Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bills in PA - having no ID illegal

Discussion in 'Legal' started by TrybalRage, Feb 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
  2. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    Links no workie
     
  3. SJG26

    SJG26 member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    445
    Location:
    Eastern PA - Berks/Lehigh Valley
    Already legal???

    I thought "reasonable suspicion" is already a valid cause???


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

    Good evening from up on 61..............
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  4. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    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.
     
  5. 5string_dean

    5string_dean Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  6. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    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.
     
  7. walking arsenal

    walking arsenal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,073
    Location:
    Bemidji, MN
    You say that part after you arrest the comrade that doesnt provide his papers.














    (Dons blue helmet) I serve the Soviet Union!:p
     
  8. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,699
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    The OR is critical.
     
  9. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    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?
     
  10. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    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
     
  11. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    Is it?

    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?
     
  12. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    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?
     
  13. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,484
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Ohio

    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?
     
  14. walking arsenal

    walking arsenal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,073
    Location:
    Bemidji, MN
    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.
     
  15. ID_shooting

    ID_shooting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,812
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    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?
     
  16. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    In Idaho, we aren't required to carry ID, but we are required to identify ourselves if asked, if memory serves me correctly.
    Biker
     
  17. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    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.
     
  18. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    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.
     
  19. GruntII

    GruntII member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Central Alabama
    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.
     
  20. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    I agree fully, TR. It just ain't the way it is anymore.
    Biker
     
  21. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    Thanks too. I understand the difference now.
     
  22. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Is Terry stop synonomous with a Terry frisk?
    Biker
     
  23. tyme

    tyme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Novalis
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page