Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ok, so let's say that I'm photographing the Ballard Locks where there is no specific prohibition on photography. In fact, the Locks are a major stop on the Seattle tourist track. An officer demands ID, which I produce. As a citizen in good standing who is not breaking any laws, then I should be left alone at that point, right? In fact, the officer would have no right to demand that I leave. But the reality is that if you don't, you get hauled in for questioning, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. My real problem with all this, which I alluded to in my last post, is that under the aegis of fighting terrorism, almost any action by authorities is condoned, whether lawful or not. These days, even lawful public protest is increasingly viewed as seditious and threatening. And the worst part is that the citizenry is kept in such a state of fear, that they say nothing. --Jim On Jul 17, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Tim Atherton wrote: > >>> And as far as I know, there is no requirement for US citizens to >>> carry >>> or produce ID, so long as no law has been violated. How much longer >>> will it be before police can arbitrarily demand "papers" from anyone >>> they like? >> >> >> Sadly the supreme court ruling last week ruled that you to identify >> yourself when an officer asks. >> Mark that freedom off our list. >> >> Freedom is the axis of evil. It is inefficient, insecure, and >> ineffective at controlling the masses. >> > > Actually, in 18 States or some such there are/were laws which require > you to > identify yourself to law enforcement or produce ID in certain specific > circumstance (usually around the "reasonable suspicion" idea below). > Various > Supreme Court decisions had limited those to some degree going back to > the > 70's or earlier (Terry v. Ohio and Brown v. Texas etc) > > I believe the recent Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada > Supreme Court case basically set out (or at least strongly "hinted") > that > the most that can be required before the is a violation is a person > identify > themselves to law enforcement when they have 'reasonable suspicion' > (which > is different from 'probable cause') that you are engaged in criminal > activity or have information regarding the criminal activity of > others. But > "identify" means just that - you must tell them your name. Unless you > chose > to do otherwise (i.e. produce ID) that is all that can be required. > > As I've never even played a lawyer on TV, I'm sure the LUG legal > beagles > will put me right on this... > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >