Should everyone be required to have ID on them at all times?

It sucks enough when I forget my wallet. I don't want to be fined for it.

This law would be sickening. Freedom my uh, foot.

 

I carry my ID (driver's license) around with me everywhere I go. But I'm not gonna fork it over to a nosy police officer who has no reason to investigate.

 

Hey, and don't bar codes scan to six numbers followed by six numbers, followed by six more!

"And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

 

You should have ID on you, but should that be the law? Of course not. Lemme rephrase that, hell no! It reminds me of that Nazi movies where the guards ask "Papers, I need your papers." That cowboy was doing nothing wrong and should not have gone to jail. Period. This isn't Communist China!

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be more to the case than the Washington Times chose to inform us of. It seems this case has been miscast as a failure to carry ID case. In actual fact, the man was suspected of a crime and would not identify himself (possibly even verbally). In truth, the guy was driving without a license, possibly was DWI, and might have been hitting his daughter to boot. I don't think it's right to have everyone carry IDs all the time, but that's not what this case is about, for one, and, two, isn't a strong case to bring to the Supreme Court anyway.

Here's a snippet from Duke Law School: http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/hiivsix.html

Here's another summary of the arrest, plus some description of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision, which is better thought out than the op-ed piece. I thought the dissent had some pretty good points, but I tend to side with the NSC majority. The link has a fuller discussion than I quote: http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

 

No,

But there is probably more to the story.

 

No...

I have mine all of the time, but that's just me...It should be required as there are times I just don't have it...To me, it would justify illegal search and seizure...

 

Anyone remember that thread I posted about four years ago about the underage kid from Williamson County who was arrested for not having an id?

I should try to find that.

 

So, you are saying that ALL of us should submit to unwarranted checks in order to catch the .01% that are bail jumpers?

Some of you really don't see how much this country is beginning to resemble pre-WWII Germany, do you?

 

I love it how Ashcroft gets accused of championing the policeman's case, even though I have yet to see any statement of position by Ashcroft. The liberals will truly do anything to slander that god-fearing Christian.

 

Who mentioned Ascroft?

 

If the officer had probable cause for an arrest (DWI, driving without a license, assault, whatever) why not arrest on that instead of going with the potentially illegal charge?

To me, it doesn't matter if someone is suspected of a crime or not. I have a right to remain silent even when I'm a suspect. That should extend to whether I have to tell an officer who I am or not. If there's probable cause for an arrest, then make it. But my name should not impact on whether I've committed a crime or not. A crime is a crime regardless of what my name is.

"Well, we're pretty sure he robbed that liquor store, but he told me his name, so I'm going to have to let him go."

The guy must not have been guilty of any of the things he was suspected of as he apparently was not charged with anything other than the ID charge.

 

pippendagimp

 

Ah, then it makes sense that one person, not even a regular to the D&D, would mention Ashcroft and it be reflected on liberals as a whole.

Logic, gotta love it...

 

I hate to break it to you but police have ALWAYS had the power to harrass and "bring down to the station" people who didn't have id's on them way before Ashcroft was in office.

The U.S. is probably the only modern country that does not issue a national ID. I really hope we don't end up with one like most European countries.

 

They don't have the right in Texas, even the Dallas City Attorney backs that up. The Dallas City Attorney's office has issued five separate opinions noting that "failure to ID" is not a legal charge... and yet the DPD still does it (and then they cover it up by illegally pleading people out without their knowledge).

Technically, the police have never had the legal right to demand identity papers from anyone who is not already under arrest or otherwise detained. Just because the police have traditionally ignored those pesky little things in the Constitution doesn't mean that their actions were legal.

 

The funny thing is.....I actually voted for Bush!

(even though I would have very much liked to retract that vote in light of what I've seen the past couple years)

 

Maybe in like Hazzard county where Boss Hogg is the Law......but not in the places I've lived.....CA and NY...

 

I'm pretty sure the LAPD has hassled some people without cause now and again.

 

Political slander aside, do you have a view on the ISSUE?