Bills in PA - having no ID illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
(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.
Click to expand...

The OR is critical.
 
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?
 
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
 
Double Naught Spy said:
The OR is critical.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
In Idaho, we aren't required to carry ID, but we are required to identify ourselves if asked, if memory serves me correctly.
Biker
 
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.
 
cosine said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Hawkmoon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks too. I understand the difference now.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
One Handgun a Month in PA
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
twency
T
C
  • Locked
All PA folk, call your STATE senators and congress people
Replies
2
Views
430
clubsoda22
C
C
  • Locked
Pennsylvania House Introduces new Anti Legislation
Replies
5
Views
2K
CDignition
C
T
  • Locked
PA Law to allow regulation of sales
Replies
13
Views
595
justashooter
J
Y
  • Locked
Pennsylvania ALERT!!!!!
Replies
20
Views
1K
alan
A
Back
Top