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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

When Philadelphia’s Foul-Mouthed Cop-Turned-Mayor Invented White Identity Politics

Trump Wanted to Pardon Assange and Snowden. Blocked by RINOs.

What The Pentagon Is Planning Against Trump Will Make Your Blood Run Cold Once Revealed

How Trump won the Amish vote in Pennsylvania

FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets

Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know

LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷

Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE

These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!!

Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria

Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring

Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case

Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war

Rod Blagojevich: Kamala’s Corruption, & the Real Cause of the Democrat Party’s Spiral Into Insanity

Israel's Defense Shattered by Hezbollah's New Iranian Super Missiles | Prof. Mohammad Marandi

Trump Wins Arizona in Clean Sweep of Swing States in US Election

TikTok Harlots Pledge in Droves: No More Pussy For MAGA Fascists!

Colonel Douglas Macgregor:: Honoring Veteran's Day

Low-Wage Nations?

Trump to pull US out of Paris climate agreement NYT

Pixar And Disney Animator Bolhem Bouchiba Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison

Six C-17s, C-130s deploy US military assets to Northeastern Syria

SNL cast members unveil new "hot jacked" Trump character in MAGA-friendly cold open

Here's Why These Geopolitical And Financial Chokepoints Need Your Attention...

Former Army Chief Moshe Ya'alon Calls for Civil Disobedience to Protest Netanyahu Government

The Deep State against Trump

A Post Mortem Autopsy: From A Diddy Party to a Pity Party

Whoopie Goldberg Blames Inflation on Grocery Store Owners, Calls Them Pigs


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: 1375
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 # 29.

#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  


#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  


#29. To: Artisan (#26)

Some say that since the "Patriot Act" things have changed ... I don't even have any I.D. ... good thing I know who I am.

noone222  posted on  2010-05-30   13:17:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 29.

        There are no replies to Comment # 29.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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