papiere bitte... PAPIERE BITTE!!

[pseudobrit]

WASHINGTON – The American tradition of liberty is such that citizens generally do not have to justify their existence by producing government-issued identity papers whenever ordered to do so. This is why moves to establish a national identity card have never gotten off the ground.

But what happens when a police officer believes you might be involved in a crime and asks your name as part of the investigation? Do you have to answer?

That is the question before the US Supreme Court Monday, as the justices consider whether a Nevada law requiring suspects to identify themselves whenever requested by police violates constitutional protections of privacy and freedom from self-incrimination. The case is significant because it gives the court a chance to more closely define how deeply law-enforcement officials may intrude into private lives.

link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0322/p02s01-usju.html)

This scares me. I've had a police officer ask me my name and birthdate before as I was walking out of my apartment and refused to answer.
He threatened to arrest me. I asked him "for what" and he said, "not answering me." I told him that wasn't a crime and he said it was. I was getting nowhere with this egotistical ass. He told me he could put me in his cruiser and fingerprint me if he "wanted to be a dick about it."

I pulled out my ACLU BustCard after he said that and set him straight. Pissed him right off. He wrote me a traffic citation based on my license plates and registration and mailed it to me. Asshole.

If the Supremes do not strike this law down we are marching toward a police state faster than we know.

[bbarnhart]

Did you fight the ticket? My wife got a speeding ticket a while back, but she wasn't speeding (her story anyway). My auto insurance agent said that I have some 'special' privilege with my auto insurance because I've been there so long that I and my wife can get as many tickets as we want without our rates going up.

So, we just paid the ticket because getting a lawyer and all of that would have got a lot more hassle (and probably money) and our insurance rate supposedly won't go up. Is there an easy way to contest a ticket?

[pseudobrit]

Did you fight the ticket? My wife got a speeding ticket a while back, but she wasn't speeding (her story anyway). My auto insurance agent said that I have some 'special' privilege with my auto insurance because I've been there so long that I and my wife can get as many tickets as we want without our rates going up.

So, we just paid the ticket because getting a lawyer and all of that would have got a lot more hassle (and probably money) and our insurance rate supposedly won't go up. Is there an easy way to contest a ticket?

I fought it; the judge was a rubber stamp. The cop dredged up a "witness" who gave two different stories under cross-examination but the judge made up his mind before anyone spoke and ruled against me. I filed an appeal but the cop tried to say I had committed "borderline witness tampering" and threatened to slap a felony on me (he claimed the witness said I followed him to his car and threatened him with "in addition, I should kick your ass." I know better than to threaten. If I'm gonna kick your ass, you won't know 'til you're on the ground, 'cause I ain't tipping you off!).

So I decided that the gutless pig was going to win. He had the resources to **** with me all day long. Sick bastard. He probably had to go home and masturbate with glass after what it did for his ego.

[Taft]

link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0322/p02s01-usju.html)

This scares me. I've had a police officer ask me my name and birthdate before as I was walking out of my apartment and refused to answer.
He threatened to arrest me. I asked him "for what" and he said, "not answering me." I told him that wasn't a crime and he said it was. I was getting nowhere with this egotistical ass. He told me he could put me in his cruiser and fingerprint me if he "wanted to be a dick about it."

I pulled out my ACLU BustCard after he said that and set him straight. Pissed him right off. He wrote me a traffic citation based on my license plates and registration and mailed it to me. Asshole.

If the Supremes do not strike this law down we are marching toward a police state faster than we know.


That sucks. What was the officer doing outside of your apartment? Was he there for some other business or person, or was he targetting you? And if he wasn't there for you, why would he need to know your name?

Weird.

Taft

[takao]

here if you are older than 17 you have to carry a official id-card (driving licencse,pasport,personal-id etc.) with yourself everytime you're outside of your house,flat garden etc.
if you don't have one with you...you get a ticket of 30$(i guess .. don't know exactly) and police will check if your name you said the officer was right...

and if you refuse to answer (who you are) you have to follow him to police station where they will check you're ID

whats the problem with that ? sounds pretty normal to me... perhaps it is because i trust our police that they are doing their job (which they are doing great btw.)

PS:when i read the topic i was like :"hm i wonder what this htread is about *click"

[IJ Reilly]

Americans are sensitive to the national identity card for a couple of reasons. First is the tradition of decentralized power in the US. The second is because our "national police" (the FBI) has a history of over-stepping appropriate law enforcement and investigatory powers. I think these concerns are both sort of overblown and I personally don't object in principle to a national identity card. FWIW, I have a pet theory that many Americans oppose most kinds of federal power (including national policing) because it's easier to keep these powers weak and then to ignore what the federal government does, then it is to give the federal government appropriate powers and then observe to make certain that they aren't abused.

