Ca Patriot
Regular Member
i need to know
i need to know
Sorry I should have been more clear.
I was having a debate with a friend over the new law that Arizona passed and also any laws before SB1070 as far as identifying yourself to law enforcement.
I guess I just wanted a basic overview of the states identification laws and how things have played out since the new law was passed.
She is an ultra liberal and claims all brown looking people are being detained and forced to show ID.
A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
I think this last part is effed up beyond all belief:a Terry stop must be justified at its inception and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.htmlWhile we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.
the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P.3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) (“The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists”). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means – a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make – the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and … reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ”
United States v. Sharpe
“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”
Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985)
In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a “nonthreatening character,” among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop “is not obliged to respond” to questions.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984)
The lasting significance of the Hiibel opinion wll be to alter the direction of the law of Terry stops. A long line of concurring opinions and dicta had indicated that, while police officers were entitled to detain and question individuals during a Terry stop, the individuals were not obligated to answer those questions, including identification. Whatever influence that dicta once held is now vanished...
The deputy was responding to a (false) report of battery. A passer-by claimed to have seen Dudley hit his daughter Mimi. In reality, she hit him. She pulled over & let him out of the truck when he said to. They were talking when Dove arrived.Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'.
Dudley asked a simple question: why?
"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.
"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.
"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.
ARS 13-2412 said:13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
So we have to rely on the cop's word, & his/her knowledge of the laws, to tell us we've been lawfully detained & are required to give up our 4A & 5A rights?13-2412.Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
Now tell me everything about CA law ASAP!