SCOTUS - must identify yourself to police

Q.

<brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cqegd0l9ujc10p9ajvigspddkek0g0s1ss@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
> potato.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
> nothing to hide?

Because a surprising number of police officers are racist
Nazis. Seriously. It's easy to be guilty of offenses like
"driving while black" because being black is obvious ...
what happens when you have an "ethnic" name? One minute
you're a plane ol' vanilla white guy, until the cop finds
out your name ... then the next minute you're a spic crack
dealer. Trust me, I know.

C.Q.C.

Loki

<brian-s-jones-at-comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cqegd0l9ujc10p9ajvigspddkek0g0s1ss@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:28:06 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
> potato.com> wrote:
>
> >The issue of whether you need to identify yourself to a
> >U.S. police
officer
> >while a cyclist has come up a surprising number of times
> >on this
newsgroup
> >over the years. Now the Supremes have ruled: "people do
> >not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police
> >their names.
> >
> >The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and
> >punish people who
won't
> >cooperate by revealing their identity."
> >
> >http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html
>
>
> And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
> nothing to hide?

Because he/she might consider it no one else's damn
business. LEO or no LEO.

That you don't consider it an infringement is your right.
But I have to ask how far you would go with that theme?

If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight is
ok then how about:

-compelling DNA samples?

-full body cavity searches?

After all, if you have nothing to hide....

--
'He said: I dont know man, she's kinda funny, ya know I
said: I know. Everybody funny. Now you funny too.' -john
lee hooker

Tk

> And just why would you refuse to i.d. yourself if you have
> nothing to hide?

Why wouldnt I let police in my home without a warrant? I
have nothing to hide. I just shouldnt have to. Might have to
sit the election out. I wont vote for Kerry. Might not vote
for bush though. I want my supreme court just a little more
liberal than this.

William Holiday

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:

< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
is ok then how <about:

The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers, only
that the individual respond verbally to the officers
questions.

Tom Keats

In article <q41id0dcog63map0h81deomefoet05hg34@4ax.com>,
William Holiday <hattertown@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
> <nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> < If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
> is ok then how <about:
>
> The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
> only that the individual respond verbally to the officers
> questions.

What's your name? Where do you live? Where are you going?
Where are you coming from? Are you carrying any drugs or
weapons? Do you mind if I search you? (They ask that last
one when they've practically already started digging in
your pockets.)

And when they've finished doing all that and you've shown
yourself to be innocent, they say, "Gee, you sure look like
the guy I busted at the [insert pub/club/beer
parlour/roadhouse name here] and took to jail last night."
Sometimes they cover themselves by asking at the start,
"How'd you get out of jail so fast?" when you're just coming
home from work, and lugging some bags of groceries from the
Safeway, one of which contains quickly melting ice cream.

And if any of your neighbour-friends comes out to stand up
for you, the cops will /order/ you to persuade him to back
off, or else there'll be a bushel o' trouble for both o' ya.
That's their way of taking control of the sitch. Cops are
such control freaks.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Bernie

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <q41id0dcog63map0h81deomefoet05hg34@4ax.com>,
> William Holiday <hattertown@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
>><nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>< If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
>>is ok then how <about:
>>
>>The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
>>only that the individual respond verbally to the officers
>>questions.
>>
>
>What's your name? Where do you live? Where are you going?
>Where are you coming from? Are you carrying any drugs or
>weapons? Do you mind if I search you? (They ask that last
>one when they've practically already started digging in
>your pockets.)
>
>And when they've finished doing all that and you've shown
>yourself to be innocent, they say, "Gee, you sure look
>like the guy I busted at the [insert pub/club/beer
>parlour/roadhouse name here] and took to jail last night."
>Sometimes they cover themselves by asking at the start,
>"How'd you get out of jail so fast?" when you're just
>coming home from work, and lugging some bags of groceries
>from the Safeway, one of which contains quickly melting
>ice cream.
>
>And if any of your neighbour-friends comes out to stand up
>for you, the cops will /order/ you to persuade him to back
>off, or else there'll be a bushel o' trouble for both o'
>ya. That's their way of taking control of the sitch. Cops
>are such control freaks.
>
>
>cheers, Tom
>
Citizen Keats, You are far too polite.... Welcome to Canada,
the "non-police state". And we are so polite too. Best
regards, Bernie

Loki

"William Holiday" <hattertown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q41id0dcog63map0h81deomefoet05hg34@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:20 GMT, "loki"
> <nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> < If compelling identity papers without judicial oversight
> is ok then how <about:
>
> The Hiibel decision doesn't require physical ID/papers,
> only that the
individual
> respond verbally to the officers questions.

