I have read, and with the USC.

You need reasonable suspicion to make an arrest, not to ask a person to identify themselves. A cop can stop you on the street anytime, anywhere TB and ask you for ID.

[Wabash]

It is the truth, and one day we are gonna take this fucking country back. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!!!

Back from what?...

You have more Liberty in the USA than any other country on earth!

[Oceanbreeze]

Back from what?...

You have more Liberty in the USA than any other country on earth!

Spiked eggnog. :snicker

[Wabash]

Spiked eggnog. :snicker

Boy howdy!!:LL

[Wabash]

Green Bay
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops

By Sarah Thomsen

If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.

If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.

Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.

"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years [is] increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.

Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.

But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.

"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."

"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.

Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. [B]"On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not." Except TB and nixon!
That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.
http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?s=2776926

[Trueblue]

You been drinking haven't you?


Or smokin the funny weed ...



You need reasonable suspicion to make an arrest, not to ask a person to identify themselves. A cop can stop you on the street anytime, anywhere TB and ask you for ID.

Oh, they can ASK, Wabash. I just don't have to comply. Which is what I said before-why not spend time discussing the points in contention instead?

God Bless America!!!!

[Trueblue]

Green Bay
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops

By Sarah Thomsen

If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.

If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.

Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.

"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years [is] increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.

Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.

But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.

"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."

"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.

Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. [B]"On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not." Except TB and nixon!
That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.
http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?s=2776926

Oh, bullshit. You know other intelligent people besides me and nixon.

[Kurtz]

Oh, bullshit. You know other intelligent people besides me and nixon.


:lmao

[April15]

I don't show identification to anyone. I will tell you who I am if you are too stupid to know. Finger prints? No way! Just like a sobriety test, no way.

[AYFR]

Oh, they can ASK, Wabash. I just don't have to comply. Which is what I said before-why not spend time discussing the points in contention instead?

God Bless America!!!!
Do me a favor, next time a cop asks for your ID refuse and tells us how it goes.

[Trueblue]

Do me a favor, next time a cop asks for your ID refuse and tells us how it goes.

Do ME a favor and stop being such a smart ass, and think about what you are saying here.

What is it that you expect a cop to do to me? And why do you think that it's okay for them to do it, simply because they wish to do so? What kind of a nation do you think you live in? One where the authority of the police trumps the rule of law? That is not a rhetorical question, I want to know which one YOU think is paramount.

If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, I do have to show my driver's license.

However, the police cannot come up to me and demand my ID without reasonable suspicion of some sort of illegal activity.

[toxic]

...
However, the police cannot come up to me and demand my ID without reasonable suspicion of some sort of illegal activity.

I wish that was true, but the US Supreme court has not upheld the Constitution.

Here they used to set up roadblocks to check your license and auto liability insurance. On New Years Eve, they will set up roadblocks to check driver's sobriety without cause.

Recently, the Police in my city were training police for an adjacent city under some new program. They were randomly stopping cars on highway U.S. 75 and searching the vehicles to train the new officers how to do it. One young man refused to let him search his vehicle and was arrested, taken to jail, then they searched his vehicle anyway.

It was difficult to tell from the newspaper report, but it sounded like the police claim was: By refusing a search of his vehicle, he became a "suspicious person".

Arresting people for "suspicion" is the oldest trait of a totalitarian government.

[toxic]

We may want to split hairs over such terms as:
- detained
- held
- questioned
- arrested
- etc

Actually, anytime you ask, "Can I leave now?" and the Police say "No", you are technically under ARREST. After you are under arrest, the police may or may not press charges. Of course, they have 48 hours to determine if they want to ot not.

[Trueblue]

I wish that was true, but the US Supreme court has not upheld the Constitution.

Here they used to set up roadblocks to check your license and auto liability insurance. On New Years Eve, they will set up roadblocks to check driver's sobriety without cause.

Recently, the Police in my city were training police for an adjacent city under some new program. They were randomly stopping cars on highway U.S. 75 and searching the vehicles to train the new officers how to do it. One young man refused to let him search his vehicle and was arrested, taken to jail, then they searched his vehicle anyway.

It was difficult to tell from the newspaper report, but it sounded like the police claim was: By refusing a search of his vehicle, he became a "suspicious person".

Arresting people for "suspicion" is the oldest trait of a totalitarian government.

Thanks for the information.

However, the USC did still say reasonable suspicion-if I am walking along the street, the cannot come up and demand my ID-at least as far as I can tell. I looked up cl's "terry stop" and it still says reasonable suspicion.

I'm not saying that the police couldn't or wouldn't manufacture an excuse, or that some excuse hasn't been accepted by the courts.

What fascinates me is how several conservatives here are glorying in their belief in the police's power to accost citizens for no particular reason. They seem to be gleeful about it-which is consistent with a desire for authoritarianism in many [not all] conservatives. :think

These are the same folks who want small government, but that seems to be code for low taxes, not for restraints on government power.

[Kurtz]

Thanks for the information.

However, the USC did still say reasonable suspicion-if I am walking along the street, the cannot come up and demand my ID-at least as far as I can tell. I looked up cl's "terry stop" and it still says reasonable suspicion.

I'm not saying that the police couldn't or wouldn't manufacture an excuse, or that some excuse hasn't been accepted by the courts.

What fascinates me is how several conservatives here are glorying in their belief in the police's power to accost citizens for no particular reason. They seem to be gleeful about it-which is consistent with a desire for authoritarianism in many [not all] conservatives. :think

These are the same folks who want small government, but that seems to be code for low taxes, not for restraints on government power.

Right, those are folks who talk thru their ass. :snicker

[Kurtz]

We may want to split hairs over such terms as:
- detained
- held
- questioned
- arrested
- etc

Actually, anytime you ask, "Can I leave now?" and the Police say "No", you are technically under ARREST. After you are under arrest, the police may or may not press charges. Of course, they have 48 hours to determine if they want to ot not.


:yep
Sometimes they even arrest ya 'n then when they get zipshit
for evidence, they say they're sorry for harassin' ya .

[cassandra]

Do ME a favor and stop being such a smart ass, and think about what you are saying here.

