A little blahg post about being profiled by the police: Contacted (http://commutant.blogspot.com/2008/02/contact.html)

No formal complaint = don't care about your blogging.

In other words:
You didn't care enough to actually do anything but run home and roll your face on the keyboard for a few paragraphs.

That is funny how the cop asked him to provide proof of who he actually was. Their in car system allow them to look up almost anything about you. In Montgomery County and were I work at the City all our in car systems allow officers to look up users information within seconds.

The dude should of checked if the cop had a in car camera system. If so call the station, file a compliant, they will pull the video with the audio and their ya go. Besides that not much you can do and its just one of things that is going to happen.

All I can say is, when you call me a liar, the kid gloves come off.

He WOULD have been reported, and a complaint WOULD have been filed.

All I can say is, when you call me a liar, the kid gloves come off.

He WOULD have been reported, and a complaint WOULD have been filed.
I thought the same thing, my first response would be "And your badge number is?".

What the person should have done is asked for a supervisor after being called a lier. In all states you have the right to ask for one and they must have one respond to the seen. It might take a bit for him to get their but its worth it in this case. Thats why the guy was so nice towards the end because he had seen he was a prick and did not want to get in any trouble for that.

Its really what ever, since their was no report made theirs no reason to complain about it. Unless you did something about it theirs no reason to be pissed.

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason. And in the 2 states I live, and work in, a Peace Officer is under no requirement to be civil, polite, or accommodating. Whether their conduct constitutes abuse is determined by a judge, but in most cases, the Peace Officer will prevail.

Down south, the best thing you can do when a Peace Officer questions you is to keep your hands in sight, nod and say "Yes, Sir", or "No, Sir" (or Ma'am, if appropriate), and do whatever they tell you to do. Mouthing-off is a No-Win situation.

After the incident, if you wish to contact an attorney to complain (and this is the only type of complaint that will be heard...through an attorney), then that is your right. Except in extreme cases, it will probably not go anywhere, but you can try.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.Can somebody explain what the difference is between these cops and, say, the mob?

Ironic that these are the same goons who claim they don't have time to investigate crimes...

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason.

Can you link to this law?

A Peace Officer, under the 4th amendment, only has a right to detain a person and demand ID under set circumstances.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.

so that is America, land of the free.... wow, thanks for the heads up!

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason. And in the 2 states I live, and work in, a Peace Officer is under no requirement to be civil, polite, or accommodating. Whether their conduct constitutes abuse is determined by a judge, but in most cases, the Peace Officer will prevail.

Down south, the best thing you can do when a Peace Officer questions you is to keep your hands in sight, nod and say "Yes, Sir", or "No, Sir" (or Ma'am, if appropriate), and do whatever they tell you to do. Mouthing-off is a No-Win situation.

After the incident, if you wish to contact an attorney to complain (and this is the only type of complaint that will be heard...through an attorney), then that is your right. Except in extreme cases, it will probably not go anywhere, but you can try.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.

I thought we did away with that south a while back. I'd love to see the statutes covering these provisions. No doubt if someone took them on, incident or not, they would be struck down. As a citizen of the US, I am entitled to move about absent any ID - and I would assert that my entitlement covers each of our states. The provisions you describe sound unconstitutional . . . and, no matter what state or what provision, anyone in this day and time, LE or not, who thinks they can suppress my constitutional right to lodge a complaint without absent the requirement to hire or be assisted by professional counsel is in for a surprise if they tangle with me.

It is as a result of the grace extended by the OP that this offending LEO did not find himself in a very embarrassing, if not career compromising heap of trouble, and any officer who detains you after an illegal stop (which this was) where there was no probable cause (which there wasn't) has broken the law he/she is sworn to uphold.

I am certain there are many people out there who would like to see such Draconian laws on the books - where you could be thrown in jail for a few days just because you didn't have an ID, but, fortunately, the pendulum has not swung far enough in error towards 'national security' for that to happen, yet. We may reach that point, but I have faith that reasonable citizens will assert themselves to push that pendulum back towards a more reasonable approach that continues to respect the wishes of the founding fathers.

In reality, LE has no right to interfere with you at all unless you have committed some sort of infraction or they have probable cause to believe that you may have perpetrated some sort of crime. Then, and only then, can they detain you until they ascertain that you are who you say you are and that there are no outstanding warrants for your arrest. The only exceptions of which I am aware would be situations in which they have set up monitoring points where they might momentarily stop every citizen or some percentage of citizens based upon some pre-set, non-discriminatory interval. Otherwise (as in this case) the stop is not legal and could likely be challenged in a court of law along with any evidence or charges resulting from the stop.

This is as it should be.

My respect goes out toward the OP for restraint in dealing with the officer. As nice as it might make the gut feel to get even with this overreacting officer, he probably will mature to become an asset to his force and a valuable protector of persons not unlike the OP for whom, on this night, he made some trouble.

Caruso

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason. And in the 2 states I live, and work in, a Peace Officer is under no requirement to be civil, polite, or accommodating. Whether their conduct constitutes abuse is determined by a judge, but in most cases, the Peace Officer will prevail.

Down south, the best thing you can do when a Peace Officer questions you is to keep your hands in sight, nod and say "Yes, Sir", or "No, Sir" (or Ma'am, if appropriate), and do whatever they tell you to do. Mouthing-off is a No-Win situation.

After the incident, if you wish to contact an attorney to complain (and this is the only type of complaint that will be heard...through an attorney), then that is your right. Except in extreme cases, it will probably not go anywhere, but you can try.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.

?

http://www.petalingstreet.org/blog/archives/UN_blue_helmets.jpghttp://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0cdnfAOfBIcdV/610x.jpg

so that is America, land of the free.... wow, thanks for the heads up!

Do you go in Heads Up mode after reading every fabricated factoid/over-the-top sermon/screed? :rolleyes: Or only if the ranting confirms your already established notions about the Real Truth? eh?

Do you go in Heads Up mode after reading every fabricated factoid/over-the-top sermon/screed? :rolleyes: Or only if the ranting confirms your already established notions about the Real Truth? eh?

To be perfectly frank I couldn't give a stuff what your country is like to live in since I don't live there and don't intend to. It only starts affecting us (i.e. the rest of the world) when you start invading other countries for their resources under the guise of 'the war on terror' :rolleyes: so to be honest, no I don't truly go into heads up mode.... actions speak louder than words and based on you country's actions in the ME I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a bit of a police state not unlike that described in that factoid, but like I said, I really couldn't give a stuff either way.

Does that answer your question?

To be perfectly frank I couldn't give a stuff what your country is like to live in since I don't live there and don't intend to. It only starts affecting us (i.e. the rest of the world) when you start invading other countries for their resources under the guise of 'the war on terror' :rolleyes: so to be honest, no I don't truly go into heads up mode.... actions speak louder than words and based on you country's actions in the ME I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a bit of a police state not unlike that described in that factoid, but like I said, I really couldn't give a stuff either way.

Does that answer your question?

Perfectly. "I wouldn't be surprised at all" - AKA - I'll believe any BS posted on the Internet that "confirms" what I already believe.

Perfectly. "I wouldn't be surprised at all" - AKA - I'll believe any BS posted on the Internet that "confirms" what I already believe.

or AKA - if it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, geeee it might just be a duck!

...and you're obviously quoting me completely out of context because you've got nothing.

.....and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours.....

In GA. & TN. they will put you in jail for anything they feel like putting you in jail for. Chewing gum and walking backwards on the wrong side of the street after 10 PM? Go to jail.

To be perfectly frank I couldn't give a stuff what your country is like to live in since I don't live there and don't intend to. It only starts affecting us (i.e. the rest of the world) when you start invading other countries for their resources under the guise of 'the war on terror' :rolleyes: so to be honest, no I don't truly go into heads up mode.... actions speak louder than words and based on you country's actions in the ME I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a bit of a police state not unlike that described in that factoid, but like I said, I really couldn't give a stuff either way.

Does that answer your question?

Your intention to make a valid assessment of the matter is self serving in the least, if there is a valid assessment, and vague at best.

The reason you responded to this thread was what?

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason.

I don't know whether GA or TN requires you to have ID on your person at any time (do you have a cite), but I do know that a police officer does not have the right to demand ID at any time, for any reason. In any state. See Kolender v. Lawson.

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any law in Tn or Ga requiring you to carry ID. I did find recent court cases in both states where Judges ruled that it was unconstitutional to require voters to show ID in order to vote. I have a hard time believing that the state can't make you show ID to vote, but can demand it at any time for any reason.

Once an officer has probable cause, then most states require that you identify yourself, and you can be held until your identity is established.

Your intention to make a valid assessment of the matter is self serving in the least, if there is a valid assessment, and vague at best.

The reason you responded to this thread was what?

I shouldn't have responded to the troll in the first place. I won't make that mistake again.

I shouldn't have responded to the troll in the first place. I won't make that mistake again.

"The troll." That's funny.:roflmao2:

Time to turn this thread into a personal attack thread, eh?

'Nother one bites the dust. Heh, heh.
:deadhorse2:

Certainly. Mob members don't wear uniforms.

Can somebody explain what the difference is between these cops and, say, the mob?

Ironic that these are the same goons who claim they don't have time to investigate crimes...

I thought the same thing, my first response would be "And your badge number is?".

Apparently you missed the part where it was stated that I was in Law Enforcement for fifteen years.

This person gets it.

My respect goes out toward the OP for restraint in dealing with the officer. As nice as it might make the gut feel to get even with this overreacting officer, he probably will mature to become an asset to his force and a valuable protector of persons not unlike the OP for whom, on this night, he made some trouble.

The contact occured close to where I reside. The probability of that particular officer being assigned regularly to the beat that encompasses where I reside is very high. I've seen him a few times since the contact and always wave to him, as I do all cops I see in my nightly bicycle wanderings. He didn't wave back at first, but now does. I'd like to think that if something happened to me and he was a first responder involved in it, I would not be treated like some kind of hapless, lying, drug addict tweaker on a bicycle, or some crybaby POS "whistle blower".

Georgia Law O.C.G.A § 21-2-417 states (in laymen's terms) that all Ga. residents over the age of 16 must have on or about their persons, or under their immedeate control, a proper photo ID, at all times when outside their residence, with a few exceptions, such as being in the hospital, confined by duly appointed authorities, or other circumstances beyond personal control. You must be prepared to show ID to any duly constituted authority in Ga. upon demand. Violation of this law is punishable by a fine not less than $30.00, nor more than $100.00, and confinment until true identity can be established. ID may be any one of the following: (1) A Ga. Drivers License, even if expired. (2) ANy valid state or federal government photo ID. (3) A valid U.S. Passport. (4) A valid photo employee ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U. S. Government, Ga., or any county. state of municipality, board, commision, authority, or any other entity of the State of Georgia. (5) A Valid U. S. Military Photo ID. (6) Valid Tribal Photo ID issued by a recognized Tribal Council of the state of Ga. Ga. Photo IDs are issued free of charge to anyone who: Provides proof of residency, and proof of identity in the form of a Birth or Naturalization Certificate, or valid ID from another source listed in Section 2 (a).

