Papers, please!
- Thread starter Car Knocker
- Start date
- Status
CARRY'IN
member
Thank you very much Chaim, that is excellent info. So let me get this right: I am walking down the street and the police stop me.
1. Do they have the authority to stop me? I know they must have the authority because how could they catch criminals otherwise? So, to rephrase the question, is it legal for them to stop me without probable cause?
2. If the answer to the first question is no, then are they required to tell me what the probable cause is? It seems to me if the answer to the second question is no, then the first question does not really matter does it?
3. A previous court case ruled I have to give my name. But do I have to show ID?
4. Can it be the ID of my choice and If the Police ask me if I have a picture ID can I just say, "I dont have to tell you that"?
5. How long can the police detain me if I am not "cooperating"?
1. Do they have the authority to stop me? I know they must have the authority because how could they catch criminals otherwise? So, to rephrase the question, is it legal for them to stop me without probable cause?
2. If the answer to the first question is no, then are they required to tell me what the probable cause is? It seems to me if the answer to the second question is no, then the first question does not really matter does it?
3. A previous court case ruled I have to give my name. But do I have to show ID?
4. Can it be the ID of my choice and If the Police ask me if I have a picture ID can I just say, "I dont have to tell you that"?
5. How long can the police detain me if I am not "cooperating"?
Well, she was not suspected of committing a crime so what was the big push for DOB & SSN? She told them her name. Why wasn't that enough? What if they'd demanded to know her weight and bra size, would she have been compelled to give that information also?
Anyway, it ain't official until Standing Wolf says it.
Anyway, it ain't official until Standing Wolf says it.
joab
Member
If the answer to this question is "No"
Then the answer to my next question should be "Yes"
"Am I free to go"?
I thought the ruling was that you had to show ID, but I don't relly remember
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Depends. If the facts are as she states...and the cops' superiors are supporting them...then no, she is having to take the matter to court because the system is not working as intended.
It might have escaped my attention but consider an extreme case. Say you have a wealthy young man. He doesn't need a social security number to get a job for he doesn't need a job. Doesn't need one to get a checking account because he always uses cash. Doesn't have a driver's license because someone is paid to do that. Is there a law that requires him to have ID? And to have it on his person?
If you're just walking down the street, a cop can approach you and talk to you. You can then choose to walk away. If you do that, it forces the cop's hand. Does he have PC to arrest or detain? If so, he is going to do so. If not, you'll walk away.
Simple as that.
Mike
Simple as that.
Mike
CARRY'IN
member
Uh-huh. And the probable cause is you are walking away (or whatever the cop makes up later).
I have to agree with the werewolf.
Something to read about SSN number usage and requirement...
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm
well it might be but when I renewed my DL, the BMV gave me the option of not having my SSN on it. But I was informed that if I didn't the LEO would force me to produce my Social Security card, to prove who I am.
Interesting because there's not photo on the card
Interesting because there's not photo on the card
Well, if you believe that, then nothing you possibly say or do can ever matter at all, and this whole debate is meaningless. Why waste your time talking about it? If you really feel that the police are unbound by rules (as this indicates), why even ask what the rules (which you don't think exist) are? Note that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures and allows warrants based upon probable cause. Of course, even taking the most literalist interpretation of this amendment still leaves the door open for "making stuff up", so this whole debate is moot. If you think the police can and do just pull stuff out of their arse, there is no legal document, protection, court finding or court proceeding that can possibly ever protect you. You are completely wasting everyone's time, most importantly your own, by even bothering to discuss it.
Personally, I imagine you're just trolling.
Have fun,
Mike
cropcirclewalker
member
I yam told that the dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) is in the process of changing the id cards that are issued to recipients of health care in the VA system.
The old one used to have the name, date of birth and socialist security number on them, along with a photo.
The new ones...Name, and photo. Maybe some other account number, I am not sure, but not socialist security number.
The old one used to have the name, date of birth and socialist security number on them, along with a photo.
The new ones...Name, and photo. Maybe some other account number, I am not sure, but not socialist security number.
joab
Member
I haven't been in posession of a SS card for over 20 years.
I lost it and every time I try to get it replaced they threaten to deport me, even though their computer shows that I have been issued a number that I have been using for 30 years.
But then I don't think I have ever had to produce the card itself for anything
Pilgrim
Member
Ok, kids, lets make it really simple. You are walking down the road when Officer Friendly stops, gets out of his car, and stands in your way.
Officer Friendly: What's your name?
You (a friendly sort): John Doe.
Officer Friendly: You got any ID?
You: Yes.
Officer Friendly: Give it to me!
You: Am I being detained because you suspect me of committing a crime or in the process of committing a crime?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: Is there a state law that requires me to give you my ID if you don't suspect me of committing a crime or in the process of committing a crime?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: May I leave?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: In that case, if you still insist I give you my ID I will comply, but I want you to call your supervisor so I can file a formal complaint.
Pilgrim
Officer Friendly: What's your name?
You (a friendly sort): John Doe.
Officer Friendly: You got any ID?
You: Yes.
Officer Friendly: Give it to me!
You: Am I being detained because you suspect me of committing a crime or in the process of committing a crime?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: Is there a state law that requires me to give you my ID if you don't suspect me of committing a crime or in the process of committing a crime?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: May I leave?
Officer Friendly: No.
You: In that case, if you still insist I give you my ID I will comply, but I want you to call your supervisor so I can file a formal complaint.
Pilgrim
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
See? That proves we're not a police state! She's still alive, isn't she?