What is it that you expect a cop to do to me? And why do you think that it's okay for them to do it, simply because they wish to do so? What kind of a nation do you think you live in? One where the authority of the police trumps the rule of law? That is not a rhetorical question, I want to know which one YOU think is paramount.

If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, I do have to show my driver's license.

However, the police cannot come up to me and demand my ID without reasonable suspicion of some sort of illegal activity.

I would like to believe that this is how it is out there. However, I seriously doubt it. :no

Paranoia is huge out there. Suspicion is super high.

[Trueblue]

More dash cams!!!!

[toxic]

Thanks for the information.

However, the USC did still say reasonable suspicion-if I am walking along the street, the cannot come up and demand my ID-at least as far as I can tell. I looked up cl's "terry stop" and it still says reasonable suspicion.

I'm not saying that the police couldn't or wouldn't manufacture an excuse, or that some excuse hasn't been accepted by the courts.

What fascinates me is how several conservatives here are glorying in their belief in the police's power to accost citizens for no particular reason. They seem to be gleeful about it-which is consistent with a desire for authoritarianism in many [not all] conservatives. :think

These are the same folks who want small government, but that seems to be code for low taxes, not for restraints on government power.

I assume this FindLaw information is up-to-date.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

After reading several sections, I would conceed that in many cases your description is that which the USSC intends. But I would also say that this is not the way the police are implementing "search" in practice.

I guess your Constitutional Rights might depend on your ability to have the USSC or Circuit Court hear and rule on your case. I recall reviewing a resume for a young Arab girl who listed a Supreme Court justice as a personal reference. She might have better luck than me. :)

[Trueblue]

I assume this FindLaw information is up-to-date.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

After reading several sections, I would conceed that in many cases your description is that which the USSC intends. But I would also say that this is not the way the police are implementing "search" in practice.

Agreed.

I guess your Constitutional Rights might depend on your ability to have the USSC or Circuit Court hear and rule on your case. I recall reviewing a resume for a young Arab girl who listed a Supreme Court justice as a personal reference. She might have better luck than me. :)

:(

I have no confidence in Thomas, and little in Scalia. :kickcan

[Trueblue]

Do you think that the conservative justices are out to increase police power? :(

[Wabash]

Do me a favor, next time a cop asks for your ID refuse and tells us how it goes.

Exactly! TB may be book smart on occassion, but in practical application, she is still in grade school!

Do you think that the conservative justices are out to increase police power? :(

Not at all! Btw...Thomas and Scalia are hands and arms above the matron in common sense!

[Saguaro]

Both are matters of opinion

[Mack the Knife]

But wait a minute-I was speaking of US police, anyway. Not foreign police, so what does that have to do with the issue, whether or not I have traveled internationally?

Missouri has the right to ask you for full & complete proof of who you are when you go to get or renew a DL.

They ask you to at all times bring a birth certificate and SS number, to assure they are not handing out DL's to just anyone! As a Law enforcement officer, I find no problem here and its not racial profiling when you are aware of who violates our immigration laws the most.

[Wabash]

Both are matters of opinion

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Was that a pun.......Justices = opinion!:mw

[Wabash]

Missouri has the right to ask you for full & complete proof of who you are when you go to get or renew a DL.

They ask you to at all times bring a birth certificate and SS number, to assure they are not handing out DL's to just anyone! As a Law enforcement officer, I find no problem here and its not racial profiling when you are aware of who violates our immigration laws the most.

Same in Ca. and Or. Some folks just like to be obstinate...

[AYFR]

Do ME a favor and stop being such a smart ass, and think about what you are saying here.

What is it that you expect a cop to do to me? And why do you think that it's okay for them to do it, simply because they wish to do so? What kind of a nation do you think you live in? One where the authority of the police trumps the rule of law? That is not a rhetorical question, I want to know which one YOU think is paramount.

If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, I do have to show my driver's license.

However, the police cannot come up to me and demand my ID without reasonable suspicion of some sort of illegal activity.
I am not being a smart ass I am just being realistic.
It is the officer that is asking for you ID that is determining suspicion.
Personally I DO NOT WANT the police to be allowed to ask for ID for no reason at all, not do I want searches without a warrant.
I DO NOT think it is OK for them to do so either, and I never said it was, I was pointing out what DOES happen.
We may want to split hairs over such terms as:
- detained
- held
- questioned
- arrested
- etc

Actually, anytime you ask, "Can I leave now?" and the Police say "No", you are technically under ARREST. After you are under arrest, the police may or may not press charges. Of course, they have 48 hours to determine if they want to ot not.
That is correct.
Thanks for the information.

However, the USC did still say reasonable suspicion-if I am walking along the street, the cannot come up and demand my ID-at least as far as I can tell. I looked up cl's "terry stop" and it still says reasonable suspicion.

I'm not saying that the police couldn't or wouldn't manufacture an excuse, or that some excuse hasn't been accepted by the courts.


Question TB who determines reasonable suspicion?


What fascinates me is how several conservatives here are glorying in their belief in the police's power to accost citizens for no particular reason. They seem to be gleeful about it-which is consistent with a desire for authoritarianism in many [not all] conservatives. :think

These are the same folks who want small government, but that seems to be code for low taxes, not for restraints on government power.
I have not heard one person hear "glorying" in the police's power. All I have seen is people pointing out stuff to you.
Just becasue we point it out does not mean we agree with it.
The fact remains that an officer of the law is the one that initially determines what is and is not reasonable suspicion and at that time can ask you for ID regardless what you think.

[AYFR]

Do me a favor, next time a cop asks for your ID refuse and tells us how it goes.

Do ME a favor and stop being such a smart ass, and think about what you are saying here.

What is it that you expect a cop to do to me? And why do you think that it's okay for them to do it, simply because they wish to do so? What kind of a nation do you think you live in? One where the authority of the police trumps the rule of law? That is not a rhetorical question, I want to know which one YOU think is paramount.
.
Also on that note refusal to give your ID would then give reasonable suspicion.

What kind of a nation do you think you live in? One where the authority of the police trumps the rule of law? That is not a rhetorical question, I want to know which one YOU think is paramount.
I think that we should live in a nation where freedom is paramount and the USC is law. I am not for a police state and you know that.

[Trueblue]

Missouri has the right to ask you for full & complete proof of who you are when you go to get or renew a DL.

