Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/06/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] More on the forbidden bank
From: marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small)
Date: Mon Jun 18 04:55:32 2007
References: <200706172315.l5HNFpEC055669@server1.waverley.reid.org> <77801.8901.qm@web55908.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

At 07:45 PM 6/17/2007, H. Ball Arche wrote:
 >Is that where it stands Marc?
 >
 >I had thought that the cops couldn't ask you for ID
 >without showing probable cause. Wasn't there a case
 >that went to the Supreme Court about 15 years ago
 >where a black guy, who was going out for walks in his
 >predominately white neighborhood, was getting
 >continually asked for ID, and got a ruling to the
 >effect that the police had to show reason for
 >compelling him to prove he lived there?

Hmm.  Don't know about that case, but I can see 
the Court ruling that a continual request for 
identification was impermissible.  I am speaking 
of the broader issue of Joe Doe walking down the 
street and being confronted by a policeman asking 
for identification.  Then, the law in the US 
seems to be that you have to give it over if you 
have it.  Most policeman would let it go at that, 
as they don't want to have to write up a report on a minor contact.

Marc


msmall@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!



In reply to: Message from marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small) ([Leica] More on the forbidden bank)
Message from h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche) ([Leica] More on the forbidden bank)