[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump

Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!'

45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile

Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported

BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev !

ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL...

An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure

New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration

Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades

Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN

Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play

"The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll

The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it.

The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means

New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have

More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico

New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade

Oktoberfest tightens security after a deadly knife attack in western Germany

Wild Walrus Just Wanted to Take A Summer Vacation Across Europe

[Video] 'Days of democracy are GONE' seethes Neil Oliver as 'JAIL' awaits Brits DARING to speak up

Police robot dodges a bullet, teargasses a man, and pins him to the ground during a standoff in Texas

Julian Assange EXPOSED

Howling mad! Fury as school allows pupil suffering from 'species dysphoria' to identify as a WOLF

"I Thank God": Heroic Woman Saves Arkansas Trooper From Attack By Drunk Illegal Alien

Taxpayers Left In The Dust On Policy For Trans Inmates In Minnesota

Progressive Policy Backfire Turns Liberals Into Gun Owners

PURE EVIL: Israel booby-trapped CHILDRENS TOYS with explosives to kill Lebanese children

These Are The World's Most Reliable Car Brands

Swing State Renters Earn 17% Less Than Needed To Afford A Typical Apartment

Fort Wayne man faces charges for keeping over 10 lbs of fentanyl in Airbnb


Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: Cops not allowed to request ID? An absurd notion that's never been true
Source: .
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x- ... -notion-thats-never-been-true#
Published: May 29, 2010
Author: .
Post Date: 2010-05-29 17:10:20 by Artisan
Keywords: None
Views: 1191
Comments: 105

LA County Libertarian Examiner

With seemingly never-ending angst and bickering over Arizona's recent immigration law SB 1070, proponents and supporters of the law have used several arguements in defense of it. ''It's 100% Constitutional, it simply mirrors existing federal law'', they insist. They will go on to assure that no 'racial profiling' is involved, that people won't be stopped based on race, and that people can only be asked for ID after they are stopped for legitimate and legal just cause, such as an alleged traffic violation.

This brings me to my question which addresses the very crux of the issue. Do supporters of this law believe that police were, until passage of SB 1070, legally and legitimately prohibited from demanding ID from those whom they lawfully detain?

If so, that is quite an outrageous and absurd contention. The fact is that police have always been lawfully allowed to request identification after legitimately detaining a suspect.

'But they had to do SOMETHING', they'll reply, 'the feds refuse to halt the hoards of illegals!'

While true, that the feds have purposely allowed massive illegal immigration for decades, please stick with the point at hand and simply address the question I am asking. Do you actually believe that cops across the United States have no authority to ask for ID unless each state legislature passes a 'special law' allowing them to do so? If you belive this, why do you believe it? Who taught you such nonsense? [article continues here

Related links:

Ron Paul "has some reservations" about Arizona SB 1070

Judge Andrew Napolitano speaks against SB 1070

Tom Tancredo to be keynote speaker at Arizona SB 1070 rally

Arizona's infamous Russell Pearce shills for traffic cameras, sought to bar photoblocker spray

Does race pimp 'Machete' have the cojones to 'send a message' to U.S. Congress?

Rep. McClintock gives lip service to sovereignty after endorsing open border globalists for years

Obama propagates myth that police 'duty' is to 'keep Americans safe'

Criminalizing the natural right to work, gesture, or nod in Arizona

Illegal immigration opponent Terry Anderson bars mention of 'new world order garbage' on radio show

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

#2. To: Artisan (#0)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol ender_v._Lawson

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that “loiterers” and “wanderers” provide identification.

Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man of unusual deportment (he wore his hair in long dreadlocks). Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment in San Diego County, California where he lived when as a pedestrian he walked in so-called "white neighborhoods." He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed).

Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e),[1] which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. A California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App.3d 429, had construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity.

Using the construction of the California appellate court in Solomon, the Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.[2] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.

noone222  posted on  2010-05-30   4:06:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 2.

#26. To: noone222 (#2)

thanks for the references. i have also studied the cases outlined at papersplease.org which deal with cops demanding id when their is no valid purpose. in the case of sb 1070 however, proponents keep insisting that EVEN WITH VALID CAUSE, cops were prevented from demanding id until the passage of magic 1070. unadulterated bs nonsense. government is not going to help arizonans or stop illegals. once they realize this they will see a clearer picture.

Artisan  posted on  2010-05-30 12:35:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]