Bills in PA - having no ID illegal


PDA






TrybalRage
February 7, 2006, 10:29 PM
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/HB2053P2830.HTM

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/SB0935P1226.HTM

As I read it, if a cop asks you for ID and you don't have it, or not willing to show it, he can arrest you without further cause.

EDIT: Sorry, fixed. Did it in a hurry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bills in PA - having no ID illegal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coronach
February 7, 2006, 10:32 PM
Links no workie

SJG26
February 7, 2006, 10:49 PM
I thought "reasonable suspicion" is already a valid cause???


P.S. Trybal............

Good evening from up on 61..............

MechAg94
February 7, 2006, 11:30 PM
That is a bit of a stretch to say it is making lack of ID illegal. It has the exception of "....or information about his identity..." To me, that means that you have to identify yourself with or without actual ID. Even then it specifically mentioned with reasonable suspician which may or may not be hard to prove. I don't know about that one. I didn't think ID really mattered either.

5string_dean
February 7, 2006, 11:34 PM
Gee... I keep thinking I've heard some sort of nonsense like "You have the right to remain silent..."

I'm dissapointed... I personally know one of the sponsors of the House bill and had always thought better of him.

MechAg94
February 7, 2006, 11:44 PM
Isn't the "right to remain silent" mentioned when you are already getting arrested? :D I don't think I like that bill either. I am wondering who is pushing those politicians to sponsor that bill.

walking arsenal
February 7, 2006, 11:45 PM
You say that part after you arrest the comrade that doesnt provide his papers.














(Dons blue helmet) I serve the Soviet Union!:p

Double Naught Spy
February 8, 2006, 12:52 AM
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he fails to provide law enforcement authorities with identification or information about his identity after being stopped based upon reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime and informed by a law enforcement officer who is in uniform or who has identified himself as a law enforcement officer that the person is the subject of an official investigation of a violation of law.

The OR is critical.

cosine
February 8, 2006, 01:06 AM
I actually don't understand what the problem is about this. :confused:
It says it's an offense to not provide ID for the police when there is "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is, was, or is about to be committed. Isn't that "reasonable suspicion" the same as "probable cause," which already written into the law?

Coronach
February 8, 2006, 01:09 AM
No. Probable cause is a higher standard. Reasonable suspicion is enough to detain, but not to arrest. Probable cause (or PC) is the standard required to arrest.

Mike

Telperion
February 8, 2006, 01:12 AM
The OR is critical.
Is it?

(c) Detention.--A person may be detained by law enforcement authorities in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to require the person to identify himself and to verify such identification.If you have no ID, and simply release your name, it appears the police are justified in hauling you down to the cop shop to stew while they, ahem, verify your information.

cosine- RS and PC are not the same. Roughly, PC = officer has grounds for arrest, RS = officer has grounds to detain and interview you.

Edit: Does anyone know the current standard on how the police can detain a subject to verify identity?

cosine
February 8, 2006, 01:37 AM
I understand the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion now. Thanks for the answers.

Now, another question: Section (a) provided in the link gives the police the power to ask one for identification if the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime is, was, or is going to be committed. (I hope I understand that correctly) If one doesn't provide ID as asked, based upon the officer's "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be taking place, one may be detained. Isn't that reasonable, seeing that there already has been established a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may have occured or may occur?

1911 guy
February 8, 2006, 09:13 AM
Ohio passed a law similar to this recently. I carry ID all the time, as I carry as pistol and need a permit, but that's not the point. I foresee a national push to this followed by a "your papers, please" at all state borders. Remind you of anywhere else?

walking arsenal
February 8, 2006, 12:05 PM
Really this is a double edged sword.

The way i see it is that if the officer pulls someone over without ID he could be an illegal or just your average joe u.s. citizen.

We scream secure the borders and chuck the illegals but we cant do that unless we are able to figure out who is who.


The officers, unfortunantly, cant just take everyones word that they belong here.

Lots of liers these days.

ID_shooting
February 8, 2006, 12:22 PM
Agreed, to me, showing ID is not a violation of civil liberty. I know that many police states have used "papers please" as part of the control, but honestly, if I am just being asked for ID, I see no problem.

Like WA stated, how do you tell a citizen from an illegal?

Biker
February 8, 2006, 12:25 PM
In Idaho, we aren't required to carry ID, but we are required to identify ourselves if asked, if memory serves me correctly.
Biker

TrybalRage
February 8, 2006, 12:36 PM
Better hope your name isn't really John Smith, and forget your wallet one day.

What bugs me about this is, if you catch me breaking the law, arrest me. If you think I just committed a crime, arrest me. But what is the point of adding a reason to arrest? Whatever happened to who I am being my own business?

It comes down to it being a pointless law, and I hate that.

Hawkmoon
February 8, 2006, 12:40 PM
I actually don't understand what the problem is about this. :confused:
It says it's an offense to not provide ID for the police when there is "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is, was, or is about to be committed. Isn't that "reasonable suspicion" the same as "probable cause," which already written into the law?
Coronach beat me to it.

No, they are not the same. Probable Cause is a higher standard than Reasonable Suspicion.

But the Supreme Court case relating to Terry stops made it clear that the reasonable suspicion must be based on "articulable facts," not just the direction of the wind that day, and I would think that any law intending to codify that would include the same qualifier.

GruntII
February 8, 2006, 12:40 PM
The recent SCOTUS ruling on this states you must provide identy information upon request, if it is verbal you may not lie as that would be a chargeable offense. The ruling did not state you had to carry id on you at all times . I do not know what the ocurt will rule on a law requireing you to carry "papers" at all time.In some ways the conservative conversion of the ocurt is good and soem bad.

Biker
February 8, 2006, 12:42 PM
I agree fully, TR. It just ain't the way it is anymore.
Biker

cosine
February 8, 2006, 12:45 PM
Coronach beat me to it.

No, they are not the same. Probable Cause is a higher standard than Reasonable Suspicion.

But the Supreme Court case relating to Terry stops made it clear that the reasonable suspicion must be based on "articulable facts," not just the direction of the wind that day, and I would think that any law intending to codify that would include the same qualifier.

Thanks too. I understand the difference now.

Biker
February 8, 2006, 12:48 PM
Is Terry stop synonomous with a Terry frisk?
Biker

tyme
February 8, 2006, 05:03 PM
No. A stop is a stop. A frisk is a frisk. Cops can conduct "officer safety" frisks during a terry stop, but they can't do a full-scale search except pursuant to an arrest. As I understand it, some departments don't do full searches until they book suspects.

Reasons for Terry stops are supposed to be articulable, but the problem is that a cop can always come up with an articulable reason for a stop. Someone driving too fast... already breaking the law. Going too slowly... trying to avoid suspicion. Going exactly the speed limit... must be an arch-criminal trying to blend in. Someone glances around too much? Must be a criminal on the lookout for police. Someone not paying attention to anything? Must be trying to blend in. Once a cop focuses on an individual subject, anything that's observed can be twisted to support the hypothesis that the subject is a criminal.

Not all cops abuse Terry stops like that, but some do, and others don't realize that their good-faith articulable suspicions apply to vastly more law abiding citizens than criminals.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bills in PA - having no ID illegal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!