This law is passed in order to bring the State of Georgia into compliance with the Federal R.E.A.L. ID Act of 2005, and provisions of the PATRIOT ACTs I and II.

The 4th Amendment went out the window with passage of the PATRIOT ACTs. The Catch-22 is 'probable cause", which can mean anything a Peace Officer or judge wants it to mean at the time. The other kicker is 'National Security', which again, means whatever they want it to mean at the time. So far, it means that now, even though it is prohibited by the Constitution, they can tap your phone, tap your medical records, cell phone, internet, house, finances, imprison you with no official charge or access to a lawyer, torture you, and even place video cameras in the public libraries. They can pretty much do anything they want now, as long as they say it is for National Security. They do not have to justify or validate it, because there are no oversight provisions in the PATRIOT ACTs.

I've been warning people about this for over 30 years. Believe me when I say that I take no pleasure in being proved correct. For once in my life, I wish I had been dead wrong!

Semper Fi!

If you butt heads with the system, even if you are right, YOU WILL LOSE 99.9% of the time.

Can you link to this law?

A Peace Officer, under the 4th amendment, only has a right to detain a person and demand ID under set circumstances.

Kolender v. Lawson did not involve 'probable cause' and was decided on 'vagueness' alone. It was also a challenge to California Law, not Federal. And it was a more than a decade before passage of the PATRIOT ACTs. All case law was rendered moot after 9/11. Any Law Enforcement Officer can demand ID from anyone, anytime, for any reason, anywhere. All they have to do is invoke the 'T' word (possible terrorist). Come on! They can strip search you at any airport, on a whim, and there is nothng you can do about it. Do you really believe they can't demand ID when they want it, now?

Semper Fi!

I don't know whether GA or TN requires you to have ID on your person at any time (do you have a cite), but I do know that a police officer does not have the right to demand ID at any time, for any reason. In any state. See Kolender v. Lawson.

Georgia Law O.C.G.A § 21-2-417 states (in laymen's terms) that all Ga. residents over the age of 16 must have on or about their persons, or under their immedeate control, a proper photo ID, at all times when outside their residence, with a few exceptions, such as being in the hospital, confined by duly appointed authorities, or other circumstances beyond personal control. You must be prepared to show ID to any duly constituted authority in Ga. upon demand. Violation of this law is punishable by a fine not less than $30.00, nor more than $100.00, and confinment until true identity can be established. ID may be any one of the following: (1) A Ga. Drivers License, even if expired. (2) ANy valid state or federal government photo ID. (3) A valid U.S. Passport. (4) A valid photo employee ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U. S. Government, Ga., or any county. state of municipality, board, commision, authority, or any other entity of the State of Georgia. (5) A Valid U. S. Military Photo ID. (6) Valid Tribal Photo ID issued by a recognized Tribal Council of the state of Ga. Ga. Photo IDs are issued free of charge to anyone who: Provides proof of residency, and proof of identity in the form of a Birth or Naturalization Certificate, or valid ID from another source listed in Section 2 (a).

This law is passed in order to bring the State of Georgia into compliance with the Federal R.E.A.L. ID Act of 2005, and provisions of the PATRIOT ACTs I and II.

The 4th Amendment went out the window with passage of the PATRIOT ACTs. The Catch-22 is 'probable cause", which can mean anything a Peace Officer or judge wants it to mean at the time. The other kicker is 'National Security', which again, means whatever they want it to mean at the time. So far, it means that now, even though it is prohibited by the Constitution, they can tap your phone, tap your medical records, cell phone, internet, house, finances, imprison you with no official charge or access to a lawyer, torture you, and even place video cameras in the public libraries. They can pretty much do anything they want now, as long as they say it is for National Security. They do not have to justify or validate it, because there are no oversight provisions in the PATRIOT ACTs.

I've been warning people about this for over 30 years. Believe me when I say that I take no pleasure in being proved correct. For once in my life, I wish I had been dead wrong!

Semper Fi!

If you butt heads with the system, even if you are right, YOU WILL LOSE 99.9% of the time.

You're full of sh*t.

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated Law that you reference says nothing of the kind.

It falls under the section for Elections, and pertains to presenting ID when voting (and, in fact, the mandatory ID part of it was struck down in 2007 by Georgia Supreme Court)

Do you have another law to reference, or do you want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about now?

Thanks for playing.


O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 (2007)

§ 21-2-417. Presentation of identification to poll workers; form of proper identification; swearing of statement when unable to produce proper identification; provisional ballots for those; penalty for false statement under oath


(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, each elector shall present proper identification to a poll worker at or prior to completion of a voter's certificate at any polling place and prior to such person's admission to the enclosed space at such polling place. Proper identification shall consist of any one of the following:

(1) A Georgia driver's license which was properly issued by the appropriate state agency;

(2) A valid Georgia voter identification card issued under Code Section 21-2-417.1 or other valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification, provided that such identification card contains a photograph of the elector;

(3) A valid United States passport;

(4) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;

(5) A valid United States military identification card, provided that such identification card contains a photograph of the elector; or

(6) A valid tribal identification card containing a photograph of the elector.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, if an elector is unable to produce any of the items of identification listed in subsection (a) of this Code section, he or she shall be allowed to vote a provisional ballot pursuant to Code Section 21-2-418 upon swearing or affirming that the elector is the person identified in the elector's voter certificate. Such provisional ballot shall only be counted if the registrars are able to verify current and valid identification of the elector as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section within the time period for verifying provisional ballots pursuant to Code Section 21-2-419. Falsely swearing or affirming such statement under oath shall be punishable as a felony, and the penalty shall be distinctly set forth on the face of the statement.

