And yet we’re not required to carry ID. What the fuck kind of precedent would allow one without mandating the other? It’s beyond fucked up.
And yes, we see more and more every day that it is completely legal to be unwise and foolish. I knew this applied to schmoes like me, but I was hoping to hold the government to a higher standard.
Just out of curiosity…would this hold true when entering the federal park system?
Oh. One more thing. THESE ASSHOLES CAN BLOW ME.
Take my advice – get the ID. I was in a similar situation to yours a few years ago – I had no driver’s license, and never did anything that required me to produce photo identification. Then I was walking through an intersection with the WALK sign lit and hit by a car which was turning illegally (the motorist’s excuse was that it was dark, so she didn’t see me). Fortunately, she was only going about 5 mph, so I wasn’t hurt, but the impact caused her to stop, at which point her car was rear-ended and damage to both vehicles resulted.
When the policeman arrived, he spent more time questioning me about “why the hell (I didn’t) have an ID” than he did attempting to ascertain the details of the collision. I wasn’t officially ordered to secure identification posthaste, but I was told that it would be a VERY GOOD IDEA. Accordingly, I went to the License Bureau the next day and literally became a card-carrying resident of Ohio. (Since I’ve moved to Indiana, I’ve had occasion to make several trips by plane, so I’m now “documented” whenever I go out in public.)
I agree…it’s a Good Idea ™. But I still reserve the right to be an idiot. I don’t want to HAVE to carry ID.
I should point out that the rules that mandate your identifying yourself when detained by a police officer do NOT require that you carry ID. It’s sufficient to simply supply your name. You cannot legally LIE about your name, of course, but neither do you have to carry ID.
Now, to enter federal property, the feds may require you to actually have identification.
Federal parks: right now, no. But that’s a matter of regulation, not law. The feds could change the rules without Congressional action, since the CFR is simply regulation to implement federal law.
Thanks for your thoughts on my questions, Bricker.
You know, everyone once in a while, I’m reminded why I am ashamed of Miami cops. Why do I live here? the FTAA protests and the police response were embarassing enough, but this…
I love this quote from the article on the subject.
“People are definitely going to notice it,” Fernandez said. “We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don’t want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears.”
Lovely. First they plan to intimidate us, and then they want us to spy on our neighbors.
It’s making the Baby Thomas Jefferson cry…
I was told not to carry it at all times, but that I should have it to come back to the country from Canada.
[Moderator Underoos on]Almost 9000 posts, and you put this in IMHO? I take it you forgot which forum you were posting in?[/Moderator Underoos on]
Oops…sorry. These sphincters can expel…nevermind. I was all jacked up from another rant. My bad. Forgive me?
Huh? Kalhoun didn’t insult another poster. What’s the grief? 
But those words are not for here no matter if they were aimed or not… I think
Then why can’t you just say that in your first post, instead of posing questions in the manner of a patronising schoolmarm?
I think you’ve been legal longer than I have. They may have changed their rules, or she may have been mistaken.
It was unclear to me if the ire at the situation was at the government acting foolishly, or at the government acting illegaly. Harrassment, for example, can be used imprecisely to indicate legal but annoying behavior, or illegal behavior.
So I asked, to clarify whether we were discussing “illegal” or simply “foolish”. I didn’t think my questions were either patronizing or schoolmarmish, and, on re-reading them, still don’t think so.
Pfft.
Your first post in the thread said:
A legal question.
A legal question.
A request for an exegesis on a legal opinion.
None of these pose the question of whether requesting ID was illegal or foolish. If you had really wanted to know whether the ire of the OP was directed at the law, or merely at the way it was enforced, you could have asked exactly that.
I’m not interested in blowing this up into something huge. Your legal knowledge is a valuable asset to this board. It would, in my opinion, be even more valuable (or at least more pleasant to read) if it were not so often accompanied by posts like the one i’ve just quoted, which appear to be designed as little more than condescending allusions to other people’s lack of legal expertise in comparison to your own, or to take an issue that is about the law and about something else and make it about the law only.
YMMV.
Why does anyone care? If you’re not doing anything illegal and you get asked to identify yourself, why not just do it? What the heck’s the problem? And how are your rights violated?
Here’s my ID. Thanks. Have a nice day. Bye. End of story. Jeesh.
Because as a laws abiding citizen I should be presumed innocent of wrongdoing and be able to go about my business without being hassled by men with guns? Because all of the energy and effort that they spend on this serves to alienate the law abiding and will do nothing to prevent real problems? Because I don’t trust the people implementing these policies, and see no clear indication of where this slippery slope will end
Nah, sorry. I still don’t get it.
“Here you go. Thanks. Bye”
Was that so intrusive? Big deal.