ID required when riding a bicycle?

[bertocci]

You are required, by law, to have ID on you.

There is no such law. Really, try and find it.

Its a different thing if for no reason the police came up to you, without PC, just to ID you. We are no where near the "papers please" mentality.

Civil liberties must be protected at all times. Is being required to carry ID the same as having to produce papers on demand? No. Is it the innocuous first step down the same path? Yes.

Honestly, you dont like the laws of the land, leave. Go to another country, see how well you fair there. The laws are there for your protection and there are plenty of checks and balances to make sure the government doesnt get out of line.

No, if the laws of the land infringe upon your liberties, use the following boxes, in order: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Suggesting that people leave the country if they don't like the laws is about as un-American as it gets.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003114409AAOBi8n

First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.
1 year ago
Source(s):
30+ years as a criminal defense attorney

 

[taranis]

Honestly, you dont like the laws of the land, leave. Go to another country, see how well you fair there.

NO. I dont think so.

Instead I will vote my conscience and vote for the protection of US Constitution.
I will practice civil disobediance to protect my rights and the rights of others to effect change. I will protest and exersize my contituional rights, including and most importantly the the right to bear arms. This is liberty, this is freedom, this is patriotism.

God Bless America.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

NO. I dont think so.

Instead I will vote my conscience and vote for the protection of US Constitution.
I will practice civil disobediance to protect my rights and the rights of others to effect change. I will protest and exersize my contituional rights, including and most importantly the the right to bear arms. This is liberty, this is freedom, this is patriotism.

God Bless America.

+1

 

[JPM]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003114409AAOBi8n

First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.1 year ago
Source(s):
30+ years as a criminal defense attorney

Sounds like a little contradiction in your statement. No law in California that says you have to have identification on you? While driving a vehicle, yes you do. 12951 VC sure looks like a law to me. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12951.htm

As for not being able to get arrested for not having identification or identifying themselves, might try looking at 40302 VC, 827.1, 853.5 and 853.6 of the Penal Code. Now technically you are not being arrest for the crime of not having identification, but for the officer not being able to identify you either by no ID or your refusal to identify yourself. Since there is no way to issue a citation for the law process to proceed, you get arrested for not identifying yourself.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

Sounds like a little contradiction in your statement. No law in California that says you have to have identification on you? While driving a vehicle, yes you do. 12951 VC sure looks like a law to me. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12951.htm

As for not being able to get arrested for not having identification or identifying themselves, might try looking at 40302 VC, 827.1, 853.5 and 853.6 of the Penal Code. Now technically you are not being arrest for the crime of not having identification, but for the officer not being able to identify you either by no ID or your refusal to identify yourself. Since there is no way to issue a citation for the law process to proceed, you get arrested for not identifying yourself.

Not my statement, notice the link at the top of my post????

 

[JPM]

Not my statement, notice the link at the top of my post????

May not be your statements, but why are you posting it? It appears to represent an opinion you agree with or want to prorogate as there is nothing else from you regarding it.

If that poster has 30+ years and a criminal defense lawyer I hope his clients have appealed their cases for lack of competent representation.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

Because i dont believe their is a law in Ca requiring you to carry ID while walking down the friggin street. And if i ever got arrested for walking around minding my own bussiness and not having an ID you can rest assured id come out on top in a jury trial.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

May not be your statements, but why are you posting it? It appears to represent an opinion you agree with or want to prorogate as there is nothing else from you regarding it.

If that poster has 30+ years and a criminal defense lawyer I hope his clients have appealed their cases for lack of competent representation.

As long as its within BARF's TOS i can post whatever the hell i want

 

[brichter]

Now technically you are not being arrest for the crime of not having identification,

And that is exactly the point.

 

[masameet]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003114409AAOBi8n

First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet ....

Hiibel has a website on which he includes the sheriff deputy's video of his arrest. Click to choose your medium for viewing.

To me, he comes off as uncooperative and an asshole. He even tells the deputy: "... Take me to jail."

Wikipedia has a write-up of the case:

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.

I think your defense lawyer, gixxerjoeca, took a bit of license in replying in Yahoo Answers.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

The key word being "Suspects" I didnt watch the video but i did read this
http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html It made perfect sense to me.

 

[masameet]

[Shrug]

Hiibel and his lawyer went before the SCOTUS and lost.

 

[Shaggy]

Hiibel has a website on which he includes the sheriff deputy's video of his arrest. Click to choose your medium for viewing.

To me, he comes off as uncooperative and an asshole. He even tells the deputy: "... Take me to jail."

Ok, if it were me that guy would have been detained in handcuffs about a minute into that video. Investigating a fight between two people, only one officer, suspect is becoming irate and throwing his hands in the air. Handcuff him.

The deputy is investigating a crime. The dude is uncooperative, and failing to ID himself. Sounds pretty clear cut 148 PC to me (if we were discussing California laws). The deputy gave him every chance to identify himself. All the guy could do was try and redirect the officer into him being legally parked. Even when the suspect asked what he was being questioned for, he would interrupt the deputy while trying to explain the situation. The deputy wasn't rude or overbearing. In fact, I think he was pretty soft on the guy...

Remember. He wasn't being taken to jail because he didn't possess identification. He was being taken to jail because he was resisting/delaying/obstructing the peace officer's investigation of the disturbance.

 

[nedro]

Honestly, you dont like the laws of the land, leave.

NO SIR!
As much as you seem to fight it, this is the land of Love it or change it, NOT LEAVE IT!!!
That! is the reason we are different. So keep up the elitism and YOU WILL SEE CHANGE in the way we treat our PEACE KEEPERS

 

[Shaggy]

*sigh*

 

[}Dragon{]

Ok, if it were me that guy would have been detained in handcuffs about a minute into that video. Investigating a fight between two people, only one officer, suspect is becoming irate and throwing his hands in the air. Handcuff him.

The deputy is investigating a crime. The dude is uncooperative, and failing to ID himself. Sounds pretty clear cut 148 PC to me. The deputy gave him every chance to identify himself. All the guy could do was try and redirect the officer into him being legally parked. Even when the suspect asked what he was being questioned for, he would interrupt the deputy while trying to explain the situation. The deputy wasn't rude or overbearing. In fact, I think he was pretty soft on the guy...

Remember. He wasn't being taken to jail because he didn't possess identification. He was being taken to jail because he was resisting/delaying/obstructing the peace officer's investigation of the disturbance.

They don't have 148 PC in Nevada.

( I think it's NRS 197.190 (?))

 

[Shaggy]

They don't have 148 PC in Nevada.

( I think it's NRS 197.190 (?))

Edited.

back atcha!

 

[Rel]

Wow!!! The "love it or leave it" really hit a nerve.

All the people who say "change it" normally don't. They don't vote, they don't get involved, they don't bother to effect change.

If you do, I commend you. Get out there, vote, make a change.

If people just want to bitch about the laws, and don't want to get involved other then bitching about the laws, well.... you know.

 

[SVDavey]

^^^^ +1

But how can they get as much whinetime if they aren't helpless victims to the system?