(c) An elector who registered to vote by mail, but did not comply with subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-220, and who votes for the first time in this state shall present to the poll workers either one of the forms of identification listed in subsection (a) of this Code section or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of such elector. If such elector does not have any of the forms of identification listed in this subsection, such elector may vote a provisional ballot pursuant to Code Section 21-2-418 upon swearing or affirming that the elector is the person identified in the elector's voter certificate. Such provisional ballot shall only be counted if the registrars are able to verify current and valid identification of the elector as provided in this subsection within the time period for verifying provisional ballots pursuant to Code Section 21-2-419. Falsely swearing or affirming such statement under oath shall be punishable as a felony, and the penalty shall be distinctly set forth on the face of the statement.

I thought we did away with that south a while back. I'd love to see the statutes covering these provisions. No doubt if someone took them on, incident or not, they would be struck down. As a citizen of the US, I am entitled to move about absent any ID - and I would assert that my entitlement covers each of our states. The provisions you describe sound unconstitutional . . . and, no matter what state or what provision, anyone in this day and time, LE or not, who thinks they can suppress my constitutional right to lodge a complaint without absent the requirement to hire or be assisted by professional counsel is in for a surprise if they tangle with me.

It is as a result of the grace extended by the OP that this offending LEO did not find himself in a very embarrassing, if not career compromising heap of trouble, and any officer who detains you after an illegal stop (which this was) where there was no probable cause (which there wasn't) has broken the law he/she is sworn to uphold.

I am certain there are many people out there who would like to see such Draconian laws on the books - where you could be thrown in jail for a few days just because you didn't have an ID, but, fortunately, the pendulum has not swung far enough in error towards 'national security' for that to happen, yet. We may reach that point, but I have faith that reasonable citizens will assert themselves to push that pendulum back towards a more reasonable approach that continues to respect the wishes of the founding fathers.

In reality, LE has no right to interfere with you at all unless you have committed some sort of infraction or they have probable cause to believe that you may have perpetrated some sort of crime. Then, and only then, can they detain you until they ascertain that you are who you say you are and that there are no outstanding warrants for your arrest. The only exceptions of which I am aware would be situations in which they have set up monitoring points where they might momentarily stop every citizen or some percentage of citizens based upon some pre-set, non-discriminatory interval. Otherwise (as in this case) the stop is not legal and could likely be challenged in a court of law along with any evidence or charges resulting from the stop.

This is as it should be.

My respect goes out toward the OP for restraint in dealing with the officer. As nice as it might make the gut feel to get even with this overreacting officer, he probably will mature to become an asset to his force and a valuable protector of persons not unlike the OP for whom, on this night, he made some trouble.

Caruso

They have always been able to lock you up for no ID if they think you are lying about your identity. The only difference is that now, the conditions they can invke are greatly expanded.

There are several hundreds of people who have been arrested for not having ID. Check out YouTube arrests.

A cop CANNOT stop you and demand to see an ID, except under certain (admittedly broad) circumstances.

If a cop has "reasonable suspicion, the cop can stop you and ask you to identify yourself and explain what you're doing. As far as I know, a cop cannot arrest you for failure to present ID on a reasonable suspicion stop.

EDIT: State law determines the standard for a stop and I.D. In some states, "reasonable suspicion is the standard. As far as I know, most states require the higher "probable cause" standard. As far as I can tell from a brief look at the Wikipedia article on Hiibel, Nevada state law, which was upheld, did not require proof of identification, only that the person stopped must answer the officer's inquiry into the person's identity. I'd have to re-read Hiibel, however, to really know what the Court was saying.

If a cop has "probable cause" to arrest you, the cop can stop you and can demand your ID, which you must present, or you will be be subject to arrest.

No cop can stop you and force you to identify yourself on personal whim.

Kellydrummer has obviously visited our state before. He hit the nail on the head.

Here is a personal example: I received a speeding ticket in Benton, Tn., while sitting in a parking lot with my engine off, and cold! I hired an attorney to fight it. To make a long story short, I payed the ticket to avoid going to jail.

I received another ticket in White, Ga. written by a White Police Officer over 8 miles outside the city limits. I was just barely in the same county. Again, I tried to fight it, and wound up paying it to avoid sitting in jail.

In GA. & TN. they will put you in jail for anything they feel like putting you in jail for. Chewing gum and walking backwards on the wrong side of the street after 10 PM? Go to jail.

Kellydrummer has obviously visited our state before. He hit the nail on the head.

Here is a personal example: I received a speeding ticket in Benton, Tn., while sitting in a parking lot with my engine off, and cold! I hired an attorney to fight it. To make a long story short, I payed the ticket to avoid going to jail.

I received another ticket in White, Ga. written by a White Police Officer over 8 miles outside the city limits. I was just barely in the same county. Again, I tried to fight it, and wound up paying it to avoid sitting in jail.Well, what's happening here is two sides are talking past each other.

You're describing a corrupt criminal justice system, in which cops brazenly violate the law and then lie about it on the stand, and in which judges look the other way.

The other side is describing the Constitutional limits to police power.

And those limits aren't worth the paper they're printed on if the judges are corrupt. Of course, y'all's the ones who vote those corrupt mofos in.

Hibel v the Sixth District Judicial Court of Nv.( 542 US 177-2004), which went all the way to SCOTUS, established that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) or Fifth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Amendments. Further, Terry v Ohio (392 US 1-1968) established that the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself.

While on paper, they may not be able to 'charge' you with not having an ID, when you get in front of a judge, here is a surprise for you. They will not say you were arrested for not having an ID. You will be charged with something like ' willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office'.


Under Ga. Law (and Tn), a Peace Officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Notice, the type of crime is not specified. It could be jay-walking, Peeping Tomery, or littering. If you do not have a physical ID, they will detain you to find out why you don't have an ID, since Ga. and TN. both issue them at no cost.

It was not my intention to start a war over this issue, but merely to offer sage 'real-life' advice. Regardless of what is on paper, I am merely stating the reality of the situation. No one has to accept it.

If you would like to test it, however, you are welcome to come to Ga., or Tn., on your bike, in a car, or on foot, and attract the attention of any typical Law Enforcement Officer. I would suggest Chattanooga, or Atlanta as good possible candidates. When they ask you for your ID, I want you to look them square in the eye and tell them that not only will you not show them an ID card, but they have no authority to demand one. When you get out of jail (or maybe the hospital), be sure to let us all know how it went.

I will leave it at that in order to restore peace to all my 2-wheeled brethern and sistern.

Semper Fi!

Hiibel v the Sixth District Judicial Court of Nv.In Nevada, as I vaguely recall state law allows an officer to demand ID upon reasonable suspicion. Without that reasonable suspicion, the officer can't demand your ID. In other words, if you're just walking down the street minding your own business, the officer can't demand that you produce ID.

However, as I recall, Nevada law does allow an officer to stop you and demand proof of identification if the officer has "reasonable suspicion," and that statute is what the Supreme Court upheld.

EDIT: Upon another reading, it's not clear at all that Hiibel stands for the proposition that you must provide proof of your identity, only that you must provide the officer with your name (and presumably address). I'd have to re-read the case to see what the court actually held.

As far as I know, most states require "probable cause," which is a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion." Whatever the standard, it is defined both by the 4th Amendment and state law that is in accord with the 4th Amendment. It's not defined by the officer's personal whim.

Not that officers haven't been known to embellish the facts to fit the law.

Under Ga. Law (and Tn), a Peace Officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Notice, the type of crime is not specified. It could be jay-walking, Peeping Tomery, or littering. If you do not have a physical ID, they will detain you to find out why you don't have an ID, since Ga. and TN. both issue them at no cost.I.e., under the laws of Georgia and Tennessee, an officer in those states may stop you if reasonable suspicion exists.

To be perfectly frank I couldn't give a stuff what your country is like to live in since I don't live there and don't intend to. It only starts affecting us (i.e. the rest of the world) when you start invading other countries for their resources under the guise of 'the war on terror' :rolleyes: so to be honest, no I don't truly go into heads up mode.... actions speak louder than words and based on you country's actions in the ME I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a bit of a police state not unlike that described in that factoid, but like I said, I really couldn't give a stuff either way.

Does that answer your question?

My apologies to all those that I offended with this post. It was insensitive at the very least, and not entirely accurate. I do in fact care about your country since I have one close friend (an Aussie expat) who is married to an American lady and permanently resides in the USA, as well as all those whom I know through this forum and call friends regardless of never having met face to face.

"The troll." That's funny.:roflmao2:

Time to turn this thread into a personal attack thread, eh?

'Nother one bites the dust. Heh, heh.
:deadhorse2:
The troll reference was towards ILTB's posts, not yours, I apologize for the misunderstanding and not taking the time to give you a proper reply in the first place.

Kellydrummer has obviously visited our state before. He hit the nail on the head.

Here is a personal example: I received a speeding ticket in Benton, Tn., while sitting in a parking lot with my engine off, and cold! I hired an attorney to fight it. To make a long story short, I payed the ticket to avoid going to jail.

I received another ticket in White, Ga. written by a White Police Officer over 8 miles outside the city limits. I was just barely in the same county. Again, I tried to fight it, and wound up paying it to avoid sitting in jail.

Schwinnhund, I moved to Ringgold, GA. in the winter of 2001 after living in Seattle for 48 years. Since that time, I have been thrown in jail, at the tender age of 54, (I won't quote the citation, although I will say, had I been in my home town of Seattle, I would not have spent a second in jail, nor would I have been cited) after not receiving a moving violation for 35 years.

I have listened to many, many horror stories about the police out here in GA., and I live just 8 minutes away from Chattanooga, so have heard many of the same about TN. police. People out here are terrified to go out at night, not of crime by citizens, but crime by the local police enforcement. Which may be exactly why so many businesses close so early in the day, not of fear, but lack of customers who have been scared into their homes by the law enforcement officers on patrol.

Believe this people, you can tell yourself, "The police can't do that." But know that they can do whatever they think of doing, and, believe it, they will. Legal hasn't a damn thing to do with it. I've never seen anything like it.

Oddly, my wife bought me a very visually noticeable bumper sticker (for my car, of course) which reads "I Love My Wife" printed in strong white Arial text on a black background. 'Stuck to my rear bumper. I don't get followed as often, and some police officers have even waved at me when passing on my left. I have guessed at the implications, but really don't need reenforcement of my suspicions from my own biased attempts to justify my ideas about "POlice in da sowf."

P.S. I refuse to vote in my state, GA., mainly because I feel the government here will do what they feel will keep there boat parked in the garage, or moored, and the Crown Victoria in the driveway, regardless of what the public tells them they want from them. I am registered, and will be till the day I die.

I have to stop now, I am becoming very ticked off just typing this.

The troll reference was towards ILTB's posts, not yours, I apologize for the misunderstanding and not taking the time to give you a proper reply in the first place.

Thank you, Cyclaholic. A rare breed on the web, and this forum.

Too many people here confusing the identifying oneself with showing an ID card or passport:

Showing an ID card or passport:

1. If your are involved in the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, then you must have a valid drivers license with you. During a police stop when you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads, the police may require you to provide them with your drivers license.

2. If you are in the U.S. military, then under the UCMJ you must have your military ID with you at all times. Civilian police cannot compel you to show your military ID. Military police and other senior military officials may compel a service member to show their military ID.

3. Homeland security as the TSA may ask for photo ID. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get on the plane or train.

4. Some states require photo ID to vote. The federal courts have said this is reasonable as long as the state provides reasonably obtainable free IDs. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get to vote.

5. When crossing the border, the border agent may require you to show your passport to enter the country. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get to cross the border.


Identifying oneself:

If you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads, the police have no right to demand you show them an ID card. If you committed a crime, the police may arrest you and then figure out who you are before releasing you. The police do have the power to require you to identify yourself during a legal stop. Identify yourself - means verbally or by other communicative methods, giving the police your name. Police have the right to detain you at the scene for a finite amount of time (something around 20-40 minutes) while they check your name. Police may not arrest or jail you while they run the check unless you have committed some other crime. If the police determine you gave them a false name, then they can arrest you for providing false information.

So, if you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads, all you are required to do is give the police your name.

Too many people here confusing the identifying oneself with showing an ID card or passport:

Showing an ID card or passport:

1. If your are involved in the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, then you must have a valid drivers license with you. During a police stop when you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads, the police may require you to provide them with your drivers license.

2. If you are in the U.S. military, then under the UCMJ you must have your military ID with you at all times. Civilian police cannot compel you to show your military ID. Military police and other senior military officials may compel a service member to show their military ID.

3. Homeland security as the TSA may ask for photo ID. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get on the plane or train.

4. Some states require photo ID to vote. The federal courts have said this is reasonable as long as the state provides reasonably obtainable free IDs. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get to vote.

5. When crossing the border, the border agent may require you to show your passport to enter the country. You of course do not have to show it, you just don’t get to cross the border.


Identifying oneself:

If you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads, the police have no right to demand you show them an ID card. If you committed a crime, the police may arrest you and then figure out who you are before releasing you. The police do have the power to require you to identify yourself during a legal stop. Identify yourself - means verbally or by other communicative methods, giving the police your name. Police have the right to detain you at the scene for a finite amount of time (something around 20-40 minutes) while they check your name. Police may not arrest or jail you while they run the check unless you have committed some other crime. If the police determine you gave them a false name, then they can arrest you for providing false information.

So, if you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads, all you are required to do is give the police your name. Some state laws specify that if you are stopped for a traffic violation, and you fail to provide proof of your identification, the police officer may arrest you. California is one such state. Colorado takes it a bit further; in Colorado, if you are stopped for a traffic violation, you must present proof of identification, or the officer is required to arrest you. No motor vehicle required.

Interesting.

Huh? I have no state issued ID at all. None. Zip. Zilch. I have never heard of such law. I use my passport as an ID when necessary, but I definitely do not bike with one. I have credit cards--- but that is about all.

I don't know what State this occurred in, but in Ga., and in Tn., you are required by law to have ID on your person at all times, either a Drivers License, or State-Issued ID, unless you are under 16 years old. It is a $35.00 fine for not having it, and they can (and will) jail you for up to 24 hours, until your true identity can be determined through fingerprints, or other methods. A Peace Officer has the right demand ID at any time, for any reason. And in the 2 states I live, and work in, a Peace Officer is under no requirement to be civil, polite, or accommodating. Whether their conduct constitutes abuse is determined by a judge, but in most cases, the Peace Officer will prevail.

Down south, the best thing you can do when a Peace Officer questions you is to keep your hands in sight, nod and say "Yes, Sir", or "No, Sir" (or Ma'am, if appropriate), and do whatever they tell you to do. Mouthing-off is a No-Win situation.

After the incident, if you wish to contact an attorney to complain (and this is the only type of complaint that will be heard...through an attorney), then that is your right. Except in extreme cases, it will probably not go anywhere, but you can try.

If you complain to elected officials, or the media, you will most likely be targeted, and all Law Enforcement Officers will make life pure Hell for you every time you leave your house. It's best just to play the game.

Huh? I have no state issued ID at all. None. Zip. Zilch. I have never heard of such law. I use my passport as an ID when necessary, but I definitely do not bike with one. I have credit cards--- but that is about all.
Schwinnhund just made this law up.

Now he's changing what he said to be that cops take such a sweeping stance on "reasonable suspicion" that they can effectively ask for your ID at any time.

However, I still wonder where he got the $35 fine part.