Then what is the point?

Do the judges think John Q Law, upon asking a
suspicious character his name will get the response:
'Ladin, Ossama b'?

--
'The only way Ricky is going to get any smarter is if he
dies and comes back as turnip.' -sarah

Curtis L . Russ

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:47:15 GMT, "loki" <nolookee@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Do the judges think John Q Law, upon asking a
> suspicious character his name will get the response:
> 'Ladin, Ossama b'?

If the person is in any way guilty, its like a lie detector
test - the issue isn't the answer, but the physical response
after the answer.

Most of the time they simply want to move on to the next
step. Giving your name generally is considered a good way to
make the process more
civil. Refusing to give your name may make points with any
civil disobedience buddies, but serves little purpose
in the real world.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

Badger_south

On 23 Jun 2004 03:57:54 GMT, hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Badger_South Badger@South.net
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>If I had one biking with me that day I was stopped, well,
>>I wouldn't have been stopped, wouldn't have been asked any
>>questions, wouldn't have been frisked, wouldn't have had
>>my name taken.
>
>If you are referring to the incident in the post I'm recalling-
>a female with an unspecified "he frightened me" complaint
>about a masked (balaclava) man on a bike- then unless that
>cop was in *uniform* you still would have been stopped.

The 'complaint' was only that 'a biker was going around
corners too fast'. No mention of my outfit, or of
frightening. Second, I said if my lawyer had been there -
where you got 'cop...in unform' I have no idea.

Just once I'd like to see a police officer take the side
of what's right and not slant the facts to favor their
'cop view'.

Remember we're talking about a real old guy peacefully
riding a bike in a public park, not breaking any laws, and
even in the complaint, not breaking any laws. There was
absolutely NO reason for such a biker to be stopped.

Finally, the person in question was LYING. I go around
corners -extremely- slowly, ever since I had a near miss on
two other bikers last spring. I have never been hostile to
anyone on the bike trail except to exclaim loudly 'what are
you doing' to people who allowed, and encouraged their dogs
to jump on me by extending their leashes when we passed.

My average speed on the trail is 11.7 miles an hour. IMO,
the cops should have never stopped me b/c they didn't -see-
this supposed act, the act even if it did occur is NOT
illegal, and they should not have asked me if I had a
horn (which was sitting there on my handlebars in plain
sight), b/c it's not a legal requirement to have a horn
on your bike.

So they were not just wrong, they were wrong on about half a
dozen counts.

>You seem reasonable so think about it and answer
>honestly... If your wife/daughter/sister/mother told a
>police officer that she had just had a frightening, even
>hostile, encounter with a masked man wouldn't you want the
>police to at least *speak* to that man? And what would be
>the point of that conversation if when it was over the
>police did not know: 1) who that man was;
>2) what he was doing; 3) if he was armed and; 4) if he
> appeared hostile or dangerous?

There was no point to the convo. "what he was doing"? Riding
a bike fercrissakes. Armed? Hostile?

What we had here, and what we'll be seeing more of is I was
guilty of 'driving Black'. IOW, I could be singled out on
the basis of appearance. I had a raincoat on to help my
sweating, and I had a balaclava on. Are you saying I would
be guilty of something unless it was a cold rainy day?

Jeeze. I just hope you get singled out and harassed like
this and then you can tell us how it made you feel. Oh,
Wait. You won't ever be, b/c you're in the 'Fraternity".

Let me tell you it had a chilling effect on a perfectly
nice individual who has only had 3 traffic tickets in his
life, and never been stopped or arrested. I now fear
riding the bike and shake inwardly and have a sick feeling
when I see cops.

Just today one harassed me in the park. I was riding by the
parking lot slowly and I made a U-turn to go down the lower
bike trail and he pulled completely across the parking lot
and 80% blocked the narrow opening to the lower path. I
hesitated and looked at him then slowly circled around the
vehicle and paused again after I entered the lower trail and
checked again to see if he wanted me to stop. He just slowly
drove away. What an ass.

