Posted on 04/20/2009 7:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater
Any 'peace officer' can demand i.d. any time, doesn't say exactly who qualifies as a 'peace officer.'
Papers please!!
The Texas Senate has approved a bizarre measure which would require citizens to show some sort of identification to any police officer who demands it, at any time, for any reason, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Currently, it is illegal for a person to give a false name to police, but there is no law rewiring a person to provide i.d. at an officer's whim. And State Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) doesn't like the sound of this bill.
"We still live in a free society," he said. "I don't want police officers to be able to pull you over and ask that you identify yourself."
The bill would also require individuals to provide their date of birth and 'residence address' to police.
Supporters of the bill, like State Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) says there are safeguards.
"A police officer would not have the discretion just to come over and ask for i.d. on just anybody," he said.
Hinojosa said the officer would have to have a 'good reason' to demand identification.
The bill is sponsored by State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston), who is a strong supporter of individual rights.
"It is illegal for them to falsely identify themselves, but it is not illegal for them not to tell you who they are," Patrick said. "In this era of national security issues, if we have a police officer detaining someone at a high profile target, it is in the best interests of the safety of that officer and this community to be able to quickly determine who that person is."
Other lawmakers say if a person is bent on committing a crime, the individual is not likely to be deterred by the possibility of a misdemeanor charge of failure to identify.
Patrick’s' bill does not specify exactly who a 'peace officer' who is authorized to demand papers is. It doesn't say whether it would be limited to TCLOSE certified police officers, or would apply to constables, security guards, or neighborhood watch members. It also doesn't specify what passes for 'i.d' and wither it would have to be a photo i.d.
The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.
Hole on thar pard! That there looks like a conflict of philosophical interest to this here Redneck.
This bill should pass, but should only be applied to the current inhabitant of the White House.
I'm against the bill. Smacks of big brother. And I'm irritated that a (R) is sponsoring it. But what you suggest would be a hoot...
A fantasy come true.
What if revealing your name might incriminate you? Doesn't the 5th amendment give every person the right to remain silent? If they want to know who you are, they can get a warrant and search you for your ID.
Of course, this would imply that in the future, every person would be required to have an official ID and carry it with them wherever they go. You already have to have an official ID to drive a car, as part of the "privilege".
Imagine if someone in our founder's day had decided people should be required to have a license in order to ride a horse? It is unthinkable.
Who the heck is the Republican supporting this? What country is he representing?
That could be a school teacher or perhaps a member of the Obama Youth Corp, or how about a snoopy neighbor who voted properly in the last election?
At least my state (MN) isn't the only state full of stupid now days...
Incremental-ism - inch by inch, and step by step......your papers, please.
Thank G-d they meet only every other year. Wish it was every third year. Or 4.
It could also be a way to CYA and check illegals without the scumbag aclu climbing up their butts everytime one is asked for ID.
Personally I’d like to read the bill myself. It can be represented—or misrepresented—as anything in a brief little article.
ping for later
I simply asked the arresting officer to quote the state statute requiring someone to produce ID when 'asked'.
Apparently one officer had a jump on this the other day when at a traffic stop he demanded the teenage passenger give him ID. Not that the minor had done anything wrong (no mouthing off, no nothing). The minor gave the officer his military ID. The officer took it and went back to his car to check it out, comes back and jumps all over the kid that it was a felony not to give him his drivers permit and that he could be hauled into jail.
Be prepared for more of this bs when this bill is passed. With what’s going on in the Texas Senate now days, it will be passed.
Thank your luck stars; try having a full time one.
Well ya can just keep yer hands off my wires. They don't already work too good as it is!
That's a houtonian (R) which stands for RINO. This is the kind of two faced meallt mouthed con artist that the Republican party must get rid of.
More likely.
This is a bad idea. It sounds like a misguided attempt to deal with illegals.
In other words, "we expect terrorists who may be planning on acts of subversion, sedition and sabotage to be otherwise truthful when confronted by police." In any event, I'm sure that moslems will be exempted before the bill reaches final form.
“Inattentive Driving” was the catch-all in NJ for a number of years.
If the police officer doesn't know who the person is that is being detained, how do they know it's a "high profile target"?
Dan Patrick is a solid Conservative. This is why it is surprising to me that he is sponsoring this bill.
He certainly is no RINO.
If that is the reasoning, write it into the bill.
Which one, Barrack Hussein Obama or Barry Sorento?
This guy needs to sit down and STHU!
You can't be for individual rights and then fly in the face of the 4th AND 5th Amendments.
You don't loose your right to be 'secure in your papers' just because you leave the house, and you can't be forced to provide evidence that can be used against you.....PERIOD!
Not to mention that anyone determined to do any harm will have false identification, ANYWAY.
GEESH! What bizzarro world rock did this guy crawl out from under?
"You look like you might be an illegal."
We have enforced thought control.
Ping
No argument there...
I do believe I just found a loophole... This law ONLY applies to those who are legally in the USA...
Everybody had enough yet?
No?
Niemoller’s Long Fuse burns on.
The fact that he is behind this attack on our freedom makes him a RINO.
By the way tomorrow we in Texas will celebrate the over throw of the dictator Santa Anna.
And yesterday was the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord the beginning of the end of royal tyranny.
Nope, not anymore. SCOTUS weighed in with Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
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.
What planet do you live on??? Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, you are forced to give evidence against yourself via the Breathalyzer, refuse and you lose your license for 1 year in most states. That is but one example, another, a growing movement across the US to require DNA from people who are merely arrested, not convicted, just arrested. And there are legion here on FR that are just fine with this.
By your reasoning Reagan was a RINO because he signed amnesty.
I don’t think I have ever heard Reagan called a RINO.
i figure it won’t be long before we having crossing guards going from state to state so they can better control the masses.....
You missed one that has been used on me - “We are looking for someone who looks like you / drives this kind of vehicle...”
The description in this article of the purpose and effect of the amendment to the Failure to ID law in the bill proposed by Senator Patrick is a lie.
Currently, a person must identify himself if he is arrested. The new law would add that a person must identify himself [i.e., give name and date of birth] if he is stopped for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [referred to as a “Terry Stop.”] A person does not have to carry ID.
The left wing is opposed to this because they do not want to give officers added ability to do criminal checks and find illegal aliens.
What if the LEO thinks the person is an illegal alien, Juan?
Would THAT be okay with you?
I was stopped for 71 in 70 zone and 22 in 20, just to see what was in my SUV.
“I’m against the bill. Smacks of big brother. And I’m irritated that a (R) is sponsoring it.”
Please see my prior post. This article is nonsense.
From the article:
“Patrick’s’ bill does not specify exactly who a ‘peace officer’ who is authorized to demand papers is. It doesn’t say whether it would be limited to TCLOSE certified police officers, or would apply to constables, security guards, or neighborhood watch members. It also doesn’t specify what passes for ‘i.d’ and wither it would have to be a photo i.d.”
Rubbish. Security Guards? Neighborhood watch? Only peace officers can temporarily detain a person for reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.
Also from the article:
“The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.”
Nonsense. Random detentions are not legal. The bill does not even apply to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.