Kolender v. Lawson did not involve 'probable cause' and was decided on 'vagueness' alone. It was also a challenge to California Law, not Federal. And it was a more than a decade before passage of the PATRIOT ACTs. All case law was rendered moot after 9/11. Any Law Enforcement Officer can demand ID from anyone, anytime, for any reason, anywhere. All they have to do is invoke the 'T' word (possible terrorist). Come on! They can strip search you at any airport, on a whim, and there is nothng you can do about it. Do you really believe they can't demand ID when they want it, now?

Semper Fi!

You claimed that police in GA and TN could stop anyone at any time for any reason and demand ID. Kolender proves that you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you are bringing probable cause into this; I agree that police can stop you if they have p/c. But that was not your original claim, and it was the problem with Kolender. If police had had p/c when they stopped K., there would never have been a case in the first place.

Yes, Kolender involved a CA law. The CA law was found to be unconstitutional. You invoked GA and TN laws. They are also unconstitutional state laws for the same reason that Kolender was an unconstitutional state law. (Assuming those state laws even exist).

1. The Patriot Act does not trump the US constitution.
2. I'm sure county courts will be really impressed when a deputy claims he stopped a law abiding citizen because he believed he was a terrorist but provides no more information.
3. As a practical matter, police can *do* anything - demand ID, arrest you, even shoot you - and a law won't stop them. Of course, this doesn't mean that what they are doing is constitutional or that they won't be punished afterwards.

You claimed that police in GA and TN could stop anyone at any time for any reason and demand ID. Kolender proves that you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you are bringing probable cause into this; I agree that police can stop you if they have p/c. But that was not your original claim, and it was the problem with Kolender. If police had had p/c when they stopped K., there would never have been a case in the first place.

Yes, Kolender involved a CA law. The CA law was found to be unconstitutional. You invoked GA and TN laws. They are also unconstitutional state laws for the same reason that Kolender was an unconstitutional state law. (Assuming those state laws even exist).

1. The Patriot Act does not trump the US constitution.
2. I'm sure county courts will be really impressed when a deputy claims he stopped a law abiding citizen because he believed he was a terrorist but provides no more information.
3. As a practical matter, police can *do* anything - demand ID, arrest you, even shoot you - and a law won't stop them. Of course, this doesn't mean that what they are doing is constitutional or that they won't be punished afterwards.

I think what is being overlooked, as I said in a previous response, is that what they are allowed to do and WILL do are not the same at all. GA. & TN. police think they are God and will do anything they feel like doing to suit their own ideas. Al, you seem to be getting it, just as many of us who live here 'get it,' in many different ways.

It's the way it is. Legal has 0 to do with it. As GA. & TN. citizens, the best move is to just blend in with the per capita. Simple, but inconvenient.

Some state laws specify that if you are stopped for a traffic violation, and you fail to provide proof of your identification, the police officer may arrest you. California is one such state. Colorado takes it a bit further; in Colorado, if you are stopped for a traffic violation, you must present proof of identification, or the officer is required to arrest you. No motor vehicle required.Unconstitutional unless they define proof of identification as giving your name.

So, how do CA and CO define proof of identification. Some may consider your post to mean the police could demand finger prints or maybe even DNA as "proof of identification".

LEO to Mr. Blue Order: "I do not believe this is a valide ID Card, I will arrest you unless you provide me with a DNA sample as proof of identification ." "OK, Mr. Blue Order, you are under arrest and will spend the next 24 hours in jail."

EDIT: Searches of CA and CO laws for "proof of identification" and "proof of identity" do not return any hits dealing with traffic regulation or police powers.

Unconstitutional unless they define proof of identification as giving your name.

So, how do CA and CO define proof of identification. Some may consider your post to mean the police could demand finger prints or maybe even DNA as "proof of identification".

LEO to Mr. Blue Order: "I do not believe this is a valide ID Card, I will arrest you unless you provide me with a DNA sample as proof of identification ." "OK, Mr. Blue Order, you are under arrest and will spent the next 24 hours in jail."In California, "satisfactory proof of identification" has been defined by the California Supreme Court as being a valid driver’s license, or its functional equivalent (i.e., some form of government issued identification-- a state-issued ID card, a passport, a military ID card). If you provide something other than a government-issued, serially numbered I.D. with photo, the officer has broad discretion in choosing whether to accept your I.D. or not. See People v. McKay (Cal. 2002).

The Colorado statutory requirement is similarly worded, so I presume a government-issued I.D. would meet the requirement, while a verbal I.D. or a Piggly Wiggly Customer Card would not (although I don't know offhand if there is any Colorado case law on that statute). Note, however, that whereas California allows the officer discretion in choosing whether or not to accept verbal identification, Colorado does not-- if you fail to produce I.D. in Colorado when you are being cited, the officer is required to arrest you.

In GA. & TN. they will put you in jail for anything they feel like putting you in jail for. Chewing gum and walking backwards on the wrong side of the street after 10 PM? Go to jail.

Do they still have vagrancy laws? When I was a kid in FL, if you didn't have $20.00 on your person you could be considered a vagrant by an officer of the law and tossed in jail. Considering I had an allowance of a little over $2.00 a week, that was a considerable sum.

I think what is being overlooked, as I said in a previous response, is that what they are allowed to do and WILL do are not the same at all. GA. & TN. police think they are God and will do anything they feel like doing to suit their own ideas. Al, you seem to be getting it, just as many of us who live here 'get it,' in many different ways.
These are 2 different issues. Yes, what they WILL do is of high importance. But so is what they are legally allowed to do.

