In the early 90’s, 60 Minutes did a report on a man who enjoyed walking but was constantly stopped and told he had to have some form of legal ID to walk in a particular well to do LA area. The view of the report was that this was an invasion of his rights.
I recently learned that the small suburb I live in requires anyone 16 years and older to carry a driver’s license or some other legal ID at all times. The officer did admit that if I were walking in the area I would not be asked for ID but teenagers would be required to show ID.
At the time this seemed theoritically wrong but practically logical. Now in 2002 it seems even more practical.
Is this legal? Is it open to individual areas to rule how they please on this? How many dopers live in areas with the same requirements ? How do you feel about it? Pro? Con? Why? Any changes in views over the years?
What are these certain well to do areas? If they are gated communities, I believe that they are private property and therefore could do that. If you don’t show an ID when asked they could consider it tresspassing.
This wasnt a gated community and the man stayed on the sidewalks.
The same goes for my area although I certainly wouldnt consider my community nearly as well to do.
Being a 60’s baby I cant quite get my mind around this idea while at the same time today’s news sends my ideology off in the other direction.
You should always carry some kind of ID with you. What happens if you were in some kind of accident or suddenly thrust into an emergency?
We can’t realley make any judgement about required ID to “walk” in a neighborhood without knowing the consequences of breaking this law. Would I be escorted out of the nieghborhood? Given a fine? Taken to jail?
If it’s not around the time of a curfew or if it’s not otherwise illigal to be on the streets there is absolutely no reason that they should be asked to produce ID.
I understand the shoulds of carrying ID. What I’m curious about is the you legally have to idea.
The man on 60 Minutes was walking during daylight hours, was in his mid 20s and was black.
In my area this is day or night , not connected to curfew. There is a curfew for those under 16 but the ID law is for 16 and over.
Does anyone out there live in an area that fits this discription?
What’s the point of such a law? Do I understand that if I cycled in the area, or travelled as a passenger in a car or a bus, I would not be obliged to produce ID but that if I walked I would?
Maybe it has something do do with the following (y’think maybe?) :
Blacks murder more than 1,600 whites each year.
Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate whites murder blacks.
Blacks murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted about one million whites in 1992.
In the last 30 years, blacks committed 170 million violent and non-violent crimes against whites.
Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites under 18.
About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white.
Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites, although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1.
On a per capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crime than whites.
Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.
Of the 27 million nonviolent robberies in 1992, 31% (8.4 million) were committed by blacks against whites. Less than 2% were committed by whites against blacks.
Of the 6.6 million violent crimes, 20% (1.3 million) were interracial.
Of the the 1.3 million interracial violent crimes, 90% (1.17 million) are black against white.
All the statistics involving blacks and crime but whites are the majority in my suburb and my blond blue eyed son has been stopped 2 or 3 times as he walked to work during the day. He has short hair, no outrageous dress style.
This doesnt just apply to pedestrians. Bikes and cars are included.
The police have never taken my son in. He has ID. I was told they have the option of taking someone without ID to the station or escorting them out of the city limits.
How legal is this? Can the police really make someone leave the area or detain them just because they have no ID but have broken no other law?
I understand that this makes it easier for the police to maintain a crime free area but how legal is it to detain someone just because they have no ID?
In case you cant tell, I am of two minds about this. I want to live in a low crime area but I am uncomfortable with the police being able to stop anyone, detain them and/or make them leave the area for lack of ID.
I keep asking. What about your community? Anyone live in an area like this?
Geez, tarpal. Though you’re probably right, you better list a site verifying these numbers, or some of the people on these boards are going to jump all over you.
Either way, the question is whether it’s the law that one must carry id. Not whether a black man has to carry id in a white neighborhood. In most situations it is not legally mandatory to carry identification, however there are many situations where , during an F.I. stop, the police can hold onto to you until they’re satisfied as to who you are. F.I. stops and “Stop and frisks” are within the scope of an officers legal authority.
"Maybe it has something do do with the following (y’think maybe?) "
No.
The question was wether it was legal for the police to do this, not wether it was legal for them to do it to black people. And not wether it was understandable that the police only choose to use their perogative to do so on black people. So No I’think maybe not.
Moderator’s Note:tarpal, General Questions is for providing factual answers to people’s questions. Your post has nothing to do with providing a factual answer to the question which has been asked, and that sort of inflammatory hijack is not appropriate to the GQ forum.
IANAL, but the ACLU pretty consistently says that “you can’t legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer” simply because you are out in a public place. (Of course if you are driving a car on a public road, you are required to present proof that you are licensed to do so.) There is also a distinction between identifying yourself by simply stating “My name is John Smith”, and actually providing proof of that statement in the form of a photo ID. (However, I think it is illegal to lie to the police, rather than merely to refuse to provide information to them.) I don’t believe a law requiring people to carry “papers” when they’re just walking around would stand up to a court challenge in the United States. However, even if a local ordinance wouldn’t stand up in court if it were challenged doesn’t mean the local authorities won’t enact it and enforce it if it isn’t challenged.