-B

Chalo

hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote:

> IOW, no cop is going to be wandering the streets randomly
> arresting people for refusing to furnish their
> identifiers. Not even us weird cycling types. <g>

Naw, they'll just use it as yet another legal tool for
harassing the same folks they've always done a good job
of harassing for no good reason-- young Black and brown
folks, lefties gathered to air their political views,
and queers/punks/freaks or whatever other marginalized
people the local social climate allows to be mistreated
with impunity.

Chalo Colina

David Kerber

In article <glijd0hp7fe0036sj2fq36jfkfor7p8d8r@4ax.com>,
Badger@South.net says...

...

> The 'complaint' was only that 'a biker was going around
> corners too fast'. No mention of my outfit, or of
> frightening. Second, I said if my lawyer had been there -
> where you got 'cop...in unform' I have no idea.
>
> Just once I'd like to see a police officer take the side
> of what's right and not slant the facts to favor their
> 'cop view'.
>
> Remember we're talking about a real old guy peacefully
> riding a bike in a public park, not breaking any laws, and
> even in the complaint, not breaking any laws. There was
> absolutely NO reason for such a biker to be stopped.

Well, it's possible he had something like "reckless
endangerment" in mind. I wonder if there's a bicycling
equivalent to "reckless driving"?

....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

Chalo

"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> "The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and
> punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their
> identity."
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D83BGOU80.html

What part of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" don't
they understand?

I wonder when they are going to start playing as fast and
loose with the 13th Amendment, or the 18th, or the 19th, as
they do with the 4th.

Chalo Colina

Badger_south

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:50:17 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>In article <glijd0hp7fe0036sj2fq36jfkfor7p8d8r@4ax.com>,
>Badger@South.net says...
>
>...
>
>> The 'complaint' was only that 'a biker was going around
>> corners too fast'. No mention of my outfit, or of
>> frightening. Second, I said if my lawyer had been there -
>> where you got 'cop...in unform' I have no idea.
>>
>> Just once I'd like to see a police officer take the side
>> of what's right and not slant the facts to favor their
>> 'cop view'.
>>
>> Remember we're talking about a real old guy peacefully
>> riding a bike in a public park, not breaking any laws,
>> and even in the complaint, not breaking any laws. There
>> was absolutely NO reason for such a biker to be stopped.
>
>Well, it's possible he had something like "reckless
>endangerment" in mind. I wonder if there's a bicycling
>equivalent to "reckless driving"?
>
>....

thing, and there were no reports of 'contact' or injury upon
which to act.

What should have happened is that police bike patrols be
started and then any individual evidencing such behavior be
stopped and warned.

Just like it's not legal for the cops to stop just -any- car
on the road for no reason, it should be not legal for them
to stop any biker on the road for no reason.

-B

David Kerber

In article <h3mjd05l29761uskim85oq73lkrn99kegj@4ax.com>,
Badger@South.net says...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:50:17 -0400, David Kerber
> <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <glijd0hp7fe0036sj2fq36jfkfor7p8d8r@4ax.com>,
> >Badger@South.net says...
> >
> >...
> >
> >> The 'complaint' was only that 'a biker was going around
> >> corners too fast'. No mention of my outfit, or of
> >> frightening. Second, I said if my lawyer had been there
> >> - where you got 'cop...in unform' I have no idea.
> >>
> >> Just once I'd like to see a police officer take the
> >> side of what's right and not slant the facts to favor
> >> their 'cop view'.
> >>
> >> Remember we're talking about a real old guy peacefully
> >> riding a bike in a public park, not breaking any laws,
> >> and even in the complaint, not breaking any laws. There
> >> was absolutely NO reason for such a biker to be
> >> stopped.
> >
> >Well, it's possible he had something like "reckless
> >endangerment" in mind. I wonder if there's a bicycling
> >equivalent to "reckless driving"?
> >
> >....
>

> thing, and there were no reports of 'contact' or injury
> upon which to act.

Recklessness doesn't require contact or injury to be a
ticketable offense. You weren't reckless, but apparently the
other person reported to a cop that you were.

> What should have happened is that police bike patrols be
> started and then any individual evidencing such behavior
> be stopped and warned.
>
> Just like it's not legal for the cops to stop just -any-
> car on the road for no reason, it should be not legal for
> them to stop any biker on the road for no reason.

What I was getting is that if they have a report of a
reckless driver, with a description, I would expect them
to stop people of that description, whether it was a
bicycle or car. "Reckless" is in the eye of the beholder,
but the police have a duty to investigate it if it's
reported. If there's no evidence other than a single
report, the cop would let the person he stopped continue
on his way, as he did you.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).