And a public misinformed about their rights is the surest way to erode said rights.

Now your point about what police will do is something that is worthy of discussion. However, you are distracting from the fact that you

1) made up a law with a $35 fine for not having an ID on your person at all times
2) when asked to cite said law, you disingenuously cited an irrelevant election ID law

Unless you can respond with an explanation, I have to assume you are a blustering liar.

Semper Fi and all that...

In California, "satisfactory proof of identification" has been defined by the California Supreme Court as being a valid driver’s license, or its functional equivalent (i.e., some form of government issued identification-- a state-issued ID card, a passport, a military ID card). If you provide something other than a government-issued, serially numbered I.D. with photo, the officer has broad discretion in choosing whether to accept your I.D. or not. See People v. McKay (Cal. 2002).

The Colorado statutory requirement is similarly worded, so I presume a government-issued I.D. would meet the requirement, while a verbal I.D. or a Piggly Wiggly Customer Card would not (although I don't know offhand if there is any Colorado case law on that statute). Note, however, that whereas California allows the officer discretion in choosing whether or not to accept verbal identification, Colorado does not-- if you fail to produce I.D. in Colorado when you are being cited, the officer is required to arrest you.
You and I have already had the “People v. McKay “ discussion. The man was arrested for riding his bicycle the wrong way. At that point CA law requires the police to confirm his identity by acceptable ID card. Had McKay not broken the law, then the police had no legal right under CA law to demand an ID card or arrest him for not providing an ID card.
My statement in my post covers this situation:
If you committed a crime, the police may arrest you and then figure out who you are before releasing you. ... Police may not arrest or jail you while they run the check unless you have committed some other crime.
So, to improve the final statement in my earlier post, let us revise it to:
So, if you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads and have not committed a crime, all you are required to do is give the police your name.

As to Colorado, the only statutes dealing with "proof of identification" appear to deal with adoption laws, checks & drafts, execution of compacts and liens. Can you cite any CO traffic, police powers or detainment code that requires an ID card when no crime has been commited and the person was not operating a motor vehicle?


From People v. McKay (Cal. 2002):
People v. McKay (2002) , Cal.4th
1. [No. S091421. Mar. 4, 2002.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CONRAD RICHARD McKAY, Defendant and Appellant.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YA040916, Deanne Smith Myers, Judge.)
(The Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Div. Four, No. B137511, 82 Cal.App.4th 1279.)
(Opinion by Baxter, J., with George, C.J., Kennard, J., Chin, J., and Moreno, J., concurring. Concurring opinion by Werdegar, J. Concurring and dissenting opinion by Brown, J.)
...
II
Defendant was arrested for violating section 21650.1, which requires a bicycle to be operated "in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway." This infraction is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100. (§§ 40000.1, 42001, subd. (a)(1).) There is no dispute that Deputy Valento was justified in stopping defendant based on this violation. Rather, defendant argues that a custodial arrest for such a minor offense violated the Fourth Amendment. If such arrests are valid, he then argues that once he provided his name and date of birth, the deputy lacked authority to effect a custodial arrest under section 40302(a) and that this asserted violation of state law thereby violated the federal Constitution.
A
Appellant's first contention, he now concedes, is foreclosed by Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318 (Atwater), which upheld a custodial arrest for a violation of Texas's seatbelt law, an offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $50. (Id. at p. 323.) Under Atwater, all that is needed to justify a custodial arrest is a showing of probable cause. "If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender." (Id. at p. 354.) We must therefore conclude that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about effecting a custodial arrest for a fine-only offense. (United States v. McFadden (2d Cir. 2001) 238 F.3d 198, 204 [upholding search incident to arrest for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk].)
B
Although Atwater permits the police to effect custodial arrests for even the most minor of offenses, many states--including California--have sought to limit this broad discretion by statute, local ordinance, or departmental regulation. Defendant relies in particular on section 40302(a), which requires the officer to effect a custodial arrest for nonfelony Vehicle Code offenses when the offender fails to present a driver's license "or other satisfactory evidence of . . . identity for examination." Defendant claims that his oral statements to the deputy constituted "satisfactory evidence of . . . identity" under section 40302(a), rendering his arrest unauthorized under California law. The Attorney General, on the other hand, contends that the deputy complied with California law in that section 40302(a) requires an officer to accept only a driver's license or its functional equivalent.

You and I have already had the “People v. McKay “ discussion. The man was arrested for riding his bicycle the wrong way. At that point CA law requires the police to confirm his identity by acceptable ID card. Had McKay not broken the law, then the police had no legal right under CA law to demand an ID card or arrest him for not providing an ID card.Right, if he had not broken the law, he wouldn't have been stopped-- or at least, the police wouldn't have been able to make a legal stop. And if he had had ID, the police wouldn't have been able to arrest him, and then search him and find the drugs.

But the point is, once you violate the law in California (and Colorado, and probably many other states as well), and the police stop you in order to issue a citation, state law will require you to present an acceptable form of ID, and that is true whether you are operating a motor vehicle, or a bicycle.

After reading the OP's account, my comment is this: the officer was completely wrong, and it seems he learned a lesson from his experience. Only if there is a pattern of harrassment by law enforcement should there be a reason to do anything further about it.

As for negative comments about the OP's blogging, I have to say that those comments are similarly internet banter, no more or less important than the OP's.

We all are here to comment, no?

;)