Seems that someone who quoted me about failure to ID missed the paragraph directly above the quote used.
You do realize that most all states I’m sure require you to ID yourself on a traffic stop, you must present a valid license because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway w/o a valid license?
“You must present a valid license because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway w/o a valid licenseâ€, that pretty much says it’s the driver, he is the one operating the vehicle not the passenger (I hope) but after this debate I’m beginning to wonder.
Passengers are in no way compelled legally or other wise to produce ID on a traffic stop. I can ask and usually do and more times than not will get at a minimum a name a DOB out of a passenger and every once in a while GCIC will return a “hit†or “want†on that name and I’ll hook’em up and take to jail for whatever outstanding charge they may have.
Most people (passengers) produce ID because they think they have to, it’s not my job to hold the hand of society and teach them how to navigate legal mind fields. If you are so scared of what may come of a traffic stop then as I’ve told folks before maybe you should not drive, or better yet just don’t do anything which will cause a cop to stop you for a citable or arrestable violation.
I’m 33 years old and [evidentially] amazingly I’ve never even seen blue lights in my rear view mirror much less got a ticket or been arrested, yet it seems that some cannot even walk to the mailbox w/o going to jail these days. I have encountered people who have been let out of jail on the morning of and by that afternoon they were back in my custody, usually for the same crap that got them locked up in the first place.
I am under no obligation to tell you what the law is, especially in a lawful police encounter, courts have even held that it is legal for LE to lie to people, while conducting an investigation; it is incumbent upon yourself to know the law.
thorn726
Illegal Activity is defined as suspicious in just about every context I’ve ever seen it defined. Most people don’t break the law, those who do, their actions warrant investigation by LE.
Molon Labe
Americans are extraordinarily lazy, I use the frog in the boiling pot analogy here, as long as there is beer in the fridge, NASCAR or WWF on the boob tube and porn on the net liberal politicians like Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer and Finswine will erase their rights and they won’t ever even care until it’s too late, if they are even capable of understanding what has really even happened.
So here's my question: If such a time comes, which side will you be on?
I’ll be on my side if that day comes, your welcome to join me.
RileyMc
Please see my response above top of post.
Shovelhead
I think it does or at least that’s the way I read it.
Lone_Gunman
Please see my response above top of post.
Specialized
I remember reading in the GA Associations of Police Chiefs Journal that the FBI reported there were 917 cops convicted of crimes in 2003. 917 out of 800,000, that’s roughly about one in every 700 or so as apposed to 1 in 32.
You cannot factor in those who were not yet caught, undetected or had it swept under the rug. But the same could be said about the general population as well. I’m sure many have yet to be caught or detected and somewhere someone’s mother/father/brother/sister/uncle/cousin who is a cop or a lawyer has juniors weed possession or vandalism case swept under the rug or called in a favor and had the arresting officer drop the charges.
why_me
Did you know police can rifle thru your garbage without a search warrant?
So can you
I posed earlier in this post the seven exemptions to the search and seizure laws and abandon property is one of them. You have no expectation of privacy for a pile you heap in the curb. Even though it may be still technically on your property it is still in public view.
You can get a search warrant on an anonyomous tip, real of fictitcious?
See Aguilar v. Texas
2. Although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 , followed. Pp. 110-115.
172 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 631, 362 S. W. 2d 111, 112, reversed and remanded.
Clyde W. Woody argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Two essentials must be met first, must show the veracity of the informer and his information, second you must show how or why the informer knew the information, the basis for the knowledge. This is called the two-prong test.
