Ohio pioneers new pre-crime database(and Patriot Act shit)

[SVPD]

The bill in Ohio beame section 2921.29 of the Ohio Revised Code

It does not allow police to simply walk up to someone and ask their name and arrest them if they don't provide it. You have to have reasonable suspision, or the person has to have witnessed a felony

§ 2921.29. Failure to disclose one's personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

HISTORY: 151 v S 9, § 1, eff. 4-14-06.

I'd also point out that vilating this section is a 4th degree misdemeanor, the same level of seriousness as exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 mph.

[Darth Servo]

Of course "reasonable suspicion" can be a pretty loosely defined term at times.

[Darth Wong]

Wha??? They specifically say there is no religious test....as long as you believe in a 'kin supernatural power?! I really am speechless. That is the kind of crap that someone has to sue over instead of 'In God We Trust' on the money. This is so beyond illegal....

The way the American legal system works, someone has to be victimized by it and then sue in order to remove the offending clause from the law. And the chances of an atheist being elected to public office in Texas are pretty much zero, so you aren't going to see anybody being put into a position where they have legal justification to sue.

[SVPD]

Of course "reasonable suspicion" can be a pretty loosely defined term at times.

Reasonable suspicion is defined by the terms. It's loosely defined of necessity because:

A) The word reasonable is somewhat subjective and
B) the number of possible scenarios is so great

regardless, however, reasonable suspicion provides far more protection to the public than one might imagine. When working a police officer will see hundreds or thousands of people in the course of a shift, but he will only stop to talk to those he has a good reason to, and that includes the people he talks to for social/public relations reasons.

In order to detain (by "detain" I mean stop and question, not "handcuff and put in the police car"; that can only be called detention when there is a good reason to think the detainee will harm someone, and in any case detention is required to be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to accomplish the officer's duties) you have to have a good reason to think that there is criminal activity occuring

Here's an example from my personal experience:

A man walking down the side of the street at 3:00 am is not reasonable suspicion. There's nothing illegal about doing it, and while it's unusual, people do actually do it on a regular basis without criminal intent.

On the other hand, walking down the street at 3:00 am with a toolbox in one hand is suspicious, especially in an area that has recently been subjected to a spike in burglaries. This gives you a legally justifiable reason to stop the person and question them.

I was rather surprised to read in this thread that I (being a cop in Ohio) could now stop people and ask for their ID without any reason at all, because no one had apparently informed me or my collegues that we could do this. Then I remembered having this discussion on another board, and that a few posts in someone managed to lay hands on the text of the then-bill, and pointed out that the news media was not being totally up front about what the law would allow.

I really find it irritating that in both the news stories presented the responsible news agency didn't think it was important to link a copy of the actual text of the law.

[Rocker5150]

There was a lawsuit in the early 90's that got South Carolina to change their "supreme being" requirement. Apparantly Texas doesn't actually enforce it, but SC did.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/silverman.htm


May 30, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina -- An atheist does not have to swear to a "supreme being" to hold public office in South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

According to a report in The State, the court's five justices unanimously agreed that the requirement violates the U.S. Constitution and upheld a lower court ruling in the case of a College of Charleton professor. The professor, Herb Silverman, is an atheist whose application for notary public was turned down because he had crossed out the part of an oath that read "so help me God."

"The state Supreme Court didn't hesitate to find the religious test for public office to be a violation of religious freedom," Steven Bates, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina, told the State.

The ACLU had filed the original lawsuit in 1993 on behalf of Professor Silverman.

The South Carolina high court agreed that forcing public officers to acknowledge the existence of a "supreme being" -- required by the state's constitution -- violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that provides for religious liberty and separation of church and state.

South Carolina was one of seven states that require belief in a higher power to hold public office, the State said.

Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have similar clauses, the paper said, but they don't enforce them.



-Kevin

[The Yosemite Bear]

I recall gettig pulled over by OC sherriffs when I lived on sothern california, because we stupid college students had missed the last RT bus, and had the bright Idea of walking home from The Galleria with all our Loot. (yes I know that the galleria closes before the busses stop running, but the multi-plex runs until after midnight)

[TimothyC]

Whut?

Sorry, Ohio is solidly red. I predict a win for Blackwell, because Ohioan voters want to continue the tradition of getting fucked in the ass by their republican overlords. Where I used to live, near Wright Patt, Bush/Cheney stickers could be found on the butt-end of nearly every automobile.

While Green County is Solidly Red, it is not an acurate representation of the entire state. For that you would need to look at Green, Clark, Miami, and Montgomery Counties which are purple. I live in (northern) Montogmery county, and as I said before I don't know anyone who is voting for Blackwell (my church is in Green County and my dad works on base).

[theski]

This is going to cause so much pain in divorce cases..


Wife or husband wants full custody.. just convince the child to claim abuse.. Fucking sickining