They ask you to at all times bring a birth certificate and SS number, to assure they are not handing out DL's to just anyone! As a Law enforcement officer, I find no problem here and its not racial profiling when you are aware of who violates our immigration laws the most.

And as we both know, Mack, going to get a driver's license IS NOT THE SAME AS GOING DOWN THE STREET AND MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!

Way to prove a point not in contention!!!!

Same in Ca. and Or. Some folks just like to be obstinate...

And the name of that folk is Wabash. I never said or implied anything about going for a driver's license. For once, try understanding the topic.

I am not being a smart ass I am just being realistic.

Your remark was pure smartass.

It is the officer that is asking for you ID that is determining suspicion.

Say what? What does this mean?

Personally I DO NOT WANT the police to be allowed to ask for ID for no reason at all, not do I want searches without a warrant.
I DO NOT think it is OK for them to do so either, and I never said it was, I was pointing out what DOES happen.

That is correct.

Question TB who determines reasonable suspicion?

The courts, when the question comes up.

I have not heard one person hear "glorying" in the police's power. All I have seen is people pointing out stuff to you.
Just becasue we point it out does not mean we agree with it.
The fact remains that an officer of the law is the one that initially determines what is and is not reasonable suspicion and at that time can ask you for ID regardless what you think.

You were pointing out something that was wrong, and you were giving me a smart ass "go try it" answer.

I'm not going to get into one of these idiotic debates where you keep stating something that is not under discussion. The officer can ASK, yes. The officer cannot require that you comply unless there is reasonable suspicion. Hell, I can ASK for your ID. Anybody can ASK.

Also on that note refusal to give your ID would then give reasonable suspicion.

I think that we should live in a nation where freedom is paramount and the USC is law. I am not for a police state and you know that.

:rofl

In other words:

If you're not guilty, why I am asking you all these questions???


Refusal to give your ID can't be reasonable suspicion. Unless you live in a totalitarian state.

[Kurtz]

:worship
Hallelujah 'n Amen!



That's tellin' em!
:rooster

[April15]

If one has ever listened to Thomas or Scalia reason their views on given legal points you have to wonder how they ever got to be lawyers in the first place.

[Kurtz]

If one has ever listened to Thomas or Scalia reason their views on given legal points you have to wonder how they ever got to be lawyers in the first place.

Ya know, those two are almost more dangerous than bush. :twitch

[Trueblue]

I know I shouldn't get mad at people for being smart ass to me when I'm so smart ass myself, Rev, and I'm sorry-but I just hate the idea of the police going around demanding people's ID for no good reason. I have raised two sons, and it was a struggle at times to convey respect for law enforcement with some of the stuff that the law pulls!

[Trueblue]

Ya know, those two are almost more dangerous than bush. :twitch

Amen!!!

[Kurtz]

I know I shouldn't get mad at people for being smart ass to me when I'm so smart ass myself, Rev, and I'm sorry-but I just hate the idea of the police going around demanding people's ID for no good reason. I have raised two sons, and it was a struggle at times to convey respect for law enforcement with some of the stuff that the law pulls!

Try bein' a good cop out there amongst dumbshit bully cops. :mad




Sorry, didn't mean to whine.
:cry

[AYFR]

Say what? What does this mean?



The courts, when the question comes up.


I'm not going to get into one of these idiotic debates where you keep stating something that is not under discussion. The officer can ASK, yes. The officer cannot require that you comply unless there is reasonable suspicion. Hell, I can ASK for your ID. Anybody can ASK.


Refusal to give your ID can't be reasonable suspicion. Unless you live in a totalitarian state.
With all due respect TB the courts cannot determine whether or not reasonable suspicion has been reached till you have gone to court; and that is after the officer has determined for theirselves whether or not reasonable suspicion has been reached.

Again if you refuse to comply with the officer HE/SHe can determine that is reasonable suspicion, yes the courts may say differently but that is AFTER the officer has already detained you and you THEN have given your ID.

[AYFR]

I know I shouldn't get mad at people for being smart ass to me when I'm so smart ass myself, Rev, and I'm sorry-but I just hate the idea of the police going around demanding people's ID for no good reason. I have raised two sons, and it was a struggle at times to convey respect for law enforcement with some of the stuff that the law pulls!

No problem TB


I'm sorry-but I just hate the idea of the police going around demanding people's ID for no good reason.
I agree, I am not saying that it is right, I am just saying that they can do it.

[Kurtz]

No, they can't do it!
They do do it, but they are not spozed to do it.
That's the damn difference.

[Trueblue]

With all due respect TB the courts cannot determine whether or not reasonable suspicion has been reached till you have gone to court; and that is after the officer has determined for theirselves whether or not reasonable suspicion has been reached.

The court can decide that the officer erred and throw out any results of the search.

Again if you refuse to comply with the officer HE/SHe can determine that is reasonable suspicion, yes the courts may say differently but that is AFTER the officer has already detained you and you THEN have given your ID.

I'm sorry, that is nonsense. Refusing to comply is not evidence of wrong activity.

No problem TB


I agree, I am not saying that it is right, I am just saying that they can do it.

And I'm saying that they can't. They can't just walk up and demand that you produce your ID. They have to have a reason. This is a BOR issue, isn't it? A very basic right under the USC-the right to be secure in your person.

Toxic pointed out that in one case, it appeared that the court reasoned as you said-that not letting your car be searched was evidence that you had something to hide. That is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

[AYFR]

You keep bringing up the courts but at the time the officer asks you for you ID you are not at court and will not be for some time after that.
Sure the courts can throw out the results but again that is AFTER the fact.
I am telling you that if you refuse to give an officer ID when he askes for it he can at that moment in his own judgement determine that that is reasonable suspicion.


The courts may LATER reverse that but that again is AFTER the fact.

Also we are not talking about evidence here, we are talking about reasonable suspicion, you do not have to have evidence to reach reasonable suspicion AND it up to the officer's discretion AT THE TIME what is and is not reasonable suspicion.

[Trueblue]

You keep bringing up the courts but at the time the officer asks you for you ID you are not at court and will not be for some time after that.

What is your point? So it will be a while, so what? Why does that make it okay?

Cops read Miranda rights, even though court is a ways off.

