That law has been in force in my state for years. It's called Failure to Identify, if an LEO asks for an ID, you can be arrested if you don't comply. Has nothing to do with terrorism here, it's always been that way. Never seen any LEO here abuse it.
BTW, if this is aSTATE issue, why not contact yoiur STATE representatives and senators? Why not contact the STATE governor? Seems kinds stupid to drag the feds in at this point.
I was under the impression that you have always been required to show an ID to any LEO who demands one - not just tell them who you are, but show an ID (which is curious, since if you aren't driving, you don't need an ID on your person). I've always hated that law and thought it was federal, but maybe just a state law.
I've also never actually heard of anyone being arrested for it - usually they stick you with vagrancy if you can't come up with an ID, from what I have seen.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Now that you mention it, when I was a youngster and more inclined to rowdy behavior with less than model citizens, the police would occasionally stop us and examine our IDs, even though we weren't formally breaking the law. I complied with this clearly harrassing action . . . but to be honest we needed a little wind let out of our sails in those days so we DID NOT get into real trouble! Still, some of the things I've heard about lately stick in the throat a bit . . . like an ordinary woman commuting to work being challenged by a policeman and then arrested when she did not present identification. That seems a little unnecessary. I think this may have happened in Denver, but my memory is fuzzy.
I was under the impression that you have always been required to show an ID to any LEO who demands one - not just tell them who you are, but show an ID (which is curious, since if you aren't driving, you don't need an ID on your person). I've always hated that law and thought it was federal, but maybe just a state law.
I've also never actually heard of anyone being arrested for it - usually they stick you with vagrancy if you can't come up with an ID, from what I have seen.
If I'm not mistaken, vagrancy laws were overturned by the SC as being unconstitutional and rightly so.
As for demanding ID, at least in CA, an officer can only make that demand as part of an investigation into some type of possible criminal act or driving infraction. Failure to comply with that could be viewed as obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
In one way this proposed law may be total BS if it is what it appears to be. I would have to see how it is written before I commented much further.
The funny thing is the vast majority of us, myself included would love to see every illegal deported... but how would we feel if any LEO at any time could demand "Our papers"! I will be honest and say that if I was simply walking down the street and my "Papers" were asked for with no reason I would be a little bent out of shape, but if I was asked for ID to enter an airport, government building, school, etc., etc., I would not have a problem at all with it.
Would we be willing to accept the fact that if we forgot our ID for what ever reason we could be arrested for nothing more then that just to where illegals or what ever could be taken care of?
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
More worrisome is another crime the bill would create. Part of Senate Bill 9 would give police officers and other law enforcement officials the right to request the name, address and birth date of anyone they suspect has committed, is currently committing, or is planning to commit a criminal act. Refusal to disclose this information is a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Quite simply, this part of the law is far too broad in the power it gives investigators.
Although I am not familiar with Ohio's state laws and criminal code, this is quite similar to what California has. The operative words are "they suspect has committed, is currently committing, or is planning to commit a criminal act." An officer has to provide information (i.e. evidence) that they have observed or learned facts to logically support a request for ID or the arrest, case or police action is determined to be a violation of a person's rights and is dismissed. Civil remedies (i.e. lawsuits) could then possibly apply if there is information or evidence to support that the officer was acting in bad faith.
Some examples of when such a law would come into place and its' normal use would include:
1. Officer observes a traffic violation, stops the person and asks for ID while investigating the violation.
2. Officer responds to a domestic violence call and asks for ID to document who he spoke with regarding the call (also known as basic CYA).
3. Officer receives a call that you were brandishing your weapon at the public. Pretty standard practice to ask for your ID. You will likely be cleared of the complaint but this is the sort of thing wherein the officer should be documenting who he spoke with.
Quote:
In addition, the bill allows for law enforcement officials to ask for IDs from anyone at a "terrorist sensitive site," according to Columbus Alive. Since the Department of Public Safety is allowed under the bill to declare a site to be a terrorist sensitive site, this bill would basically make any site open to that declaration. Again, this is an unreasonable amount of power to give government. Practically applied, Ohio State sporting events such as OSU football games and attendance at churches, synagogues or mosques could be deemed terrorist sensitive events. This is simply ridiculous. It would take far too much time to collect the name, address, and birth date of all of the individuals that enter sporting events, concerts or religious centers and would have little deterrent effect.
I agree with the author on this one if he has interpreted the statute correctly. I can see making this a law regarding entering secure areas of an airport, train station, bus yard, etc. (i.e. places where a subject could place a bomb that others wouldn't know about). That would make sense and is already applied by many other laws already in effect.
Although I doubt such a law would declare sporting events and churches "terrorist sensitive sites," something like that should be clearly spelled out so some less brilliant official doesn't screw the law up. With sporting events, it would seem to make far more sense (and be much quicker) to ensure that people entering a large facility such as that do not have bombs on them as opposed to identifying who they are. I know I would feel much safer if security at any sporting event I attended were stopping people carrying bombs, containers filled with gas, guns, knives, etc. And with churches, I don't think that would fly very well as people are rightfully touchy about anybody regulating their practice of religion.
This is just my .02 but now we have a little more info about what this proposed law actually says.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Yeah- the whole "susptect of committing a crime" part is a pretty key piece of information here. I don't think too many people would argue that you shouldn't have to identify yourself in the course of an investigation.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Yeah- the whole "susptect of committing a crime" part is a pretty key piece of information here. I don't think too many people would argue that you shouldn't have to identify yourself in the course of an investigation.
Do you mean to say: "I don't think too many people would argue that you Should have to identify yourself in the course of an investigation"?
Maybe I'm from the old school, But I was brought up to be proud of who I am. I carry my wallet at all times. I don't even go out to get the mail unless I have my wallet, pocket knife and keys.
I realize that the differences in people is what makes the world an interesting place...But carrying identification should be as natural as the five S's....You know, "Crap", Shower, Shave, and Shine your Shoes every morning...
Arrest people in public for no reason in ohio
, Shower, Shave, and Shine your Shoes every morning...
