Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place

Newsnet5.com (Cleveland, OH) ^ | December 19, 2005

[Bear_Slayer]

You guys sound like the liberals

How can one be a liberal when they conservatively interpret the constitution.

You are the liberal.

[Momma Lou]

Military and civilians use the same "serial" number. It's called your social security number!

[dljordan]

"Remind me: who won the Cold War again?"

The American faction of the world Soviet.

[dljordan]

"Civilians do not have serial numbers."

Yes we do, it's called a Social Security Number. You belong to the state citizen.

[SauronOfMordor]

Name ,rank, serial number... If you can give to an enemy...you can give it to a local law enforcment officer...

A captured soldier is allowed to give his name, rank, and serial number to a capturing enemy.

He's also obligated to attempt to escape and/or kill the capturing enemy if the opportunity presents itself

You sure you want to extend that analogy that far?

[SauronOfMordor]

by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

The old standard used to be the higher "probable cause"

[Uncle Vlad]

Remind me: who won the Cold War again?

Why, the Soviets won the Cold War--they're alive and well and living in the Democrat party.

[logician2u]

Related thread here.

The citations are worth examining.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The bad news is that there is no limit to what Bill would allow. The good news is that Bill is no longer President.

[Crim]

Remember that the next time a child molester is running loose in YOUR neighbor hood...

Dont ask the cop to bother that man sitting in front of school staring at little kids for a couple hours....he's just waiting for the Bus that's not comming...

Bah.

[Crim]

Sec. 2921.29. (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.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"All that tells me is that you can read...but you cant seem to comprehend..."

I read and comprehend very well, thank you.

The ordinance is not about what a reasonable citizen would view as probable cause. It leaves it up to the officer to decide whether the citizen warrants a few innocent questions and in the past the courts have made it clear that a cop's instincts don't qualify as probable cause.

Your position on this is evidence that there is something to fear.

This is actually not new. In California we are required to provide our name if a LEO requests it, but the standard for defining probable cause is pretty high.

The funny thing about this thread is that my wife and I saw one of our local LEOs rousting a citizen a week ago. I know the citizen and I know the cop and the action was a just a mild case of abuse of authority. There was no arrest because there was no crime, but the citizen had to jump through a few hoops before he was sent on his way with a friendly "have a nice day." Had an arrest been made, the charges would have been dismissed but that wasn't the point so much as just showing who has the power.

This ordinance is already covered by existing law, but in our post 9/11, Patriot Act world, the fact that it is even being proposed is worrisome.

Michael Frazier