Sure the courts can throw out the results but again that is AFTER the fact.
I am telling you that if you refuse to give an officer ID when he askes for it he can at that moment in his own judgement determine that that is reasonable suspicion.


You do understand that if that were so, it would negate the right to refuse, don't you? If your right to refuse leads to the officer getting to call that suspicion, then in reality, you have no right to refuse.

The courts may LATER reverse that but that again is AFTER the fact.

Also we are not talking about evidence here, we are talking about reasonable suspicion, you do not have to have evidence to reach reasonable suspicion AND it up to the officer's discretion AT THE TIME what is and is not reasonable suspicion.

The courts don't "reverse", I don't think, the courts just toss out the evidence.

The officer needs to actually use some discretion. You are requiring that he/she have none, and use none.

[AYFR]

Some cops have no discretion.

I am not saying that is happen all the time but it does happen.

Again if you don't believe me try it. Seriously, that is the only way to know for sure.

[Saguaro]

The cops can always say you fit the description of someone they are looking for ,therefore you have to show proof that you are not that person :shrug

[Trueblue]

Some cops have no discretion.

I am not saying that is happen all the time but it does happen.

Again if you don't believe me try it. Seriously, that is the only way to know for sure.

Rev, I didn't say it didn't happen, I just said that it wasn't legal. Is that clear? Please say it is clear, and stop arguing a point not in contention.

[Kurtz]

The cops can always say you fit the description of someone they are looking for ,therefore you have to show proof that you are not that person :shrug

Actually the cops got to prove you are in fact that person,
innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Here's what y'all are lookin' for:
Ya can beat the time, but ya can't beat the ride.

That's what cops say when they're takin' ya in
'n they know they're gonna have to cut ya loose.

[AYFR]

Rev, I didn't say it didn't happen, I just said that it wasn't legal. Is that clear? Please say it is clear, and stop arguing a point not in contention.

See Sags posts.

Kurtz cops don't prove innosence or guilt that is for the courts to do.

[Trueblue]

See Sags posts.

Kurtz cops don't prove innosence or guilt that is for the courts to do.

I already saw her post, I'm sure she's right, but that doesn't mean, as Kurtz said, that they would get away with it! Again, you are arguing what the police do, and not if it is legal.

Cops are sworn to uphold the law. Not get around it.

[AYFR]

The legal point is up for discussion, if the cop says he has reasonable suspicion whether you agree or not that is their decision.

[Trueblue]

The legal point is up for discussion, if the cop says he has reasonable suspicion whether you agree or not that is their decision.

You do realize that the cops are not THE law, that they ENFORCE the law, right?

It is not their decision, Rev, if it was, there wouldn't be any court cases about reasonable suspicion or about any sort of unlawful searches of person or property.

[AYFR]

At the time they ask you for your ID IT IS THEIR DECISION.
What part of that do you not understand?

The courts come AFTER THE FACT. What the courts does not affect what has ALREADY HAPPENED.

If it was not up to the officers discretion then there would be never anyone stopped for reason suspicion.

[Trueblue]

At the time they ask you for your ID IT IS THEIR DECISION.
What part of that do you not understand?

The courts come AFTER THE FACT. What the courts does not affect what has ALREADY HAPPENED.

If it was not up to the officers discretion then there would be never anyone stopped for reason suspicion.

Why are YOU getting testy with ME?

They have to base that decision on something reasonable. What part of that don't YOU understand?

Nobody said that the courts affect what has already happened. I don't even know what that means. The courts can and have made decisions that say that stops and searches must be based on reasonable decisions. If a case comes before the court, the court can rule that the search was unreasonable, or that it was reasonable, and set a precedent.

The officer must use discretion. You don't seem to think that discretion is involved.

[AYFR]

Discretion is involved BUT IT IS THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION. What is reasonalbe to you and me might be different to a cop at the time.

[Trueblue]

Discretion is involved BUT IT IS THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION. What is reasonalbe to you and me might be different to a cop at the time.

Yes, there can be disagreements about what is reasonable. But that isn't what I've said over these last many posts-I've said that they can't arbitrarily demand ID, and you said that they could.

[AYFR]

Yes I have said they could, because all they have to say is that you seemed suspicious.

[Trueblue]

Yes I have said they could, because all they have to say is that you seemed suspicious.

You are wrong, they can't just say that, they have to justify it. Now can they try and fake it? Yes. But I am talking about what is legal, and you are talking about how people get around what is legal.

[AYFR]

It is legal for a cop to stop you on reasonable suspicion AND it is the cops discretion AT THE TIME as to what is reasonable or not.

[AYFR]

This from FindLaw

Can a State Make it a Crime to Refuse to Identify Yourself to the Police?
In a Narrow Ruling, the Supreme Court Says Yes
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2004

Earlier this week, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.

Hiibel--who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity--believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name. But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated.

In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four Justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties.

Nor does it, as some commentators have suggested, pave the way for a system of compulsory national identification cards. Moreover, even if it did, such a system would not necessarily be unwise or unconstitutional.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040623.html

[Trueblue]

Then surely at this point, you are conceding what I have been saying-because this clearly says reasonable suspicion. If reasonable suspicion were entirely at the officer's discretion, there would NEVER had been such a case as this, or as any of the other cases that deal with reasonable suspicion.

Earlier this week, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.

[Trueblue]

It is legal for a cop to stop you on reasonable suspicion AND it is the cops discretion AT THE TIME as to what is reasonable or not.

I don't think you understand what the word discretion means, because you use it as if there was no legal precedent to illustrate the concept.

[Wabash]

Here ya go TB...
A police officer may ask a citizen for identification and use the information garnered from the request, even if the officer has no reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, according to a ruling from the Sixth Circuit on Thursday. Generally police officers are allowed to demand identification (or that a person identify themselves) and pat a person down if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur -- a situation known as a Terry stop. Police generally are not allowed to demand to show identification, but the court ruled that police using language such as "I would like to see some identification" are simply requesting identification, not demanding it.

[Trueblue]

Here ya go TB...
A police officer may ask a citizen for identification and use the information garnered from the request, even if the officer has no reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, according to a ruling from the Sixth Circuit on Thursday. Generally police officers are allowed to demand identification (or that a person identify themselves) and pat a person down if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur -- a situation known as a Terry stop. Police generally are not allowed to demand to show identification, but the court ruled that police using language such as "I would like to see some identification" are simply requesting identification, not demanding it.