[skunk]

here if you are older than 17 you have to carry a official id-card (driving licencse,pasport,personal-id etc.) with yourself everytime you're outside of your house,flat garden etc.
if you don't have one with you...you get a ticket of 30$(i guess .. don't know exactly) and police will check if your name you said the officer was right...

and if you refuse to answer (who you are) you have to follow him to police station where they will check you're ID

whats the problem with that ? sounds pretty normal to me... perhaps it is because i trust our police that they are doing their job (which they are doing great btw.)

What's wrong is that it turns on its head the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty: in effect, you have to prove your innocence at any time while going about your normal (private) life at the whim of any state official.

[vollspacken]

PS:when i read the topic i was like :"hm i wonder what this htread is about *click"

http://www.cripplefight.com/smileys/signlol.gif

vSpacken

[takao]

I have a pet theory that many Americans oppose most kinds of federal power (including national policing) because it's easier to keep these powers weak and then to ignore what the federal government does, then it is to give the federal government appropriate powers and then observe to make certain that they aren't abused.

well then why is the FBI,CIA,Army so powerfull (more powerfull than every other police etc. that i know in other western countries) in the USA ? i find that very irritating

PS:i had to do police duties too when i was in the army (no not voluntary). we had to do border patrol with controlling ID cards etc. for those 2 months we had temporary the right to "arrest" somebody. if we had to arrest somebody (which nobody wanted to because the paperworks after it would have been a real pain) we had to use a specific sentence : "im name der republik österreich ..." etc. if we would have used a different word (in the sentence) by mistake the person wouldn't be officially arrested and we would act illegal...
but we never had any problems with people refusing to show IDs... i guess 2 soldiers with assault rifles,radio and maglite are enough hints for most innocent citizents that "making jokes now would be a bad idea"...
an other group actually caught some illegal immigrants and those were scared like hell, because were they came from,they would have to worry about their life when get caught ...this was in 2002 and most immigrants were from romania,iran/iraq,afghanistan,sudan,pakistan etc. and everything they possesed were in 1 plastic-bag..

[Desertrat]

I remember the discussions about a National ID Card in 1986 during the Simpson/Mazzxoli Immigration Reform debates. I had recently read Edward Abbey's "The Brave Cowboy" and to paraphrase a line, "ID card? Why do I need that? I know who I am."

Historically, with our "Innocent until proven guilty" deal in the U.S., if one is not committing a crime, or is not rationally suspected of having committed a crime, it's none of government's business who you are or why you are where you are, or what you're lawfully doing.

IJ, the first part of your comment, "FWIW, I have a pet theory that many Americans oppose most kinds of federal power (including national policing) because it's easier to keep these powers weak and then to ignore what the federal government does, then it is to give the federal government appropriate powers and then observe to make certain that they aren't abused." is pretty much the case. However, I think the devil will be selling ice cubes before we could be certain that broad powers over us wouldn't be abused.

The misuse and abuse of the various laws like RICO; the abuses in the War On Drugs, and now the potential for abuse in the laws passed for the War on Terror just don't really give me a feeling of confidence that "observe" is anywhere near enough.

'Rat

[G4scott]

link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0322/p02s01-usju.html)

This scares me. I've had a police officer ask me my name and birthdate before as I was walking out of my apartment and refused to answer.
He threatened to arrest me. I asked him "for what" and he said, "not answering me." I told him that wasn't a crime and he said it was. I was getting nowhere with this egotistical ass. He told me he could put me in his cruiser and fingerprint me if he "wanted to be a dick about it."

I pulled out my ACLU BustCard after he said that and set him straight. Pissed him right off. He wrote me a traffic citation based on my license plates and registration and mailed it to me. Asshole.

If the Supremes do not strike this law down we are marching toward a police state faster than we know.

Imagine if a serial killer was walking out of your apartment complex, and the police were looking for him, and they knew aliases he was using, but didn't know what he looked like? I imagine they'd want to know the name of everybody walking out of that apartment complex.

While the police officer may have been an asshole about it, there are reasons why the need at least some power. If nobody will cooperate with law enforcement now, then they will have to do something to keep enough power to fight crime.

[zimv20]

Imagine if a serial killer was walking out of your apartment complex, and the police were looking for him, and they knew aliases he was using, but didn't know what he looked like?
i hadn't considered that. now i'm scared and willing to relinquish some of my constitutionally-protected rights.

[Desertrat]

G4Scott, in such a case as your aprtment building, the police would be in a probable-cause situation, and I'd see no problem in their questioning.

The issue is when you're minding your own business and there's no reason for the police to suspect you of anything.

