Kepage23

First thing first, I am a peace officer, so my statements may be a bit bias, but I hope to give at least a small look at things from my point of view. Also, I cannot say I agree with everything that the law says, but what I am stating is what is true (as aplies where I work and was trained).

First, as far as doing nothing illegal, where technically does the eating ban start, if she was eating while entering the area, even if she didn't know it, she was in violation of the law. Second, any time a peace officer has a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be commited he/she can stop the person and ask for them to identify themself (there is your technical reason gondath). Now I admit that reasonable belief is very broad and can be interprited in many ways, it is for a judge to ultimately decide if stoping the person was justified or not, not the person being stopped. Third, a person who has done nothing wrong in the past (ie. no bad record), has nothing to worry about in identifying themselves, except maybe how the will pay for the ticket they are about to recieve, and sometimes all they get is a warning anyway. When someone refuses to identify themselves, the first question popping into my head is "Why?" do they have an outstanding warrent? Are they going to be a danger to my safety because of a previous record that they might want to keep hidden? Are they (at the extreme) an escaped criminal who is a cop hater and is carrying a gun? Being a peace officer can be a dangerous job, and somtimes you have to think of these things, or at least you should if you want to make it home at the end of your shift. Fourth, in refusing to identify yourself, a peace officer then can arrest you and detain you until you can be identified. Keep this in mind next time you are asked for ID by an officer, and life will be easier.
1968, Court case of Terry vs. Ohio, Resulted in the Terry Stop. http://www.wku.edu/Government/TerryStopRules.html
I think where she made an honest effort to comply with the law, she would have probably just recieved a warning for the offence, that is if the officers weren't told by superiors to ticket EVERYONE who is not in compliance with the law (which can happen somtimes too.
Well said Cynthetiq, I couldn't have stated that any better myself!
I have been asked this same question before, and I would say to you, "No" My job is to enforce the laws, and if you are breaking one, it is my job to do somthing about it, no matter how dumb it may seem to you. As mentioned before, laws are there for a reason. In this case, part of the officers job is to enforce the no eating or drinking law. Peace officers don't like being told by someone how to do their job anymore that you would like some random person walking up to you and telling you that you are doing your job wrong or tell you how you should be doing things. I recieved a 5 minute lecture from someone because they knew better than me that my job was, and of course I calmly listened, then proceded to write the citation.
True. The best response I can think of is this: Just think of the Golden Rule. Trust me, it works both ways. Try being nice to an officer and they might, MIGHT, be a little more leaneant. Big emphasis on MIGHT. I am not saying that it will get you out of a ticket, but it could mean the difference of 5 miles officially recorded on the ticked (lowering the fine), or the difference between a ticket and a warning. Now I am not saying that I agree that this is the way it should be, or that an officer should be biased, but that this is just human nature and the way it is. Deal with it.
All that being said, Do I agree? As I understand the situation, Yes for the most part, if she truly refused to identify herself.
Thanks for reading my long winded reply and I hope someone got somthing out of it.

__________________
Just a TFP Rookie trying to make a name for himself.