4thPointOfContact
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 852
jimmyraythomason said:Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. All have state law requiring identification be presented when asked. The Supreme Court has already ruled them to be constitutional. Why take the chance?
Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/ne...#ixzz10aj8g0l2
The gentleman is either misinformed or is deliberately attempting to misinform.
The actual quote from the article is "Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926#ixzz10gfJ60MV
In particular regards to Georgia there is no Stop and Identify paragraph in the Georgia Code. The closest Georgia has is http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/2006/16/16-11-36.html OCGA §16-11-36(b), the text of which reads -
16-11-36. (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. (c) A person committing the offense of loitering or prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within their respective limits.
If there is RAS of violating the code, one must identify himself, it is NOT necessary to present identification.
Shameful conduct, just shameful.