Yes, they can ask, but not demand. I said that about thirty posts back. :lol

[Wabash]

Yes, they can ask, but not demand. I said that about thirty posts back. :lol

If you refuse, the whole encounter will go sideways on ya....

[Trueblue]

If you refuse, the whole encounter will go sideways on ya....

I'm sure that you, along with Rev, understand that a request that cannot refused is not a request. Therefore, you are describing an illegal abuse of police power. Which is okay if you live in Russia, but not too cool here in the US.

[Wabash]

I'm sure that you, along with Rev, understand that a request that cannot refused is not a request. Therefore, you are describing an illegal abuse of police power. Which is okay if you live in Russia, but not too cool here in the US.

Well TB...abuse is a multifaceted term, with wide paramaters of interpretation!:LL

[Wabash]

I always got a kick out of citizens that told me that "they paid my salary" and various other comments.....local tax payers didn't pay our salary....the Federal govt. did.

[Saguaro]

In our city ,the taxpayers pay our local police

[Kurtz]

I always got a kick out of citizens that told me that "they paid my salary" and various other comments.....local tax payers didn't pay our salary....the Federal govt. did.

Yeah 'n who pays those federal taxes that pay your salary? :confused

Oh yeah, aliens 'n not the illegal ones. :lol

:beamup



So Wabby was a charity case, hmm.

[toxic]

I'm sure that you, along with Rev, understand that a request that cannot refused is not a request. Therefore, you are describing an illegal abuse of police power. Which is okay if you live in Russia, but not too cool here in the US.

Perhaps Wabby and Rev at least understand your frustration and why 50% of the people in my Concealed Hangun Training Class, said one reason they were going to carry a handgun was to protect themselves against the Police.

This did raise some eyebrows when I told them at the Police station.

In Texas, the one justification for shooting a policeman or other official, is if they have violated the law and put your life in danger (or you believe your life is in danger).

Hey, maybe they were just joking around???
You know, just trying to scare you and ... !!

[toxic]

In our city ,the taxpayers pay our local police

Wabby was probably on one of those Federal Social Program Grants to help citys arrest the Elderly with Glacoma who were smoking pot in the NorthWest.

You know, one of those Commie programs :)

[Kurtz]

Wabby was probably on one of those Federal Social Program Grants to help citys arrest the Elderly with Glacoma who were smoking pot in the NorthWest.

You know, one of those Commie programs :)

:rofl

[Wabash]

In our city ,the taxpayers pay our local police
Our city does too, but not the county cops...I was county and our budget came from the O&C funding...

Yeah 'n who pays those federal taxes that pay your salary? :confused

Oh yeah, aliens 'n not the illegal ones. :lol

:beamup



So Wabby was a charity case, hmm.
I know what's what Kurtz...but the Fed. funding is distributed over the whole country, not just the local citizens....so when some body tells me that they pay my salary...maybe 10 cents out of their annual taxes might.

Perhaps Wabby and Rev at least understand your frustration and why 50% of the people in my Concealed Hangun Training Class, said one reason they were going to carry a handgun was to protect themselves against the Police.

This did raise some eyebrows when I told them at the Police station.

In Texas, the one justification for shooting a policeman or other official, is if they have violated the law and put your life in danger (or you believe your life is in danger).

Hey, maybe they were just joking around???
You know, just trying to scare you and ... !!
Well, you Texans may not like your police, but the majority of Oregonians don't have a problem with them. Out of 4300 plus in my CCW classes, no one has ever told me that...not one.

Wabby was probably on one of those Federal Social Program Grants to help citys arrest the Elderly with Glacoma who were smoking pot in the NorthWest.

You know, one of those Commie programs :)

It's called O&C Funding for timber land...feel free to Google it.

[AYFR]

I give up.

TB you go ahead and refuse to give ID when it is asked for. Just let us know how it goes OK.

[Kurtz]

Well, quit yer bitchin' about federally funded programs then,
ya woulda been outta a job had it not been for the Feds. :lol

Ya musta been one of the 'rouge' cops,
worked for yourself 'n not the public. :whistle

[Trueblue]

I give up.

TB you go ahead and refuse to give ID when it is asked for. Just let us know how it goes OK.

Rev, just surrender your rights to the cops, and let me know how that goes, OK?

I never know if you actually understand the other person's point and won't admit it, or if you really just don't see what people say.

[Kurtz]

FOR A FACT:
I've refused to show ID, offered to be arrested 'n had cops walk away.

And that's a true story! :yep


Shit cops depend, thrive on stupid folks who don't know their rights!
Makes 'em feel like they are big boys. :lol

[AYFR]

Rev, just surrender your rights to the cops, and let me know how that goes, OK?

I never know if you actually understand the other person's point and won't admit it, or if you really just don't see what people say.

I see what you are saying and I believe you to be incorrect.

Showing ID is not surrendering my rights, it is respecting the police.

[Kurtz]

Well, then ya missed the point, Son. :lol

[AYFR]

I missed nothing, TB said that an officer cannot determine reasonable suspicion and I disagreed with her.

[Trueblue]

I see what you are saying and I believe you to be incorrect.

Right, don't let facts get in your way.

Showing ID is not surrendering my rights, it is respecting the police.

The police need to respect me, too. And all of us. I've never been rude to an officer-unless it was called for. :lol

Seriously, I have seen cops try to pull all kinds of crap. They tried to arrest my brother for sitting on a pile of sawdust, watching his girlfriend teach swimming lessons. I believe the crime was "sitting someplace unusual while having long hair". I had a cop insist that I made a turn improperly when I knew I had not-and he dropped it and got back in his car and drove off. There are some great, wonderful, brave officers, and then there are those who are there for the power. And that is the kind of officer who will ask you for your ID for no particular reason except to show their authority. It's not right, and it does lead to community problems, and that it simply a fact.

I think that you have turned this into something it is not and never has been. You have this idea that I'm speeding along and get pulled over, and then won't show my ID. Even though I've said about twenty times that isn't what I'm talking about, you still think it.

[Trueblue]

I missed nothing, TB said that an officer cannot determine reasonable suspicion and I disagreed with her.

