|
rulemylife -> RE: Real ID, will you carry ID??? (11/23/2008 9:03:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MstrDouglas
I do believe, if you check, there is a law in almost every state that requires you to produce some form of ID when a law enforcement officer, or other gov official, asks for one. It is one of those funny things, no law requiring you to have one....but there is a law that when asked for one, you must produce one. I'm not sure about all states, but here it is a citation offense, not really a "go directly to jail" one, depending on the reason you are being asked or it.
Nope.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/47/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal
CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to ...
Jun 24, 2004 ... Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police ... of criminality
may not be required to state his name or show identification. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html
Civil libertarians may worry that in the wake of Hiibel, the government will require all persons to carry formal identification papers with them or risk arrest. However, as noted above, the Hiibel majority took care not to disturb precedents like Brown v. Texas. Accordingly, it is clear that even after Hiibel, the Supreme Court will protect the right to remain anonymous of persons who are not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
