Papers Please!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:03am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:When police officers start stopping people randomly on the street and demanding ID, then notify me. Asking for ID in the middle of an investigation is perfectly fine. The cop's an asshole, but the procedure is sound.
Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.
That is illegal... No probable cause.

Actually, simply being a young and/or indeterminate age person in a bar is sufficient cause to be asked to show ID.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:06am

Plus, if the bar employees cas ask for ID, so can the police.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:10am

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote: Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.
That is illegal... No probable cause.
Actually, simply being a young and/or indeterminate age person in a bar is sufficient cause to be asked to show ID.

You must be joking... "Just looking suspicious" should be no basis for probable cause... WTF...

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-24 12:13am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Really, because last time I checked, that's not what it actually says happened.

The man was refusing to comply and resisting, hence arrest.

Shouldn`t the cop have ask the girl first if she`d been beaten,then try to get the right story.

some people should never be allowed to become cops.

A few years ago i almost got in a fight with a dipshit cop who was suffering from power trip,he had no right to play boss especialy when the fire chief gave me permission to go in my house to get my wallet and a few thing after the fire,fucking moron said i owed him respect,and last time i checked respect is earned not dued.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:16am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Really, because last time I checked, that's not what it actually says happened.

The man was refusing to comply and resisting, hence arrest.

There is a difference between refusing to comply with a request that is reasonable, and a request that is unreasonable.

If a cop ulled me over and asked for ID the first thing I would say is "why?" and if he gave me a line like "we are conducting an investigation" I would say "what does that have to do with me. DO you have probable cause that I commited a crime?" "If he cant answer either of those questions I will refuse to cooperate as is my constitutional right. He needs probable cause before he can run around taking peoples identification. I would win in any court in this country.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:17am

Really? Personally, I'd consider that being an ass.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:18am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You must be joking... "Just looking suspicious" should be no basis for probable cause... WTF...

Actually, cops can stop and ask for your ID if you're doing something suspicious.

But that's not the case with this, it's checking those that they believe might be under the drinking age. That is very much legal.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:20am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Really, because last time I checked, that's not what it actually says happened.

The man was refusing to comply and resisting, hence arrest.
There is a difference between refusing to comply with a request that is reasonable, and a request that is unreasonable.

If a cop ulled me over and asked for ID the first thing I would say is "why?" and if he gave me a line like "we are conducting an investigation" I would say "what does that have to do with me. DO you have probable cause that I commited a crime?" "If he cant answer either of those questions I will refuse to cooperate as is my constitutional right. He needs probable cause before he can run around taking peoples identification. I would win in any court in this country.

Probably not. If they have a reason to pull you over they don't have to satisfy you in order to expect your cooperation.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:21am

When I say "just looking suspicious" I refer to "just not liking the look of someone" it is so arbitrary that it can be used for just about anything.. Fuck, when I am president I will work to codify the meaning of the word "suspicious"

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:24am

Maybe you should let us know that beforehand.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:25am

Probably not. If they have a reason to pull you over they don't have to satisfy you in order to expect your cooperation.

But do they have a reason to pull me over? that is the question I ask them. If I am walking along the side of the road, and a cop asks for my ID and refuses to say why, as far as I am concerned, his search is arbitrary. Hell, if a cop has a search warrant and if I ask to see it, they MUST let me see it and look over it IIRC.

The same applies if they want to search my car. If they pull me over, ask for my liscene, I comply, and then ask to search my car. I ask them if they have a warrant.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:27am

Cops don't have to ask you for everything, nor do they have to tell you everything. There is such a thing as compromising an investigation.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:28am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Probably not. If they have a reason to pull you over they don't have to satisfy you in order to expect your cooperation.
But do they have a reason to pull me over? that is the question I ask them. If I am walking along the side of the road, and a cop asks for my ID and refuses to say why, as far as I am concerned, his search is arbitrary. Hell, if a cop has a search warrant and if I ask to see it, they MUST let me see it and look over it IIRC.

They do have to show you a warrant. They don't however have to satisfy you that the reason is good for one. The same thing applies to asking for ID or what not.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The same applies if they want to search my car. If they pull me over, ask for my liscene, I comply, and then ask to search my car. I ask them if they have a warrant.

Actually, they can search your car with out a warrant depending on why they stopped you and/or how you act during the stop.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:30am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Cops don't have to ask you for everything, nor do they have to tell you everything. There is such a thing as compromising an investigation.