CARRY'IN
member
And you are a moderator?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Control Group
"Are you actually suggesting that the police shouldn't have the authority to make arrests, search the arrested for weapons, restrain the arrested, and prevent the arrested from escaping?
If that's actually your stance, I don't think there's any further point in this conversation. You, then, don't like the fact that we have police at all, while I think a police force is a legitimate use of government authority. If we differ on that fundamental a level, we'll never agree on anything."
Well, sir, I must hereby inform you that I consider you to be politically a hot-potato. I know better than to call names, a pointless and demeaning activity, but I find myself troubled by your allegiances. Suffice it to say that you now possess the same philosophy on arrests as the National Socialist German Worker's Party, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and Fascisti.
As such, in this lady's case, I indeed am suggesting that the police shouldn't have had the authority to conduct an arrest, and should be punished for every crime they committe, starting with (but not limited to) the ones I articled.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, if the police are imprisoned for their crimes then we car all rest assured that we live in a free democracy.
"Are you actually suggesting that the police shouldn't have the authority to make arrests, search the arrested for weapons, restrain the arrested, and prevent the arrested from escaping?
If that's actually your stance, I don't think there's any further point in this conversation. You, then, don't like the fact that we have police at all, while I think a police force is a legitimate use of government authority. If we differ on that fundamental a level, we'll never agree on anything."
Well, sir, I must hereby inform you that I consider you to be politically a hot-potato. I know better than to call names, a pointless and demeaning activity, but I find myself troubled by your allegiances. Suffice it to say that you now possess the same philosophy on arrests as the National Socialist German Worker's Party, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and Fascisti.
As such, in this lady's case, I indeed am suggesting that the police shouldn't have had the authority to conduct an arrest, and should be punished for every crime they committe, starting with (but not limited to) the ones I articled.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, if the police are imprisoned for their crimes then we car all rest assured that we live in a free democracy.
gc70
Member
I am more than a little disturbed by the existance of "failure to cooperate" laws. Such laws seem to present a Catch-22 situation. Without being guilty of any other crime, the simple failure to go along with what the police want becomes, in itself, a crime. That just does not seem right.
thorn726
Member
i dont understand the request for SSN. seems almost like bait, a push.
sure, DOB and name make sense= just the name brings up too many close matches or whatever, DOB , more accurate.
but SSN??
why ?
harrassment is all i can come up with
sure, DOB and name make sense= just the name brings up too many close matches or whatever, DOB , more accurate.
but SSN??
why ?
harrassment is all i can come up with
CARRY'IN
member
They want to run you through a database by radio and the best way to do that is by SSN. Then they know everything there is to know about you. And after they run you- that you were at that certain place at a certain time also goes into a database. Welcome to the 21st century.
Control Group
Member
In the sense that the police and their superiors shouldn't exceed their authority, you're right; the system is not working as intended. I simply meant that, since you can't prevent people from improper behavior (in this case, the cops exceeding their authority), the best the system can be expected to do is provide a means of recourse. Which it has, and which she is pursuing.
If she loses, the system has failed.
If by that you mean I support the police having the authority to make forcible arrests...well, yeah. I do. I have the sneaking suspicion that making arrests by polite request wouldn't work all that often. "We're placing you under arrest for murder, and we'd like you to accompany us to jail, please. But we won't cuff you, search you, or forcibly move you in any way, so if you could just step along, that'd be real friendly of you."
I also support trains running on time. But, since Hitler supported that, I guess I'm a Nazi.
You're right, in this case, the police didn't have the authority to arrest. This makes these two police officers criminals, and that's unfortunate. But it's no different than any other crime - the fact that crime occurs doesn't make the system corrupt, since no system can prevent crime. The test of the system is in how it deals with the crime after the fact. We do that with the court system you so roundly condemned earlier (and I still haven't heard what you'd like us to do instead of spend taxpayer money on reprimands and punishments).
I'm going to benefit-of-the-doubt this one, and assume you're not being sarcastic, in which case I agree completely. In fact, that was pretty much my whole point from the beginning.
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I'm pretty sure it was Mussolini with the trains, but that's just me.
If the system works, why haven't the police been arrested? It was even posted clearly here the exact crime (one of many) that was committed demanding the SSN.
However, I do appreciate you're effort to come around, and I'll try to meet you half-way, so it's wait-and see I guess. I'll check for updates periodically.
If the system works, why haven't the police been arrested? It was even posted clearly here the exact crime (one of many) that was committed demanding the SSN.
However, I do appreciate you're effort to come around, and I'll try to meet you half-way, so it's wait-and see I guess. I'll check for updates periodically.
CARRY'IN
member
You are wrong. When the police are the criminals I would say it is different.
Wrong again. The police being the criminals pretty much defines the term "corrupt" to me. Do you really believe the people reading your posts are that stupid?
M-Rex
member
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. In Cali, perps are run through NCIC and locally for warrants/wants/sometimes traffic history. However, in order to detain or arrest, there has to be some sort of objective circumstances that would lead the officer to the logical conclusion that the perp is performing, or about to perform some nefarious activity. Resonable Suspicion (for detentions), or Probable Cause (for arrests). I can honestly state that I never saw any of the folks I worked with simply (and randomly) pick someone out of a crowd and shake them down, nor did I ever do this. Note: I'm not saying that it never happened -- just illustrating my experience.
We have never had any reason to need, or ask for, a social security number. We simply don't run people with it. IIRC, the only time we ever asked for a SSN was during booking when I worked in the jail. Even then, it was for Livescan prints, and if the person didn't have one, the space on the form was left blank. SSN's were pretty useless to us.
- Status