:bullshit

I never said any such thing!

[Kurtz]

:grenade

[Trueblue]

:grenade

:lol

Rev, that is really not what I said. What is your game here?

[AYFR]

Right, don't let facts get in your way.



The police need to respect me, too. And all of us. I've never been rude to an officer-unless it was called for. :lol

Seriously, I have seen cops try to pull all kinds of crap. They tried to arrest my brother for sitting on a pile of sawdust, watching his girlfriend teach swimming lessons. I believe the crime was "sitting someplace unusual while having long hair". I had a cop insist that I made a turn improperly when I knew I had not-and he dropped it and got back in his car and drove off. There are some great, wonderful, brave officers, and then there are those who are there for the power. And that is the kind of officer who will ask you for your ID for no particular reason except to show their authority. It's not right, and it does lead to community problems, and that it simply a fact.

I think that you have turned this into something it is not and never has been. You have this idea that I'm speeding along and get pulled over, and then won't show my ID. Even though I've said about twenty times that isn't what I'm talking about, you still think it.
No that is not what I think, I know that you know that an officer can demand ID when you are driving.
An officer at anytime CAN ask for your ID

A police officer may ask a citizen for identification and use the information garnered from the request, even if the officer has no reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, according to a ruling from the Sixth Circuit on Thursday. Generally police officers are allowed to demand identification (or that a person identify themselves) and pat a person down if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur -- a situation known as a Terry stop. Police generally are not allowed to demand to show identification, but the court ruled that police using language such as "I would like to see some identification" are simply requesting identification, not demanding it.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/appeals_court_r.html
:bullshit

I never said any such thing!

Yes you did and I quote
If reasonable suspicion were entirely at the officer's discretion, there would NEVER had been such a case as this, or as any of the other cases that deal with reasonable suspicion
And I disagree, when an officer stops you it is his discretion of what is reasonable or not, you may look like someone wanted, in the wrong place and the wrong time, near a crime that was committed and a bunch of others.

discretion n. the power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines.

[Trueblue]

No that is not what I think, I know that you know that an officer can demand ID when you are driving.
An officer at anytime CAN ask for your ID


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/appeals_court_r.html


Yes you did and I quote

And I disagree, when an officer stops you it is his discretion of what is reasonable or not, you may look like someone wanted, in the wrong place and the wrong time, near a crime that was committed and a bunch of others.

discretion n. the power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines.

No, I didn't say that, Rev. You completely ignored the word "entirely" in order to make your point. Your definition makes my point, not yours. Within general legal guidelines, Rev-which is what I've said over and over. Read your own stuff. You are just being a creep, trying to find some way to stick with something you should never have said.

[Wabash]

I give up.

TB you go ahead and refuse to give ID when it is asked for. Just let us know how it goes OK.

TB's all talk...give it up, she just likes to argue to be right...My first X wife was a carbon copy of TB.

Well, quit yer bitchin' about federally funded programs then,
ya woulda been outta a job had it not been for the Feds. :lol

Ya musta been one of the 'rouge' cops,
worked for yourself 'n not the public. :whistle
Hey, this program was in place long before I got here and I didn't even know about it until I was hired and working for a couple months...
It's one of the few worthwhile programs...it's not an entitlement!
I worked for the Sheriff and served the public and the law. Don't try and start stupid rumors like they do with President Bush!

Rev, just surrender your rights to the cops, and let me know how that goes, OK?

I never know if you actually understand the other person's point and won't admit it, or if you really just don't see what people say.
All of us Conservatives and Independents see what you say TB and disagree with you on just about everything!

I see what you are saying and I believe you to be incorrect.

Showing ID is not surrendering my rights, it is respecting the police.

Exactly. TB just likes to argue to be right! Sorry, I'm repeating myself.

No, I didn't say that, Rev. You completely ignored the word "entirely" in order to make your point. Your definition makes my point, not yours. Within general legal guidelines, Rev-which is what I've said over and over. Read your own stuff. You are just being a creep, trying to find some way to stick with something you should never have said.

He's not being a creep TB, he's pointing out the fallacy and bullshit in your argument....a daily occurrence!

[Trueblue]

Oh, :bullshit

I'm nothing like any wife you ever had. :lol

[AYFR]

TB just admit you are wrong on this one,

There is a first time for everything

[Kurtz]

:lmao

Oh well, some folks likes to lie to
themselves, they just can't help it. :lol

Here, TB, you're gonna need this:
:wall

[Trueblue]

:lmao

Oh well, some folks likes to lie to
themselves, they just can't help it. :lol

Here, TB, you're gonna need this:
:wall

Thanks, the other one was getting broken. :lol

Rev, nice try, but I'm not wrong. Read the law, read Kurtz's posts, and even Wabash tacitly admitted it.

[Kurtz]

Thanks, the other one was getting broken. :lol

Rev, nice try, but I'm not wrong. Read the law, read Kurtz's posts, and even Wabash tacitly admitted it.

Here's the thang, Rev knows it too, 'n his reason for compliance to the cops is admirable, he has a desire to respect cops, an admirable position we must agree, however, wait til he runs across an asshole cop out there, then he may think again.

I personally loved runnin' across asshole cops, loved to see
the expression on their faces when I did produce MY ID. :lmao

Most times I graciously accepted their apologies. :D

'Cept one damn time when this li'l punkass cop...
nevermind, I gotta git ready to drive to DFW. :snicker

[Trueblue]

Here's the thang, Rev knows it too, 'n his reason for compliance to the cops is admirable, he has a desire to respect cops, an admirable position we must agree, however, wait til he runs across an asshole cop out there, then he may think again.

I personally loved runnin' across asshole cops, loved to see
the expression on their faces when I did produce MY ID. :lmao

Most times I graciously accepted their apologies. :D

'Cept one damn time when this li'l punkass cop...
nevermind, I gotta git ready to drive to DFW. :snicker

I do agree with Rev that we need to respect law enforcement! I'm glad you stressed the point. There are a lot of very good and brave cops out there.

[AYFR]

Here's the thang, Rev knows it too, 'n his reason for compliance to the cops is admirable, he has a desire to respect cops, an admirable position we must agree, however, wait til he runs across an asshole cop out there, then he may think again.

