BuffettNews.com

Deleted. I don't have the energy nor the desire to get involved.

While it may be the officer's job and duty to check out the individual who is wandering down the street and peering into the window of a house that is for sale. It is not within their legal powers to require the person to produce ID or for that individual to go anywhere with them. Legally, all Mr. Dylan had to do was to identify himself, that's it. He was on a public street, he was not breaking any laws and therefore the police had no business "escorting him" back to his hotel and having the hotel staff vouch for him. We do not live in a police state, although many people seem to think that is better than ever being at risk.

The Lost Manatee wrote:While it may be the officer's job and duty to check out the individual who is wandering down the street and peering into the window of a house that is for sale. It is not within their legal powers to require the person to produce ID or for that individual to go anywhere with them. Legally, all Mr. Dylan had to do was to identify himself, that's it. He was on a public street, he was not breaking any laws and therefore the police had no business "escorting him" back to his hotel and having the hotel staff vouch for him. We do not live in a police state, although many people seem to think that is better than ever being at risk.

Does that mean that the cops are always required to accept what someone says as gospel? Unless I know you personally, I want some proof that you are "Bob Dylan", or "Henry Gates", or whomever. And if that means that I ask if we can go to your home or hotel together to allow you to provide that proof, then so be it.

And secondly, in many jurisdictions refusing to furnish information to a police officer upon request can be considered "disorderly conduct" or "obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty", among other things. You can claim your Fifth Amendment or 'Miranda' rights if you want, but you're still probably going to be cited or taken into custody, and they'll let a judge sort it out.

So as a general rule, it's probably best to not tick off people who wear badges and carry weapons for a living.

-"BB"-

The Lost Manatee wrote:While it may be the officer's job and duty to check out the individual who is wandering down the street and peering into the window of a house that is for sale. It is not within their legal powers to require the person to produce ID or for that individual to go anywhere with them. Legally, all Mr. Dylan had to do was to identify himself, that's it. He was on a public street, he was not breaking any laws and therefore the police had no business "escorting him" back to his hotel and having the hotel staff vouch for him. We do not live in a police state, although many people seem to think that is better than ever being at risk.

I agree.

What I do find interesting is this:

Dissenters who protest against the accepted wisdom are frequently reminded that their right to freedom of speech (First Amendment) is actively protected by military personnel fighting in _____ (pick a country).

The National Rifle Association and other like minded groups invest a lot of time and effort and money into making sure that the government doesn't abridge our right to "keep and bear arms".

However, when the subject is that of police stopping citizens on the street to demand identity papers, purpose for being there, place of residence, etc., many folks don't see anything wrong with this abridgment of rights.

Why not?

Does that mean that the cops are always required to accept what someone says as gospel? Unless I know you personally, I want some proof that you are "Bob Dylan", or "Henry Gates", or whomever. And if that means that I ask if we can go to your home or hotel together to allow you to provide that proof, then so be it.

And secondly, in many jurisdictions refusing to furnish information to a police officer upon request can be considered "disorderly conduct" or "obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty", among other things. You can claim your Fifth Amendment or 'Miranda' rights if you want, but you're still probably going to be cited or taken into custody, and they'll let a judge sort it out.

So as a general rule, it's probably best to not tick off people who wear badges and carry weapons for a living.

-"BB"-[/quote]

According to the US Supreme Court that is exactly what it means. All I or any other citizen has to provide is our name. We are not required to carry ID, nor are we required to provide ID unless we are actually suspected of violating a law. If the police take you in because you refuse to provide them with ID without them having probably cause, then the police officers and the police department may be subject to legal action for false arrest, etc.

So as a specific rule, it's not a good idea for the police to violate the law either or they will face consequences as well. The police work for the citizens, they do not have carte blance to violate the laws of the land, even if they think that they are above the law.

flyboy55 wrote:However, when the subject is that of police stopping citizens on the street to demand identity papers, purpose for being there, place of residence, etc., many folks don't see anything wrong with this abridgment of rights.

Why not?

Why do airline pilots stand idly by while passengers are delayed by government employees demanding to see identity documents, requiring them to partially disrobe and inspecting their personal belongings?

Keep in mind, those passengers that are being inconvenienced are the same people that pay keep the airlines in business.

flyboy55 wrote:However, when the subject is that of police stopping citizens on the street to demand identity papers, purpose for being there, place of residence, etc., many folks don't see anything wrong with this abridgment of rights.

Why not?

Because in a lot of the states it's the law that you must carry some sort of ID

Elrod wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:However, when the subject is that of police stopping citizens on the street to demand identity papers, purpose for being there, place of residence, etc., many folks don't see anything wrong with this abridgment of rights.

Why not?

Why do airline pilots stand idly by while passengers are delayed by government employees demanding to see identity documents, requiring them to partially disrobe and inspecting their personal belongings?

Keep in mind, those passengers that are being inconvenienced are the same people that pay keep the airlines in business.

I'm not standing idly by - I'm usually getting cavity searched as well.

But I do get your point. These are security measures put in place for the safety of the traveling public. However there is usually a disclaimer posted nearby which says you aren't required to submit to a search, but of course you will not be allowed to fly if you don't. This disclaimer is probably made because the constitution doesn't allow the government (or anybody else) to randomly search folks for no reason without their permission, unless it is law enforcement officers following strict procedures. For example, you have to be arrested before you can be physically searched.

ph4ever wrote:Because in a lot of the states it's the law that you must carry some sort of ID

I agree there are jurisdictions where some of these things are done, but I think sometimes these local ordinances only stand because they haven't been subjected to a Supreme Court challenge, you know, some guy hires a lawyer and spends a fortune successfully arguing that his constitutionally guaranteed rights have been abridged.

IMHO, it is unfortunate that our legal system only guarantees you the opportunity successfully defend your rights in a court, provided you can pay the bill. It doesn't guarantee that law enforcement or the government won't try to trample your rights. Organizations that take it upon themselves to defend other folks constitutional rights, like the American Civil Liberties Union, are frequently reviled and ridiculed for the work that they do.

Who's Bob Dylan?

Because in a lot of the states it's the law that you must carry some sort of ID

That is so hard to believe!

In Canada, people have been fighting hard against any sort of national identity card (for instance, to use instead of a passport when crossing into your fair country). It always raises a clamour of voices yelling "police state!"

Of course, if you're driving a vehicle, or even in or near it with the keys, you may have to produce a driver's licence.

Skibo wrote:I didn't recognize Samuel Jackson when he was on a flight with me once. Another passenger pointed him out to me. I also wouldn't recognize a lot of the modern celebrities if I passed them on the street.

Don't feel too bad. I was in a restaurant with Burt Reynolds once and he didn't have his toupee on and I would never have recognized him.

I stood right next to Keith Whitley once and would never have known who he was if somebody hadn't asked him for his autograph. Man, he was tall. Skinny as a rail, too.