They need to have probable cause as well. If they have an investigation they need to protect, then they can bring me in, and fight it in court. Unless they have a warrant or have reasonable cause that they communicate to me, even f it is something as simple as "we are investigating a robbery in the area and your car fits the description" would be eough to satisfy me. But if they will not answer, they face my lawyer.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:30am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:When I say "just looking suspicious" I refer to "just not liking the look of someone" it is so arbitrary that it can be used for just about anything.. Fuck, when I am president I will work to codify the meaning of the word "suspicious"

I'm all for civil rights but that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Cops need to have some discrection and any sane court and legistlative body is going grant it. If a cop has a reason to be suspicious they can (and do) ask for your ID.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:32am

They do have to show you a warrant. They don't however have to satisfy you that the reason is good for one. The same thing applies to asking for ID or what not.

Reason doesnt have to be good, I just want a fucking reason. Now, "investigating" is self evident, "Investigating a domestic disturance" would be sufficient.

Actually, they can search your car with out a warrant depending on why they stopped you and/or how you act during the stop.

A car is private property, protected by the 4th amendment. They damn well have probable cause if they dONt have a warrant. because if they dont they face a laywer.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:34am

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:When I say "just looking suspicious" I refer to "just not liking the look of someone" it is so arbitrary that it can be used for just about anything.. Fuck, when I am president I will work to codify the meaning of the word "suspicious"
I'm all for civil rights but that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Cops need to have some discrection and any sane court and legistlative body is going grant it. If a cop has a reason to be suspicious they can (and do) ask for your ID.

discretion is one thing, but when it is completely arbitrary? I could be walking down the street and if a cop doesnt like the way I dress or thins the song I am singing means i am a druggie, and stops me... it is bloody bullshit, and not probable cause.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:34am

Alyrium, I don't remember how old you are, so I'm simply going to decide that you have a poor grasp on reality and how the legal/executive branches function.

All I can say is that if you do indeed act this way with all this "personal rights" crap, you're just asking for trouble, even if it's just that you're late for an engagement.

Simply put, Cops don't appreciate smartasses.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:35am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:discretion is one thing, but when it is completely arbitrary? I could be walking down the street and if a cop doesnt like the way I dress or thins the song I am singing means i am a druggie, and stops me... it is bloody bullshit, and not probable cause.

That's an unsupported assumption.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 12:38am

Reason doesnt have to be good, I just want a fucking reason. Now, "investigating" is self evident, "Investigating a domestic disturance" would be sufficient.

Not what you said before.

A car is private property, protected by the 4th amendment. They damn well have probable cause if they dONt have a warrant. because if they dont they face a laywer.

A car is private property (as in a possession, not a dwelling) and the rules on searchs are different. They can't just arbitrarily search it but the threshold for it isn't terribly high.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:40am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Alyrium, I don't remember how old you are, so I'm simply going to decide that you have a poor grasp on reality and how the legal/executive branches function.

All I can say is that if you do indeed act this way with all this "personal rights" crap, you're just asking for trouble, even if it's just that you're late for an engagement.

Simply put, Cops don't appreciate smartasses.

I know you are an authoritarian who views law enforcement as completely benign... So I awill simply decide that you have a poor grasp of the reasons we have things like the 4th amendment... You know, so law enforcement cant conduct arbitrary searches...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Before they search my car, they need to have reasonable cause to suspect that I commited a crime. If they will not even tell me what they suspect me of, I am well within my rights as stated in the above bit of constitutional law to refuse them permission. They are MY rights, they were put into effect for a damn good reason, and unlike you, I value the enough that I wont let someone walk over them.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-02-24 12:40am

May I remind us that there's no need to be talking about probable cause...the issue on the table is checking ID...which does not require a search warrant, since it doesn't even belong to you.

And legalistics aside, what the fuck is the big deal about showing people your ID? What harm can possibly come from it? If it's just a "principle of the thing" thing, pick another thing to be principled about. It's not wise to fuck with the police, and not just because they carry weapons; you owe them a lot, and they've got a hard job, and the least you can do is to cooperate with them, especially when all they're asking for is your fucking ID. If they were asking you to bend over and close your eyes, it'd be another story, but, fortunately, that's not what's happening.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:42am

That's an unsupported assumption.

It is a hypothetical situation. No assumption needed. It was illustrating the arbitrary nature of such broad discretion.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-24 12:43am

A car is private property (as in a possession, not a dwelling) and the rules on searchs are different. They can't just arbitrarily search it but the threshold for it isn't terribly high.

Can I see precedent? I would love to see how that would apply...

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-24 12:44am

My position as an authoritarian has nothng to do with the fact that cops don't like wasting their time dealing with bleeding-heart tinfoilers with personal vendettas and misplaced principles.