U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2008, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Hell with the lid off, baby!
2,193 posts, read 5,144,036 times
Reputation: 379

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
And the USSC said the victim is not required to give it to you. Just his or her name and then only if you have reasonable suspicions that they were involved in a crime.

And, unless you wish to violate the constitution, there is not a thing you can do about it.

Now tell us how you would run them right in violating the costitution...
If you're not capable of providing a valid identification you're usually given a fine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2008, 07:01 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 2,017,419 times
Reputation: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Or you...though Guy is a better example.

For those who actually care about the issue there is a USSC case pretty much on point. It has a write up in Wiki..

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says the only thing the gentleman can be required to provide under the fourth and fifth amendment is his name.

Note that I already agreed that the gentleman likely willingly provided too much and likely violated the law. But he did not have to.
Not quiet on point. that case and others before has more to do with stop and talks where you just happen to be at the same point in time as the police.................your correct in that scenario your not required, but the constitution has little to do with it other than probable cause............in the case of a crime, even if your the vic........time and statistics have proven my original point and to prosecute the suspect we have to be able to properly identify the victim as the reporting party to the crime, so , to do that I ID the vic, and we run warrant checks on them also because quiet frankly a large percentage of the vics have at some time themselves been the perps,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think its what Grannie called sleeping with the dogs and getting fleas.................

Ole cap..............your not completely accurate in your original assertion though your not completely inaccurate either. Hope this helped a little

Quote:
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself
Not exactly as you would portray now is it..........................THis case is a offshoot of the original Terry V Ohio that did limit what an officer may ask for in the form of identification but it nor the above cited case does not prohibit the very thing you espouse.............I spent 25 years in the black and white so I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the Terry V Ohio decision, certainly enough to avoid a constitutional challenge.....................I would still be doing it except for getting shot.......... that kinda ruined my day..............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 07:09 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 2,017,419 times
Reputation: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
That's "mi hija", I believe...and as for the cigar? Maybe. But with the ACLU involved, don't count on "no lawsuit"....
Yeah Mac I know..............it was intentional............sorry I just couldnt resist ................sometimes Im just to much of a smart arse.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,640,026 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Convert 54 View Post
Not quiet on point. that case and others before has more to do with stop and talks where you just happen to be at the same point in time as the police.................your correct in that scenario your not required, but the constitution has little to do with it other than probable cause............in the case of a crime, even if your the vic........time and statistics have proven my original point and to prosecute the suspect we have to be able to properly identify the victim as the reporting party to the crime, so , to do that I ID the vic, and we run warrant checks on them also because quiet frankly a large percentage of the vics have at some time themselves been the perps,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think its what Grannie called sleeping with the dogs and getting fleas.................

Ole cap..............your not completely accurate in your original assertion though your not completely inaccurate either. Hope this helped a little



Not exactly as you would portray now is it..........................THis case is a offshoot of the original Terry V Ohio that did limit what an officer may ask for in the form of identification but it nor the above cited case does not prohibit the very thing you espouse.............I spent 25 years in the black and white so I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the Terry V Ohio decision, certainly enough to avoid a constitutional challenge.....................I would still be doing it except for getting shot.......... that kinda ruined my day..............
Thank you sir.

I tend to trust a street cop's word (even retired) more when it comes to 'hands on' situations over certain other individuals, shall we say.

Cannot Rep you though..........need to 'spread the love' as per C-D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,822,205 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Or you...though Guy is a better example.

For those who actually care about the issue there is a USSC case pretty much on point. It has a write up in Wiki..

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says the only thing the gentleman can be required to provide under the fourth and fifth amendment is his name.

Note that I already agreed that the gentleman likely willingly provided too much and likely violated the law. But he did not have to.
Given the fact that ANYONE can modify Wikipedia info, it isnít considered a credible source. Where is the USSC source? Furthermore, how can a police officer verify a name if not provided with a valid form of ID? Criminals have been known to use aliases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:32 AM
 
Location: NW Las Vegas - Lone Mountain
15,756 posts, read 32,511,548 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Convert 54 View Post
Not quiet on point. that case and others before has more to do with stop and talks where you just happen to be at the same point in time as the police.................your correct in that scenario your not required, but the constitution has little to do with it other than probable cause............in the case of a crime, even if your the vic........time and statistics have proven my original point and to prosecute the suspect we have to be able to properly identify the victim as the reporting party to the crime, so , to do that I ID the vic, and we run warrant checks on them also because quiet frankly a large percentage of the vics have at some time themselves been the perps,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I think its what Grannie called sleeping with the dogs and getting fleas.................

Ole cap..............your not completely accurate in your original assertion though your not completely inaccurate either. Hope this helped a little



Not exactly as you would portray now is it..........................THis case is a offshoot of the original Terry V Ohio that did limit what an officer may ask for in the form of identification but it nor the above cited case does not prohibit the very thing you espouse.............I spent 25 years in the black and white so I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the Terry V Ohio decision, certainly enough to avoid a constitutional challenge.....................I would still be doing it except for getting shot.......... that kinda ruined my day..............

Yes it is. Read the decision. The person is required to identify themselves. That is state their name. But they are NOT required to produce any Identifying documents because that crosses the line...as it did in this case.

So yeah the case is pretty well on point. If there is no suspcion of a crime the police have no right to any information and the guy can stand mute. I am giving the cop the benefit of the uncertainty that he has a reasonable suspicion.

From the source you cited....

"This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3-6."

Last edited by olecapt; 09-24-2008 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:34 AM
 
Location: NW Las Vegas - Lone Mountain
15,756 posts, read 32,511,548 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Given the fact that ANYONE can modify Wikipedia info, it isnít considered a credible source. Where is the USSC source? Furthermore, how can a police officer verify a name if not provided with a valid form of ID? Criminals have been known to use aliases.
I carefully gave you the name of the case and the wikipedia call out. That was so those who don't trust the wiki could google it themselves. The case is readily available. Some interesting stuff in that one, and in Terry, on the right of people and police.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,893,897 times
Reputation: 6517
A former cops word is good enough for me when combined with personal experience. Iam not saying your wikpedia post was wrong, in error or tampered with.
The police in my area request your id when you file a complaint. Unless they actually know you. Ilive in a small town so the local cop knows me. The state troopers don't. They responded when I called 911. They requested my ID when they took the report.
The issue at the time was I caught a punk breaking into my neighbors shed. I called the police and then made a citizens arrest of said punk.
The second time was due to someone making threatening phone calls. I filed a report to cover my butt in case they actually followed through and I was forced to use my trusty 45 acp on them if they entered my home.
I think it valid for police to request ID. If your willing to file a report on someone you should be willing to stand behind it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,822,205 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
I carefully gave you the name of the case and the wikipedia call out. That was so those who don't trust the wiki could google it themselves. The case is readily available. Some interesting stuff in that one, and in Terry, on the right of people and police.
It absolutely defies logic for police to simply accept a name without some form of ID as verification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:50 AM
 
7,020 posts, read 9,901,976 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
It absolutely defies logic for police to simply accept a name without some form of ID as verification.
Agreed. It's the same defiance of those who drive without a license and when stopped for a traffic violation, or at a check point immediately begin whining that they are being racially profiled. It has yet to occur to any of them that Americans are required to adhere to the same laws. They also haven't realized that laws are the primary reason that our society is orderly and the ones they hail from remain corrupt cesspools.

Last edited by JDubsMom; 09-24-2008 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top