I personally loved runnin' across asshole cops, loved to see
the expression on their faces when I did produce MY ID. :lmao

Most times I graciously accepted their apologies. :D

'Cept one damn time when this li'l punkass cop...
nevermind, I gotta git ready to drive to DFW. :snicker
And it will be that asshole cop that says he has reasonable suspicion and THEN there is no choice.
That is what I am getting at, yes you can refuse BUT it is the cops decision at the time he stops you of what is reasonable or not. Yes there are some guidelines but most are vague anyways.

That is where TB is wrong.

[Saguaro]

If a cop ever stopped me, you better believe I would show him ID,warranted or other wise

[Wabash]

TB just admit you are wrong on this one,

There is a first time for everything

If a cop ever stopped me, you better believe I would show him ID,warranted or other wise

Exactly, I mean why wouldn't you.. on the street walking or anywhere else...it's no big deal, have your ID ready at all times...I always told all my kids to make sure you have ID on your when you are out and about...it's just plain common sense!

[Trueblue]

And it will be that asshole cop that says he has reasonable suspicion and THEN there is no choice.
That is what I am getting at, yes you can refuse BUT it is the cops decision at the time he stops you of what is reasonable or not. Yes there are some guidelines but most are vague anyways.

That is where TB is wrong.

Rev, this isn't about whether or not there are asshole cops. The court can rule that the cop had no reasonable suspicion, you do realize that, don't you?

This is about limits to police power. I hope at some point you get that. I don't expect it to happen in this thread, though.

[AYFR]

Rev, this isn't about whether or not there are asshole cops. The court can rule that the cop had no reasonable suspicion, you do realize that, don't you?

This is about limits to police power. I hope at some point you get that. I don't expect it to happen in this thread, though.
:wall :gaah
TB I understand there are limits to the polices powers AND I understand that a court on rule against the officer BUT what you don't seem to understad that AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU (before the courts step in) IT IS HIS JUDGEMENT ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
I am arguing about the point in time when he asks for your ID, not some point in the future when you go to court for it. The officer is not going to stop and call a judge to ask if what he is stopping you for is reasonable suspicion. He is going to go on his OWN judgement and training.
This isn't about the courts, they come later, it is about a cop using his judgement.


You will never admit that it is the cops decision AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU of what reasonable suspicion is or isn't.

[Trueblue]

:wall :gaah
TB I understand there are limits to the polices powers AND I understand that a court on rule against the officer BUT what you don't seem to understad that AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU (before the courts step in) IT IS HIS JUDGEMENT ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
I am arguing about the point in time when he asks for your ID, not some point in the future when you go to court for it. The officer is not going to stop and call a judge to ask if what he is stopping you for is reasonable suspicion. He is going to go on his OWN judgement and training.
This isn't about the courts, they come later, it is about a cop using his judgement.


You will never admit that it is the cops decision AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU of what reasonable suspicion is or isn't.

Listen, I think they should name this :wall "Rev" because that is what talking to you is like.

You are arguing something incredibly meaningless, and something that nobody disputes. Yeah, at that moment, a cop can bully someone into showing their ID. But Kurtz has told you that she's told cops "Nope, arrest me, I'm not showing my ID" and the cop backs off. Why? Because they know that the do not have the right to demand ID from people for no particular reason. Reasonable suspicion means something other than "Because I said so". You've even argued that refusing to show your ID means that the cop can suspect you've done something wrong, so that makes it okay. Which makes the right not to have your ID demanded by a judge totally meaningless.

Of course the cop isn't going to call a judge, but the cop is well aware, or should be, that his behavior can be examined at a later date by a court, and the fruits of the search can be overturned, or the cop can be reprimanded for abuse of his authority.

You have redefined the issue during the thread from "what is legal" to "what often happens" or "what cops can get by with".

The issue I've been discussing is can cops demand someone's ID for no particular reason, and the answer remains NO, THEY CANNOT.

[Trueblue]

:wall :gaah
TB I understand there are limits to the polices powers AND I understand that a court on rule against the officer BUT what you don't seem to understad that AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU (before the courts step in) IT IS HIS JUDGEMENT ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
I am arguing about the point in time when he asks for your ID, not some point in the future when you go to court for it. The officer is not going to stop and call a judge to ask if what he is stopping you for is reasonable suspicion. He is going to go on his OWN judgement and training.
This isn't about the courts, they come later, it is about a cop using his judgement.


You will never admit that it is the cops decision AT THE TIME HE STOPS YOU of what reasonable suspicion is or isn't.

What I won't do is let you redefine the discussion repeatedly as each of your positions is shot down.

[Trueblue]

If reasonable suspicion were entirely at the officer's discretion, there would NEVER had been such a case as this, or as any of the other cases that deal with reasonable suspicion.

The officer is bound by precedent and ethics in deciding reasonable suspicion.

[Trueblue]

Rev, the first link is a Google page, and the next two are about requiring proof to get medicaid benefits.

None of those apply to what we are talking about.

Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?

Here is what I asked, originally. Can the police just walk up and ask people for their papers.

The answer is no.

[Trueblue]

Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.



Look at what you said in response, that the police can ask for proof of residency. Now did you EVER prove that, or did you move on to other issues?

A DL is proof of citizenship. A cop can check you DL with its record to see if the person holding it is actually the person registared. That is how the City of Irving is deporting illegals. Police can ask ANYONE at ANYTIME for ID. Which then they can run that ID.

As for my examples they wre example of laws requiring proof of citizenship and the google page was a list of links doing the same

Here you claim that the police can ask anyone at anytime for ID.

You are wrong. They can't. You haven't proven it, you've just drug us all over the place.

[AYFR]

I have argued from the begining that an officer CAN ask you for your ID

Rev, the first link is a Google page, and the next two are about requiring proof to get medicaid benefits.

None of those apply to what we are talking about.

Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?

Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.


No, they are not examples of what we are talking about, they are completely unrelated, and one of them is a Google page.

The police can ask a driver for a driver's license. I'm talking about asking for proof of citizenship.

People think that the police can just ask a person walking along to show them their documents, but they can't.

A DL is proof of citizenship. A cop can check you DL with its record to see if the person holding it is actually the person registared. That is how the City of Irving is deporting illegals. Police can ask ANYONE at ANYTIME for ID. Which then they can run that ID.


