Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Preemptive Police-State Tactics

Chilek9 · 12-06-2005, 07:34 AM

First, every state in the Union has a requirement that someone identify themselves on request, failure to do so (the criminal charge is "Failure to identify" in New Mexico) can have criminal repercussions. If you don't have ID, then you can't provide it. But the reason behind it is crystal clear. First, an encounter in public, under certain circumstances, can be consensual, you have the option to walk away. In 1983, I was walking to work, where the dress requirement was dark clothing, about an hour before dawn in my neighborhood. The officer was doing a "Field Interview" to identify people that might be connected to criminal activity later on. This requires "mere suspicion" which is basically a minor to moderate deviation from normal contact conditions. During that contact, the officer is permitted to do a "pat down" for weapons (Terry v. Ohio) or the "Terry frisk."

What a LOT of folks know is that the Constitution restricts government activity, but they forget that it is not a suicide pact. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, that is an exception to preserve the public safety. Police have, not just the authority, but the responsibility, in the interest of public safety, to identify people that are suspicious that they encounter. 99 times out of 100, there is no record made because it turns out that their suspicions weren't warranted (as in my case in '83, the officer made no contact card or record) and nothing is ever heard or done about after that. Remember, that with all rights come responsibilities.

By stopping someone on the street, the officer is conducting a Fourth Amendment "seizure" by "seizing" your person. The courts have all viewed this, under prescribed circumstances, to be reasonable. His request for identification is a REASONABLE search, under the Fourth Amendment, or at least so says the Supreme Court. There isn't ONE SINGLE country where this isn't the case. At least in the U.S., if you don't have an ID or a passport, they'll take your word for it, not take you to jail because POSSESSING ID in most other countries is required, but not in the U.S.

12-06-2005, 07:34 AM	#54 (permalink)
Chilek9 Upright	First, every state in the Union has a requirement that someone identify themselves on request, failure to do so (the criminal charge is "Failure to identify" in New Mexico) can have criminal repercussions. If you don't have ID, then you can't provide it. But the reason behind it is crystal clear. First, an encounter in public, under certain circumstances, can be consensual, you have the option to walk away. In 1983, I was walking to work, where the dress requirement was dark clothing, about an hour before dawn in my neighborhood. The officer was doing a "Field Interview" to identify people that might be connected to criminal activity later on. This requires "mere suspicion" which is basically a minor to moderate deviation from normal contact conditions. During that contact, the officer is permitted to do a "pat down" for weapons (Terry v. Ohio) or the "Terry frisk." What a LOT of folks know is that the Constitution restricts government activity, but they forget that it is not a suicide pact. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, that is an exception to preserve the public safety. Police have, not just the authority, but the responsibility, in the interest of public safety, to identify people that are suspicious that they encounter. 99 times out of 100, there is no record made because it turns out that their suspicions weren't warranted (as in my case in '83, the officer made no contact card or record) and nothing is ever heard or done about after that. Remember, that with all rights come responsibilities. By stopping someone on the street, the officer is conducting a Fourth Amendment "seizure" by "seizing" your person. The courts have all viewed this, under prescribed circumstances, to be reasonable. His request for identification is a REASONABLE search, under the Fourth Amendment, or at least so says the Supreme Court. There isn't ONE SINGLE country where this isn't the case. At least in the U.S., if you don't have an ID or a passport, they'll take your word for it, not take you to jail because POSSESSING ID in most other countries is required, but not in the U.S. Last edited by Chilek9; 12-06-2005 at 07:37 AM..