I rode Buddy Patrol with the Austin, Texas, police back in 1973. They'd occasionally stop some person and ask for ID. They'd radio in. If no warrants existed, they'd drive on. One night, they checked out a clean-cut, nice-looking young man with a backpack who was just walking along a street. There was a murder warrant on him from Wyoming...

These deals just aren't clearcut and simple.

'Rat

[skunk]

If nobody will cooperate with law enforcement now, then they will have to do something to keep enough power to fight crime.
If law enforcement becomes a state within a state, nobody will cooperate with them.

[IJ Reilly]

The misuse and abuse of the various laws like RICO; the abuses in the War On Drugs, and now the potential for abuse in the laws passed for the War on Terror just don't really give me a feeling of confidence that "observe" is anywhere near enough.

I think I failed to word my statement clearly. Structurally, we've apparently got a problem with how we oversee national policing (the FBI). They've become a tool of politics too often in recent history. I don't know if this is a major issue in other countries, so I suspect it is not an insoluble problem.

I don't know enough about this subject to talk about it in depth, but in principle at least I'd rather have an effective and appropriately empowered national police force accompanied by adequate oversight, then a weak national police force subject to inadequate oversight. I think we've got the latter now.

[takao]

Structurally, we've apparently got a problem with how we oversee national policing (the FBI). They've become a tool of politics too often in recent history. I don't know if this is a major issue in other countries, so I suspect it is not an insoluble problem.
.

hm here the jobs of the FBI are split into to groups
1.Police like duties operating Nation wide: Gendarmerie(they also have their own GSG 9 like sub groups like "Cobra" ) Murder,crime investigations etc.: "Kriminalpolizei" (short "KriPo")(they don't wear uniforms) but they are part of the Gendarmerie
2.Terrorism,National Security,observation of radical groups: "Staatspolizei" (short "StaPo")

in germany the power is similiar decentralizied into groups like "Bundes Kriminal Amt"(= "BKA") or "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" (="BfV") etc.
but the whole system is complicated in both countries

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks for the information. So, so you worry about these police organizations abusing their powers?

[takao]

Thanks for the information. So, so you worry about these police organizations abusing their powers?

no i don't worry about that
they are enough controlling mechanisms between those police/national security groups, parliament etc.
and of course the opposition (partys not in government) are always watching police actions.if somebody is abusing her powers it doesn't take long to get media attention so policemen are always very aware of their& citizents rights

and of course there is the postion of the "Volksanwalt" (="people's lawyer"). they are exactly there to protect the citizents rights. they have asking questions during the week, you can talk them if you think you got treated wrong by police etc.
and they also sue the "goverment" if some new laws aren't confirm with the constitution...(there are enough cases which go up till the european supreme court where it is "citizents of austria" vs. "the republic of austria")
of course the citizents _don't_ have to pay him anything

[Desertrat]

My effort at perspective: Since the WW II era, and particularly with the Cold War, there has been an ongoing trend toward centralizing power in the U.S. Aside from federalizing what once were "merely" state crimes, consider the growth of the federal budget and the police power available even to the welfare and environmental agencies. "Inter-agency communication" is now the buzzword as we try to blame somebody for 9/11. So, if we amalgamate police-power agencies with intelligence-gathering agencies and increase their powers, we will be More Secure and thus Happier.

IJ, I think I better understand your point about strong/weak. However, given what I've read about agencies such as the old BATF (now the BATFE) and the FBI, how do you see them as weak?

Takao's comments make it sound like they have more accountability there for public employees, and a sort of tax-paid ombudsman legal structure to assist the citizenry when there appears to be some conflict. Would it were so, here.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I think I better understand your point about strong/weak. However, given what I've read about agencies such as the old BATF (now the BATFE) and the FBI, how do you see them as weak?

Based upon what we've learned recently it seems to me that the FBI lacks something, either structurally, or in terms of their mandate.

[Desertrat]

Based upon what we've learned recently it seems to me that the FBI lacks something, either structurally, or in terms of their mandate.

I'd guess it's more structural. Too many different types of work for the numbers of people available.

Think of the various areas where the FBI is supposed to operate: Corporate crime, interstate violent crime, the laboratory people, hostage rescue teams, etc. The manpower available for the newer and greater efforts against terrorism is too low, I think, for the amount of the workload. More people are needed to sift through the information pouring in, and more people are needed to spread this information or the conclusions drawn from it to others who need to know. An incidental problem is that (IMO) a goodly number of these new people need to be fluent in Arabic and knowledgeable of the psychology of the Arabic players. (Info comes in, and you're faced with the old question of, "But, what does it MEAN?")

Regardless of the reasons, this country has always had a relatively low number of law enforcement personnel for the size of the population. For all the brouhaha about crime and violence that plays well in the media and thus in world opinion, this is a rather peaceful country, overall.

'Rat