Ask Paine about that, because he says differently, and he has a very good track record for accuracy, and he is a lawyer.



It is also the police that get to decide what is "reasonable suspicion". All they have to say is "He/she looked like they had a gun."

Reasonable suspicion is very vague.

ALL I have ever said was that the police CAN ask you for ID. You and CL brought up the reasonable suspicion and changed the subject matter.

My point has remaind consistent, a cop CAN ask for ID and a cop is the one that initially decidesat the time what is reasonable suspicion.

[AYFR]

Here is what I asked, originally. Can the police just walk up and ask people for their papers.

The answer is no.

Yes they can ask.

Look at what you said in response, that the police can ask for proof of residency. Now did you EVER prove that, or did you move on to other issues?



Here you claim that the police can ask anyone at anytime for ID.

You are wrong. They can't. You haven't proven it, you've just drug us all over the place.
They can ask for your ID
Yes, they can ask, but not demand. I said that about thirty posts back. :lol
Haveing a problem keeping track of you position TB?

First you say that a cop can't ask for ID the you say that he can, then you go back to he can't.

See I never have said that a cop can demand ID, (I even said that you can refuse) I have said that they can ask and that it is a cop decision on what is reasonable suspicion.

[Trueblue]

I have argued from the begining that an officer CAN ask you for your ID

I said for no particular reason, can they just walk up and ask for ID, and you said yes, they can.

ALL I have ever said was that the police CAN ask you for ID. You and CL brought up the reasonable suspicion and changed the subject matter.

My point has remaind consistent, a cop CAN ask for ID and a cop is the one that initially decidesat the time what is reasonable suspicion.

No, cl brought up Terry stops, and he was mistaken about them, too. I looked them up and found that he left out the part about reasonable suspicion.

I'm going to bump those posts up again.

[Trueblue]

Rev, the first link is a Google page, and the next two are about requiring proof to get medicaid benefits.

None of those apply to what we are talking about.

Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?

Those are just examples TB.

Yes the police can ask for proof or residency. As in DL, State ID, and such.



A DL is proof of citizenship. A cop can check you DL with its record to see if the person holding it is actually the person registared. That is how the City of Irving is deporting illegals. Police can ask ANYONE at ANYTIME for ID. Which then they can run that ID.

As for my examples they wre example of laws requiring proof of citizenship and the google page was a list of links doing the same

Anybody can ask anybody else for anything at any time. But can the police walk up and demand your ID for no particular reason?

NO, they can't.

[AYFR]

I said for no particular reason, can they just walk up and ask for ID, and you said yes, they can.



No, cl brought up Terry stops, and he was mistaken about them, too. I looked them up and found that he left out the part about reasonable suspicion.

I'm going to bump those posts up again.

I have read those post and I was pointing out that it was YOU that brought in reasonalbe suspicion, doesn't matter if it was in response to cl or not you brought it up.


They can just come up out of the blue and ask.

[AYFR]

Anybody can ask anybody else for anything at any time. But can the police walk up and demand your ID for no particular reason?

NO, they can't.

Show me where I said they can demand it, you keep changing what your saying and it is getting confusing.

[Trueblue]

Yes they can ask.


They can ask for your ID

Haveing a problem keeping track of you position TB?

First you say that a cop can't ask for ID the you say that he can, then you go back to he can't.

See I never have said that a cop can demand ID, (I even said that you can refuse) I have said that they can ask and that it is a cop decision on what is reasonable suspicion.

I am not having trouble keeping track of my position, no. I am having trouble keeping track of your latest claim, though. It's always a problem when discussing a topic with you.

Can you show me the post where you said that a person could refuse?

It is more than just the cop's decision. They must base that decision on precedent and ethics. A gut feeling isn't enough.

[Trueblue]

Show me where I said they can demand it, you keep changing what your saying and it is getting confusing.

Right, I'm changing what I'm saying. :lol

[Trueblue]

I have to disagree about your track record.

You misstated what I said, and tried to criticize me for saying what I didn't say-which is how you made it look as if you can't read.

Paine and Yellowdog Texan are not the same person.

You hate being proven wrong very much, cl, so I don't think that dog will hunt.

In a Terry Stop, there should be a reasonable suspicion. The police can't stop people and just demand ID.

This is what I said, over and over.

And then you would respond by saying, yes, TB, the cops can ask at anytime.

So you are telling me that you responded "yes" but you really meant that they could only ask, and not demand?

[Trueblue]

I have read those post and I was pointing out that it was YOU that brought in reasonalbe suspicion, doesn't matter if it was in response to cl or not you brought it up.


They can just come up out of the blue and ask.

Okay, but anybody can ask anything. Can they make you show your ID, just out of the blue, for no particular reason. Make you, CAN THEY MAKE YOU.

[AYFR]

Right, I'm changing what I'm saying. :lol
Yoou are


Can the police, in this country, just walk up and ask people for their papers?
First you ask if the can and you believe that they can't ASK.
No, they are not examples of what we are talking about, they are completely unrelated, and one of them is a Google page.

The police can ask a driver for a driver's license. I'm talking about asking for proof of citizenship.

People think that the police can just ask a person walking along to show them their documents, but they can't.
Again you say they can ask
Oh, they can ASK, Wabash. I just don't have to comply. Which is what I said before-why not spend time discussing the points in contention instead?

God Bless America!!!!
NOW you say they can ask



However, the police cannot come up to me and demand my ID without reasonable suspicion of some sort of illegal activity.
NOW you switch it from ask to demand
Yes, they can ask, but not demand. I said that about thirty posts back. :lol
Again you cantridict your fisrts post by saying now they can ask.

The issue I've been discussing is can cops demand someone's ID for no particular reason, and the answer remains NO, THEY CANNOT.
NOW you are back to they can't even ask
Here is what I asked, originally. Can the police just walk up and ask people for their papers.

The answer is no.
Back to the begining again

Anybody can ask anybody else for anything at any time. But can the police walk up and demand your ID for no particular reason?

NO, they can't.
Back to demand

I am not having trouble keeping track of my position, no. I am having trouble keeping track of your latest claim, though. It's always a problem when discussing a topic with you.
So yes you are having a problem

Can you show me the post where you said tha